Please remove saw2KtableSM.dat + tri2KtableSM.dat!!!

MichaelBenjamin · 6 Jun 2009

they only get created if you use either the saw or triangle primitive. if you need those waveforms you could load them with a custom wavetable, or use coded versions - this is also more flexible.

Tom7777 · 6 Jun 2009

Dave wrote: i know there are some reason for the 2 files but they mark every SM synth as "poor SM synth"...

No they don't they just make people aware of the fact it's SM, there is other ways to tell though still and as said ways to work around it. If it's a average/ok/done before synth and they are visible people might think "poor SM synth" but if it's decent and works well they wouldn't.

The bad following that SM plugins now get is down to the fact that there is host issues for some people stiil, the load times are faster than what they were but still a bit slow, scanning the plugins takes longer with SM and also CPU can be high etc. These have been mentioned for a while now but they still need work i think to get back a good reputation. It's also because there is a lot of SM stuff now and if they share these problems people begin to think all SM plugins will be like this in general which is why some avoid them.

Some will automatically avoid SM/SE stuff however some will still try but it does play a factor. If theres still these problems and the fact that it is SM is hidden people would still avoid it for these reasons or just start asking how it was made. As the market is so saturated now days a plugin has to be good sounding, unique in ways, well made and run well in hosts then it is more likely be received well.

Dave · 6 Jun 2009

MichaelBenjamin wrote: they only get created if you use either the saw or triangle primitive. if you need those waveforms you could load them with a custom wavetable, or use coded versions - this is also more flexible.

Yep but waveforms (via waveplayer) got no phase and sync... Outsim should provide 2 versions of the oscs (one with external .dat and one without).

@Tom7777:

If the users hear "SM" then they don't think on the loading time or cpu usage... they think "oh not another bad sm-synth based on the example.osm". You can create a wonderful synth with superb gui but those 2 files depreciate the whole product.

Tom7777 · 6 Jun 2009

Well maybe but usually i see on KVR etc when people say that it's for average looking stuff thats been done before like the general VA synth stuff. It doesn't help with the SM status there now is however i see no reason why a synth couldn't do well if it had something special.

External files aren't that bad to most users as look at something like SE, it makes lots of external module files yet some of the good SE synths are regarded as just as good as coded. With those you can also see exactly what 3rd party modules they used also yet a lot of people are happy to download them and try them out.

It's why i mentioned the above points really as it's more of a general feeling towards SM plugins users have now rather than a individual plugin view. I think the cpu was left for a long time and still needs to be done with better optimizations, it's why on the forum most stuff like the default modules have now been ASM coded by users. Load times at one point they were really slow, there was a time when this was improved but still slower than others and nothing has happened really to improve it. So over time they sort of build up a general bad feeling towards SM which is a shame really and why i keep mentioning this as other forum members have also.

theun · 6 Jun 2009

Dave wrote: Yep but waveforms (via waveplayer) got no phase and sync... Outsim should provide 2 versions of the oscs (one with external .dat and one without).

Outsim didn't only provide a set of primitives and modules, they also provided the tools to change modules, make modules simpler, and to create your own new modules. If you need a waveplayer with sync support and phase input, you could try to create one yourself. Or search on the forum and in the WIKI or ask for some help here. I have already added a sync input to the waveplayer I have uploaded here, maybe you could use this as a starting point ?

Cheers

MichaelBenjamin · 7 Jun 2009

you need to actually program some more to make a good synth out of sm, which is easier than coding in c++ and having to deal with the vst shell but still takes a lot of development and quite some time to bring it down to the reasonable range of cpu time if you want to distribute it to others. but if you really just want to use tri and saw without any coding and without the created files, you could use the wave table read module and create the table with a txt or a singlecycle wave. look at the wiki, there is a nice wavetable osc which has builtin files and a browser.

Dave · 3 Dec 2009

Updates after updates... an still those rudimental files are created 🙁

RunBeerRun2 · 30 Dec 2009

I have like 15 non-standard osc's from surfing the examples forum.

I think the main point of sm is fun personal use.

Dave · 30 Dec 2009

RunBeerRun2 wrote: I have like 15 non-standard osc's from surfing the examples forum.

Yeah but no one features sync AND phase.

RunBeerRun2 wrote: I think the main point of sm is fun personal use.

Bad... but i can't release a commercial synth if those 2 files are generated and everybody sees "oh it's made with synthmaker so it can't be good".

I guess SM will not remove this because it's free promo for their product 😉

exonerate · 30 Dec 2009

Dave wrote: RunBeerRun2 wrote: I have like 15 non-standard osc's from surfing the examples forum.

Yeah but no one features sync AND phase.

RunBeerRun2 wrote: I think the main point of sm is fun personal use.

Bad... but i can't release a commercial synth if those 2 files are generated and everybody sees "oh it's made with synthmaker so it can't be good".

I guess SM will not remove this because it's free promo for their product 😉

There's an option to remove them in the latest beta. But note, not generating them will increase load times.

Cheers 😉

Exo

aliasant · 30 Dec 2009

Why not create a wavetable osc instead? You dont have to use those two right?

Dave · 31 Dec 2009

exonerate wrote: There's an option to remove them in the latest beta. But note, not generating them will increase load times.

YEAH!!! Let me know when this final is out 😉

aliasant wrote: Why not create a wavetable osc instead? You dont have to use those two right?

Too much cpu! ;(

aliasant · 31 Dec 2009

Dave wrote: exonerate wrote: There's an option to remove them in the latest beta. But note, not generating them will increase load times.

YEAH!!! Let me know when this final is out 😉

aliasant wrote: Why not create a wavetable osc instead? You dont have to use those two right?

Too much cpu! ;(

Oh Id say the opposite. At least if your using it for LFOs. Wavetables can be hopped and doesnt use much. An LFO can be hopped pretty severely and then smoothed at the end with a cheap LP filter. You only need 1 Wavetable Read and collect all your waves in an array.

But even if not hopped the cpu difference is not really noticable. I cant even messure it now so someone else can maybe tell us the difference?