 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Synths & synthesis
Subject: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
Viewing all 29 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3
Original Message 1/29 17-Nov-02 @ 05:00 PM - Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
is there a difference? whats the difference? i know the XTk is based on wavetable technology, but how does that differ from modeling?
Message 2/29 17-Nov-02 @ 07:43 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
wavetables are basically samples of one or a couple cycles of a repeating waveform. These short samples are then looped and used as an oscillator in a synth. The waveforms are often more complex in nature compared to the oscillators of virtual analogs.
VA's (modeling) actually generate their sine, saw, and square waves digitally in realtime, which allows you to do things you can't do with a sample (like true pulse width modulation, PWM, or varying the gate time of a square wave). It's a digital model of a simple analog oscillator.
Now the thing that's tricky, and maybe someone else can help me here, but the XTk can modulate smoothly between its wavetables, right? Does that mean it atually generates those waveforms in realtime? Or is it a crossfade thing? XT owners?
psylichon
VA's (modeling) actually generate their sine, saw, and square waves digitally in realtime, which allows you to do things you can't do with a sample (like true pulse width modulation, PWM, or varying the gate time of a square wave). It's a digital model of a simple analog oscillator.
Now the thing that's tricky, and maybe someone else can help me here, but the XTk can modulate smoothly between its wavetables, right? Does that mean it atually generates those waveforms in realtime? Or is it a crossfade thing? XT owners?
psylichon
Message 3/29 17-Nov-02 @ 08:20 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
ok. so does that mean on a wavetable synth you cannot actually edit the wave itself, but the frequency(for lack of a better word) that comes out instead?
wouldnt that kinda hender your creativity a little bit? maybe im off base here... ??
wouldnt that kinda hender your creativity a little bit? maybe im off base here... ??
Message 4/29 17-Nov-02 @ 08:29 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
well, we're talking about single-cycle waveforms here, so any slight alteration of the wave will greatly affect harmonic spectrum. That's why there are usually 64 or so of them, to give that variety.
But think about VA oscillators... there are only so many things you can do to shape the actual waveform of the oscillator. It's basically gonna be a sine, tri, saw, or square, or something in between. As far as osc-level mods, ya got pulse width and skew and softness... about it. Most of the excitement in analog synthesis comes from interaction between oscillators... sync, ring mod, detuned unison... and from the filter section which has nothing to do with the oscillators.
So a wavetable synth with, say, 64 tables in it is actually quite flexible even without the addition of user-tables. Of course synths that offer true waveshaping are quite dope as well (a'la Absynth).
psylichon
But think about VA oscillators... there are only so many things you can do to shape the actual waveform of the oscillator. It's basically gonna be a sine, tri, saw, or square, or something in between. As far as osc-level mods, ya got pulse width and skew and softness... about it. Most of the excitement in analog synthesis comes from interaction between oscillators... sync, ring mod, detuned unison... and from the filter section which has nothing to do with the oscillators.
So a wavetable synth with, say, 64 tables in it is actually quite flexible even without the addition of user-tables. Of course synths that offer true waveshaping are quite dope as well (a'la Absynth).
psylichon
Message 5/29 18-Nov-02 @ 05:20 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
it is important to know the sound is extremely diferant. The wavetable is cabable of very buzzy digital sounds, as well as doing simple square, or saw waves that sound very analog. The waldorf digital filter is best sounding digital filter i have ever heard and used. If you were to buy a waldorf xt, and a waldorf q, the sounds would be like night and day.
The analog modeling synth will have a softer rounder and well, analog sound. Using a wavetable, wavesequence, or vector synth as they are all the same, will yeild some very diferant sounds.The wavetable is still warm because it's going through a analog filter. The original microwave has an analog filter, but the sounds can be made so much harsher from analog to totaly strange digital growling and shreeking by manipulating the start of the sequence and modualtiing the speed with with you go through the 64 cycles. The first 30 are the same as the waldorf ppg wave. You can download the demo of that VSTi and listen to the tones. But the XT has the nice filter and analog waveforms, but be warned, The knobs are velocity sensative. So the quicker you turn them they jump forward. It was almost impossible to tweek fast in kind of accurate way.
The analog modeling synth will have a softer rounder and well, analog sound. Using a wavetable, wavesequence, or vector synth as they are all the same, will yeild some very diferant sounds.The wavetable is still warm because it's going through a analog filter. The original microwave has an analog filter, but the sounds can be made so much harsher from analog to totaly strange digital growling and shreeking by manipulating the start of the sequence and modualtiing the speed with with you go through the 64 cycles. The first 30 are the same as the waldorf ppg wave. You can download the demo of that VSTi and listen to the tones. But the XT has the nice filter and analog waveforms, but be warned, The knobs are velocity sensative. So the quicker you turn them they jump forward. It was almost impossible to tweek fast in kind of accurate way.
Message 6/29 18-Nov-02 @ 02:24 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
most of what's been said is true, but ignores the original purpose of wavetables. you CAN use them as just 'static harmonically rich waves', but that's not what they were designed for.
wavetables were originally done as a way to implement in the digital realm what could only be done in the analog world. remember, wavetables date back way before VAs, to the PPG wavecomputer 360. there were no digital filters etc. at the time. (and the wavecomputer 360 had no filter at all! the later PPG wave did have an analog filter).
the idea of wavetable synthesis is basic: you create a series of waves that implement a sort of 'harmonic series'. then you scan through it. for example, think of a filter sweep (to keep it simple, we'll assume no resonance). when the filter is almost closed, you just get a sine wave. as you open the filter, more harmonics appear, until it's wide open and all the harmonics are there.
ok, so what we do is we create a series of samples, one with the filter all the way closed (sine wave), the next with it a little bit open, the next a little more open, and so on up until we have a wave for all the way open. now, by scanning across the waves as oscillators, we can 'simulate' the filter sweep - instead of using a filter to shape the harmonic structure of the oscillator, we modify the oscillator to do the harmonic morphing directly.
but we aren't limited to filter sweeps, i can choose any harmonic structure for each wave... i could sweep between a sawtooth and a square for instance, or create a series of vocal formants and make it 'talk'. basically, by choosing your waves correctly, you can implement just about _any_ series of waveforms... you could possibly implement a flute blown at different breath strengths... a DX7 patch with varying modulation amount... etc. you only have a SINGLE axis to work with though in most wavetable synths, so you couldn't for example layout one axis for frequency, and another for resonance (though, with a 2D wavetable, such a thing is possible). wavetable though is about making the sound 'move' in the way you want it to, and not be limited to just the changes a filter makes.
the downside is that the wavetable gets 'quantized'; depending on how fast you are doing 'harmonic morphing', i.e. how different each sample is from the next, this might not even be audible, or it might be nasty. of course that's part of the charm of wavetable synthesis
the XT uses 61 waves in its wavetable; the ensoniq ASR samplers use 128 (afaik); with more waves in the wavetable, theoretically it can be a lot more smooth (as well as the ensoniqs are 16 bit); but the XT has a lot of other advantages of the ASRs. and you can do so much with filters, sometimes it takes a bit of imagination to 'go outside the box' - it's a bit like additive in that regard.
different from VAs? even VAs sound different. but a wavetable synth SHOULD be a lot more powerful, programming-wise, than a VA. which one you like better though is a matter of opinion.
wavetables were originally done as a way to implement in the digital realm what could only be done in the analog world. remember, wavetables date back way before VAs, to the PPG wavecomputer 360. there were no digital filters etc. at the time. (and the wavecomputer 360 had no filter at all! the later PPG wave did have an analog filter).
the idea of wavetable synthesis is basic: you create a series of waves that implement a sort of 'harmonic series'. then you scan through it. for example, think of a filter sweep (to keep it simple, we'll assume no resonance). when the filter is almost closed, you just get a sine wave. as you open the filter, more harmonics appear, until it's wide open and all the harmonics are there.
ok, so what we do is we create a series of samples, one with the filter all the way closed (sine wave), the next with it a little bit open, the next a little more open, and so on up until we have a wave for all the way open. now, by scanning across the waves as oscillators, we can 'simulate' the filter sweep - instead of using a filter to shape the harmonic structure of the oscillator, we modify the oscillator to do the harmonic morphing directly.
but we aren't limited to filter sweeps, i can choose any harmonic structure for each wave... i could sweep between a sawtooth and a square for instance, or create a series of vocal formants and make it 'talk'. basically, by choosing your waves correctly, you can implement just about _any_ series of waveforms... you could possibly implement a flute blown at different breath strengths... a DX7 patch with varying modulation amount... etc. you only have a SINGLE axis to work with though in most wavetable synths, so you couldn't for example layout one axis for frequency, and another for resonance (though, with a 2D wavetable, such a thing is possible). wavetable though is about making the sound 'move' in the way you want it to, and not be limited to just the changes a filter makes.
the downside is that the wavetable gets 'quantized'; depending on how fast you are doing 'harmonic morphing', i.e. how different each sample is from the next, this might not even be audible, or it might be nasty. of course that's part of the charm of wavetable synthesis
the XT uses 61 waves in its wavetable; the ensoniq ASR samplers use 128 (afaik); with more waves in the wavetable, theoretically it can be a lot more smooth (as well as the ensoniqs are 16 bit); but the XT has a lot of other advantages of the ASRs. and you can do so much with filters, sometimes it takes a bit of imagination to 'go outside the box' - it's a bit like additive in that regard.different from VAs? even VAs sound different. but a wavetable synth SHOULD be a lot more powerful, programming-wise, than a VA. which one you like better though is a matter of opinion.
Message 7/29 19-Nov-02 @ 03:32 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
you can do it on my EMU too if you have time to set up the realtime layers of 128 diferant cycles, and then you use a lfo to modulate them or manulay pan between them .
Message 8/29 19-Nov-02 @ 05:40 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
Hey, nice topic!
I've got a few hardware VA's, and am also thinking of getting into wavetable synthesis...
What are your favorite software programs and hardware boxes for wavetable synthesis?
Software: Someone mentioned the VST PPG software... The FM samples sounded far more harsh to my ear than the hardware PPGs and microwaves. I prefer smoother sounds... Was it just the programming of the those VST PPG patches, or was it the inherent sonic character of the software?
Also, Absynth, Metasynth, Reactor? Are these any better than the VST PPG?
Hardware: I've heard demos of the microwave and fizmo and really like them. But the fizmo, in particular, is so hard to find.
I wonder if one of those software programs could fill my desire for a few wavetable-type patches?
Or will the hardware always outshine the software? (hehehe)
FWIW, my audio interface is a Delta 1010, so it hopefully won't be a gating factor in sound quality and smoothness.
Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott
I've got a few hardware VA's, and am also thinking of getting into wavetable synthesis...
What are your favorite software programs and hardware boxes for wavetable synthesis?
Software: Someone mentioned the VST PPG software... The FM samples sounded far more harsh to my ear than the hardware PPGs and microwaves. I prefer smoother sounds... Was it just the programming of the those VST PPG patches, or was it the inherent sonic character of the software?
Also, Absynth, Metasynth, Reactor? Are these any better than the VST PPG?
Hardware: I've heard demos of the microwave and fizmo and really like them. But the fizmo, in particular, is so hard to find.
I wonder if one of those software programs could fill my desire for a few wavetable-type patches?
Or will the hardware always outshine the software? (hehehe)
FWIW, my audio interface is a Delta 1010, so it hopefully won't be a gating factor in sound quality and smoothness.
Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Scott
Message 9/29 19-Nov-02 @ 02:25 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
microwave? smooth? i didn't know that was what people expected from it. the XT can do smooth though (if nothing else, it's got the second 6db smoothing filter; remember to set higher quality/no aliasing/etc).
that's pretty cool brett... i didn't know emu samplers could do that. it's different from wavetable but similar in function (has pros and cons). how many voices does something like that use (w/128 layers)? would it only be a few, or 128?
that's pretty cool brett... i didn't know emu samplers could do that. it's different from wavetable but similar in function (has pros and cons). how many voices does something like that use (w/128 layers)? would it only be a few, or 128?
Message 10/29 19-Nov-02 @ 02:37 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Yeah but the wavetable synth doesn't create the 64 samples, it just uses them. That's right aint it?
Interpolating the samples - that's sound morphing, can somebody PLEASE tell me if anyone has done work in this area 'cause I'm thinking of doing so.
Interpolating the samples - that's sound morphing, can somebody PLEASE tell me if anyone has done work in this area 'cause I'm thinking of doing so.
Message 11/29 19-Nov-02 @ 03:40 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
I usually wave goodbye.
Message 12/29 19-Nov-02 @ 04:03 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Ahh cheer up there Stevie!
Message 14/29 19-Nov-02 @ 05:39 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
sort of... on the XT, if you only send it 2 waves for example (maybe a square in wave 0, and a sawtooth in wave 60), it will 'automatically' create the intervening waves by interpolation. i'm not sure at what point this is done, if it's realtime or done when the wavetable is generated (i haven't done it yet, sound diver just doesn't like my computer it seems)...
but once the waves are there, there is no interpolation, true. having more waves (or making the difference between waves small) will have a similar effect though, i would think.
but once the waves are there, there is no interpolation, true. having more waves (or making the difference between waves small) will have a similar effect though, i would think.
Message 15/29 19-Nov-02 @ 10:05 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
ok, thanks for the recommendations... :-?
Message 16/29 20-Nov-02 @ 12:41 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
Looking around, what I was on about is called,
Analyse-Resynthesis, but still there's not alot of info about it.
Analyse-Resynthesis, but still there's not alot of info about it.
Message 17/29 20-Nov-02 @ 12:42 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
BJT
Posts: 90
Link?: No link
File?: No file
(hijack I know).
Message 18/29 20-Nov-02 @ 03:09 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
If you're looking for smooth, the XT really isn't your bag. It can do it, but getting there can be a little work. It wants to be nasty. Bad girl XT!
Anyhow, considering the limititations of the 64 wavetables. I've yet to run out of sounds from the XT, but should you want more, you can create your OWN waves, and import them. Not sure EXACTLY how that's done, but it can me.
Regarding the Fizmo. I think xoxos once had one. They were plagued by serious build quality issues. It took 2 or 3 complete keyboards to piece together one that actually worked the way it was supposed to. And if memory serves, the company that produced them has gone under. Waldorf is still going strong, so I'd lean in that direction.
Thanks for the discussion, I know how my XT sounds, but I never really considered how it got there. :-)
Anyhow, considering the limititations of the 64 wavetables. I've yet to run out of sounds from the XT, but should you want more, you can create your OWN waves, and import them. Not sure EXACTLY how that's done, but it can me.
Regarding the Fizmo. I think xoxos once had one. They were plagued by serious build quality issues. It took 2 or 3 complete keyboards to piece together one that actually worked the way it was supposed to. And if memory serves, the company that produced them has gone under. Waldorf is still going strong, so I'd lean in that direction.
Thanks for the discussion, I know how my XT sounds, but I never really considered how it got there. :-)
Message 19/29 20-Nov-02 @ 11:25 AM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
fizmo.. some nice (odd) features and sounds, vocoder, external fx, but (besides the build issues) underpowered, ie. you won't be fming with these oscs.
Message 20/29 20-Nov-02 @ 02:14 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
Someone said that the XT interpolates between any 2 waves. (that would mean the microwave II also, correct?)
Wouldn't interpolation result in smoother sound than a wavetable synth without interpolation (wavestation)? Perhaps you can turn interpolation on and off?
Scott
Wouldn't interpolation result in smoother sound than a wavetable synth without interpolation (wavestation)? Perhaps you can turn interpolation on and off?
Scott
Message 21/29 20-Nov-02 @ 02:50 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
maybe that was confusing... the XT does _not_ interpolate during playback. no wavetable synth does, you could but i think it would introduce complications in other ways.
what i meant was that you can create your own wavetables, a wavetable has to have 61 waves. if you don't send it all 61 waves, it will interpolate to calculate the 'missing' waves. so, for example, if you put a square wave in wave 0
and a saw in wave 2, it would calculate a 'halfway' wave and put it in wave 1. however, once these three waves are there, we do not interpolate between wave 0 and wave 1, we always go straight from wave 0 to wave 1.
one other thing that gives the XT (and the PPG and original microwave) its unique flavor is that all the samples are only 8 bit.
does the fizmo let you load in your own wavetables? for that reason alone i'd choose an asr-x over a fizmo (or an mr-rack with mr-flash... the architectures are very similar as i understand it, except obviously with less capable programming interfaces...)
what i meant was that you can create your own wavetables, a wavetable has to have 61 waves. if you don't send it all 61 waves, it will interpolate to calculate the 'missing' waves. so, for example, if you put a square wave in wave 0
and a saw in wave 2, it would calculate a 'halfway' wave and put it in wave 1. however, once these three waves are there, we do not interpolate between wave 0 and wave 1, we always go straight from wave 0 to wave 1.
one other thing that gives the XT (and the PPG and original microwave) its unique flavor is that all the samples are only 8 bit.
does the fizmo let you load in your own wavetables? for that reason alone i'd choose an asr-x over a fizmo (or an mr-rack with mr-flash... the architectures are very similar as i understand it, except obviously with less capable programming interfaces...)
Message 22/29 20-Nov-02 @ 07:50 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
nope, you just get what i believe are the same set of transwaves ensoniq had forever.. which is really kinda pathetic about humanity.. i'd say a last ditch effort to appeal to modern tastes with no r&d investment. if the interface even accessed the entire sound engine it'd get more points.
so just to reiterate, you get what must be (correct me here?) 8 bit waveforms? and a minimal, unspectacular 2 osc va synth engine.. a healthy arpeggiator's prolly supposed to make up for it, but the fx engine is pretty much it for real redemption w/ some limited formant functions and the vocoder.
so just to reiterate, you get what must be (correct me here?) 8 bit waveforms? and a minimal, unspectacular 2 osc va synth engine.. a healthy arpeggiator's prolly supposed to make up for it, but the fx engine is pretty much it for real redemption w/ some limited formant functions and the vocoder.
Message 23/29 20-Nov-02 @ 08:06 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
should be 16 bit, if it's based on the MR engine (which i think it is). sounds like the ASRX is a much better choice then (you still need an external editor to get to everything though), or maybe an MR synth w/ MRflash (near impossible to find)...
also, for sound morphing, i've heard of similar things being done on the k5000... you can take 4 or 6, can't remember, harmonic 'snippets' (sounddiver will generate these for you i think, or you can enter them manually), and then have it generate envelopes that go from one to the next. this would be a lot smoother i guess than interpolating waves (but a lot harder to control too maybe)...
and for the original poster... if you can't tell by now VA and wavetable are pretty different. which one you want will be a personal thing.
also, for sound morphing, i've heard of similar things being done on the k5000... you can take 4 or 6, can't remember, harmonic 'snippets' (sounddiver will generate these for you i think, or you can enter them manually), and then have it generate envelopes that go from one to the next. this would be a lot smoother i guess than interpolating waves (but a lot harder to control too maybe)...
and for the original poster... if you can't tell by now VA and wavetable are pretty different. which one you want will be a personal thing.
Message 24/29 20-Nov-02 @ 08:33 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
'user-tables'?? are you saying with the xtk you can actually shape wavetables (with software i would assume) or create your own and use them as oscillators?
thanks for the info by the way. this is really helping.
thanks for the info by the way. this is really helping.
Message 25/29 20-Nov-02 @ 09:35 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
actually, i've got an asr-x pro sitting in the corner getting no action whatsoever...
you're saying that if i had it hooked to my PC, that i could access the Ensoniq transwaves?
i've gone through the manual, but don't believe there was any way to access those transwaves from the asr-x pro, except by just playing the presets that utilize them...
i've heard the asr10 can load transwaves... but how? via MIDI, or sampled audio?
you're saying that if i had it hooked to my PC, that i could access the Ensoniq transwaves?
i've gone through the manual, but don't believe there was any way to access those transwaves from the asr-x pro, except by just playing the presets that utilize them...
i've heard the asr10 can load transwaves... but how? via MIDI, or sampled audio?
Message 26/29 20-Nov-02 @ 10:02 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
This discussion got me to take out my XT manual and read over all the wavetable stuff...
Go d/l the XT manual, and read the description about waves and wavetables. It's actually pretty good, and the translation isn't bad either.
Go d/l the XT manual, and read the description about waves and wavetables. It's actually pretty good, and the translation isn't bad either.
Message 27/29 20-Nov-02 @ 10:16 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
yes, the XT/XTK (in fact all microwaves) will let you load up your own waves. the waves are 64 samples long, 8 bit waves, single cycle, and you send them over via sysex, then a wavetable (which is 61 waves long, and is basically 'you put wave X in slot 0, you put wave Y in slot 1, etc'. there are some programs that can help with this (including sound diver). so you can make your own waveforms and use them, or a whole wavetable and scan across them.
on the asr-x, remember i don't have an ASR so this is all from research.
first thing you have to do is get ASR-X Tools, afaik (or find the sysex spec, the program is like $39 i think. you can also buy a transwave CD out there for like $39 too). basically, in the 'loop mode', there's like forward, backward, forward + backwards, whatever. internally there's another option 'transwave', but you can't access it from the front panel - ASRX tools uses sysex to turn it on.
a transwave is 'just another sample' in a special format... iirc, each wave in the sample is 128 samples long, single cycle, and it can access up to 128 of them.
there are some programs that assist you with making the transwave samples (including asr-x tools, and a couple freeware things i've found). the first 128 samples in the waveform is wave 0, the next 128 samples in the waveform is wave 1, etc. all the way up. to get it to work properly, you need to make sure they begin and end on zero crossings etc. or it might click when you change waves.
i guess you can program using the existing transwaves too, but like i said i've never used one.
the old ASRs use the transwaves exactly the same, except AFAIK you can just choose the transwave loop mode from the front panel. the ASRX obviously doesn't support it as well as the 'old' ASRs from the front panel, but it has the whole MR synth engine in it (including a pair of resonant filters per voice), whereas the old ASR only has non-resonant filters (or a resonant filter in the effects section).
i keep mentioning the MR rack w/flash, you can't find the MR-flash anymore though. it would allow you load in up to 8M of samples, and i think they can be transwaves. i am thinking this would be the best of both worlds (front panel that supports transwaves and everything else, with the filters too), but i haven't actually tried it. and i already have an XT
on the asr-x, remember i don't have an ASR so this is all from research.
first thing you have to do is get ASR-X Tools, afaik (or find the sysex spec, the program is like $39 i think. you can also buy a transwave CD out there for like $39 too). basically, in the 'loop mode', there's like forward, backward, forward + backwards, whatever. internally there's another option 'transwave', but you can't access it from the front panel - ASRX tools uses sysex to turn it on.
a transwave is 'just another sample' in a special format... iirc, each wave in the sample is 128 samples long, single cycle, and it can access up to 128 of them.
there are some programs that assist you with making the transwave samples (including asr-x tools, and a couple freeware things i've found). the first 128 samples in the waveform is wave 0, the next 128 samples in the waveform is wave 1, etc. all the way up. to get it to work properly, you need to make sure they begin and end on zero crossings etc. or it might click when you change waves.
i guess you can program using the existing transwaves too, but like i said i've never used one.
the old ASRs use the transwaves exactly the same, except AFAIK you can just choose the transwave loop mode from the front panel. the ASRX obviously doesn't support it as well as the 'old' ASRs from the front panel, but it has the whole MR synth engine in it (including a pair of resonant filters per voice), whereas the old ASR only has non-resonant filters (or a resonant filter in the effects section).
i keep mentioning the MR rack w/flash, you can't find the MR-flash anymore though. it would allow you load in up to 8M of samples, and i think they can be transwaves. i am thinking this would be the best of both worlds (front panel that supports transwaves and everything else, with the filters too), but i haven't actually tried it. and i already have an XT
Message 28/29 21-Nov-02 @ 03:08 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
nomad,
thanks for the clarification. i understand what you meant by interpolation now. i kind of read it as "morphing".
it's too bad that getting at the wavetables in the ASR-X series is such a hassle. imagine if they had used some of that HUUUGE surface to add some dedicated knobs for sampling, synthesis, and transwave parameters?
hehe... i did put my resume in with them back in 1999, but i would have been too late had they hired me then.
Scott
thanks for the clarification. i understand what you meant by interpolation now. i kind of read it as "morphing".
it's too bad that getting at the wavetables in the ASR-X series is such a hassle. imagine if they had used some of that HUUUGE surface to add some dedicated knobs for sampling, synthesis, and transwave parameters?
hehe... i did put my resume in with them back in 1999, but i would have been too late had they hired me then.
Scott
Message 29/29 21-Nov-02 @ 07:59 PM - RE: Wavetable Synths vs Modeling Synths
fyi.. the current series of synthedit betas are prioritising improved soundfont implementation.. the author is a 'synth-not-samples' type (prolly why i like it) so initial .wav and soundfont functions were minimal, but i believe advanced .wav use is scheduled in se..
Viewing all 29 messages - View by pages of 10: 1 2 3
There are 29 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
