Simple Audio Examples

Discuss John Bowen Synths - Solaris
CA3080
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by CA3080 »

1. Hard sync on Solaris shows no signs of aliasing. This has been one of my main concerns regarding Solaris, so I'm very pleased to hear these audio examples. :D

2. In both the square wave and the sawtooth examples P5 and P08 sound a bit more filtered than Solaris. Maybe you could make another recording of Solaris with the filter closed just a tiny bit to match P5 and P08.

3. For some reason P5 sounds a bit more "alive" than the other synths. Is this because of detuning/mistracking in P5 or maybe different envelope curvature? Can this be emulated on Solaris?
seamonkey
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:10 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by seamonkey »

1)P08
2)Solaris
3)Prophet 5
4)Microwave XT

Now I'll go check the answers. :D

one minute later.......
Whoo hoo! I got them right and honest I didn't cheat! :D

They were all pretty close to my ears(I used headphones) except for the XT which has it's own sound, and at least to me pretty identifiable.

The bottom and high end notes were very good on the Solaris. I expected they might break up a bit but the the saw held steady and as the previous poster said...no aliasing! :D
John Bowen
Site Admin
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by John Bowen »

CA3080 wrote:2. In both the square wave and the sawtooth examples P5 and P08 sound a bit more filtered than Solaris. Maybe you could make another recording of Solaris with the filter closed just a tiny bit to match P5 and P08.
Yes, you are quite correct! The Solaris has a BYPASS mode for the filter, taking the filter completely out of the signal path (which is what I used), whereas obviously the P5 & P'08 cannot do this. I did consider trying to match the filter setting to match it better, but just got a little lazy :-) I'll try to make a better example and post it. (And I'm really happy to know there are those here that can discern this!)
3. For some reason P5 sounds a bit more "alive" than the other synths. Is this because of detuning/mistracking in P5 or maybe different envelope curvature? Can this be emulated on Solaris?
Howard S. suggested to me it possibly had to do with the envelope curvature (which I call 'slope' on the Solaris). I tried to match this among all synths as best I could, but none of them were able to exactly match my Prophet 5's slope (and of course, there is probably a little variation from voice to voice on my P5!).
The Solaris has a variable Slope control, varying from linear to exponential. I think we will want to add some 'hyper-exponential' range, something I've added to the plug-in (and a number of my earlier plug-ins) by taking the output of the envelope and multiplying it by itself via a ring modulator. This is something we talked about, but Klaus just hasn't had time to 'fine tune' the envelopes yet.

cheers,
john b.
ThreeFingersOfLove
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:07 am
Location: Greece
Contact:

Post by ThreeFingersOfLove »

1. Prophet 08
2. Solaris
3. Prophet 5
4. Microwave XT

My comments:
1. The Prophet 5 is super beefy
2. For the low registers and between the two Prophets, it's not very easy to say which is which.
3. In my opinion, it is in the high registers where the Prophet 5 really shines and you can tell this from the attack
4. On the Prophet 08, 00:26 there is something like LFO modulation which is absent from the other synths
5. The two Prophets seem to be EQed in the low registers - they have this oomph which is absent from the Solaris and the Microwave XT
6. In the Solaris there is a HF sizzle, this is apparent both in the high and low registers. Te oomph is not there from the beginning, compared to the two Prophets. Maybe this is something that can be fixed with some EQ and the HF sizzle with some additional low-pass filtering
7. The Microwave XT seems to have a weak output. Sonically it differs from the rest of the bunch

So in order of fatness/oomph: P5 -> P08 -> Solaris -> Microwave XT

John, maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the sound per se. I am not saying that you haven't done that already but in my opinion focusing on great specifications is less important from the sound.

Analog oscillators don't have that much energy in the high registers. After a certain point in the spectrum (around 2KHz), they roll-off frequencies. Unfortunately it's not something you can easily emulate with low-pass filtering - the difference is more analogous to white noise and pink noise. Something like a convolution filter at 96 KHz will do the job but as far as I know it's quite computationally intensive.

These, of course are nothing but thoughts and suggestions. As it seems the Solaris will be a very good synthesizer.

Regards,
Yannis
John Bowen
Site Admin
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by John Bowen »

Yannis,

I appreciate your comments!
5. The two Prophets seem to be EQed in the low registers - they have this oomph which is absent from the Solaris and the Microwave XT
The research I was part of in the early days of the Korg OASYS showed that there is a issue in the Prophet osc sawtooth in the low registers that sounds&looks like a bit of a sine wave mixed in with it. The older Scope Multimode oscillator module also has this, and Howard S. also recently mentioned this factor. I've asked Klaus to code a version of this approach, so that Solaris can have two types of Multimode oscs (MM1 & MM2). This will, I think, introduce some aliasing in the upper register, though.
6. In the Solaris there is a HF sizzle, this is apparent both in the high and low registers. The oomph is not there from the beginning, compared to the two Prophets. Maybe this is something that can be fixed with some EQ and the HF sizzle with some additional low-pass filtering
Yes, the Solaris examples here are bypassing the filter section, so you are hearing the oscillators 'raw' and direct...and there's no EQ yet. Some of the 'oomph' could be added via EQ, but I think it will also be good to have the 2nd type of Multimode osc (MM2) to gives us a closer result.
John, maybe you need to pay a little more attention to the sound per se. I am not saying that you haven't done that already but in my opinion focusing on great specifications is less important from the sound.
Yes, I know what you mean. We are talking about it always...
Analog oscillators don't have that much energy in the high registers. After a certain point in the spectrum (around 2KHz), they roll-off frequencies. Unfortunately it's not something you can easily emulate with low-pass filtering - the difference is more analogous to white noise and pink noise. Something like a convolution filter at 96 KHz will do the job but as far as I know it's quite computationally intensive.
I saw your comment about this elsewhere here, and it's really a valuable point - but a convolution filter might draw down the polyphony too much. I will ask, though.

regards,
john b.
John Bowen
Site Admin
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by John Bowen »

Today I have some simple examples of the new Supersaw waveshape!

First up is a raw waveshape (no filtering) with me manually adjusting the Shape parameter to an extreme amount, which in this case changes the detuning factor:
1) Solaris Supersaw #1
Next is an example using an envelope driving the Shaper parameter. I gradually increase the mod amount as it progresses:
2) Solaris Supersaw #2
This third example has me attempting to create one of those typical uses of supersaw that I've heard in EuroPop music:
3) Solaris Supersaw #3
Lastly here's a simple string patch using only 1 oscillator with the Supersaw waveshape. There is no modulation of pitch or shape. (Shape parameter is set at 11%):
4) Solaris Supersaw Simple String pad
Since this is a single oscillator, keep in mind we could have all 4 oscs set to supersaw, with different octave settings, etc.

Speaking of which...here's something using the Rotor and the 4 oscs all set to different tunings:
5) Solaris Supersaw with Rotor

(I used a basic delay module in Scope for examples #3, #4 & #5. They are both using the lowpass 24dB filter as well.)
Last edited by John Bowen on Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:51 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Howard
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:26 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Howard »

just back from the DR...

The low note in the middle of SolSawSync.wav sounds rather brittle, not beefy like the Prophet examples... any ideas why?

The Supersaws are fine (well, maybe not #3 so much, but that's because we aren't under 30 any more, John :wink:)
John Bowen
Site Admin
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by John Bowen »

Howard wrote:just back from the DR...

The low note in the middle of SolSawSync.wav sounds rather brittle, not beefy like the Prophet examples... any ideas why?
Well, after my initial recording of each file (I'm using GoldWave), I've been using the Maximise Volume tool at default settings to make each synth's levels close. It's possible that in the process, some files are affected in undesirable ways. (There may be some distortion or artifacts in there.)

The other thing is, with the Solaris recordings, you are hearing the raw oscillator audio path directly, without any filter modules in-line, whereas the other synths don't have that ability - so perhaps some of the edginess or brittleness you are hearing comes from having the raw source unprocessed by any other internal processes.

Probably for the serious tests I should not be processing the files at all in any way (meaning the amplitude leveling). I've been having problems getting each synth up to the same levels, but I will try the next set without any processing whatsoever.

cheers,
john b.
CA3080
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 11:06 am
Contact:

Post by CA3080 »

Do I detect just a tiny bit of ELP in Solaris Supersaw #2 ? :D :D

SolSupersawSimpleString.wav also sounds great.
seamonkey
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 7:10 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Post by seamonkey »

Thanks for the update and audio examples John.
The OS update which includes a Supersaw type wave, morphing and the mini osc emulation is very exciting news.

My ears aren't quite as discriminating as Howard's or others because I have high frequency hearing loss from my bout in the military as a radio operator. So everything sounds pretty good to me.

I'm a sucker for a good string pad and the example with just one osc sounds pretty sweet to me.
I also enjoyed the example using the Rotor.

I have to admit I thought the same thing CA3080 did, I kept waiting for Greg and Carl to kick in. :lol:
stardust
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:57 am

Post by stardust »

thanks for making the new samples avaialble.
I am impressed again.
Especially the Supersaw singlestring sounds very promising to me.

keep it running.
ThreeFingersOfLove
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:07 am
Location: Greece
Contact:

Post by ThreeFingersOfLove »

SuperSaw is good news for me, too. Even with one OSC is sound thick (well this is what SuperSaw algorithms are for).

:D
stardust
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:57 am

Post by stardust »

yes but they not necessarily sound good ;)
John Bowen
Site Admin
Posts: 2002
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:00 am
Contact:

Post by John Bowen »

There's 2 new audio examples (sound FX type) I've posted on the Solaris info page. It's using 1 Rotor and each oscillator with a different tuning and waveshape. The first example is just playing the patch on a single key (monophonic), and the second one is a polyphonic example.

Please go to http://www.johnbowen.com/solaris.html and scroll down to examples 5 & 6 to read the explanation and to listen.

-john b.
stardust
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:57 am

Post by stardust »

Thanks John. The sounds seem to underpin the name now.
At least I can imagine these sounds to be the spheric atmosphere on Lem's solaris...
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests