RALFSonicore intro
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Ralf
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to reply to this post. This is truly THE best community i have ever seen, everyone no matter position, title or skill level is always willing to help and share wherever the need may be, their knowledge, opinions and experience. All are made to feel equal here, its awesome!
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to reply to this post. This is truly THE best community i have ever seen, everyone no matter position, title or skill level is always willing to help and share wherever the need may be, their knowledge, opinions and experience. All are made to feel equal here, its awesome!
i agree 100%Conqueror's Reign wrote:Ralf
Thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedule to reply to this post. This is truly THE best community i have ever seen, everyone no matter position, title or skill level is always willing to help and share wherever the need may be, their knowledge, opinions and experience. All are made to feel equal here, its awesome!
I can only repeat... ralf must somehow have the ability to read the forum by sheer power of mindreading... dunno how he does... 
maybe he can be granted the title of The Keymaster And Pulsar Overlord by john... something worth to bow before, too
-greetings, markus-
maybe he can be granted the title of The Keymaster And Pulsar Overlord by john... something worth to bow before, too
-greetings, markus-
--
I'm sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
I'm sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Mungo
Also Mungo Jerry sings 'do a ton or a ton twenty five'
Which scans really well.
This is 100 or 125 Miles per hour, not kilometres per hour, for Eurozone readers, which happens to be way over the 70 mph UK speed limit.
The old days eh?
Which scans really well.
This is 100 or 125 Miles per hour, not kilometres per hour, for Eurozone readers, which happens to be way over the 70 mph UK speed limit.
The old days eh?
Ok I will try:judiefre1 wrote:what do u guys think these 3 synths are imitations of or one of a kind? are they unique synths with own new sounds or are they imitations of synths like the nord lead 3?
VOID looks like an Access Virus
AKRO looks like a Novation K-Station
COSM looks like a Clavia Nordlead
CheerZ
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
you can build similiar 'sound scenarios' , but none of those SFP synths will sound identical to the respective model the screen design suggests.
All 3 originals are Motorola based and that does sound different from Sharc (21065) audio.
It's a matter of taste what you prefer, in quality there will (most certainly) be only marginal differences.
I've heard a short example from one of those synths at Messe, what eventually reached my ear after passing the omnipresent background noise did sound very convincing.
cheers, Tom
All 3 originals are Motorola based and that does sound different from Sharc (21065) audio.
It's a matter of taste what you prefer, in quality there will (most certainly) be only marginal differences.
I've heard a short example from one of those synths at Messe, what eventually reached my ear after passing the omnipresent background noise did sound very convincing.
cheers, Tom
What I meant was more about how they look ("front" panel - wise) rather than how they sound (which for me would be the most important) as I never heard any of them (nor the inspired scope models, nor the "original" ones).Conqueror's Reign wrote:For someone who has never played or experienced a virus, k station or clavia
Just out of curiosity if those are indeed the synths and HuroLura guessed correctly. Are those 3 so individually unique that scope with the current synths cant produce their sound now?
Would you go buy one of them?
I read on maomusique that some people find the john bowen solaris or other of his plugs and the SpaceF Biosc 4 being able to sound like what can be produced with one of this synths. Some other even compare them to what could be achieved with a ProOne.
One more thing: I was surprised that John Almolof do not build up A MicroWave XT like plug which would have been maybe easier as the Waldorf Osc is available as a scope module for mod II & III. Does anybody ever try to rebuild a MicroWave-like patch with the Modular ?
CheerZ
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
Thanks astroman, thats exactly what i wanted to know.
So basically the difference is just Sharc technology vs Motorola technology producing the sound. Each synth could "on paper "be duplicated in SFP but they will not be exact cuz the DSP's each have there own unique signature sound that seperates them, kind of like playing back audio thru different filters.
So basically the difference is just Sharc technology vs Motorola technology producing the sound. Each synth could "on paper "be duplicated in SFP but they will not be exact cuz the DSP's each have there own unique signature sound that seperates them, kind of like playing back audio thru different filters.
yes, there seems to be a common denominator in the sound signature of each architecture (at least regarding synths).
I haven't had much opportunity recently to play synths (and do a proper comparison), but if I remember correctly some synths in the original SpaceF Blackbox package could come really close to what I'd consider 'Motorola' type sound.
So it's not entirely impossible (if the devices were made not only according to architecture, but also to soundprint) that the difference is indeed marginal.
I once had 2 (Motorola) VA synths on a Lagoon soundcard that I played back via Adat and the Pulsar converters. That was very different from the SFP synth's output. According to memory lots of Clavia sound examples had a similiar tone, but not as rough due to their 96k converters.
Actually I find it pretty amazing that our ear is able to detect such subtle differences, regardless of which math model is behind something
All those sources would have been useful in their own context - there's no 'best' or 'winner'
cheers, Tom
I haven't had much opportunity recently to play synths (and do a proper comparison), but if I remember correctly some synths in the original SpaceF Blackbox package could come really close to what I'd consider 'Motorola' type sound.
So it's not entirely impossible (if the devices were made not only according to architecture, but also to soundprint) that the difference is indeed marginal.
I once had 2 (Motorola) VA synths on a Lagoon soundcard that I played back via Adat and the Pulsar converters. That was very different from the SFP synth's output. According to memory lots of Clavia sound examples had a similiar tone, but not as rough due to their 96k converters.
Actually I find it pretty amazing that our ear is able to detect such subtle differences, regardless of which math model is behind something
All those sources would have been useful in their own context - there's no 'best' or 'winner'
cheers, Tom
I think thats not completly right !
It really renders down to the question, if a synth have extra builded dsp code for example for the oscillators and more importantly the filters... + maybe special fx.
Elsewise its just a copy in architecture of the synth (like building a Prosche with BMW parts), and not of its sound.... which surely renders into a creamware like sound. This still isn`t bad, because all cw modules seem to sound good by default.
For example all the high class CW synths have their unique sound because of the spezialized filter designs.... you just cannot reach that level of replication with thte standard sdk modules or the cw modular modules.
I think especially Flexor 3 with all its new filters and sat modules + the waveshaping for osc will change that fact dramatically in the mod section...
okay thats just my personal opinion.
I would really like to see SonicCore develop some kind of filter pack for modular and maybe the sdk on dsp code basis, that replicate some different high class vintage filters. Most of the standard CW filters have a similar sound.
The Flexor 3 stuff seems to give some new great possibilities, too: the LP3 rubber sounds very promising and REDs example in the announcement area really has a unique sound. Lets wait and see.
I think Flexor 3 will bring us much more sound possibilities than Flexor 1 did.
As long as we are not fixed to the same modules, we will not be fixed in sound.
It really renders down to the question, if a synth have extra builded dsp code for example for the oscillators and more importantly the filters... + maybe special fx.
Elsewise its just a copy in architecture of the synth (like building a Prosche with BMW parts), and not of its sound.... which surely renders into a creamware like sound. This still isn`t bad, because all cw modules seem to sound good by default.
For example all the high class CW synths have their unique sound because of the spezialized filter designs.... you just cannot reach that level of replication with thte standard sdk modules or the cw modular modules.
I think especially Flexor 3 with all its new filters and sat modules + the waveshaping for osc will change that fact dramatically in the mod section...
okay thats just my personal opinion.
I would really like to see SonicCore develop some kind of filter pack for modular and maybe the sdk on dsp code basis, that replicate some different high class vintage filters. Most of the standard CW filters have a similar sound.
The Flexor 3 stuff seems to give some new great possibilities, too: the LP3 rubber sounds very promising and REDs example in the announcement area really has a unique sound. Lets wait and see.
I think Flexor 3 will bring us much more sound possibilities than Flexor 1 did.
As long as we are not fixed to the same modules, we will not be fixed in sound.
oops, sorry for the sluggish writing, I should have mentioned that 'typical' library use was assumed, as very few people deal with the fundamental code of the respective platform.hifiboom wrote:I think thats not completly right !
It really renders down to the question, if a synth have extra builded dsp code for example for the oscillators and more importantly the filters... + maybe special fx.
...
Flexor is a good example as even in it's original form it deviates significantly from the 'Creamware soundprint' - which alone makes it a must-have...
as math models (or their implementation) varies, so will the tone of the resulting instruments, altered additionally by conversion and analog output stages.
that's why imho it's rather unlikely that an SFP synth will sound identical to a (say) Clavia.
I completely agree with your bottomline and even would extend it to no other platform has achieved such a wide variety of sound as SFP
cheers, Tom
astro, I absolutly aggree on what you said.astroman wrote:oops, sorry for the sluggish writing, I should have mentioned that 'typical' library use was assumed, as very few people deal with the fundamental code of the respective platform.hifiboom wrote:I think thats not completly right !
It really renders down to the question, if a synth have extra builded dsp code for example for the oscillators and more importantly the filters... + maybe special fx.
...
Flexor is a good example as even in it's original form it deviates significantly from the 'Creamware soundprint' - which alone makes it a must-have...
as math models (or their implementation) varies, so will the tone of the resulting instruments, altered additionally by conversion and analog output stages.
that's why imho it's rather unlikely that an SFP synth will sound identical to a (say) Clavia.
I completely agree with your bottomline and even would extend it to no other platform has achieved such a wide variety of sound as SFP
cheers, Tom
Thats why I asked if these 3 new synths have "modeled" filters and that stuff to replicate their original counterparts.
yeah, and I add to your bottom line:
at that such a high quality.no other platform has achieved such a wide variety of sound as SFP
-
Conqueror's Reign
- Posts: 117
- Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:00 pm
The Knowledge!!!So its the mathematics within the sharc dsp that creates the creamware sound more than the physical hardware or electronics of the chip?
In order for the sharc technology to truly mimic another synth like the ones mentioned, it would have to go deeper than just creating the plug in exactly the same, it would have to be designed within the sharc dsp as well with the same math and instructions? Is that correct?
Would another company allow that?
well, first of all you can never neglect the effect of the physical parts in the audio chain.
So if you listen to an mp3 audio example from a (say) Nord Modular, the 'sound' has passed a specific converter at a specific samplerate through specific op-amps, capacitors, resistors (some parts also have inductive side effects).
Regular tolerances of parts (add the respective cabling...) make it almost unpredictable, as you have to consider the same chain of tone mangling (in case the analog output is sampled) before an mp3 is generated.
Of course the afforementioned parts (mostly) have a good (and constant) quality today, so it will not change the sound completely, but on a detail level there may be noticable differences.
(sidenote) Some of the most crucial parts are capacitors, for one because their 'audio capabilities' have a wide range and second because circuit board layout for mass production is usually driven by pure numeric figures, part size and costs, ignoring audio quality aspects.
Look at the link in the 'Gristlelizer' thread - on the circuit board you see 3 Styroflex capacitors, living fossils, so to say...
as they are out of production and there's only new old stock - in an electronic shop you'll pay at least 3 Euro for a single item, while a 'regular' capacitor is 10 cent or so...
Needless to mention that Styroflex caps have legendary audio properties, but those 'rolls' also have an enormous size and cannot be handled in machines...
for example the discrete Moog ladder filter requires that each transistor is measured individually and a 'matching' one for each filter stage is found.
The thing is simple and dead cheap to build, if you just solder the parts together - but it will not work (or not as you expected)...
you need a 'stack' of at least a few hundred transistors to find the perfectly matching ones - and of course time (and patience)
the approach Creamware took for the Moog and Sequential models was to add the influence of the physical circuit to the 'idealized' math models of the respective filter and amp stages.
Obviously they succeeded, according to reviews, but it's not just a time consuming process - it also requires a lot of measurement gear and knowledge (!) - and of course vintage gear in mint shape...
A Virus, Nord or Novation are entirely digital synths - as mentioned, there's an analog conversion stage that influences the sound, but afaik all those have digital outputs, too.
As such the 'true modelling' would be much easier, as each sound is 100% reproducable.
It would somehow break down to model-the-math-model, imho a completely ridiculous approach, but a great way to waste time and energy
(and I don't think the 3 devices discussed here feature that approach)
It's perfectly okay to rebuild the structure in Scope and (possibly) add some 'soundshaping' to match the originals character.
One should not neglect the influence of parameter 'access' - that's what makes almost every Scope synth that's focussed on the (same!) Waldorf Wavetables still individual.
Regarding the Sharc math model - well, afaik this DSP was designed from the ground up with high end audio in mind, and it got the appropriate library right from the beginning. That's what makes it so good in it's domain.
Consider that the folks responsible for that part of the code are from a 'one out of tenthousand' elite - you just don't write that sh*t at home... and if you could, you probably wouldn't waste your time with stuff for some audio geeks, but would be a highly sought expert in industrial, medical or military (oops) developement...
Actually I think most Scope developers aren't even 'real' programmers at all...
DP or SDK are developement systems that generate the output that will finally execute on the chips by a graphical tool - you cannot even code in DSP assembly within that environment.
That makes it easy to focus on the result instead of dealing with code blocks.
You can easily tell by the output of MacCyrano, Shroomz, Sharc and others how effectively this works - once you get beyond the basic aquaintance with the system.
cheers, Tom
So if you listen to an mp3 audio example from a (say) Nord Modular, the 'sound' has passed a specific converter at a specific samplerate through specific op-amps, capacitors, resistors (some parts also have inductive side effects).
Regular tolerances of parts (add the respective cabling...) make it almost unpredictable, as you have to consider the same chain of tone mangling (in case the analog output is sampled) before an mp3 is generated.
Of course the afforementioned parts (mostly) have a good (and constant) quality today, so it will not change the sound completely, but on a detail level there may be noticable differences.
(sidenote) Some of the most crucial parts are capacitors, for one because their 'audio capabilities' have a wide range and second because circuit board layout for mass production is usually driven by pure numeric figures, part size and costs, ignoring audio quality aspects.
Look at the link in the 'Gristlelizer' thread - on the circuit board you see 3 Styroflex capacitors, living fossils, so to say...
as they are out of production and there's only new old stock - in an electronic shop you'll pay at least 3 Euro for a single item, while a 'regular' capacitor is 10 cent or so...Needless to mention that Styroflex caps have legendary audio properties, but those 'rolls' also have an enormous size and cannot be handled in machines...
regarding '100% analog synths' and some hybrid ones like the 'Oscar' it's already difficult to build a 'common' model, as no 2 specimen will be exactly the same, aging of parts has an additional influence to what was already mentioned....In order for the sharc technology to truly mimic another synth like the ones mentioned, it would have to go deeper than just creating the plug in exactly the same...
for example the discrete Moog ladder filter requires that each transistor is measured individually and a 'matching' one for each filter stage is found.
The thing is simple and dead cheap to build, if you just solder the parts together - but it will not work (or not as you expected)...
you need a 'stack' of at least a few hundred transistors to find the perfectly matching ones - and of course time (and patience)
the approach Creamware took for the Moog and Sequential models was to add the influence of the physical circuit to the 'idealized' math models of the respective filter and amp stages.
Obviously they succeeded, according to reviews, but it's not just a time consuming process - it also requires a lot of measurement gear and knowledge (!) - and of course vintage gear in mint shape...
A Virus, Nord or Novation are entirely digital synths - as mentioned, there's an analog conversion stage that influences the sound, but afaik all those have digital outputs, too.
As such the 'true modelling' would be much easier, as each sound is 100% reproducable.
It would somehow break down to model-the-math-model, imho a completely ridiculous approach, but a great way to waste time and energy
(and I don't think the 3 devices discussed here feature that approach)
It's perfectly okay to rebuild the structure in Scope and (possibly) add some 'soundshaping' to match the originals character.
One should not neglect the influence of parameter 'access' - that's what makes almost every Scope synth that's focussed on the (same!) Waldorf Wavetables still individual.
Regarding the Sharc math model - well, afaik this DSP was designed from the ground up with high end audio in mind, and it got the appropriate library right from the beginning. That's what makes it so good in it's domain.
Consider that the folks responsible for that part of the code are from a 'one out of tenthousand' elite - you just don't write that sh*t at home... and if you could, you probably wouldn't waste your time with stuff for some audio geeks, but would be a highly sought expert in industrial, medical or military (oops) developement...
Actually I think most Scope developers aren't even 'real' programmers at all...
DP or SDK are developement systems that generate the output that will finally execute on the chips by a graphical tool - you cannot even code in DSP assembly within that environment.
That makes it easy to focus on the result instead of dealing with code blocks.
You can easily tell by the output of MacCyrano, Shroomz, Sharc and others how effectively this works - once you get beyond the basic aquaintance with the system.
cheers, Tom