Raw synth soundforms : A comparison

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Raw synth soundforms : A comparison

Posted by Swing on Jun-26-2004 23:24:

Raw synth soundforms : A comparison

Where on the net can I hear the raw soundforms from synths ?

I would like to hear the waves from as many software and hardware synths as possible.

I'm sure everyone else would like to hear them too.

Does a virus saw sound more 'analog' than a JP saw ? Will an A6 sine be noticiby different to a virus ? Is software really more cold sounding. Is a zeta saw digital and annoying ? Is a pro53 saw warmer ?

Let me start this thread by posting a link that Pjotr G originally posted

http://www.first-wave-music.de/downloads/downloads.htm

JP 8000 supersaw
Juno 106 Square & saw

(Both at bottom of page)

This site is a sampler's dream. Provides samples of waves at many different note intervals (eg. C1,C2,C3,C4)

Thought the supersaw was kinda cold and digital myself.

Note : I do not want sample files like this. I just want to hear one single note from each synth to compare the quality.

Posted by Vert on Jun-27-2004 03:55:

Bump for you.. because this is an interesting thread.

es

Posted by RiCo on Jun-27-2004 04:05:

Today in the afternoon, I'll record single note samples from my synths. Good thread!

Posted by Vert on Jun-27-2004 04:06:

quote:
Originally posted by RiCo
Today in the afternoon, I'll record single note samples from my synths. Good thread!

Good man!

es

Posted by Audio Beverage on Jun-27-2004 05:16:

Here's a single note anaysis (+ a brief description) of everysingle waveform available for subtractor. Now when you say a waveform in its "raw" state, this is as raw as they get:

Posted by Swing on Jun-27-2004 06:31:

Well, here's my next contribution from my Roland V-synth (VA)

All raw waveforms. 320kbps stereo, recorded C4 if anyone wants to sample it (no idea why you'd want to do that).

The file is : sawsqutrisinjuno.mp3 663 Kb

Funnily enough, it's called that because it features a Saw, Square, Triangle, Sine and Juno wave (kinda like a saw but with a dent in the first part of it).

Quite cold sound waves.

[ just noticed when looking at the waveform in Cubase that the square wave isn't really square, but is slightly sloped ... hmmm ... ]

I've read that it's the filters that make the synths special. One article said that raw wave forms were similar, just the filters made the difference. Nevertheless it's still interesting for me.

Posted by Audio Beverage on Jun-27-2004 10:01:

quote:
Originally posted by Swing
[ just noticed when looking at the waveform in Cubase that the square wave isn't really square, but is slightly sloped ... hmmm ... ]

Noticed that too. Plus it seems like you're didn't have the attack set at zero.

And yes! All raw waveforms, no matter which synth they're running off sound the same.

And here's a comparion between the saw waveforms of the Subtractor, and the above Roland VA synth sawwave sample.

Subtractor sawwave then Roland VA Synth sawwave
the first is subtractor, the second the roland

Sound any different?

I didn't think so

Posted by Swing on Jun-27-2004 10:15:

Hang on, nobody has posted a virus or andromeda or more-analog synth yet. If they really did sound exactly the same then they'd be no point in an analog vs virtual analog tone generator.

The V-synth is known as a lesser VA compared to, say the virus.

I want to hear the raw waves of better synths.

Posted by neil_f on Jun-27-2004 10:15:

My contribution: nordlead 3

Posted by Audio Beverage on Jun-27-2004 10:49:

^^^ Well there's a clear audiable difference between the nordlead =\
It has alot less "hiss" which leads me to the conclusion you didn't have your filters off.

Subtractor - VSynth - Nordlead Comparison

The Subtractor and VSynth sound identical so far. The nordlead has less hiss, but you could get rid of the hiss on the subtractor + vsynth with a HP filter or some eq.

Posted by Swing on Jun-27-2004 11:38:

LOL @ me.

This thread will probably confirm my greatest fear. The raw waves don't sound that different and I just suck as a sound designer. At least I'm newish. Now I'm going to have to dredge up all the programming and 'phat' threads on this site

Those of you with better synths & web space - C'mon. It takes all of five minutes.

(Or PM me and you can e-mail me the stuff for me to post on my webspace)

Posted by Dj Thy on Jun-27-2004 14:36:

Well, raw waveforms aren't so difficult to make, it's not that that will make a digital synth sound different from an analog one.
The only real difference here will be in the type of waveforms used.
What one manufacturer calls a square wave, won't be the same square wave as with another manufacturer.
Someone here mentionned the slopes for one kind of square waves aren't right, but slightly angled. Well, a perfect square wave only exists theoretically (square wave means : one fundamental frequency, with only odd harmonics, stretching to infinity). Practically, you'll only come close to a square wave, as infinity isn't possible up to now. If you filter down (lowpass) a square wave, ultimately you'll end up with a sine wave of the fundamental frequency.
Now the thing is, if brand A uses a square wave that comes close to theoretical limits, but brand B uses a less well constructed one (more rounded, so less harmonics). The second still resembles to a square wave from far, but will definately sound different from the first. But both brands will call it square waves. I only give the square waves as an example, it can be any type of waveform. If the first one decides to make a saw with a gentle slope, while the other one decides to give it a tighter one, well they will sound different.
But, like I said, making waveforms is not the biggest of concerns. Usually (not always), software and VA synths don't make their waveforms out of scratch but start from sampled waveforms, unlike real analog synths. So, in "digital" synths, it's not really a question of analog vs digital sounding waveforms, but more of what waveforms the manufacturer used (they decide which exact waveform will represent square, or saw, or whatever).
In real analog oscillators, there will be imperfections, and it's those you can hear as "analog".

But the biggest difference will be in the filters indeed. Analog filters have flaws, even the best (very expensive, but those are generally not used in synths) ones. But it's just those flaws we learned to like as the "analog" sound. You can emulate such filters in the digital domain, but it will remain an emulation. You need lot's of processing power to emulate something well. Usually in software form some compromises have been made, so you don't bring the cpu on it's knees just playing one thing. VA synths usually also have digital filters, but have dedicated processing power to make the calculations, so the emulation will usually be closer. Compared to real analogue filters (take the famous moog 4 pole filter for example) there still will be a big difference.

If a digital filter sounds analog, it either means it will eat a lot of cpu to achieve this, or the programmers have done an excellent job at cutting corners while retaining a psychoaccoustically close emulation.

Of course it would be silly to claim the only difference are the filters. Internal processing can also affect the sound, and so do the input/output convertors. But waveforms, in my opinion that's not really the biggest concern, as even imperfect waveforms are pretty easy to recreate with today's technology.

Posted by RiCo on Jun-28-2004 04:20:

Sorry I didn't post mine in the afternoon like I said...I just got back from flying...it's 1200 midnight. I'll post them in the evening today.

Posted by Sean Walsh on Jun-28-2004 05:16:

Thy, thanks a lot for that. Your posts are always incredibly thorough!