From dk@computing-science.aberdeen.ac.uk Tue May 3 09:19:57 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 14:52:02 BST From: Dimitris Krekoukias To: analogue@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Subject: Wavesequencing, Wavestations, stuff Here are some queries on Wavestations and Microwaves. I'll do my best to answer these. > Can you dump samples into it over midi? If so how much sample RAM does > it have? How tedious is it creating the wavesequences? How many can > you have on board at one time? What is the modulation routing like? > Which horse will win the 3.30 at York tomorrow? > > Ab. No, you can't do sample dumps. GREAT pity. However, if you get the WS AD you can use incoming sounds (it has inputs, hence the AD) and use these as the basis of creating sounds (as I said in a previous post, inputs appear as waves 516 and 517). You can do what you want to these, and it is really flexible. Most film music composers have AD's, it's a VERY flexible instrument. Wavesequences take some time to create, that's true. You've got to choose a wave for each wavesequence step, choose its pitch and so on and the crossfade amount. Results are highly rewarding, though. Modulation is pretty comprehensive. There are 2 LFO's that can be set to modulate pretty much anything, for example, from pitch to reverb amount. The horse that will win the 3.30 at York today will be the Damsel. > > OK. About the only major synthesis technique my setup isn't capable of > is wavesequencing (and additive - I've been looking for a K5r for some > time now). So I'm prepared to start a flame war - what should I buy? A > Microwave or a Wavestation? > > Ab. As Bruce Henderson said, solving the riddle really involves getting both. Both are superb instruments, and the Microwave software version 2 is GREAT (allows for FM, waveshaping, user-defined wavetables...) The Microwave really is an 8-bit PPG Wave 2.3 (the 2.3 was 12-bit, actually) without sample analysis and stuff. This is done by today's Wave which is expensive. Anyway, it can produce great sounds (can even do speech synthesis if you feed it the right wavetables!) and is well worth considering, but the problem is that the preset sounds are crap and you have to do LOTS of programming yourself, without even knowing where to start from. It's got 8-voice polyphony and has a nice Curtis filter. Bruce sums up the Wavestation pretty well. Indeed, if you need a clear-sounding (forget PPG furriness) synth capable of textures evolving well into time the WS is I think the only choice. It's 32-voice poly, has great FX, awful filter, unreliable keyboard (its two shortcomings), and can create sounds with a high YOWZA factor. It's not good as a straight sample player (even with the EX upgrade) and it's no real use as a real instrument emulator. Buy a Proteus instead if you want this. As Bruce said, if you want analoguesque sounds, get a MW. If you want clear and extremely complex sounds, get a WS. Both are great instruments. > Errr... what the fluck is wavesequencing? > > > JaH. Wavesequencing is one of the two techniques that separate the Wavestation by most other synths (the other is vector synthesis, and OK, I know, the VS had it, the SY-22 had it, and now the SY-35). Wavesequencing really is about playing back a series of samples and using this series as an oscillator wave. So, you can do drum loops with wavesequencing pretty easily, and the good bit is that the playback speed is constant as you transpose. The more creative uses of wavesequencing involve crossfading between samples so that you're served a seamless, evolving wave that can sound great and that you can use to greatly impress people with. In the Wavestation, wavesequencing is used to create all sorts of sounds, even resonant sweeps (which aren't as good as a real resonant sweep but it's all you can use for resonance if you have a WS. Damn Korg). You can do simple stuff, like using an attack transient and another wave as the body of the sound, or smoothly sweep through tens (or even a coupla hundreds) of waveforms. You won't believe how many films sport a Wavestation sound (in fact, unchanged factory patches and in the case of the WS, these REALLY can be spotted very easily, not a mile but a parsec away and it seems pretty silly if you have one). You can also have loops in the wavesequence. In a nutshell, it's a good synthesis technique, not that hard to implement, and used to great effect on the WS. The Ensoniq TS-10/12 uses the same technique only it can have very few samples in each wavesequence and its sample bank is not tuned for wavesequencing the way the Wavestation's is. Hope that helps (and I hope I won't get flames for spending so much bandwidth on a purely digital synth but hey, it's nice and more innovative than almost every other modern synth). Dimitris (dk@csd.abdn.ac.uk) From bruce@pages.com Tue May 3 13:10:09 1994 Date: Tue, 3 May 94 10:08:06 -0700 From: Bruce Henderson To: Norman Wilson Cc: analogue@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Subject: Re: Vector synths >Ok so what in this context exactly is a `waveform sweep'? Somebody >else said this was interpolation between two waveforms. Wouldn't this >have just the same effect as crossfading between to sampled waves on >any S&S synth? Not really. The waveforms that the MicroWave uses are not really samples as much as they are the storage of the spectral energy of a single cycle snapshot. That is what is called a "wave". The waves can be combined into lists called "Wavetables". Any number of single cycle waves can be put in the wavetable. If you leave empty holes in a wavetable the uWave will construct new waves by building up interpolated harmonics from waves on either side of the hole. You can also take one wave and put it at one end of the table and another wave at the other, with nothing in between. The uWave will fill in the remainder of the table with waveforms that "Morph" from Wave A to Wave B. So far so good. So you can set an osc to have a given wave in a wavetable, and it will stay on that wave unless you sweep it. That is the cool part. The PPG style of wavetable synthesis allows you to separate frequency and time. So that is the primary difference between crossfade samples and uWave wavetables. Yep, the presets are not great for some kinds of music. The good news is that there is a tremendous pile of public domain patches available from the either by mail or by ftp. There is even an "Ambient" bank by yours truly. >Ok, so now define wavesequencing. My understanding of this is that it >allows you to build a table of waveforms, there is an index into this >table which points to the wave currently being played and you can >modulate this index in some way. Am I close? There are alot of control possibilites with wavesequences, see Dimitris' post for a really good description of wavesequencing. I have found it to be alot of fun. I am not bothered by the crappy keyboard, having benefitted from every one else's feedback, I got an AD. A most capable machine. On an analog note... has any one else taken an OBMx on a test drive? Bruce From Bruce_Henderson@NeXT.COM Thu Dec 1 12:28:49 1994 Date: Thu, 1 Dec 1994 21:37:51 +0200 From: Bruce Henderson Reply to: wavestation@otax.tky.hut.fi To: map@cs.washington.edu Subject: Re: Wavestation / Microwave Allow me to add my opinion to the Wavestation / MicroWave thread. I own both, and I love them both. If you always wanted a PPG in the 80's and could not scrap together the $8,000.00 for it, this is something to look into. It is not the same as a PPG, but you can tell they are from the same family. The wavetable oscillators on the MicroWave should not be thought of as being similar in any way to what other people are calling Wavetables. The wavetables in the MicroWave are more of a spectral snapshot. This allows you to set the oscilator to any waveshape you want, but you can also make the oscillator scan through a series of waves arranged in a wave table. This makes for some pretty dramatic sounds. The filters are good sounding, and have a very sharp edge to them. The other great thing is that you can also make the MicroWave sound very clean an well behaved. I would say that if I could only keep 1 of my 30 or so synths, it would be the MicroWave. This is simply because I find it so versitile. Now the Wavestation is no slouch either. I had been pretty much into doing work for people recording techno grooves and bumpers for industry (production) resale in LA when I picked up the Wavestation thing. At that point I started programming it, and discovered just how well suited this machine is for this for doing more "ambient" work. The key is the wavesequences. You can use the wavesequences to either create an evolving texture, or you can use it to create a grinding bass / drum riff. I also think that the vectoring is one of the most underused part of this synth. Most of the patches that you can buy don't seem to use vectoring very well.... too bad for them. My only dissapointment is that they really didn't pay too much attention to the filters. It is a good synth, but it could have been my favorite if they would have done something more K2000 like with the filters. I will sum it up this way. If you are trying to decide whether to by a Wavestation or a MicroWave. 1 Do you need a synth that that generates monster bass, as well some really unique lead and pads? 2 Do you need a synth that is unequaled a creating dramatic sweeps and pads, as well as has the ability to create wavesequences (which have zillions of uses). My personal choice if I owned neither and I had only enough money for one would be the MicroWave. But that is just me. Your milage may vary. bruce