Am I confused about wavetable

[aciddose]

[codehead]

LOL—I think more people get the right idea when you say "square wave" than if you said "Symmetric Linear Pulse" (or worse—yet another TLA—"SLP").

That may be true today.

But thats not what i was talking about.

I said that these terms should have been used from the beginning, i.e. 50-60 years ago.

Actually, that's what I figured you meant. But I still don't see it. When people made signal generators 50-60 years ago, square wave seemed like a good term then—better than "Symmetric Linear Pulse". Face it, no one is horribly confused by what is meant when someone says "square wave". Two syllables, rolls off the tongue nicely. Maybe there's a point I'm not catching from you, but I guess that' means you'll have to give another go at saying why...

I realize that you may be joking, but if not...ever hear the word "pedantic"?

Well, if 'pedantic' is another description for doing things in a logical, thought-through fashion then 'pedantic' would seem to be the way to go. It is in any case preferable to ignorant, negligent and careless, which rather often leads to chaos, misunderstanding and things that make little or no sense at all...

Actually, that's not what pedantic means, sorry. OK, I guess you weren't joking.

Alright, maybe you're taking "square" a bit too narrowly. A T-square isn't square. When we talk about making a corner "square", we mean a 90-degree angle. No one is horribly confused when people say this—no chaos.

Symmetric Linear Pulse is just too long to describe something so simple and basic, and no more understandable than square wave (and no more understandable—it doesn't explain the access of symmetry, so a lot of pulse trains would qualify for that description). And "SLP"...funny, but I entered a different hi-tech field 10 months ago, that uses an unbelievable number of "TLAs" (three-letter-acronyms/abbreviations). The trouble with that is a lot of them have to be guessed by context (for instance, "ETA" does not mean "estimated time of arrival" where I work). And a lot are guessed wrong (I remember in the 80's, when the boss guessed SAR as "satellite aerial reconnaissance" and felt pretty good about himself as he looked over an aerial view printout from the laser printer I helped design—nice guess, but it was "synthetic aperture radar").

I started a TLA list when I started the job—140 of 'em so far that were worth writing down.

[optofonik]

Show off.

[Shabdahbriah]

OMG... the visual 'effect' (@ 0:13+) of the lower portion of his shirt...

Visions of "teletubbies" dance through my head.

[ENV1]

Maybe there's a point I'm not catching from you, but I guess that' means you'll have to give another go at saying why...

My actual point was that a lot of the terms established back then are, at least in my opinion, suboptimal, and that there is nothing one can do about it now.

My intention was not to start an argument about something which cannot be changed anymore anyway.


That said, you are of course entirely welcome to disagree with every single word ive said.

I have absolutely no problem accepting that not everyone shares my POVs.

(Sorry for the TLA.)

[whyterabbyt]

The term Wavetable Synthesis points to those methods, to the fact that there exists a mechanism to scan/sweep/move/etc through a wavetable. All of it, part of it.

which part of the term would you say explicitly refers to a scanning mechanism? the word 'wavetable' or the word 'synthesis'?

[whyterabbyt]

That term seems very descriptive, I think. It tells us that using the modulation process we can synthesize new sounds by sweeping through all (or selection) of the waves contained in a wavetable.

which of the two words (ie without a modifier like 'scanning') tells us about a modulation process that involves sweeping through anything?

and are you asserting now that wavetables contain more then one cycle? (c.f. 'the waves')

Without the 'scanning' bit what is left? Simple playback of a single cycle wave? Then we are back in the 'subtractive world' for shaping the tone.

Well, if you look again at the Robert Bristow-Johnson paper again, you'll be reminded that there's quite a lot left. Most of it in the 'additive world', actually, eg crossfading, mixing, and erm, additive.
Not that the academic definition excludes scanning, of course. It just isnt delimted to it alone. The academic definition covers a class of related methods, rather than one specific method. If your asking what is left without scanning, read the paper again.

I mean, at the end of the day, aren't you basically saying

"method X was named Y by person Q, and thus name Y can only ever be applied to method X, and that trumps name Y being used for anything else."

More than that, you're saying "even though term Z, term W, and term X-variant-A are also used to describe method X, anything which does not do method X should not be called by name Y."

And you're also saying "even though the accepted scientific taxonomy of methods specifically uses term Y for a class of methods which includes method X (within which taxonomy it can be called term X-variant A), anything which does not do method X should not be descfibed by term Y. Use of the scientific taxonomic term is wrong."

Is that correct?

If so, do you yet feel like suggesting to the scientific community which replacement for the term 'wavetable synthesis' you'll allow them to use for the class of methods of synthesis which involve wavetables?

[himalaya]

and are you asserting now that wavetables contain more then one cycle? (c.f. 'the waves')

No I'm not. I wrote that the wavetable contains 'waves' - as in 'single cycles waves' (or 'waveforms', I'll add in case you also pick on the word 'waves').

In the context of wavetable synthesis a wavetable is a collection of single cycle waveforms.

Well, if you look again at the Robert Bristow-Johnson paper again, you'll be reminded that there's quite a lot left. Most of it in the 'additive world', actually, eg crossfading, mixing, and erm, additive.
Not that the academic definition excludes scanning, of course. It just isnt delimted to it alone. The academic definition covers a class of related methods, rather than one specific method. If your asking what is left without scanning, read the paper again.

Sure there is a lot left, just not in Rapture, which is the context through out this topic. With Rapture's implementation you end up with a subtractive synth, rather than an additive.

I mean, at the end of the day, aren't you basically saying

Absolutely not. I am frankly surprised at your drive to obfuscate the issue..

What I have been pointing to all along is that Rapture does not exist in isolation. It hasn't just popped out of the blue. It is not the first wavetable synth. And why is that important? It's because there have been numerous wavetable synths which have established what wavetable synthesis features, and have shown all users what can be easily achieved by sweeping through a wavetable.

Now comes Rapture described as the Ultimate Wavetable synth, and so obviously people get interested. Most will want to explore what they have been exploring in older synths like the PPG, Microwaves and many others. They will want to access a wavetable(s) and easily modulate the content for those classic sounds (in the box, without learning SFZ opcodes or investing is SFZ creation programs and the like). But alas, that can't be done. In the "Ultimate Wavetable" synth? And so cue threads by users who get stumped by Rapture's wavetable implementation which perversely stands out from everything (worth its salt) that has gone before (and please don't quote some obscure Music IV B systems, as they are not relevant to this ).

At the same time I have no beef with the way Rapture has wavetables implemented, that's all fine, but the whole point is, there ought to be some kind of acknowledgement, info - for the benefit of prospective buyers - that its wavetable system differs to that established by pretty much every commercial wavetable synth out there.

It's not a matter of studying academic papers, but of customer relations and information.


I fully expect this post to be

quoted

oh just give me the opportunity!

to

you lost me there

oblivion

can you define it?

and

not in your lifetime

taken

can't prove it, can you?

apart

have a formula for that?


enjoy!

[whyterabbyt]

In the context of wavetable synthesis a wavetable is a collection of single cycle waveforms.

So you're quoting wikipedia to trump RBJ's AES paper?

Sure there is a lot left, just not in Rapture, which is the context through out this topic. With Rapture's implementation you end up with a subtractive synth, rather than an additive.

Could you maybe stick to proving your assertions rather than repeating them? Once again, I'll ask you to explicitly state what it does not do that exempts it from the definition given by RBJ, instead of just state that it is exempted.

Absolutely not. I am frankly surprised at your drive to obfuscate the issue..

Interesting. All the way through this Ive been striving, without any success, to get 100% definitive statements from you which do not rely solely on 'I assert therefore the assertion is true', and you call that obfuscation?

That's quite amusing. A bit hypocritical, given the stuff you've thrown into the debate so far, but there you go.

What I have been pointing to all along is that Rapture does not exist in isolation. It hasn't just popped out of the blue. It is not the first wavetable synth.

Noone has contradicted any of those things. None of those things contradict the assertion that it uses Wavetable Synthesis as described in the RBJ paper.

And why is that important?

Well, none of those things are, TBH.

It's because there have been numerous wavetable synths which have established what wavetable synthesis features, and have shown all users what can be easily achieved by sweeping through a wavetable.

No, that's not important either. Historic implementations of one subcategory of class X don't actually have any bearing on whether product Y implements a different subcategory.

Now comes Rapture described as the Ultimate Wavetable synth, and so obviously people get interested.

Wait, are you moving the goalpsost from whether is is wavetable synthesis to whether its the 'ultimate' in wavetable synthesis?
That's not what Ive been discussing. And neither have you up till now.

Most will want to explore what they have been exploring in older synths like the PPG, Microwaves and many others. They will want to access a wavetable(s) and easily modulate the content for those classic sounds (in the box, without learning SFZ opcodes or investing is SFZ creation programs and the like).

Can you provide references to support this assertion as to what 'most' people will want to do with it? Or do we just accept it because you're saying it?

In fact since it is 5 years old, wont 'most' of them have heard that it doesnt do wavesequencing by now anyway?

And so cue threads by users who get stumped by Rapture's wavetable implementation which perversely stands out from everything (worth its salt) that has gone before (and please don't quote some obscure Music IV B systems, as they are not relevant to this ).

Does it really stand out from everything else? Hmmm, z3ta+ relies on wavetables, the Prophet VS relied on wavetables, The digital oscillators on the Evolver use wavetables. The WMD GWS and Piston Honda use wavetables. What specifically 'perversely stands out' in rapture?


You keep asserting that Rapture is exempt, but you've steadfastly refused to specify exactly how, in terms of its actual synthesis system. Ive asked several times, and you keep avoiding doing so.

And no, obfuscating things by saying 'numerous synths used to do X' doesnt actually work there.

At the same time I have no beef with the way Rapture has wavetables implemented, that's all fine, but the whole point is, there ought to be some kind of acknowledgement, info - for the benefit of prospective buyers - that its wavetable system differs to that established by pretty much every commercial wavetable synth out there.

Really? Because it actually looks more like you've been asserting

"its wavetable system differs to that established by pretty much every commercial scanned-wavetable synth out there"

instead.

It's not a matter of studying academic papers, but of customer relations and information.

And youre now asserting that this is a significant issue with a major impact on a company's customer relations are you?

Would you like to bring us up to speed with the numbers of their customers who have been affected by this?

[himalaya]

Wait, are you moving the goalpsost from whether is is wavetable synthesis to whether its the 'ultimate' in wavetable synthesis?
That's not what Ive been discussing. And neither have you up till now.

Yes, please do "wait" and read the first post on page 4!

end of.

[Teksonik]

You've got to be kidding.....10 pages of argument on the meaning of "Wavetable"? Seriously...get...a...life....

[himalaya]

I'm baby sitting just now. My daughter listens to toddler songs on Youtube while sat on my lap, and so I can't do much else (it seems!). Although typing with one hand is tricky.

[Teksonik]

Turn off the computer and pay all your attention to your daughter....she won't be a toddler for long.....

[whyterabbyt]

Wait, are you moving the goalpsost from whether is is wavetable synthesis to whether its the 'ultimate' in wavetable synthesis?
That's not what Ive been discussing. And neither have you up till now.

Yes, please do "wait" and read the first post on page 4!

So you're saying that something that you mentioned (once?) as 'bemusing and confusing' has redefined the entirety of everything in your argument since that point?

without you actually saying "the primary thing Im specifically addressing is whether its 'ultimate' even though Ive gone on and on without mentioning the modifier ever again.

oh wait, you also asserted that if something is 'ultimate' it has to do one particular thing you assert it has to do. with no rationale for that assertion.

interesting.

any particular reason you witheld that qualifier for another 6 pages?

end of.

Sure. Rapture does wavetable synthesis, it just isnt the ultimate wavetable synthesiser. Im happy to agree with that.

[himalaya]

Turn off the computer and pay all your attention to your daughter....she won't be a toddler for long.....

You're absolutely right, but she needs her daily dose of the 'Rig a Jig Jig' - Mother Goose Club Nursery Rhymes. I bop to it too, now. A lovely song!