> From: "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...>
> The truth is, that most other waveshapes offer
> little sonically when used in a traditional subtractive
> synth (ie VCO followed by VCF). The reason is that
> the "boring" standard wavefors offer 95% of the
> combinations of harmonic content. Without
> re-inventing a sampler/ROMpler, you can get some
> interesting timbres by modulating ("morphing")
> between waveforms.
Well, I agree in part with this concept that the "waveform" is not near as
important as what follows it. Once you cover the "big boys" (sine, tri,
saw, pulse) you have a large percentage as Paul pointed out. However, I do
not think we can dismiss the idea that complex waveforms through great
filters and other processing already offered by MOTM will offer a different
sonic possibility. Certainly, I think we saw how ordinary poor piano
programs jumped to life in the ESQ-1. The partial "sample" data on the
front end of the oscillator output really did make a difference.
> But mainly, stuff like the PPG and such with expensive
> hardware never really add all that much.
> For one thing, having like 64 points per waveform, then
> being able to set the voltage for each point and saving
> that will cause you to try 958,485 different settings with
> the result being 99% of a "mushy buzzy" sound.
I agree, I would not want ANY part of that. However, there is a much more
user friendly platform that is often overlooked when discussing the subject
of wavetable (because it is really a sampler, or was sold as one).
Korg made a "sampling synthesizer" just prior to coming out with the M1
called a DSS-1. This keyboard had two unique features that allowed users
to create their own waves to experiment with the sonic experience. The
first feature was one that allowed to create a waveform, using the
fundamental, and all the harmonics (thru some very high number you would
never use). This particular features was quite useful for those that
wanted to do additive waves to emulate a Hammond sound where the harmonics
were individually added. Another option actually allowed you to "draw" a
waveform. Basically, any digital wave could be used as the VCO output to
the remainder of this analog synth. However, these tools that allowed
either adding harmonics by # and level or doing a "drawn" waveform made
easier work that trying to edit 958,485 different settings.
I will definitely make the argument that at least some of these complex
waves allowed more sonic variety with one oscillator that what basic
waveform oscillators did. However, one has to accept the fact that a
static relationship will always exist between the varied harmonic contents
in this wave. Whereas, that would vary over time with multiple oscillator
waveform creation. So, if you ever get a change to play with one of these
old beasts, I suggest you give them a try. I have two of them and will
NEVER part with them. Yep, they are a hybrid machine and will sound
totally digital if you use them that way. However, if you just load in
basic and semi-complex waves into the memory and start tweaking all those
great analog filters, you will come to the conclusion that complex waveform
does offer some exciting possibilities given a decent way to create / edit
them.
However, they will always be just a waveform. They will always start form
the same place and always interact with each other exactly the same way.
However, MIXED with regular VCOs I think there is a LOT of value. I
wouldn't be interested in MOTM wavetable because there is SO much hardware
out there already that one could use to emulate the same. As much as I
hate samplers. They do have a place in life, and complex waveforms is one
of them. Their failure is that musicians become complacent with the
realism of the sample data and forget to do the remainder of the
programming that takes a dead, flat, dull, stale sample and transforms it
into an interesting sound.
Stooge Larry