PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

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.

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.
...

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.
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

astroman wrote:

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.
...

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.
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.

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:

no other platform has achieved such a wide variety of sound as SFP

at that such a high quality.

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...

...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...

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.

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

astroman wrote:
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.

From what I understood, you cannot directly code in DSP assembly or in native DSP executable code in DP/SDK: this tool is not the Analog device VisualDSP platform.
BUT you can include some code blocks generated with this kind of tool (the .DSP files) which can be used within the DP/SDK.

That's true that very few of Scope DP/SDK generate such specific code (Steckenleiter, Flexor team, ...). Most of the other "just" use the bunch of available elements available (I count more than 800 modules available in my Scope Home). I do not mean that their work is less productive as with such a large library of top-quality module one could achieve some very interesting devices. You only need to go down in DSP coding when you miss one specific module for the device of your dreams.

I am looking forward to join the SDK developper community soon, the only thing I have to find is the money to order a Scope Pro or a Scope Pro SRB.

Am I right ?

CheerZ

afaik noone can extend Scope with .dsp files (encoded to be integrated into SFP) currently, unless SonicCore has changed (or will...) the policy.
There's a specific tool required that was ceased from pubication years ago, and has been licensed for either an extremely high price or on special negotiations (in the early years of Creamware).
Later people with custom code had to pass the source to CW to assemble and encrypt it - Nikko (who quit Scope developement) complained heavily about this 'modus operandi'

The existing Flexor modules are built from only the most basic 'math atoms', modelling audio processors from the ground up - with stunning results.

the only person (I'm currently aware of) who is fluent enough in DSP code to really achieve groundbreaking results is Antti Huovilainen from SonicCore.

expectations from 'custom code' are probably a bit too high - at least the devices from Scope's early years using custom dsp modules were commented as '...the most sh*tty sounding' among all Scope releases... recently

Flexor is the proof that there's no need to deal with the assembly level to achieve an individual soundprint.
The point is that custom code has to sound 'better' than (say) Flexor, not just different.
What the system really lacks is an arbitrary exchange between note, audio and control signals, and the ability to output (or re-use) anything as note, cc or nrp value (to increase resolution).
But that concerns the system's own architecture - not developement for it.

it would be nice if someone from SonicCore would comment on license policy regarding developement tools - I'm not even sure if the NDAs are still valid today, as the original company doesn't exist anymore.
2 parties have aquired 'the right to exploit SFP technology' (as it was called) - that does not automatically include the continuation of those 'contracts'

cheers, Tom

astroman wrote:What the system really lacks is an arbitrary exchange between note, audio and control signals, and the ability to output (or re-use) anything as note, cc or nrp value (to increase resolution).
But that concerns the system's own architecture - not developement for it.

it would be nice if someone from SonicCore would comment on license policy regarding developement tools - I'm not even sure if the NDAs are still valid today, as the original company doesn't exist anymore.
2 parties have aquired 'the right to exploit SFP technology' (as it was called) - that does not automatically include the continuation of those 'contracts'

I almost never quote useless and automaticly (I know of at least two of those basterds here ).
This time I make an exception...just for the sake of hi-lighting

Conqueror's Reign wrote:
And my EPS16+ has a full powerful heavy sound.


By far the EPS16+ is the better sounding machine VS the creamware.

Oh and converters are at leaast 50% of the sound on digital equipment.

And it blends well in scope too.

Now, try to sample some of thedrums from the original ESS TR- 808 or other drums from the original library, as single shot and then load them in a wave player (not Modular, if you don't have STS try Wave5 on the device forum, a small wave player, which does the sound i am talking of below - eventhough STS is a candidate too).

The combination of the sounds sampled from the EPS16+ and played on Scope beats anything you have heard even at much higher resolution.
On the kicks, and the long one especially, The dynamic (punch) and the bass you get with this method is unbelievable. and this is only 44.1 / 16bits . the dimension is huge. it blows anything i've heard even at much much higer samplerates.

Reverb: i don't agree at all with you. The 44.1 verb has a decent tail, but an awful resonance on some frequencies. It is good for a lot of things except snares and hi-drums. It is a bit raw too, and not very smooth when it get dense. It is the best reverb you can get for sampled flutes though

This topic has been expurgated
See http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 31&t=25812

-John

John Cooper wrote:This topic has been expurgated

expurgated? (gets dictionary out)

Stardust, i hope that word you wrote was really "purifying" and not "prurifying", because the later would come from "prurient" which is "obsessively interested in improper matters, especially of a sexual nature"...

astroman wrote:afaik noone can extend Scope with .dsp files (encoded to be integrated into SFP) currently, unless SonicCore has changed (or will...) the policy.
There's a specific tool required that was ceased from pubication years ago, and has been licensed for either an extremely high price or on special negotiations (in the early years of Creamware).
Later people with custom code had to pass the source to CW to assemble and encrypt it - Nikko (who quit Scope developement) complained heavily about this 'modus operandi'

cheers, Tom

I was talking about the free .DSP modules made by steckenleiter in the scope developper section:

http://212.118.217.5/

The fact that you need a special tool to encrypt the DSP code is true as mentionned on this site.