Vertigo vs Harmor vs Alchemy

[himalaya]

4 pages & you all missed the obvious..

Harmor has formant preservation. If you started with the "resynthesis" preset, formant preservation is enabled. Formant preservation isn't a defect, it's a feature. That's why the other notes of the bass sound more filtered.
You can switch it off if you wanna compare to those 2 (unless they too feature it).

George missed that, not all of us as we did not conduct the test, which as you pointed out is flawed. I tried to illustrate earlier that it is flawed as all these synths have hidden aspects which make resynthesis better, something that has been shown in this thread.

[jupiter8]

A brilliant example on how not to go about things. Thanks for the lesson.

[bmanic]

First you drag the sample to one part, then to the other and it automatically selects the other channel. Thus you get a stereo file.

more precisely (after loading the resynthesis template preset, but you already did that), part A will import the mid and B will import the side (thus the part A/B mix will be a mid/side mix, you can add effects to just the mid or the side, etc). Thus if you only load part A you get mono, and with part B you add stereo. It's all in the "side" switch in ADV, it's switched on in the resynthesis template.

That's actually damn clever way of doing it. Very nice solution!

Cheers!
bManic

[ENV1]

"we can't compare" meant that we, as in all of us here (not "i") in the thread could not compare the files properly as the original wasn't available with the resynthesised files. And since I have Alchemy, I could've compared then but didn't have the time or the will.

Of course.

Thanks for explaining.

But you did overanalize it even by opening the files in a spectrum analyzer?

If you had payed any attention at all you would have noticed that this was after i had posted my initial impression.



Listen, i have tried to be polite and i have asked you 3 times now to please drop the subject. Since that does not seem to work with you, and i do not intend to go on with this till christmas, you leave me no other choice but to ignore any followup posts from you. I would rather i did not have to do this because i think politeness and respect are two of the most important things in every social environment, but like i said, there seems to be little else i can do if i want this to end before retirement. Happy tunemaking, and have a nice sunday.

[himalaya]

What is rude, is you quoting me with confused statements which warrant a reply from me, but then you ask me not to reply. You can't have it both ways, reply quoting me and then petition me to stop replying. That is impolite. This is a forum, and topics are discussed, especially contentious topics, I'm sorry that you don't like it.

[tony tony chopper]

in any case, the "muffled sound" is the result of the formant preservation, & thus of an improper test

[ENV1]

in any case, the "muffled sound" is the result of the formant preservation, & thus of an improper test

Then i suppose i should have used different settings for my test as well?

(BTW, did you check it out? Its attached a few posts back.)

Because like George i have also just used the default (i.e. the state that Harmor is in when it comes up) and just loaded the source WAV into it via analyze file.

(Not that im disappointed at the result or anything, quite the contrary, it was absolutely surprising how well Harmor preserved everything if you dont count the stereo field. Vertigo on the other hand...well...unless i did something terribly wrong i think my WAV says it all...)

[tony tony chopper]

Then i suppose i should have used different settings for my test as well?

Because like George i have also just used the default

If you loaded the default then no, as the formant preservation is off. But I'm pretty sure it's on in the OP's test, as it sounds typically like it.

Found your post but well it's using a shitty file hosting. You would have easier with Soundcloud or Youtube.

The best settings in Harmor really depend on the material.
The controls that matter would be:
-ADV->image/resynthesis->(generic/high precision) & the denoise knob
-IMG->image sharpening
-IMG->formant shift mix (for vocals & some instruments)

[ENV1]

Yeah, i know filehosters suck, i just thought its the quickest way to make the WAV downloadable.

Anyhow, glad to hear i was using the correct settings after all.

[rj0]

Then i suppose i should have used different settings for my test as well?

Because like George i have also just used the default

If you loaded the default then no, as the formant preservation is off. But I'm pretty sure it's on in the OP's test, as it sounds typically like it.

Found your post but well it's using a shitty file hosting. You would have easier with Soundcloud or Youtube.

The best settings in Harmor really depend on the material.
The controls that matter would be:
-ADV->image/resynthesis->(generic/high precision) & the denoise knob
-IMG->image sharpening
-IMG->formant shift mix (for vocals & some instruments)

One minor clarification request: So those controls listed also apply to loading source WAVs in via analyze file (not just the loading of images), correct?

-----

And a more general, related query: In the help file it indicates that:

"Convert to image synthesis mode - There are two modes, resynthesis and image synthesis. When you drop a sample on Harmor it is processed in 'resynthesis' mode which references the original sample data for the highest fidelity. When converted to 'image synthesis' mode editing flexibility is increased at the expense of fidelity. Trade-offs, don't you love 'em?"

Some clarifications on those tradeoffs would be appreciated. (e.g. maybe a touch more on the fidelity aspect, also whether any of the controls in the IMG or ADV tabs are modified when switching modes, and perhaps any general musings on the general flexibilities retained/lost in transitioning modes, exclusive of the more or less obvious: external image editing and the degrade/cross-fade, etc. options that get enabled in the menu).

[tony tony chopper]

One minor clarification request: So those controls listed also apply to loading source WAVs in via analyze file (not just the loading of images), correct?

the ones in the ADV are pre audio-loading settings, the rest are for resynthesis. (loading images isn't the subject)

Some clarifications on those tradeoffs would be appreciated.

There are 2 modes for 2 reasons, images don't have the same "nice" settings, they're typically played at a slower rate for example.
But most importantly: in image mode you're using a gain & subfreq plane directly, the subfreq plane makes sense for humans to edit. In audio mode, internally it's more a gain & phase plane (like what you'd get from FFTs), having the original phase plane allows tricks to reduce phasiness, that's what you lose when you switch to image mode. You gain the ability to edit images, but it wouldn't have made sense to allow editing the phase plane, because it would look just like noise, wouldn't make any sense for humans to edit.
The subfreq plane is derived from that phase plane.

Also images are embedded in presets, while audio files are referenced.

..but it's exactly as the help file says: "When converted to 'image synthesis' mode editing flexibility is increased at the expense of fidelity"
If you don't wanna edit your sounds in an image editor, you don't need to convert.

[rj0]

One minor clarification request: So those controls listed also apply to loading source WAVs in via analyze file (not just the loading of images), correct?

the ones in the ADV are pre audio-loading settings, the rest are for resynthesis. (loading images isn't the subject)

First of all, many thanks for the responses!

OK, I think I'm getting it (still absorbing, but enjoying the process). The pre audio-loading controls make perfect sense. As for the IMG controls, I gather then that those are post-load processing (sample or image) operations. I hope that I'm getting that right.

Some clarifications on those tradeoffs would be appreciated.

There are 2 modes for 2 reasons, images don't have the same "nice" settings, they're typically played at a slower rate for example.
But most importantly: in image mode you're using a gain & subfreq plane directly, the subfreq plane makes sense for humans to edit. In audio mode, internally it's more a gain & phase plane (like what you'd get from FFTs), having the original phase plane allows tricks to reduce phasiness, that's what you lose when you switch to image mode. You gain the ability to edit images, but it wouldn't have made sense to allow editing the phase plane, because it would look just like noise, wouldn't make any sense for humans to edit.
The subfreq plane is derived from that phase plane.

Also images are embedded in presets, while audio files are referenced.

..but it's exactly as the help file says: "When converted to 'image synthesis' mode editing flexibility is increased at the expense of fidelity"
If you don't wanna edit your sounds in an image editor, you don't need to convert.

So the freq plane has a slightly different interpretation (internally) between the two modes. Very interesting.

That brings up a related question, perhaps best posed by an example: If I load in a sample, should I expect the Sharp control on the IMG tab (for example) to operate the same before and after I convert the sample to image synthesis mode?

Also, I was wondering if there is also some timing granularity that is lost when converting sample cycles to pixels (e.g. perhaps most affecting transients)?

Once again, many thanks on the replies. Very much enjoying learning the intricacies of Harmor.

[tony tony chopper]

If I load in a sample, should I expect the Sharp control on the IMG tab (for example) to operate the same before and after I convert the sample to image synthesis mode?

yes, as you can see the sharpness knob is disabled when you convert

Also, I was wondering if there is also some timing granularity that is lost when converting sample cycles to pixels (e.g. perhaps most affecting transients)?

transients won't be as sharp because the required plane is lost

[rj0]

If I load in a sample, should I expect the Sharp control on the IMG tab (for example) to operate the same before and after I convert the sample to image synthesis mode?

yes, as you can see the sharpness knob is disabled when you convert

The control only fades color very slightly when changing modes (otherwise still looks like it's operating), so I missed that (not mentioned in the Help guide either). Would recommend making disabled controls a bit more distinctive.

Also, I was wondering if there is also some timing granularity that is lost when converting sample cycles to pixels (e.g. perhaps most affecting transients)?

transients won't be as sharp because the required plane is lost

Ahh, good to know. So definitely some reasons to stay with the audio mode unless the editing flexibility of image mode is really needed. And perhaps a good rule of thumb (importance of transients) to consider when making that decision.

Again, many thanks (quick answers, even on the weekend.)

[olepro]

As far as I can see all this shows is that nobody has read the Alchemy manual and figured out how to get the best results from it's resynthesis, which offers a lot more potential than the other two? There are various import options, as well as options in pure additive import, there are the options using the spectral engine to complement/instead of the additive engine, depending on the type of sound you are importing:

http://www.camelaudio.com/alchemymanual ... /#Additive

and if you use them properly, I'll be surprised if you can beat it. After that, there is a whole lot more you can do in Alchemy once you have imported a sample than you can do with the other two? If you want to import a sound and hear it exactly like it was originally, perhaps you should be looking at a sampler instead rather than a resynthesis engine. If you want to monkey around with it, morph, and get really creative with it, I can't see how either of the other two offer anything over Alchemy in terms of pure creative power?

I think it's important to know that when you use Spectral import in Alchemy (which does the most accurate resynthesis) you don't have all the control over the sound like you do in additive mode. And this is where Harmor exceed Alchemy, i think.
Harmor has all the control over the sound no matter what sound you import. Even all the synth functions like prism, Harmonizer, Phaser and sample formants... well and not to forget Unison.
I love that i can drop ANY single cycle waveform into Harmor and it just works instantly with all Harmor's synth power.
This i cannot do in Alchemy...YET