Waves Codex Wavetable Synth

[PatchAdamz]

How does the tone of this one compare to serum? I know i am in the vast minority there but there is something about it's core sound which no matter what wavetables are used, just sounds cold to me. For those who agree and have tried codex, is it any different in that regard?

As mentioned a few times here by different people the basic sound of Codex (or at least the filter) is more "typical analog" .....

....bank of PatchAdams ...includes examples .....

Here are about 40 EXAMPLES of what Codex sounds like.
I would say that this set is more on the analog side then the stock presets as that is what it was designed to be.

https://soundcloud.com/vintage-synth-pa ... ilable-now

[Ingonator]

As alraedy mentioned in my previopus post if you move the "Start" fader for adjusting the Start waveform there are also point values like e.g. "2.3" or "10.7" etc.
While a wavetable usually includes up to 64 waveforms this seems to be related to additional waveforms created by automatic interpolation.
Theoretically this leads to having 640 steps. I guess someone mentioned this earlier while i misunderstood that he meant the original wavetable alraedy has 640 waveforms which does not seem to be the case.

As alraedy mentioned i had found the location of the wavetables (which are WAV files like in Serum) and posted a screenshot of the WAV file which seems to include 64 waveforms with a size of 512 samples for each factory wavetable.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[Ingonator]

After having played with the huge amounts of presets and having done some experiments with importing wavetables etc. i started doing some of my own patches with Codex (including some "typical analog" ones).

Here are 2 audio demos of a wavetable pad i just created (work in progress...) where in the first example i used the 2-Pole BPF and in the second the 2-Pole LPF (other settings identical):

Codex - Pad Demo 01
Codex - Pad Demo 02

Those demos include a single instance of Codex and no external FXs were used.


UPDATE:
Another demo based on a new pad i just created (this time using the Notch filter):
Codex - Pad Demo 03

Again a single instance of Codex and no external FXs used.


Ingo

[Sparky77]

How does the tone of this one compare to serum? I know i am in the vast minority there but there is something about it's core sound which no matter what wavetables are used, just sounds cold to me. For those who agree and have tried codex, is it any different in that regard?

As mentioned a few times here by different people the basic sound of Codex (or at least the filter) is more "typical analog" .....

....bank of PatchAdams ...includes examples .....

Here are about 40 EXAMPLES of what Codex sounds like.
I would say that this set is more on the analog side then the stock presets as that is what it was designed to be.

https://soundcloud.com/vintage-synth-pa ... ilable-now

I don't mean it has to sound analog per se, even digital can sound beautiful and get one's emotions stirring and have the hairs on the arms standing up (the SQ80 discontinued free vst did this for me). SO did the wavestation!

That's what serum can't do for me, but i think codex will be able to, i have to see if that voucher is valid still, for 50 bucks will probably be a steal for me. Thanks for the demos!

I agree with you about, "one's emotions stirring". the sound just has to be inspiring.

I really like the more analog nature of this synth but didn't find the stock presets very warm.

They are OK, just didn't find very much that I would personally use.
Picked up the PatchAdams set and it was a considerable improvement.
Out of the 160 presets I found MANY more inspiring ones that I would use in a song.
Some have a very "hardware" quality about them and many are thick and warm.

Much more to my liking.

[frabato]

Does anyone think that the character of Codex is reminiscent of z3ta 2? I wonder if it has something to do with waveshaping vs. wavescanning; also, reading the comments which suggest that it sounds more analog than Serum.

FWIW, I think it has a beautiful GUI and I'm hoping to grab it down the line.

[PatchAdamz]

How does the tone of this one compare to serum? I know i am in the vast minority there but there is something about it's core sound which no matter what wavetables are used, just sounds cold to me. For those who agree and have tried codex, is it any different in that regard?

As mentioned a few times here by different people the basic sound of Codex (or at least the filter) is more "typical analog" .....

....bank of PatchAdams ...includes examples .....

Here are about 40 EXAMPLES of what Codex sounds like.
I would say that this set is more on the analog side then the stock presets as that is what it was designed to be.

https://soundcloud.com/vintage-synth-pa ... ilable-now

I don't mean it has to sound analog per se, even digital can sound beautiful and get one's emotions stirring and have the hairs on the arms standing up (the SQ80 discontinued free vst did this for me). SO did the wavestation!

That's what serum can't do for me, but i think codex will be able to, i have to see if that voucher is valid still, for 50 bucks will probably be a steal for me. Thanks for the demos!

I agree with you about, "one's emotions stirring". the sound just has to be inspiring.

I really like the more analog nature of this synth but didn't find the stock presets very warm.

They are OK, just didn't find very much that I would personally use.
Picked up the PatchAdams set and it was a considerable improvement.
Out of the 160 presets I found MANY more inspiring ones that I would use in a song.
Some have a very "hardware" quality about them and many are thick and warm.

Much more to my liking.

Thanks Sir!

Very glad you like these!

[basslinemaster]

I would say that this set is more on the analog side then the stock presets as that is what it was designed to be.

Thanks for those demos, PatchAdamz, that was just what I was looking for, to hear a bit more of what Codex can do.

It's "more than", by the way - it drives me nuts every time I see "more then" on the internet. If we don't nip it in the bud, half the population are going to be writing "more then"...

[Fleer]

even more then, nipped in the butt indeed;)
(http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... the%20butt)

[PatchAdamz]

I would say that this set is more on the analog side then the stock presets as that is what it was designed to be.

Thanks for those demos, PatchAdamz, that was just what I was looking for, to hear a bit more of what Codex can do.

It's "more than", by the way - it drives me nuts every time I see "more then" on the internet. If we don't nip it in the bud, half the population are going to be writing "more then"...

https://soundcloud.com/vintage-synth-pa ... ilable-now

No problem, and thanks for that grammatical schooling....

[Ingonator]

edited, update posted at page 20

[PatchAdamz]

Really, there is no trick to importing WAV files into Codex, it is fairly simple.

Waves did a good job of making this as simple as possible.

Codex, automatically converts WAV files into wavetables.
This is done internally.

The wavetables are automatically saved along with presets.

CODEX supports WAV files of any length, bit-depth and sampling frequency.

For best results, Waves recommends samples of between 1-5 seconds.

THATS it!

No need to get overly complicated, its just unnecessary.

[Ingonator]

Really, there is no trick to importing WAV files into Codex, it is fairly simple.

Waves did a good job of making this as simple as possible.

Codex, automatically converts WAV files into wavetables.
This is done internally.

The wavetables are automatically saved along with presets.

CODEX supports WAV files of any length, bit-depth and sampling frequency.

For best results, Waves recommends samples of between 1-5 seconds.

THATS it!

No need to get overly complicated, its just unnecessary.

Hi,

i know most of that but the point was to properly import wavetables created in e.g. the Audio Term wavetable editor.
I have mentioned that i checked the Codex factory wavetables (i had to rename a copy of the files to *.WAv as they normally don't have a file extension) and also mentioned the format of those which i currently also use as the output format for Audio Term (as shown in my screenshot).

I also know that the custom wavetables are stored with the patch. It is indeed really cool that Codex supports multiple formats for the WAV files.

I was just asking if someone else had experiences with custom wavetables (actual wavetables not just imported samples...) to hear if i maybe did something wrong. With imported samples it does not really matter if single waveforms are imported properly but with an actual wavetable it does matter (except if you always play the whole wavetable where single wave indeed does not matter...).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While in Audio Term you could only edit 33 waveforms/slices it also seems to be possible to output the wavetable with 64 waveforms (additonal interpolation) which would be closer to the factory wavetables.

UPDATE:
This is a screenshot with the Audio Term WAV wavetable output to use 64 waveforms with 512 samples size each like in the Codex factory wavetables:



This example is based on simply adding 33 waveforms that were created using the NI FM8 synth (i tried to sort them a bit, also based on the partials that are displayed when loaded into Audio Term).

As Audio Term uses only 33 "slices" the rest of the 64 waveforms in the output file were creted by interpolation.

For those who are interested here is the resulting WAV file with the wavetable:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/532 ... _FM_01.zip

This is maybe more usable for using single waveforms from the table but scanning trough the wavetable could get some interesting results too.

This is a first try with those waveforms but i will also try to re-sort the waveforms in a way that is better suited for scanning trough the whole table (mayb also with using smaller amount of different waveforms and more interpolation instead). I got tons of additional waveforms that i had created myself in the past (including using DNR Wave Designer).

[PatchAdamz]

Really, there is no trick to importing WAV files into Codex, it is fairly simple.

Waves did a good job of making this as simple as possible.

Codex, automatically converts WAV files into wavetables.
This is done internally.

The wavetables are automatically saved along with presets.

CODEX supports WAV files of any length, bit-depth and sampling frequency.

For best results, Waves recommends samples of between 1-5 seconds.

THATS it!

No need to get overly complicated, its just unnecessary.

Hi,

i know most of that but the point was to properly import wavetables created in e.g. the Audio Term wavetable editor...........
.

This post was not directed to you.
Just wanted Codex users to know, importing WAV files is simple.
It does not require any external software and CODEX supports WAV files of any length, bit-depth and sampling frequency.

Beginner and Intermediate users may get thrown off by all they extraneous information.
Really, the best way to import WAVs into Codex, is the most simple due to the internal ability Codex has to process the single as best as possible.