Tone2 RayBlaster3 - Impulse-Modeling-Synthesizer

[himalaya]

[himalaya]

RayBlaster is so good. It churns out new and fresh sounds with such ease. For me, it belongs to a similar category like Thorn or Z3ta+, which despite being unapologetically 'digital', they do it with such beauty and power. RayBlaster isn't your go-to workhorse instead, it's a speciality synth that can give unique sounds when needed. Many of the sounds can simply spawn new tune ideas very quickly, I find.

I would love to have a soundbank for RayBlaster from you (PLEASE) ...

He contributed some of the patches for at least two sound banks for RayBlaster: Epic Pads and Futuron.

I did? I can't even remember. I don't think I did any work on these sound sets.

Actually, I just checked more thoroughly....I did 44 presets for the 'Atmospheric' (maybe the name was changed) sound set in 2012....wow 2012....time flies.

[himalaya]

Available soon: RayBlaster 3.1

Hi Markus,
I just noticed that this is a forthcoming release. You are probably wrapping thing up for the 3.1 build, but while I'm here playing with RayBlaster again, I was reminded of a few things that would improve RB:

1. at least a 4-band parametric EQ.
This is badly needed as an effect that is separate to the other effects in the FX tab. RayBlaster can produce very sharp sounds. It can get very piercing, very quickly and when this happens it is often more about cutting some specific frequencies while preserving the top end, hence the Damp parameter is not suitable for such occasions as it simply rolls off the highs.

2. With your excellent effects it is a pity that RB allows only two to be used at any one time.
Is there a chance to duplicate the FX tab and create FX2 tab for two additional effects?

This very typical effect chain is not possible with RB: chorus>reverb>delay.
I often like to have reverb then a phaser/chorus, to smear the reverb tail, and then add a ping-pong delay unit to create nice ambiance. Not possible with RB. In general though, synths that can output such sharp digital sounds really benefit from a longer effect chain.
I'd love to be able to do this:
parametric EQ > chorus > reverb > phaser/or flanger /or symphonic > delay.
Just one example.

Some ideas/ FRs.
Cheers.

[Neon Breath]

Bold and proud digital synth, very unorthodox workflow leading to exploration and cool sonic discoveries other conventional synths cannot. Very underrated synth imo. I find it fits really well alongside my Waldorf synths, nice complementary companions.

[Examigan]

There was a Rayblaster contest years ago that had some good songs. I happened to be one of the people with a song in that contest (shameless plug ), but anyway... it was cool to see what everyone came up with in what was basically a "OSC".

[Neon Breath]

@Markus/Tone2 Synthesizers: I already own Rayblaster 3, how can I update to the latest 3.1? On the Download page, the Rayblaster section only has the upgrade links. I don't need to upgrade since I already own V3.

And when I use the download link that was sent to me via email when I purchased it, if I download it from there it's not the 3.1 version but the version 3.0.3.

Any cue how to update?

*EDIT: never mind, @zvenx answer, all good.

[zvenx]

Available soon: RayBlaster 3.1

I think you miss the operative word, soon..
It isn't out yet.

rsp

[Neon Breath]

Totally missed it

Thank you for opening my eyes!

[nusound mind]

Can anyone comment on whether Rayblaster 3 is substantively better soundwise than version 2? (or the subsequent point version update, when that comes out) I don't really use it much but in principle I like it's uniqueness but I find it the least impressive sounding Tone2 synth and the one I use the least, however 29 bucks isn't bad far as upgrades go.

[tumface]

1. at least a 4-band parametric EQ.
This is badly needed as an effect that is separate to the other effects in the FX tab. RayBlaster can produce very sharp sounds. It can get very piercing, very quickly and when this happens it is often more about cutting some specific frequencies while preserving the top end, hence the Damp parameter is not suitable for such occasions as it simply rolls off the highs.

That's interesting. To me, RayBlaster tends to make sounds with highs that are pretty easy to control, most of the time. I often don't feel like EQing it at all. Of course, I would not complain about extra features. A dedicated EQ like Icarus would be nice. I'm not saying your experience is invalid, just that it surprised me. Maybe we tend to make really different sounds. Maybe I should try expanding what I do with it.

My own first vote for a new RayBlaster feature would be MPE, so that I can draw fancy pitchbends in Ableton Live, but I suspect that isn't so easy to add to this lineage of Tone2 synths (RayBlaster, Nemesis.) I'm guessing their voice controlling code predates MPE and would require restructuring, which I'm guessing is not fun to work on. So, I don't request it, because I don't want to bother Markus, and just want him to work on whatever is cool to him.

There's nothing else like RayBlaster. It can make synth timbres with the clearest sounding high frequencies. Like it's beaming the sounds directly into your brain. It's always a top 3 synth for me, because of that.

[Tone2 Synthesizers]

...RayBlaster can produce very sharp sounds. It can get very piercing, very quickly and when this happens it is often more about cutting some specific frequencies while preserving the top end, hence the Damp parameter is not suitable for such occasions as it simply rolls off the highs.
....

I get what you mean. The synthesis can get quite sharp at the upper midrange.
I have taken care of it in the upcoming version. It will sound a lot smoother.

What I've also noticed is that the synthesis combined with the modulations in the effects section can sound a bit too much 'out-of-tune'. I've also taken care of this.

Can anyone comment on whether Rayblaster 3 is substantively better soundwise than version 2?

RayBlaster 3.0 sounds better than v2. This affects mainly the quality of effects. However the main focus of the update was the GUI and overhauling the code and preparing it for future OS releases.

RayBlaster 3.1 will sound drastically better than v2. The complete audio-engine is reworked.

[nusound mind]

Drastically eh? I'd put that in the substantive category. I look forward to checking it out.

[tumface]

What I've also noticed is that the synthesis combined with the modulations in the effects section can sound a bit too much 'out-of-tune'. I've also taken care of this.

Ah, that's interesting. Is this for when RayBlaster 3.0 (and earlier) is in the non-sync mode, and the Formant control is quickly modulated in the negative range?

[himalaya]

1. at least a 4-band parametric EQ.
This is badly needed as an effect that is separate to the other effects in the FX tab. RayBlaster can produce very sharp sounds. It can get very piercing, very quickly and when this happens it is often more about cutting some specific frequencies while preserving the top end, hence the Damp parameter is not suitable for such occasions as it simply rolls off the highs.

That's interesting. To me, RayBlaster tends to make sounds with highs that are pretty easy to control, most of the time. I often don't feel like EQing it at all. Of course, I would not complain about extra features. A dedicated EQ like Icarus would be nice. I'm not saying your experience is invalid, just that it surprised me. Maybe we tend to make really different sounds. Maybe I should try expanding what I do with it.

The highs are easy to control, sure, there is the 'Damp' parameter there after all, but that's not what I'm referring to. The spectral balance of some of the sounds (mostly, textures, sustained, open sounds) can be very saturated with mid-high frequencies and peaks that need to be dealt with somehow and without a good EQ it's not possible. So, I could arrive at this scenario: I have a sound where I want to preserve the very top end (ie: I do not wish to use a LPF/Damp) but I need to cut some mid-high frequencies to balance the sound. That is not possible. A cut at, say, 1K, 3K, 5K and boom, all of sudden the sound is perfect.

It shouldn't be surprising to wish for a good parametric EQ in a synth like RB, one that can output such complex spectra. In a standard VA, one is not needed, but here it is badly needed.

As a side note, I really like complex, bright, sharp, digital sounds. I grew up on FM. I learnt synthesis by using FM and my ear enjoys that digital sheen (as much as it enjoys fat, detuned, 'warm' analogue sounds). But there are lovely and pleasant bright sounds, and there are sharp, piercing, unpleasant sounds that need corrective EQ treatment.

With FM, especially on my SY77, I used to enjoy making very bright, almost shrill textures, and then I would add the internal Symphonic effect that would smear the top end in such a way, that all of that mid and high end would be transformed into a lush shimmering tone. So this is another way to deal with overly bright sounds, but here, this approach is more about creative choices, while equalisation (to deal with harsh peaks) is more about correction.

Lastly though, equalisation can also work in the realm of creative, artistic, sound design choices, where multiple cuts or resonant peaks create specific sounds. So, I'd say that it shouldn't be even a matter of discussion, whether to have a good EQ in a digital synth (that outputs complex spectra).

[tumface]

The highs are easy to control, sure, there is the 'Damp' parameter there after all, but that's not what I'm referring to. The spectral balance of some of the sounds (mostly, textures, sustained, open sounds) can be very saturated with mid-high frequencies and peaks that need to be dealt with somehow and without a good EQ it's not possible. So, I could arrive at this scenario: I have a sound where I want to preserve the very top end (ie: I do not wish to use a LPF/Damp) but I need to cut some mid-high frequencies to balance the sound. That is not possible. A cut at, say, 1K, 3K, 5K and boom, all of sudden the sound is perfect.

It shouldn't be surprising to wish for a good parametric EQ in a synth like RB, one that can output such complex spectra. In a standard VA, one is not needed, but here it is badly needed.

Ah yes, that makes total sense. Thanks.

Actually, I don't think it's weird to wish for a parametric EQ. I was only surprised that it was the #1 request, but now it makes sense.

I think it could be cool to have a polyphonic keytracked EQ, too. (I really like this feature in synths that have it, like Zebra 3, Filterscape VA, and Phase Plant.)