The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Waldorf Iridium
Old 4 days ago
  #931
Gear Head
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ockeghem View Post
As for oscillator panning on the Peak, I suppose that can be done after the fact in DAW or mixer?
The Peak/ Summit doesn't even have independent voice panning. The only control they give you over voice placement is a single "spread" param, which also isn't a mod destination.
Old 4 days ago
  #932
Lives for gear
 
realtrance's Avatar
 

Is it going to be tragic for anyone to be without the analogue filters on Iridium? Absolutely not, especially with the new filter ideas developed for it.

As to Summit, remember again that a synth is not just a collection of features. Just as everything Waldorf does has a Waldorf sonic signature to it, so does everything synth Novation does sound like Novation.

There's more continuity than discontinuity in each company's synth line, and they both sound great, in very different ways.
Old 4 days ago
  #933
Gear Head
 
Ockeghem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvilms View Post
The Peak/ Summit doesn't even have independent voice panning. The only control they give you over voice placement is a single "spread" param, which also isn't a mod destination.
Right, but I can still take an output and pan it around/do stuff later in my Cubase track...
Not the same thing as having a modulatable parameter in the Peak; but not a dealbreaker for me.
Old 4 days ago
  #934
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by vvilms View Post
Also, I eyed the Peak for awhile (I still find the sound to be very nice), and subsequently lost interest once I realized it was a poly without a pan control to modulate.

Whereas with Hydrasynth, you have the opportunity to pan all oscillators/ noise/ ringmod preceding the filter, and each voice independently following the filter.
Yeah, though the Hydrasynth interface is more menu-based even in the keyboard version, while the Summit is much more knob-per-function. It's a trade-off, and my interest in the Summit is more as an alternative to stuff like the Microwave 1 and Ambika I already own. Personally i'm less concerned about pan.
Old 4 days ago
  #935
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by vvilms View Post
The Peak/ Summit doesn't even have independent voice panning. The only control they give you over voice placement is a single "spread" param, which also isn't a mod destination.
I find the lack of mod destinations in the Peak deeply disturbing.
Old 4 days ago
  #936
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
I find the lack of mod destinations in the Peak deeply disturbing.
I couldn't have put it better myself. I like the sound of the Peak and it's all over my new album but it doesn't scratch my deep patch building itch. I'm pretty sure im getting and Iridium, though it's going to cost me my Peak, 0Coast, and some pedals. I feel like this is the synth I was hoping the p12 and JDXA (both gone) would be in my set up. (Note: I liked the p12 but I love my pro 2 and couldn't rationalize keeping both. The JDXA and me didnt get along).
Old 4 days ago
  #937
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Refix View Post
I couldn't have put it better myself. I like the sound of the Peak and it's all over my new album but it doesn't scratch my deep patch building itch. I'm pretty sure im getting and Iridium, though it's going to cost me my Peak, 0Coast, and some pedals. I feel like this is the synth I was hoping the p12 and JDXA (both gone) would be in my set up. (Note: I liked the p12 but I love my pro 2 and couldn't rationalize keeping both. The JDXA and me didnt get along).
I did a quick mental run-though and I couldn’t think of a synth I’d want to ditch to get the Iridium. The Peak has become something I didn’t quite expect. I love it for leads. It’s like a lightsaber cutting though tauntaun belly. The Prophet 12... well that’s the tauntaun belly. Weird and squishy stuff all squiggling around. I’ve got the Pro 2 as well, and it does kill me that there’s so much overlap between it and the 12, but f’n aye, that filter combo. Every time I try to get rid of one it becomes a synth version of Sophie’s Choice situation and they stay. The 002 can’t go, because that thing is just yummy deliciosity, with it’s pole morphing filter...

So, I’m going to have to get another laptop stand and find a way to place the Iridium somewhere... I honestly have no idea where. It’s pretty damn ridiculous. Maybe the Iridum can take the 12’s spot. Maybe.
Old 4 days ago
  #938
Gear Head
 

Speaking of mod destinations.... the Iridium manual says almost everything with a numerical value can be modulated in the Iridium. I always wonder why tempo can’t be modulated, whether on the Iridium or other synths with sequencers. Is there any reason — besides the belief that everybody wants to make dance music — that synths don’t offer this? Anybody who has played with modular for a few minutes knows the fun you can have with clock modulation.

Waldorf — can you add this? I’m looking for reasons to be persuaded to buy one of these things.

Oh, and another thing. Didn’t I hear in an interview that the sequencer was to have modes inspired by the Rene or something - Euclidian / Cartesian modes or something? The manual says nothing about this. Honest question. I may have misunderstood or misheard or made something up that I wanted to hear.
Old 4 days ago
  #939
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Right, except even the legacy Waldorf wavetables are mostly just crossfading between a small number of distinct shapes.

For example "malet" starts with one shape and spends 32 waveforms morphing to a 2nd shape, and then the remaining 32 waveforms morphing to a 3rd shape. Harmo has 4 distinct shapes, Harm2 has 5, etc. There are a few exceptions like Reso where there are 6 or 7 distinct shapes, but the majority are between 2 to 5.

Thus if you export the 1st, 16th, 32nd, 48th, and 64th waveshapes of most of these, load them into Serum, the Zebra editor, Waveterm, or the Summit/Peak editor, the crossfaded results are going to aproximate the original sources pretty closely. In some cases you might have to eyeball which waveshapes to grab rather than going by the numbers, but it's not rocket science.

In the end, you won't have 100% exact replicas of the classic Waldorf wavetables, but you'll have approximations that can imitate most of their sound.
Sure, and the peak/summit wavetable editor does that equally spaced selection automatically when importing third party wavetables to try and mask the lack of distinct waveforms.

This is obviously extremely limited in terms of the type of wavetable that will yield a close result to the original - yet ever since the editor landed it gets offered up as though it's a genuine alternative to "proper" wavetable synths.

Quote:
The Quantum justifies its hefty price by essentially offering everything you could ever want into a digital synth, including the hybrid architecture which has become increasingly rare since the end of the 80s. The iridium is a compromise where you're only getting some of the cool stuff from the Quantum and it's still pretty expensive.
The iridium really doesn't feel like it's lacking in synthesis at all to me - certainly doesn't feel like any form of compromise. Also, the pads and cv ins bring something new and interesting to the table that the quantum can't do.
Old 4 days ago
  #940
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post

So, I’m going to have to get another laptop stand and find a way to place the Iridium somewhere... I honestly have no idea where. It’s pretty damn ridiculous. Maybe the Iridum can take the 12’s spot. Maybe.
VESA can help ;-)
Old 3 days ago
  #941
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
I don't know... The choices between 12/24db slope, each with normal, saturated and dirty modes, and multiple ways of configuring two analogue filters together, and that's all separately from the digital filter/digital former filters, which can be configured in multiple ways, too....plenty of character there if you work with it.

Plus the envelopes have control over each stage's curve, like the Andromeda, so there is a LOT there to work with.
Yeah, I think it comes down to Waldorf’s poor product presentation and presets. I remember thinking “oh, surely it can’t just sound this vanilla.”
Old 3 days ago
  #942
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
This is obviously extremely limited in terms of the type of wavetable that will yield a close result to the original - yet ever since the editor landed it gets offered up as though it's a genuine alternative to "proper" wavetable synths.
Not really. Wavetable synths and editors are purpose-designed to interpolate between a small number of shapes accurately, and in my experience from something as modern as Serum, and as old as the Microwave 1 being fed from something like Monstrum - the results are often pretty good.

Likewise, factory wavetables produced in this manner on synths like the Ambika are sound very good and are totally adequate to produce good wavetable synthesis. The wavetables on the Prophet-12 were also designed to work in this manner, and while it wasn't my cup of tea, it has its avid proponents on GS.

If the results on Peak/Summit aren't good, it's not because of the limited number of base waveshapes, but because the interpolation process being used isn't up to the task.

Don't get me wrong, I would prefer if the Peak/Summit weren't limited to 5 "key frames" per wavetable, but that limitation doesn't inherently mean the results will be inferior. So far I see a lot of people generalizing based on this base statistic and not actually speaking from intimate experience tinkering with the synth. So I'm not convinced it's a huge problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
The iridium really doesn't feel like it's lacking in synthesis at all to me - certainly doesn't feel like any form of compromise. Also, the pads and cv ins bring something new and interesting to the table that the quantum can't do.
"Compromise" is subjective, but in terms of market expectations, digital synths are rarely priced in the $2000+ range unless they're either hybrid, high polyphony, a keyboard, or some combination of the above.
  • The Prophet-12 module is $1800 retail, and hybrid.
  • The Modal 002R was around $2800 and hybrid.
  • The System-8 is only $1500 with a keyboard.
  • The Nord Wave 2 is $2600 with 48 voices and a keyboard.
  • The $2000+ later Virus modules were 100+ voice polyphony.
  • Waldorf's own recent Kyra is 128 voices.

Based on the general price landscape for this stuff, you have to be really amped about the specifics of the Iridium's various synthesis types for a an all-digital module with only 16 voices to seem worth $2000+. Certainly there is a niche who will go for it, but I think it's justified to question the price under the circumstances.
Old 3 days ago
  #943
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Not really.Wavetable synths and editors are purpose-designed to interpolate between a small number of shapes accurately, and in my experience from something as modern as Serum, and as old as the Microwave 1 being fed from something like Monstrum - the results are often pretty good.

Likewise, factory wavetables produced in this manner on synths like the Ambika are sound very good and are totally adequate to produce good wavetable synthesis. The wavetables on the Prophet-12 were also designed to work in this manner, and while it wasn't my cup of tea, it has its avid proponents on GS.

If the results on Peak/Summit aren't good, it's not because of the limited number of base waveshapes, but because the interpolation process being used isn't up to the task.
I don't follow what this has to do with what you quoted. History lessons, "accepted method" and even sounding "good" aren't needed to understand that a wavetable with 5 distinct waveforms can't recreate a wavetable that has hundreds of distinct waveforms. Makes even less sense when both synths can interpolate between their respective distinct waveforms.

I also find it needlessly restrictive to think in terms of there being a correct way to use high waveform-count wavetables.

Quote:
Don't get me wrong, I would prefer if the Peak/Summit weren't limited to 5 "key frames" per wavetable, but that limitation doesn't inherently mean the results will be inferior.
It does inherently mean it is limited in terms of the type of sound it can create.

Quote:
Based on the general price landscape for this stuff, you have to be really amped about the specifics of the Iridium's various synthesis types for a an all-digital module with only 16 voices to seem worth $2000+. Certainly there is a niche who will go for it, but I think it's justified to question the price under the circumstances.
You brought up the issue of compromise in relation to the 8 voice quantum - I simply don't agree that it's a compromise, it's just different.
Old 3 days ago
  #944
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
History lessons, "accepted method" and even sounding "good" aren't needed to understand that a wavetable with 5 distinct waveforms can't recreate a wavetable that has hundreds of distinct waveforms.
Except we've already established that the Waldorf legacy wavetables DON'T have hundreds of distinct waveforms. The 64 original "waveforms" on the Microwave 1 mostly consisted of "in-between frames" interpolated from a single-digit number of actual distinct waveforms or "key frames".

When these wavetables were ported to later Waldorf synths with 128+ "waveform" capacity, they didn't actually add more distinct shapes, they just used interpolation to create more "in-between frames". This can produce smoother, higher-resolution transitions, but the core sound is still pretty much the same.

As someone who has spent a lot of time recreating the same patches between the 64, 128, and 256 count versions of the same wavetables across Microwave 1, Blofeld, Largo, and Serum, I can tell you that those differences in "framerate" resolution are barely audible except when running extremely slow modulations across extremely small value ranges. In these cases, if you really wanted a smooth transition in that range, you could simply cut a new custom wavetable covering the range you want with greater interpolated resolution.

Therefore, the ability to stretch the same small numbers of shapes across 2000 frames is far beyond the point of diminishing audible returns for most applications. It's nice that the Iridium and Quantum offer that much resolution, it's not a make or break selling point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
I also find it needlessly restrictive to think in terms of there being a correct way to use high waveform-count wavetables.
It's not a matter of whether or not there's a "correct" way to use wavetables, it's a matter of Waldorf touting a high level of transition resolution which isn't necessary audible in common application.

And like I said, if you need a higher-resolution transition between i.e. frame 113 and frame 124 of a wave table, you can easily grab that range and interpolate that narrow range out to a new wavetable expanding it to a 128 or 256 frame transition. This is especially true in a plugin like Serum, which is already in common use for situations where analog filters aren't needed.
Old 3 days ago
  #945
Lives for gear
This is all too straw-man for my liking. I don't understand your need/desire to keep bringing this back to that specific set of wavetables and the stubborn refusal to accept the simple reality that only a small subset of higher waveform-count wavetable types can be recreated using 5 wavetables and interpolation.

To add, I'm sat here with 2 oscillators each containing 846 random waveform wavetables where I'm scanning through them manually in 0.10 of a position increments looking for interesting aggressive bass sounds emerging from interpolating between 2-3 adjacent random waveforms in each using the komplex modulator's variable curve/time to do the sweep. Light-years away from the simple sweeps you were talking about.
Old 3 days ago
  #946
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
I don't understand your need/desire to keep bringing this back to that specific set of wavetables and the stubborn refusal to accept the simple reality that only a small subset of higher waveform-count wavetable types can be recreated using 5 wavetables and interpolation.
Dude, can you read? It's not that hard.
1) You argued that the legacy PPG/Waldorf wavetables couldn't be imported to the Summit because it only allows you to interpolate between 5 shapes.

2) I pointed out that the majority of legacy wavetables are only interpolated between 3-5 distinct shapes. Only a few of the classic use 6-7 distinct shapes, and even without them, the core sound of the wavetable is retained.

3 You wrote this off as a "history lesson" without actually refuted anything

4) I explained it to you again in more detail
If you really don't get it, I can only imagine you've never actually spent any time looking at what's in these wavetables, or playing with wavetable editors.

The PPG only had the capacity to store around 250 waveforms in total. That means to spread them across 30 wavetables of 59 waveforms each, the PPG pulls about 8 waves from storage and generates the other 51 through interpolation. You don't have to take my word for it, ask Hermann Seib.

Thus, when you claim there are hundreds of distinct waveforms in these wavetables, you're just objectively wrong. At most, there are 8 by necessity of their origin. Often you can cut out 3-5 key frames and interpolate them into a new wavetable without major audible differences (I know because I've done it).
Old 3 days ago
  #947
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Dude, can you read? It's not that hard.
1) You argued that the legacy PPG/Waldorf wavetables couldn't be imported to the Summit because it only allows you to interpolate between 5 shapes.

2) I pointed out that the majority of legacy wavetables are only interpolated between 3-5 distinct shapes. Only a few of the classic use 6-7 distinct shapes, and even without them, the core sound of the wavetable is retained.

3 You wrote this off as a "history lesson" without actually refuted anything

4) I explained it to you again in more detail
If you really don't get it, I can only imagine you've never actually spent any time looking at what's in these wavetables, or playing with wavetable editors.

The PPG only had the capacity to store around 250 waveforms in total. That means to spread them across 30 wavetables of 59 waveforms each, the PPG pulls about 8 waves from storage and generates the other 51 through interpolation. You don't have to take my word for it, ask Hermann Seib.

Thus, when you claim there are hundreds of distinct waveforms in these wavetables, you're just objectively wrong. At most, there are 8 by necessity of their origin. Often you can cut out 3-5 key frames and interpolate them into a new wavetable without major audible differences (I know because I've done it).

Just to be clear, the Quantum does a hell of a lot more than wavetables. Why would someone who only wants wavetables be looking at the quantum/iridium? It would stand to reason most people who are looking want those other features. Even then, if they just wanted wavetables, it would make more sense to buy a blofeld or TI, IMO, before a peak. Peak is great I’m sure, but it wouldn’t be my first, second or third choice for wavetables.
Old 3 days ago
  #948
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Dude, can you read? It's not that hard.
no need to be an ass.

This is what I said after bringing up the factory wavetables:

Quote:
Sure, and the peak/summit wavetable editor does that equally spaced selection automatically when importing third party wavetables to try and mask the lack of distinct waveforms.

This is obviously extremely limited in terms of the type of wavetable that will yield a close result to the original - yet ever since the editor landed it gets offered up as though it's a genuine alternative to "proper" wavetable synths.
You are obsessed with limiting it to those factory wavetables because it suits your position.

It remains a simple fact that you can't recreate wavetables with more than 5 distinct waveforms on the peak/summit. And for clarity, when I say distinct, I mean not being a waveform that is an intermediary point between other waveforms in that wavetable.
Old 3 days ago
  #949
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
The PPG only had the capacity to store around 250 waveforms in total. That means to spread them across 30 wavetables of 59 waveforms each, the PPG pulls about 8 waves from storage and generates the other 51 through interpolation. You don't have to take my word for it, ask Hermann Seib.
Do you have a link to a table like that for my TI?

I'm just learning the virus wavetables now. They seem pretty random. However, the index position has a dramatic effect, so each one can sound many diff ways, obviously.

Can the Waldorfs tweak their waves better than Access? What are the best mod sources for use with WT?

I'm happy to absorb any insults for good tips and links to wavetable prowess
Old 3 days ago
  #950
Lives for gear
The iridium wavetable engine is much more powerful than the virus. First off you can import user wavetables, or resynthesize them from samples.

It can do much higher waveform count wavetables (despite the above argument, this is undeniably an objectively good thing), and you get to modulate position using the myriad modulation options in the iridium (the most interesting being the komplex modulator imo, which is a cross between a step LFO and an envelope that can blend between 2 different curves/step sequences).

If limiting to the factory wavetables, you get to do a bunch of interesting audio-rate modulations with them in the kernels oscillator - linear/exponential fm, am, ring mod, wavetable position modulation across 6 different kernels/operators/oscillators with the incoming modulation type selectable per kernel.
Old 3 days ago
  #951
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
no need to be an ass.
If you're going to be willfully obtuse, that's what you're getting bro.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
You are obsessed with limiting it to those factory wavetables because it suits your position.
No, I'm "obsessed" with those wavetables, because those are the ones you cited as unable to be done. If you didn't want to argue about them, you shouldn't have done so.

Moreover the Waldorf legacy wavetables have become a standard not just among Waldorf synths, but as a model all other manufacturers follow. Take a look at the factory wavetables across Massive, Zebra, Serum, Ambika, SQ1, or any other wavetable synth. In the vast majority of cases, they just put a distinct shape at the beginning, middle and end of the table. Occasionally a 4th or 5th shape is used when it's really necessary.

And it's not hard to figure out why this is the case. When you cram too many different shapes into one wavetable, it just forces you to get more fiddly with the knob hunting for the shape you want, and produces more erratic, disparate sonic results when scanning large portions of the wavetable.

Just look at Waldorf Alt1 and Alt2: they didn't throw that entire kitchen sink of different waveforms into two wavetables because it sounded better that way. They had built the Waldorf Q with only two extra positions on the "Shape" dial, so they tried to include as many "greatest hits" from the legacy waveforms as they could into those two positions. The fact that neither Waldorf or any other manufacturer sought to repeat this approach later suggests that it wasn't considered particularly desirable.

Thus, wavetables are generally designed around a single idea with a few variations, and if you want something different, you choose a different wavetable. When you starting making your own custom wavetables, you find out pretty fast that there's a point of diminishing returns where more shapes doesn't actually give better results.
Old 3 days ago
  #952
Lives for gear
I have literally thousands of third party wavetables around me that don't conform to this narrow view. This is an absurd argument you are having with yourself using me as nothing more than a strawman. I'm done.
Old 3 days ago
  #953
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
I have literally thousands of third party wavetables around me that don't conform to this narrow view. This is an absurd argument you are having with yourself using me as nothing more than a strawman. I'm done.
If I'm using you as a strawman, then why did you choose to argue about the Waldorf legacy tables, where you were then proven objectively wrong?

If anything you're the one who seems confounded that I won't adopt your own narrow view that the worth of a wavetable synth isn't purely a function of how many shapes you can throw into one wavetable.

And then your response to the fact that no one's factory wavetables adhere to your narrow view, is to ragequit while vaguely alluding to "thousands of third party wavetables"?

Bravo, good show!
Old 3 days ago
  #954
Lives for gear
 
realtrance's Avatar
 

To step back a little bit from the wavetables argument. First, the Pro 3 has seemingly "just a few" wavetables (32, I think), but they are carefully chosen to provide substantial variety, more than you could ever want. Pigments also has its good share of wavetables; Massive X and a bunch of other things, too (Hydrasynth?). Along with of course Serum, which, alongside Quantum and Iridium seems like the Wavetable King in terms of sheer number and size of wavetables (Quantum/Iridium beat all of them handily this way).

I'm going from ancient memory, opinion and experience, going back to my MWXT days, when I was both less informed and more enthusiastic about debates over these things than I am now. For me, wavetables, along with "West Coast Synthesis," i.e. Darius Milhaud-->Morton Subotnick-->Don Buchla synthesis, were originally alternate ways to induce interesting timbral variations without relying too heavily upon the filter to do all the work (in Buchla stuff, ideally not at all). FM, as well, is yet another way to create dynamic, real-time timbral change that is interesting to the ear without the need for filter sweeps for that interest. Roland's LA Synthesis, evolving into the D50, another case.

To put it in very general terms: FM, Buchla and early Waldorf (PPG-->MWXT) provided unique opportunities to make very harsh, noisy sounds, along with other textures. FM, Waldorf and Roland D50 also provided very distinct, bell-like and organ-like timbres, that at their debut seemed quite fresh and unique, though so distinctive they lost their pop music appeal after a short while (once the '90's hit, basically, and industrial, noise-oriented synthesis became popular again; many here are still stuck entirely in that mode, and regret the loss of noise synths; some of them have moved on to Eurorack to satisfy their aesthetic).

Point of all this is: what Quantum/Iridium do is step well past the core Waldorf bell OR noise type sonic palette, into new territory -- for me, at least -- generated by the unique ability to architect sounds that allow you to mix the strengths of a variety of synthesis types -- Wavetable, VA, Granular/Sampling, Karplus-Strong/Waveguide, Carrier/Modulator Kernel -- into a construction that makes use of any combination or subset of those techniques to create something distinct.

That, for most people, is hard to do! It's hard for _me_ to do! It's all too easy to fall back upon familiar timbres and results to get what we call "good" sound, sound that basically fulfills our current collection of synth timbral cliches we recognize as "musical." Bell-tone and organ-tone preferences will focus more on wavetable and VA synthesis; noise preferences will mix granulator, resonator and pluck/wind/blown physical modeling (Karplus-Strong, or Resonator) as their primary sources. Some will find ways to combine harmonic and inharmonic aspects into sounds that use both simultaneously (always my goal in my primary patch design on Quantum). Problem is, when you do things that go past cliched expectations, they will, to most people, sound "bad" (and I don't care! <G>).

But the really amazing thing about Quantum/Iridium is not that they are any particular kind of synths, with any one type of filter or noise generation, but that they are huge playgrounds allowing you to figure out how to combine a variety of synth techniques to go pretty much anywhere you like.

If you want warm, vintage-y analogue sound, stick with the VA section entirely. Mike Huckaby, Howard Scarr (principle sound designer on the Virus TI), and Brian Transeau (BT) all have ample examples of lovely VA patches. @ Don Solaris made a bunch recently, too.

If you want organ, bell-like sounds, rely on wavetable. These will have the strength of any Waldorf synth in this area.

If you want marvelous, plucked, guitar-like, or flute-like sounds, to start at least, Resonator is your friend. It goes so much further, once you get into the principles of physical modeling, but that's a lot harder to grok for most; it takes a lot of refined tuning and understanding of how all the elements in Resonator work to start to get to cool places.

And on and on; Iridium/Quantum are both also excellent not just for sampling -- they make it pretty easy, both using internal sources and external sources, pre-recorded or recorded live -- but for granular, though again, the unique take on the granular interface will take as much time as Resonator to really start to feel under your control. Meanwhile, you can enjoy infinite happy accidents (or unhappy ones) along the way.

Guess I'm trying to say, it seems kind of off the mark to me to noodle too much here on the strengths/weaknesses of any particular aspect of the Quantum/Iridium, as it's ultimately the whole that is truly greater than the sum of the parts in these synths, more than anything else.

Same, in my opinion, in different ways, is true of the Summit, in its own sphere. Summit, Iridium, Pro3..... these are all opportunities to really grow your understanding AND your ear for synthesis, and if you have the interest, space, money and time, any or all of them would be well worth having for a lifetime.
Old 3 days ago
  #955
Old 3 days ago
  #956
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
If I'm using you as a strawman, then why did you choose to argue about the Waldorf legacy tables, where you were then proven objectively wrong?
I mentioned them once, in passing, then agreed with you about those and even mentioned how the peak/summit editor works with them to save doing it manually.

Then I moved on to wavetables in general - and repeatedly made it clear I was doing that. You were arguing with yourself from that point forward.

Quote:
If anything you're the one who seems confounded that I won't adopt your own narrow view that the worth of a wavetable synth isn't purely a function of how many shapes you can throw into one wavetable.
That's another strawman. I never said the number of waveforms in a wavetable was the only way to determine the "worth" a wavetable synth. It's certainly an important part of the mix though, as you can't get around it with a low waveform count synth.

Quote:
And then your response to the fact that no one's factory wavetables adhere to your narrow view, is to ragequit while vaguely alluding to "thousands of third party wavetables"?
well, I own serum, icarus, phaseplant, codex, falcon etc and I've purchased wavetable packs like the galbanum architecture, plus a ton of free ones eg the waveedit ones.

They all contain wavetables with more than just 5 distinct waveforms in them (again meaning waveforms that are not just intermediate points between other waveforms in that wavetable).

The quantum/iridium factory wavetables also includes wavetables that don't conform to that model.

(and yes, you pulled me back in - shame on me.)
Old 3 days ago
  #957
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
I mentioned them once, in passing, then agreed with you about those and even mentioned how the peak/summit editor works with them to save doing it manually.
Your very next comment in that same post is:

"This is obviously extremely limited in terms of the type of wavetable that will yield a close result to the original - yet ever since the editor landed it gets offered up as though it's a genuine alternative to "proper" wavetable synths."

My reply to that comment pointed out how factory wavetables from non-Waldorf synths like the Prophet-12 and Ambika are generally only giving you 3-5 distinct shapes to play with at once. Yet you continued to argue that other synths constain hundreds of distinct waveforms per wavetable, and that the peak was inadequate to do so.

Like, do you even remember what you typed, or what you were replying to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul_xyz View Post
Then I moved on to wavetables in general - and repeatedly made it clear I was doing that.
And yet, when I continued to expand my examples across almost every plugin and hardware that does wavetables - it turns out that they ALL use a similar number of distinct shapes to the Waldorf legacy wavetables, and your response to this was to try to duck out.

So unless you're trying to argue that factory wavetables are all totally unusable, and custom wavetables are also unusable unless they use waveshapes in the double-digits, then you have to admit that Peak/Summit 5 waveshape slots are NOT very limiting for general use (a.k.a. "wavetables in general"). In fact, this would only be terribly limiting for someone who buys wavetable synths with the exclusive goal of making wavetables with shapes in the double-digits, which seems very specific and not general in the grand scheme of things.

Given that you will undoubtedly claim that you're not arguing these things, what do you actually believe you're trying to argue here?

Really it just looks like you couldn't stand the fact that your 5 slot criticism didn't land, so you just kept arguing for the sake of it, then made a false strawman accusation to save face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DStep ATL View Post
Just to be clear, the Quantum does a hell of a lot more than wavetables. Why would someone who only wants wavetables be looking at the quantum/iridium? It would stand to reason most people who are looking want those other features. Even then, if they just wanted wavetables, it would make more sense to buy a blofeld or TI, IMO, before a peak. Peak is great I’m sure, but it wouldn’t be my first, second or third choice for wavetables.
As I said in my original comment on the matter, the initial attraction to the Quantum (given Waldorf's history) is as a spiritual successor to the Wave, Q+, and the Stromberg (which never came to pass).

I already own a Blofeld, Microwave 1, Ambika, and various wavetable plugins. My primary remaining desire in this area is simply to have one knobby keyboard that covers a lot of that territory. It appears that if you can work around the 5 slot limitation (which I've shown is possible in other posts) then the Summit accomplishes that goal more cost effectively.

I agree that as an FM or sample/rompler synth, the Iridium has merit. I've chimed in on plenty of other threads lamenting the lack of knobby, modulation-heavy options in those fields. But it's also pricy for an all-digital synth with 16 voices.

The Quantum, given everything is does, almost seems justified in its price...however, its ability to "do everything" really seems to be the selling point. I feel like I'd be annoyed to spend that much and still be limited to 8 voices; I'd rather spend more and get 16. It's the same way I feel about the Moog One (and even the Xpander for that matter).
Old 3 days ago
  #958
Lives for gear
 
realtrance's Avatar
 

I wish I could be ars'd to go thru all the trouble in my environment to record and share the patch I just made on the Quantum. If @ rolfw is interested, I can upload it to him for sharing at some point.

But here's the description of the process:

1. Find Peter Jung's "Minbari Koto" sampled patch.
2. Go to System/Audio/Record. Record some seconds of playing it (harmonically).
3.Save that.
4. Init fresh patch, choose Particle engine; load sampled play of Minbari Koto patch. Edit and trim to taste.
5. Switch to Granular mode. Continue to mess with it until it's an interesting, grainy sound, somewhere in between noise, wind and harmonic instrument.
6.Go back to System/Audio/Record. Record a sample of playing _THAT_ (now indescribable sound).
7. Init patch. Choose Resonator as primary engine. Load "Minbari3.wav" sample from 6., above.
8. Mess with Resonator to get a really interesting, harmonic, noisy, sound.
9. Add Waveform engine to Osc 2, for body. Mess it up a bit with sync and multiple detune of about 6 detuned waves. Turn down a bit, as Resonator gets overwhelmed by other engines if they are too loud. Pitch it down 24 semitones, for phat.
10. Go to Wavetable for the 3rd osc, find a wavetable that mixes in at -12 semitones that I like, set it Traveling, spectrum and brilliance mod it.
11. Go to filters, use 2 analogue filters plus Digital Former set to Comb+ for the latter, Filter-Former in path.
12. Add some chorus and compression at the end (lightly) to taste.
13. Add a little Onset glide (rather than legato).
14. Play with both filter envelopes, get them modulating the oscillators just right, for taste.

Result: really fantastic, swirly sound that is very Sitar-like when three notes are just held, and very indescribable when playing either a solo lead or simple chords.

And that's just the start! Some simple LFO and wheel modulation, to get the filters sweeping and add timbral control with mod wheel. Choose Unison with 2 voices for fun, fiddle with detune and detune delay (interesting parameters in the Voices section).

Most of this I'm sure easily done as well on Iridium. And this was just maybe 45 minutes of work, and sounds little like any of the other patches I made.

So much fun! Don't miss out on it!
Old 3 days ago
  #959
Gear Addict
Jesus you two. Get a room. The tension is so obvious.
Old 3 days ago
  #960
Gear Addict
 
satatek's Avatar
damn someone is wrong again
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
♾️ Similar Threads
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump