Beginner: Testing/Creating First Synthmaker Effect

Dell · 13 Jun 2012

Hi.

Use Synthmaker's wave player.

Load a 44.1/16-bit wav file in the player.

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

Thank you for your response and for taking the time to upload a graphic.

I remember searching for keywords including: SynthMaker effect test, SynthMaker effect testing, Synthmaker audio testing, synthmaker effect preview, synthmaker effects preview.

I'm adding them here so people that may search for the terms might find this post.

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

I loaded the wave player but I do not see a function to play the recording with it.

Dell · 13 Jun 2012

Click on "Primary Sound" on the "Direct Sound Out" Module. Upon clicking "Primary Sound," the background will change to blue. This indicates that sound is passing through your loudspeakers.

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

I am not sure why, but this configuration is not working. I tried it at home before I left for work (just a regular soundcard) and now that I'm at the studio I tried it on the setup here (Lynx AES16 connected to a Crane Song HEDD-192). I clicked Primary Sound, it turned blue. I also clicked each of my Lynx outputs.

The waveplayer still does not play any sound. I put it on loop, I loaded different recordings, I verified they were 16/44. I don't mean to be a bother, but if you can help me with this, it would be very appreciated.

I'm posting a screen capture. This is my first time in this forum so I'm hoping it works right.

Mo · 13 Jun 2012

SBMastering wrote: The waveplayer still does not play any sound. I put it on loop, I loaded different recordings, I verified they were 16/44. I don't mean to be a bother, but if you can help me with this, it would be very appreciated.

Hi,

Try deselect "Follow Pitch" in the Wave Player properties. Otherwise frequency input is needed.

Dell · 13 Jun 2012

The Primary sound card is what Windows uses for everything. If you Boot Windows and your Lynx card do not offer the Windows theme song, it is not your Primary sound card for Windows but your Primary card for your DAW. This is because you never routed your Lynx card to be Windows default soundcard.

Since you are using a Lynx card you are better off using the “ASIO out” module and, click on the appropriate channel, which your loudspeakers are connected to.

I might add during your troubleshooting, it would be best to connect the wave player directly to the “ASIO out” or "Direct Sound" module to confirm the problem is not the VST plug-in.

If you want to use a plug-in as a means of reference, you are better off using the stock “Compressor” than the module shown in your picture. The stock “Compressor” offers a display that signal is passing through.

Cheers!

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

Hey, kudos to you wonderful people -- I unchecked "Follow Pitch" and that worked for me.

It worked with the directsound, which I was hoping it would. I don't have much time at the studio to work on stuff like this, so I will be mostly doing this at home in my spare time on a computer that only has the motherboard's built in audio.

I know it's probably going to take months, if not years, but I can't wait to get into the Analog Modeling Kit and start modeling some gear. I'm sure I could convince a few of my friends at well-known studios to let me come in and model their classic stuff and then release the models under my studio's brand. I've already started the conversations.

Any of you guys tried out that Analog Modeling Kit?

infuzion · 13 Jun 2012

BTW, looking at your "Mastering" username, I hope that you realize that SM is single-precision only (unless someone re-writes everything into x86 opcodes from SSE). Not usually a big deal, perhaps could help slightly in dynamics processes, but does make a difference in a few filters.

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

Well, high quality filters are a very important thing to me. With this in mind, I may only make simple things with SynthMaker that do not involve filters or dynamics processing. Maybe I will use SynthMaker filters only for learning.

I am completely new to DSP development, although I've been doing mastering for 10 years professionally. I don't know of any mastering engineers who are DSP developers (some may say Bob Katz, but the K-Stereo was programmed by Algorithmix, from what I understand) but I thought it might help me learn some new things. I actually use mostly analog processing, especially for equalization (Sontec, Crane Song Ibis..). I was thinking of using SynthMaker mostly as an introduction to DSP development and to discover concepts I might not come across otherwise.

Do you know of a graphical VST development environment that uses double-precision? I think I would like to start graphically and move into the coding over time. Actually, it is starting to seem like the most preferable thing would be to find someone who is already well-versed in this area and work with them to create things. Surely there would be mutual benefit.

Also, thanks for pointing this out, I may not have found out about this for some time. Of course, there is much to read and take in as I discover more about DSP development.

Dell · 13 Jun 2012

Good to hear you got everything sorted out.

Some members use Synthmaker to create original designs while others use Synthmaker to emulate designs. It really depends on what made the person decide to install Synthmaker in the first place.

The stock plug-ins is a good starting point to get a full understanding on how Synthmaker works. As time progress you will have your own ideas, which will lead you to start custom designing based on your requirements.

From an effects perspective, the limiting factor is almost always the designer not having the knowledge to make it possible. Patience is a virtue. If you are easily frustrated, you will not get far. Do keep that in mind.

If you are familiar with hardware design Synthmaker will have no problem emulating a vst version of a hardware design.

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

Well, it sounds like from it being single-precision that it would always be limited to lower quality filters. I am most interested in implementing and eventually modifying filters and creating interactions between filters, like Butterworth, Bessel, Elliptic, Chebyshev types 1 and 2, etc.... those are the very most important things to me.

I am less interested in dynamics processing, although I would like to learn and would like to learn how to model analog compressors.

I just finished writing a book about mastering that will soon be published by a very well known publisher. It includes contributions from a few of the most well-known people in mastering. I've also worked with many musical legends and developed long term business relationships. Now, I'm looking to develop things, DSP and analog as a new way to learn about audio and as a new facet of my business.

I think there are many things I could do, even just in terms of workflow and interface design, that would be very interesting to other professional mastering engineers. I think they would adopt and support my ideas and they would spread. I'm also not half bad at marketing -- I've helped out several well respected companies in audio with product releases with much success, like Universal Audio and others...

It appears that SynthEdit may provide double-precision functionality, although I don't see anything that nails that down as fact yet. I want to learn and I think my friends would describe me as extremely relentless, but I want to make sure I start down the right path.

Dell · 13 Jun 2012

Equalisation is more than using a band pass sweep based on a certain curvature. If that is the primary reason of using Synthmaker, you are limiting yourself. Synthmaker shines on their peak filters, which requires more work to have a given amount of filters working together as a team.

You can create Butterworth, Bessel, Elliptic, Chebyshev types 1 and 2, etc.. However, if you are going to limit yourself to 44.1 – 48 kHz sample rates, you will never get the same response as an Analogue product for an Analogue device is not limited to 22 – 24 kHz based on the Nyquist theory. Analogue’s limitation is more to wards 50 kHz – 100 kHz so you will need to step up to 96 kHz or higher sampling rates pending on your demands.

Bear in mind, even Analogue devices offer deviation in their band pass filters. So they are not perfect either. It is a misconception that many who do not have any design experience with analogue hardware equipment fail to realise. I have been repairing analogue audio for 30 years so I am telling you based on experience.

One could look at CD –vs- Vinyl as a prime example. The imperfection of vinyl is what makes it offer that type of sound. CD is technically more accurate than vinyl, which is why neither of the two sounds the same.

You must think like an Analogue designer not a DSP designer if you want to emulate analogue hardware in a vst format. If you want make non-emulated vst plug-ins then by all means think like a DSP designer.

Synthedit is another good program so you can give it a go as well.

For the 64-bit, Windows & Mac plug-ins it is C++ For low CPU resources in Graphics it is C++

Embrace Synthmaker, Synthedit or C++. If you choose to constantly jump around to see which one is best, you will not get a good understanding on any of them.

Cheers!

SBMastering · 13 Jun 2012

Well I definitely appreciate you wanting to point me in the right direction. It's good to have the counsel of people with experience.

I also think it's certainly true that analog filters are not perfect, and also as you pointed out, analog does have strengths over digital. Burgess told me about how my Sontec EQ has 1mHz amplifiers and have such an extended frequency response. With digital EQs, it is bandpass filters that I am most interested in creating, it's just a personal thing, that's where I want to begin and I want to focus on that until I get as deep as I can with it. Starting there, I'll then focus on other aspects equalization with my plugin development probably for many years. That's my plan, but I'm open to things that will help me find the best path for learning about the world of DSP equalization.

I don't see myself as doing too much jumping around, really. I've been looking into these applications for about a week, which seems cursory to me. This is something I plan on investing years in, so the most important thing right now, I'm thinking, is to make sure I get on the right path.

From what I'm understanding so far today, if SynthMaker is limited to single precision, then SynthEdit would probably be the best place for me to start for my interest in DSP equalization. Just to make sure I'm understanding you -- you're not saying that single precision only comes into play at lower sample rates, are you? If not, then it sounds like it'll be SynthEdit and eventually, C++ for me. I have some very limited C++ experience, and I know that's where things will lead eventually. One step at a time though...

Dell · 14 Jun 2012

SBMastering wrote:

From what I'm understanding so far today, if SynthMaker is limited to single precision, then SynthEdit would probably be the best place for me to start for my interest in DSP equalization. Just to make sure I'm understanding you -- you're not saying that single precision only comes into play at lower sample rates, are you? If not, then it sounds like it'll be SynthEdit and eventually, C++ for me. I have some very limited C++ experience, and I know that's where things will lead eventually. One step at a time though...

I don’t believe that is being said. Whatever direction you choose will get the job done for your demands are not very high. Your main objective is just a HPF/LPF. There are plenty of filters offered/discussed on Synthmaker’s forums once you begin to research. If you require double precision C++ or Synthedit may be a better choice than Synthmaker providing you can hear the difference using double precision versus single precision.

Only your ears can decide if it is worth the extra CPU load or not. It’s like using 96 kHz versus 44.1 kHz. You cannot convince someone there is an audible difference between 44.1 kHz & 96 kHz if the person cannot hear the difference. You will need to use your own judgement based on what your ears are telling you. The most we are giving you is options that may help you further down the line.

As a developer you will need to conduct your own testing and draw to your own conclusion. So the best method is to build a HPF/LPF in Synthmaker and let your ears decide.

While I dabble with equalisation I don’t fancy using filtering HPF/LPF unless an electronic crossover is involved since I am heavily into Sound Reinforcement. I’ve designed equalisers that offered adjustable frequencies from 0.5 Hertz to 200 kHz and, tested LPF as high as 900 kHz (Thats beyond a Moth's hearing) using Synthmaker. So don’t assume what you want is outside the realm of Synthmaker’s capability.

As I mentioned in my previous post, from an effects perspective, the limiting factor is almost always the designer not having the knowledge to make it possible. Patience is a virtue. If you are easily frustrated, you will not get far.

If you have the same passion creating your filter in Synthmaker as you were trying to get the Wave Player to emit sound in Synthmaker you will go far.

Good Luck.

SBMastering · 17 Jun 2012

Well, I worked with Synthedit a little this weekend.

It just doesn't seem like it has the support or the momentum of SynthMaker. At this point, I'm not sure how I could even do a comparison between single precision and double precision.

I think I'm going to just go with SynthMaker. I may just add a pleading for double precision in my signature on this forum and hope it comes soon in the future.

MichaelBenjamin · 17 Jun 2012

SM is much better than synthedit for learning the concepts and basics of digital signal processing. SM interface adapts to the level you need: - module connecting (like synthedit, and there synthedit also stops, so you dont learn much) - going inside modules and learning how they are put together - code boxes, learning actual code in a simplified c style (which easily translates to pretty much every other language aswell) - if you want you can take a short trip to sse2 assembler to see how things look like from the machines perspective (with a minimum of human readability).

also 32 bit processing is more than enough for learning and also enough for mastering, since mastering is not so much about technical fidelity, but about the art of putting things where they supposedly belong - someone who can mix, can do it at every bit depth.

MyDogRamsey · 15 Aug 2012

Totally agreed Michael...

SM is the way to go to start SBMastering. However, the only two other things I would strongly suggest is that you boneupon c++ and assembly..

infuzion · 15 Aug 2012

SBMastering wrote: It just doesn't seem like it has the support or the momentum of SynthMaker. At this point, I'm not sure how I could even do a comparison between single precision and double precision. I think I'm going to just go with SynthMaker. I may just add a pleading for double precision in my signature on this forum and hope it comes soon in the future.

There is a Yahoo group for SE that I heard is at least semi-active, & the dev actually posts on there time to time, unlike SM's devs. Atleast SE's dev is promising 64bit OS & Mac versions "sometime", while SM's is quiet.

A bit of Ableton's Live history; people complained that the quality was not up to mastering until they upgraded 64bit effects.