Reaktor comparison (that analogue sound).

jorge · 29 Mar 2005

Hi mathman

mathman wrote: Unfortunately I've hit a few problems trying to get some sounds out of the beta version, so I haven't yet been able to hear anything to compare to Reaktor 🙁

We'll be very happy to try to help you sort those problems.

mathman wrote: (1) Do you have (or intend to have) oscillators that emulate the characteristics analogue gear (always on, driting slightly etc.)

We're trying to make the sound in SM depend on the user rather than the software itself. SM is meant to be a user friendly development environment, we hope it will be often chosen as a substitute for a C++ development environment when creating software synths and effects. Stefancrs is developing a synth using SM where he doesnt use any of the primitive oscillators, he wrote the code for his oscillators inside the Code component. So eventually, you'll have modules with a sound quality associated with stefan, some with some other user etc. Basically the associations will be with the user, not the software itself the same way that a C++ created synth doesnt have a C++ sound.

mathman wrote: (2) Do you have/is it possible to build filters that exhibit the properties of there analogue counterparts (e.g. self oscillate if pushed to hard etc.)

Once again, I think that will depend on the user and on how possible it is to do that in digital, like for example do you consider it possible with C++? I think the definition of a digital synth sounding analog is very subjective, in my opinion we havent done it yet but we have done what most other applications do like having bandlimited sawtooth and triangle waves etc. To sound analog it would probably be useful to do some oversampling and to add random imperfections etc. that's all possible at the moment with the existing components. Stefancrs is using oversampling in his synth but once again he implemented it himself using the Code component.

mathman wrote: (3) Do you think you will be implementing any kind of physical modelling components/modules?

I expect/hope that someone will do it, it's probably already possible with the existing components. You can always start a thread trying to get it created with the collaboration of others, we'd be happy to implement any missing component.

Thanks for your interest.

mathman · 29 Mar 2005

jorge wrote: We'll be very happy to try to help you sort those problems.

Thanks I've already started a thread in the Testing section of the forum

jorge wrote: We're trying to make the sound in SM depend on the user rather than the software itself. SM is meant to be a user friendly development environment, we hope it will be often chosen as a substitute for a C++ development environment when creating software synths and effects.

Excellent - Visual Studio for vsti's

jorge wrote: mathman wrote: (2) Do you have/is it possible to build filters that exhibit the properties of there analogue counterparts (e.g. self oscillate if pushed to hard etc.)

Once again, I think that will depend on the user and on how possible it is to do that in digital, like for example do you consider it possible with C++?

I wasn't sure if it was possible to create, for instance, self oscillating filters from within the DSP paradigm you have chosen (versus modelling circuits with transistors diodes etc.)

However having looked on Google it seems CSound has one "moogvcf" - coincidentally I think its the same as the one translated to SynthMaker by rl in the "Fun with SM (Moog ladder filter)" thread!

So it looks like the answers yes.

jorge wrote: I think the definition of a digital synth sounding analog is very subjective, in my opinion we havent done it yet but we have done what most other applications do like having bandlimited sawtooth and triangle waves etc. To sound analog it would probably be useful to do some oversampling and to add random imperfections etc. that's all possible at the moment with the existing components. Stefancrs is using oversampling in his synth but once again he implemented it himself using the Code component.

mathman wrote: (3) Do you think you will be implementing any kind of physical modelling components/modules?

I expect/hope that someone will do it, it's probably already possible with the existing components. You can always start a thread trying to get it created with the collaboration of others, we'd be happy to implement any missing component.

Great, good to know it looks like it is all going to be possible.

stefan · 30 Mar 2005

My filters can self-oscillate.

mathman · 30 Mar 2005

stefancrs wrote: My filters can self-oscillate.

Thanks stefancrs, that's helpful to know.

What about your oscillators... I don't mean can they oscillate 😉 ... Have you managed to create any that try and mimic the characteristics of those in an analogue synth?

Also does anyone know if this is the approach (trying to re-create anaolgue filters using digital ones etc.) taken by the "big name" synth produceres like NI, rgc: audio, GMEDIA etc in creating their analogue synths?

btw: I'm not trying to imply that creating vsti's should only be about the emulation of analogue synths. However it is important (for me anyway) to know that it is at least possible to get the same high quality sound out of SynthMaker that you can out of Reaktor.

Tom7777 · 30 Mar 2005

I haven't yet been able to hear anything to compare to Reaktor

Hi mathman,

1. SM is SM and not reaktor

2. NI is a big company and probably has a load of coders

3. SM is still in beta

4. Im sure that someone with good modular and DSP knowledge could make something to equal reaktors sound and even improve on it and maybe someone already has done, It would be up to them if they wanted to share the work though which alot of people usually don't. SM is growing fast though and some great modules and examples are being added often so im sure it wont be long before there are some decent synth examples being put online for everyone. 🙂

mathman · 30 Mar 2005

Hi Tom777

Perhaps you misunderstand me? what I mean is I had not been able to get SynthMaker to make any sounds so I could make a comparison to the Reaktor demo I am currently trying out.

Anyway having dug a little deeper I see many things are possible and, with the code module, perhaps only limited by the user's ability.

As you rightly point out what we need is people with plenty of experience who are willing to share.

Me, I'm still trying to get a MIDI module to produce a sound with a simple oscillator!

Tom7777 · 30 Mar 2005

Hi mathman,

Perhaps you misunderstand me? what I mean is I had not been able to get SynthMaker to make any sounds so I could make a comparison to the Reaktor demo I am currently trying out.

Yeah sorry i did a bit 🙂 as you say things depend on the user's ability really, The more you know about modular synthesis the better/more sounds you will be able to make really. If you cannot hear any sounds from SM then maybe you need to load the example file and on the midi input select a midi driver and also a audio out. If you can hear sounds in the example fine but are having trouble when it comes to making your own synth i would say you should take a quick look at the structure of the example to better understand how the synth is working. Hope that helps 🙂

lalo · 31 Mar 2005

i guess is all a matter to follow SM growing... the code component will be progressively expanded with more language features... and the primitive module park will expand.. (i'm still convinced that an SDK can be a great growing factor, mostly for those 'frame' based things like FFT/iFFT or other non-sample based stuff...but i know i'm a bit SynthEdit brainwashed 🙂 ..and jorge is workin' on me 🙂 )

an approach like this may be even be possible

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/aclm.php

the only limit will be our DSP knowledge and coding skills...(mine are very very basic tho ...i'll work on it) so every kind of emulation or (as i hope) non-emulation stuff will be possible... even videogames 😀

lalo

Kitchen Sink · 31 Mar 2005

Hi Jorge & co. If you don't bundle Synthmaker with a big number of high quality macro building blocks (as opposed to the current paradigm of providing only primitive components), you will be limiting your market a lot. Have you done a market analysis on this...? 🙂

If you're going to compete with something like C/C++, you will have to have a Mac OSX (including AudioUnits) version of Synthmaker.

I subscribe to the music-dsp mailing list, I've taken basic DSP courses at the university, I've made synth and music players in C and asm (including Z80), and it has all been fun. But to create something really useful these days - in C or Synthmaker as it is now - requires way more than 3 hours a week, so it can't be a hobby for me. And it definitely can't be a profession, because I'm not quitting my day job for this...

So is Synthmaker only targeting Windows/VST professionals who are never going to go Mac, teenagers (who have infinitely time to spend), and those who contend with just fiddling around because they can't do their own awesome analog-modeling filters and perfect oscillators...?

I was kinda wishing that Synthmaker could evolve to my dream tool that I could just open and mock up some good-sounding audio gizmos for fun. The idea that everything is included in the same environment without needing to link in custom C/C++ components is great. But if the bundled component library is just on the micro level... you get the point.

Just my 2 cents.

malc · 31 Mar 2005

Hi Kitchen Sink,

If you don't bundle Synthmaker with a big number of high quality macro building blocks (as opposed to the current paradigm of providing only primitive components), you will be limiting your market a lot

Absolutely! 🙂

We always planned to create higher level modules once the framework was in place and working well. We're not far off that point now.

We really had to start at the bottom and work up. So what you see now is really low-level components but it's not immediately obvious what you do with them. The higher level modules will have a well defined purpose that will make them much easier to work with. This means that many people will not need to venture down to the low level at all.

There's no reason why we can't move to Mac as well. I'm a big fan of OSX. I don't think it's absolutely necessary right now, but maybe some time soon, who knows 😉

I really hope we can make this a dream tool for you and many others too. I totally agree that this will not happen without a higher level of components and modules you can work with. Eventually you'll be able to choose from a vast array of parts and tweak them to do exactly what you want.

stefan · 1 Apr 2005

mathman wrote: stefancrs wrote: My filters can self-oscillate.

Thanks stefancrs, that's helpful to know.

What about your oscillators... I don't mean can they oscillate 😉 ... Have you managed to create any that try and mimic the characteristics of those in an analogue synth?

Also does anyone know if this is the approach (trying to re-create anaolgue filters using digital ones etc.) taken by the "big name" synth produceres like NI, rgc: audio, GMEDIA etc in creating their analogue synths?

btw: I'm not trying to imply that creating vsti's should only be about the emulation of analogue synths. However it is important (for me anyway) to know that it is at least possible to get the same high quality sound out of SynthMaker that you can out of Reaktor.

Actually, I haven't modelled my synth components after anything specific. IMO, most analoge stuff sound quite crappy. Unwanted low frequency components, instable tuning, noise and so forth. If I'd want to model some kind of analog instability I'd probably just add some semi-controlled modulations of pitch / duty cycle / filter freq etc. Granted, I've built a few analouge filters in my time, but they all sound worse than the one I got in my synth (which has the same schematic as the SVF I built btw 🙂)

lalo · 1 Apr 2005

lalo wrote: an approach like this may be even be possible

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/aclm.php

what do you think about this guys? lalo

stefan · 1 Apr 2005

lalo wrote: lalo wrote: an approach like this may be even be possible

http://www.kjaerhusaudio.com/aclm.php

what do you think about this guys? lalo

Mainly marketing 🙂

lalo · 1 Apr 2005

😀

lalo · 1 Apr 2005

cause i thought it can be nice to model single components (resistors ,capacitors, diodes, IC etc...) with the code primitive and then connect them to make 'analog emulations'

a lot of free schematics of efx/synth are available on the net...so could it be a cool experiment 🙂

lalo

Kitchen Sink · 1 Apr 2005

In such analog modeling (whether it's a good idea in the first place, can be argued) I think it would be great to have support for module "classes" (as in object oriented programming). Like, if I had dozens of copies of a relatively low-level signal processing component everywhere in the "analog modeling" schematic, and I'd like to change them all at once into something different (like, another type of "tube"), it would be great to just change the base class. Can that be done with synced copies?

stefan · 1 Apr 2005

yes, ofcourse it can 🙂