Operator Vs Analog

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live
Stromkraft
Posts: 7033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:34 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Stromkraft » Sat Oct 18, 2014 7:41 pm

Quinnx wrote: So it looks like with single cycle waveforms your going to loose on lower freq unless of course
the wave starts as a low Freq wave then it may work out better that way.
192Khz and 32 bits?
Make some music!

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:22 pm

I think how you got to the waveform that you exported to Sampler is very important.
My guess would be you just didn't have the full "single cycle"*.

Think of it this way: You have a guitare string. Holding it tight at certain points will let you play the different pitches of that wave/string.
Now imagine you cut that string at less than the full length.
When you now try to play pitches that are lower than the one you used to be able to play with the string held at the position you have cut, you will be out of luck. (In the real world - digitaly Sampler will try to pitch it down, but it will not be a direct result of the wave but an interpolation)



*Which as I understand it is more a mathematical concept than really a wave only passing trough 0dB once. At least of the Galbanum Architecture waves I bought many pass 0dB many times.

Quinnx
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Quinnx » Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:43 am

My guess would be you just didn't have the full "single cycle"*.
it was a direct export raw waveform from Operator which is more than a single cycle.

Not quite getting what your saying about cutting a string on a guitar.

However im very well aware of the limitations of samples as a static form.
The observation was made that single cycle waveforms don't suffer from degradation
the further you move from the original pitch.
Hence the side by side experiment.
Granted that the nature of single cycle waveforms are not as complex as the full waveform
so the combination of artifacts on higher or lower pitch are minimal by comparison but are still there.

NoSonic822
Posts: 700
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:38 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by NoSonic822 » Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:49 am

Stromkraft wrote:
outsidesys wrote:Let's not forget that Operator can be a 4 oscillator subtractive synth.
Exactly.
yea, but operator on ly has one filter.........there are some really warm sounds you can get with analog....and the filter enevelops on analog get you a very lush sound if you know how to prgoram it...operaotr cant do that...it just cant....but operaotor can make cooler sounds, and is more powerful sound design tool

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:12 am

Quinnx wrote:
My guess would be you just didn't have the full "single cycle"*.
it was a direct export raw waveform from Operator which is more than a single cycle.

Not quite getting what your saying about cutting a string on a guitar.

However im very well aware of the limitations of samples as a static form.
The observation was made that single cycle waveforms don't suffer from degradation
the further you move from the original pitch.
Hence the side by side experiment.
Granted that the nature of single cycle waveforms are not as complex as the full waveform
so the combination of artifacts on higher or lower pitch are minimal by comparison but are still there.
Well that was my statement, but it's more than just an observation, that's pretty much accepted theory.

I tried (and apparently failed) to explain to you why the waveform you cut did not behave the way one would expect for a single cycle waveform. In short: It wasn't a single cycle waveform.
I don't quite undertstand what you exported anyways.
Did you make one with the internal tool and saved that as separate file (in whatever format Operator saves these)? And how can you load them in Sampler?!

Or are you talking about a piece of a resampled audio recorded from Operator?!
That most certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with what a single cycle waveform actually is.

Read this product page, it explains the concept:
http://www.galbanum.com/products/archit ... forms2010/

Quinnx
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Quinnx » Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:48 am

Again.. Im well versed on what a single cycle waveform is..
Operator exports as ams file which sampler can read
take it as read that all rules have been applied and your first assumption
that i did no get the full cycle was incorrect.
yea, but operator on ly has one filter.........there are some really warm sounds you can get with analog....and the filter envelops on analog get you a very lush sound if you know how to prgoram it...operator cant do that...it just cant
You have to think outside the box here..
although operator gives you 4 OSC you gota think of all 4 of them as a single OSC or pair with one filter rather than a complete synth.
create a chain like so..


Osc1=Operator1>Filter|
.............................{===MFX====Output>
Osc2=Operator2>Filter|


This is your real synth

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:22 am

Quinnx wrote:Again.. Im well versed on what a single cycle waveform is..
Operator exports as ams file which sampler can read
take it as read that all rules have been applied and your first assumption
that i did no get the full cycle was incorrect.
I was just trying to help you explain why you see wrong results in your test.

But since you are so "well versed" on the subject, why did you even do the test?! You should know that what you would measure is mathematically certain to be pitchable over the whole range and that your result that you did get in this superfluous experiment must be the result of some artifact/flaw in your experiment design.

So what is it? Do you know what a wavetable synth is, or do you not?!



(BTW, I was not aware that Sampler could load Operators .ams files. Can you load them into the Oscillator section somehow too or only into the Sample section?!)

tedlogan
Posts: 1347
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:23 pm
Location: Leamington Spa, UK
Contact:

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by tedlogan » Mon Oct 20, 2014 11:55 am

Quinnx wrote:Again.. Im well versed on what a single cycle waveform is..
Operator exports as ams file which sampler can read
take it as read that all rules have been applied and your first assumption
that i did no get the full cycle was incorrect.
yea, but operator on ly has one filter.........there are some really warm sounds you can get with analog....and the filter envelops on analog get you a very lush sound if you know how to prgoram it...operator cant do that...it just cant
You have to think outside the box here..
although operator gives you 4 OSC you gota think of all 4 of them as a single OSC or pair with one filter rather than a complete synth.
create a chain like so..


Osc1=Operator1>Filter|
.............................{===MFX====Output>
Osc2=Operator2>Filter|


This is your real synth
That is pretty much my default Operator setup. Can get great results especially when they're slightly detuned and one panned left the other right. Live itself is our modular rack.

JDFS
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by JDFS » Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:08 pm

Wow, really great insights in the way how Operator works. Thank you for that. I'm still wondering, regarding the 4 oscillators, 1 filter-principle; do you know if it's possible to route each oscillator through its own output? That would be really great, to have a rack in which every Operator gets it own output. I know that you can make use of multiple Operators, but what if I don't want to lose the FM-capabilities?

Quinnx
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Quinnx » Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:03 pm

So what is it? Do you know what a wavetable synth is, or do you not?!
yupe! being doing music and sound development/experimenting for decades but like to push the envelope sometimes.
Nice to see you try to give some insights, always hoping for new concepts and ideas.
So what other insights do you have and whats your experience likes dislikes.
why did you even do the test?!
Like all theorists...
experiment, experiment....
Prove or disprove the theory or claim and to back up any statement or insight given. :wink:

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:14 pm

Quinnx wrote:
why did you even do the test?!
Like all theorists...
experiment, experiment....
Prove or disprove the theory or claim and to back up any statement or insight given. :wink:
Well, let me rephrase my question then:

Why after your experiment didn't yield the expected result, did you still tell us that this result indicates a flaw in using samplers with single cycle waveforms, instead of indicating that you are aware that your experiment must have been flawed?!

Could have saved me a lot of typing trying to educate someone so well versed as you. ;-)

Quinnx
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Quinnx » Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:53 pm

instead of indicating that you are aware that your experiment must have been flawed?!
Never indicated that the experiment was flawed especially when no one has given any other
experimental details to prove otherwise? :?:

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Mon Oct 20, 2014 5:16 pm

Quinnx wrote:
instead of indicating that you are aware that your experiment must have been flawed?!
Never indicated that the experiment was flawed especially when no one has given any other
experimental details to prove otherwise? :?:
You want us to conduct experiments to test if single cycle waveforms can pitch over the whole range?! 8O

You came to conclusions in your experiments that your well versed knowledge should have told you are wrong, yet you indicated nothing of the sort when you used them to dismiss Sampler as a synth, and now you want us to do experiments to show you what everyone, who is as well versed as you should already know?!

What's next?! Tests if water is wet?! :roll:

Quinnx
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2013 1:09 am

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by Quinnx » Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:43 pm

You came to conclusions in your experiments that your well versed knowledge should have told you are wrong, yet you indicated nothing of the sort when you used them to dismiss Sampler as a synth, and now you want us to do experiments to show you what everyone, who is as well versed as you should already know?!
You seem to have a talent for making up fictitious statements that no one ever made and stating them as fact..
now you want us to do experiments
never asked for this to be done by anyone
instead of indicating that you are aware that your experiment must have been flawed?!
again making statements that was never indicated or articulated anywhere in the discussion.

from my observation you appear to be taking a general discussion as a personal attack for some reason.

Lets just stick to the topic at hand and stop trying to throw mud.


Now if anyone else out there wishes to do any experiments with regard samplers, single cycle waveforms v multi samples etc or anything else discussed please feel free to do so or not.
I myself am just a fanatic for experimenting and giving feedback to fuel a discussion.

TomViolenz
Posts: 6854
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:19 pm

Re: Operator Vs Analog

Post by TomViolenz » Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:55 pm

I just don't like nonsense thrown around as fact to confuse others. Especially by people well versed in the matter ;-)

The statement the way you made it could have made a newcomer think using single cycle waveforms in samplers to make a decent makeshift wavetable synth is not possible. (They don't represent the whole scale correctly)

This would be unfortunate as that is a very nice way to learn about the concept on some simple and cheap devices.
(Even free Simpler in Intro can do it, so no further purchase would be required for poor people!)

The rest of the conversation was just you being shifty about the whole issue.

Post Reply