Tone2 Rayblaster: OUT NOW! (demo version available)

[Ingonator]

I have also started creating "virtual filter responses" with Wave Designer.

what filter does the wave designer use?

It got one while creating the waveforms for testing purposes but not when exporting the waveforms.

That's exactly the point. Rayblaster does not care if creating a waveform involved a filter or not but it will try to create a filter in any case. For complex dgital waveforms this results in some crazy "fantasy filters" which result in several different timbres when changing the formant knob. Just take one of the "digital" factory sounds and turn the Formant knob yourself.

The first "virtual filters" i try to do in Wave Designer are based on the shape of a resonant waveform which i have created for several synths. Anyway those first examples were not created with a free draw mode but with the formula editor.

link: http://www.tone2.org/forum/index.php?board=30.0

A screenshot from Wave Designer with a formula:



download:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53230726/IW_Wa ... es%201.zip

Those waveforms will result in a resonant behavior as the shape is comparable to those of the waveforms created from resonant filters.

Based on the many filter responses i created from several synths at some point i want to create my own unique fiters by drawing them in Wave designer.
Another possibility would be to mix the waveforms of different filters which result in a new unique filter. You could even do this in Rayblaster when mixing two waves in each oscillator.

THIS is what Markus really meant when he talked about that you could create you own filter responses.


Ingo

[pdxindy]

As i noticed that i have to repeat most of my statements again and again

Ingo

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Rayblaster cannot accurately emulate an analog filter. Not even close.

[Ingonator]

*edited*

[Kriminal]

I have also started creating "virtual filter responses" with Wave Designer.

what filter does the wave designer use?

It got one while creating the waveforms for testing purposes but not when exporting the waveforms.

That's exactly the point. Rayblaster does not care if creating a waveform involved a filter or not but it will try to create a filter in any case.

so using a waveform that is not filtered, RB can create a filter....so basically RB has its own filter...?

"fantasy filters"

i think that sums it up nicely.

[Kriminal]

The thing is that everything that i posted about which shows that Rayblaster does what it is supposed to do is simply ignored or people say this is just a special case without any value.

your best bet is to stop doing comparisons, dont use the words 'filter/emulation' and just say RB is a rompler with some nice features that sounds good

[Ingonator]

*edited*

[flakes2]

[quote]Rayblaster cannot accurately emulate an analog filter. Not even close.[/quote]

wrong. Watch the video on their website. At 1:45 there is an analog sound.
http://www.tone2.com/html/rayblaster_sy ... st_au.html

In the demo there are also several patches which prove the opposite. Go to the tutorial section and select 'FakeAnalogFilter'.

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

[quote]RB is a rompler[/quote]

Completely wrong. It seems that you didn't test the demo nor understand the concept.

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

I agree that the main focus of Rayblaster is not to be an analog emulation. It can do uch more exciting things.

Peace

[pdxindy]

As i noticed that i have to repeat most of my statements again and again

Ingo

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, Rayblaster cannot accurately emulate an analog filter. Not even close.

I guess i got a little more knowledage about Rayblaster and even i just started trying to do 1:1 comparisons so how could you know everything better?

Ingo

Because it is utterly obvious... Rayblaster has no filter! It has no resonance. You can create a semblance of resonance by loading two waveforms and blending between them... it sounds only marginally like actually turning a resonance knob on a filter. There is no self oscillation, drive or filter FM which are common features of many analog filters.

The formant knob doesn't sound like a lowpass cutoff either (nor bandpass or highpass)... it behaves differently... it roughly mimics some basic characteristics but it is so obviously something different... one only has to go through the included presets to hear that. This is a different synthesis method like FM or granular. They do not sound like an analog subtractive either. I think Rayblaster is quite interesting and I am enjoying trying the demo but this marketing hype is bollocks.

[Ingonator]

Exactly. Just a simple question. How could Rayblaster more or less good emulate Resonance bavaviour (check that PDF that i posted many times now...) based on a resonant waveform (created from a synth using resonance) if Rayblaster does not have any controls for adding Resonance except for the fact that with a certain "osc window" like e.g. "sinc BP3" you could emulate it in some cases?

This resonant behavior is ONLY based on the waveform you feed into it.

Rayblaster got no extra knob for just controlling the Resonance indeed.
For using only slight amounts of Resonance you'll have to mix two waveforms or you have to create a waveform with only small amounts. BTW this results in a new waveform and is not a simple mixer.

If you want to have self resonance you do a waveform based on self resonance...

Besides that like in a normal filter things like e.g. formant value, filter envelope. filter envelope amount and filter keytrack have an influence on the filter behavior but this basic behavior is based on the waveform.


Ingo

[pdxindy]

Rayblaster cannot accurately emulate an analog filter. Not even close.

wrong.

You are the one who went on about how no other synth could do the chainsaw and I posted an example from ACE that was far better...

[hakey]

Rayblaster cannot accurately emulate an analog filter. Not even close.

wrong. Watch the video on their website. At 1:45 there is an analog sound.
http://www.tone2.com/html/rayblaster_sy ... st_au.html

there is an analog sound! How could anyone argue with that?

[blacktomcat666]

so using a waveform that is not filtered, RB can create a filter....so basically RB has its own filter...?

I don't now how this is solved in RB, but you can get the spectrum of a single cycle wave by fft and multiply the fft output (at least the magnitudes) with the spectrum of your sound. I used this in my "Audio-Term" software and the result is that your sound gets the spectral characteristic of your single cycle wave. May be RB uses a similar technique.

[Ingonator]

so using a waveform that is not filtered, RB can create a filter....so basically RB has its own filter...?

I don't now how this is solved in RB, but you can get the spectrum of a single cycle wave by fft and multiply the fft output (at least the magnitudes) with the spectrum of your sound. I used this in my "Audio-Term" software and the result is that your sound gets the spectral characteristic of your single cycle wave. May be RB uses a similar technique.

Does it matter to discuss how something is done when people do deny that it could be even done?


Ingo

[hakey]

This resonant behavior is ONLY based on the waveform you feed into it.

And the cutoff slope that RB extracts is based only upon the fixed cutoff frequency, input gain and pitch at which the waveform is recorded. Claiming that by extrapolating this cutoff slope to cover all cutoff frequencies one can authentically reproduce a filter's sound is a stretch of the imagination, to say the least!

Fantasy filters.

[Ingonator]

*edited*