<html><body style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;">Hi Matthias,<br><br>Re: osc sync you raise a good point - mixing different types of waveforms from unsynced oscillators would probably be subtly different to mixing those same types from the one oscillator, due to detuning and beating.<br><br>As far as the peak-to-peak issue is concerned, what you say is correct, although I think it misses the point I was trying to make about perceived waveform loudness vs. peak-to-peak voltage differences. Yes, different circuits would have different characteristics - as a supporting example the CEM3340 has quite different high and low thresholds for its four waveforms.<br><br>I interpreted the original poster's use of "normalising" to mean "making all the waveforms sound like they're the same volume to a human" which is not the formal definition of normalising, but which I thought was the intent of the original comments. Are you suggesting he means "keep the same total volume when two or more waveforms are selected and mixed" (by attenuating each waveform when mixing more than one?)<br><br>Regretfully I am easily misled and often misunderstood :-)<br><br>Cheers,<br>A.<br><blockquote><br>----- Original Message -----<br><div id="origionalMessageFromField" style="width:100%;background:rgb(228,228,228);"><div style="font-weight:bold;">From:</div> "Mattias Rickardsson" <mr@analogue.org></div><br><div id="origionalMessageToField" style="font-weight:bold;">To:</div>"Adrian C" <eidorian@aladan.net><br><div id="origionalMessageSentField" style="font-weight:bold;">Cc:</div>"neil harper" <metadata@gmx.com>, "Tom Wiltshire" <tom@electricdruid.net>, "synthdiy diy" <synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl><br><div style="font-weight:bold;">Sent:</div>Mon, 9 May 2016 23:41:52 +0200<br><div id="origionalMessageSubjectField" style="font-weight:bold;">Subject:</div>Re: [sdiy] Waveform mixing - normalization?<br><br><br>
On 6 May 2016 at 07:10, <eidorian@aladan.net> wrote:<br>
> Horses for courses. Plenty of synths (both new and old) offer waveform<br>
> mixing, but in a multi-oscillator synth I suspect it's not so important<br>
> since you can combine different waveforms from different oscillators in<br>
> order to get the same effect.<br><br>
Only if oscillator sync is available.<br><br>
> Regarding waveform normalisation - yes, I think plenty of (generally modern)<br>
> synths must use it, because a triangle or sine with the same waveform height<br>
> (i.e. peak-to-peak voltage difference) is very different in perceived volume<br>
> to a square wave or sawtooth.<br><br>
There is no reason why the different waveforms would have the same<br>
peak-to-peak levels.<br><br>
> So a vendor might well adjust the volume of<br>
> different waveforms to match human ear expectations to avoid sonic<br>
> accidents. On synths where this isn't the case simply changing from one<br>
> type of waveform to another results a significant and sudden change in<br>
> volume.<br><br>
This is not the normalization that Neil was asking about. He was<br>
referring to normalizing mixes of more than one waveform.<br><br>
> I have often been known to patch multiple waveforms outputs from one<br>
> oscillator into different filter/amplitude/other modulation paths on my<br>
> modular, mainly when making drone music.<br><br>
That's an interesting way of using them! :-)<br><br>
/mr<br><br><br>
> ----- Original Message -----<br>
> From:<br>
> "neil harper" <metadata@gmx.com><br>
><br>
> To:<br>
> "Mattias Rickardsson" <mr@analogue.org>, "Tom Wiltshire"<br>
> <tom@electricdruid.net><br>
> Cc:<br>
> "synthdiy diy" <synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl><br>
> Sent:<br>
> Fri, 6 May 2016 00:23:05 -0400<br>
> Subject:<br>
> Re: [sdiy] Waveform mixing - normalization?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I've never seen any normalization either.<br>
>><br>
>> Can't make up my mind about free oscillator levels & mixing, it seems<br>
>> like the advantage is often lost. In a way I'd prefer normalization<br>
>> and a filter overdrive control at a later stage.<br>
>><br>
>> To be honest I've never really missed waveform mixing in a<br>
>> one-waveform-selection-synth either. It feels like a relic from the<br>
>> dawn of synthesis, an additive timbre shaping method that is rarely<br>
>> very useful or interesting compared to waveform modulation, audio-rate<br>
>> modulation and subtractive shaping. Do you guys like and use waveform<br>
>> mixing?<br>
>><br>
>> /mr<br>
>><br>
><br>
> I got the impression that waveform mixing would allow a lot more sound<br>
> possibilities, but maybe that's an outdated idea like you suggest?<br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Synth-diy mailing list<br>
> Synth-diy@dropmix.xs4all.nl<br>
> http://dropmix.xs4all.nl/mailman/listinfo/synth-diy<br></blockquote></body></html>