New Synth, new Questions !

trogluddite · 20 Apr 2011

DownFlex wrote: 1) Is there a working Bitcrusher in this forum ? (I tried this one: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=9721&p=72900&hilit=lofi#p72900 but that diddnt work !)

Hi Downflex, I had another look at my bitcrusher, as you seem to be having trouble with it. After a bit of testing, I realised that it does have a little bug. If the 'bits' or 'samplerate' inputs are ever zero, it locks up. I'll see if I can fix that - but in the meantime, you can jump start it by simply diconnecting the output and then plugging it back in (once the green inputs are non-zero). It will then keep running OK as long as the input values are within range. Not sure I explained the inputs too well in the original post - so here's a better description of the inputs. The 'Bits' input needs to be any number from 1 to 32 - lower numbers are 'crunchier'. The 'Sample Rate' input accepts any number from 1 up to your soundcard's sample rate - use low numbers if you want to frighten analogue purists with swathes of aliasing! That will mean scaling the output of ths standard knods to get the crusher's inputs into the correct ranges - with the normal 0 to 1 knob range, nothing very interesting comes out.

I'll post up a new .osm with a fix for the 'lockup' bug as soon as possible - I'll see about adding the option of using 0-1 input ranges too - that would make it a bit more user-friendly.

BTW: Decimation is pretty much the same as bitcrushing. I've only heard audio clips of Synlenth, but would I guess that the Decimate Bass function splits the signal into bass and treble, and then applies bitcrushing only to the bass part. I might try that too - in principle you should be able to crush more without so much harsh aliasing and squished transients.

trogluddite · 20 Apr 2011

Just uploaded the new bitcrusher version - solved the lockup problem, and added optional scaling to the inputs. Hope that's uselful for your synth.

Cyforce · 20 Apr 2011

DownFlex wrote: 3) Sylenth1 (yeah really good synth 😉) has got Detune, which can let 1 OSC sound like an perfect supersaw. Each of the OSC in S1 has 8 Voices, how can i do this ???

Thats a lie! 😀

Really, unisio 8x is no supersaw.... why the half world call everytime 2 or more detuned saws as supersaw... there are just detuned saws 😉

DownFlex · 20 Apr 2011

Oh, thats really nice, thnak you ! I will copy your text and i will see it there ! ^^

But something really important, more than my other questions: If i want to build a 6 OSCs Synth with very cool effects and new Morph Methods.... Wont my CPU gimme a high number ? xD How can i fix this ?

trogluddite · 20 Apr 2011

DownFlex wrote: Wont my CPU gimme a high number ? xD How can i fix this ?

Yes, in principle, the more you add to your synth, the more it will use CPU. But that's also true if you make your synth some other way (SynthEdit, C++ programming etc.) The main ways you can conserve CPU would look something like this...

1) Do as much as possible using the 'green' parts of the schematic, and only use the stream parts where they are absolutely necessary. For example, in my bitcrusher, there is a load of maths done in green to get the input values adjusted - I could have done that in the code )stream) part, but that would have been wasteful of CPU. 2) Only use CPU when required - i.e. make it so that any parts of the synth that are not in use get turned off. That gives the end user some control over how they trade off their sounds against the CPU use. SM will put to sleep any stream module with no outputs connected - so a 'Selector' on the output can be used as a 'Power' switch. 3) Cutting down on screen redraws - SM is not very good with graphics, so having dozens of huge knobs moving in response to automation can use loads of CPU. Smaller moving bits, and slower frame rates will save lots of CPU. 4) Once you've got everything sounding just how you want, there are many optimisations that can be done using code and assembly - but that really is a last step to do only after everything is working perfectly. It's not always easy to do, and the rewards aren't always worth the amount of effort required.

It's often suprising how efficient SM can be, even by just doing the simple tweaks - and a few extra CPU % is a small price to pay for getting exactly the sound you want (my 1st music PC could run 8 audio tracks and one single-oscillator VST instrument, so CPU cycles aren't worth what they used to be!)

If you're happy to post your schematics (or parts of them) on the forum, there are plenty of people here who can point out any particular CPU hogs that you can eliminate. 🙂

DownFlex · 20 Apr 2011

okay trogluddite:

good to know, because i created a smaller synth before with "just" 4 osc and MANY options, and it was so slowly, if i clicked on a button in a routing matrix, it takes 3 SECONDS to change the option ! That was really annoying. But i will post a schematic in a few days and you can tell me, which connections i could change ! 😀

and @Cyforce

Yeah okay, cmon but Sylenth is perfect for using Supersaws (what means, after your opinion) 4 Superdetuned Saw Waves with some big Reverb and Delay ! 😀