operator: pure square or saw signals?

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:28 pm

is there an explanation why i can't get a pure saw or square signal using the operator?
by pure, i mean something that would sound like a TB303 with all parameters left untouched.
if i take any waveform from square3 to square32, nothing sounds quite like a 303 square wave...

any thounghts?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 7:52 pm

peeddrroo wrote:is there an explanation why i can't get a pure saw or square signal using the operator?
by pure, i mean something that would sound like a TB303 with all parameters left untouched.
if i take any waveform from square3 to square32, nothing sounds quite like a 303 square wave...

any thounghts?

The 303 will not ever generate a 100% pure square or saw wave as it is an analogue synth. It will always have some small harmonic distortions in the waveforms which are part of what gives it its own sound.

You can try to replicate some of these harmonics using the saturator and other distortion tools, but very subtly.

Also the thing which gives the 303 it's sound is its 3 pole filter which runs at 18DB per octave, so you may need a versatile filter plugin to help in that respects.

The main part of the 303 to me is the sequencer, the way you sequence things in that (especially witht he legato/slide) really gives it that classic acid sound which is so well sought after.

What else... um... the 303 resonance and accent and envelopes are another component which make up the sound because as if it were a modular, they all affect the resonance to some extent.

I've been able to get some patches which sound very close on an Andromeda A6, but the closest i've heard outside of the real thing is the Audiorealism Bassline plugin.

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:33 pm

ok, maybe i shouldn't have stated the 303.

i have several questions: why are there saw and square 3 to 32, and there's no square 1 and no saw 1, and why is there only 1 Triangle wave?
and then why do none of these actually sound like the square, saw and triangle signals i'm used to hear?

i don't mean operator sounds bad, but i'm wondering about the "pure" signals.
well, the sine is fine.

amo · Post by **amo** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:00 pm

What about the square D and saw D ? Aren't they the closest to "real" squares and saws...

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:18 pm

peeddrroo wrote:ok, maybe i shouldn't have stated the 303.

i have several questions: why are there saw and square 3 to 32, and there's no square 1 and no saw 1, and why is there only 1 Triangle wave?

I think the numbers are referring to overtones (?) and it might have something to do with the harmonic makeup of a square wave. A square wave is only the odd harmonics, and if the fundamental in Operator could be called the "0", then the "1" would actually not be present in a square wave.

Merely speculation, but it's the best I could come up with.

-A-

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:23 pm

I was under the impression that the Operator used wavetables?

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:33 pm

I think it is wavetables, yes.

TheAnimal · Post by **TheAnimal** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:50 pm

RTFM? - Not in this case. Operator would deserve a more informative manual, wouldn't it? SquareD is straight square as far as I can see. I just recorded one tone dropping operator on a midi track and setting an audio track to resampling. Then I zoomed in to get the oscilloscope view and voilá.

Robert Henke · Post by **Robert Henke** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 10:53 pm

Opertator uses interpolated wavetables with a size of 4096 samples.
The number behind the square and saw waveform refer to the number
of harmonics used to create the wavetables. The higher the number,
the closer to a perfect waveform you get. If you want to see how the
result looks like, just record the result of one oscillator without filter into Live.

The square D and saw D waveforms are pure digital waveforms, they give
perfect shapes at low frequencies, but produce serious aliasing on higher
frequencies. The shape equals to saw/square with infinite harmonics at a
frequency of zero...
Buidling a good sounding analog synthesizer emulation in a digital enviroment
needs a complete different strategy where the waveforms changes as a function
of their frequency. We might at some point offer a analog simulation synthesizer.
But since there are so many good ones already on the market this has not the
highest priority for us.

Robert Henke
Ableton

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:04 pm

Thanks for the info, Robert.

peeddrroo · Post by **peeddrroo** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:24 pm

thanks robert.

is there also a rational behind the fact that there is only 1 triangle wave available in operator?

Machinate · Post by **Machinate** » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:27 pm

Peeddrroo, that is because triangle waveforms. suck. arse.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:00 am

All you need is sines and distortion..

szdjfNuG · Post by **szdjfNuG** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:15 am

peeddrroo wrote:

...

I've been able to get some patches which sound very close on an Andromeda A6, but the closest i've heard outside of the real thing is the Audiorealism Bassline plugin.

hello

can you share a patch for andromeda a6 who emualte tb303 sound please ?

thanks

Mage2k · Post by **Mage2k** » Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:23 am

szdjfNuG wrote:
peeddrroo wrote:

...

I've been able to get some patches which sound very close on an Andromeda A6, but the closest i've heard outside of the real thing is the Audiorealism Bassline plugin.

hello

can you share a patch for andromeda a6 who emualte tb303 sound please ?

thanks

You realize that this thread is 8 years old, right?

operator: pure square or saw signals?

operator: pure square or saw signals?

Re: operator: pure square or saw signals?

Re: operator: pure square or saw signals?

Re: operator: pure square or saw signals?