H-man.
rinxai@Zynewave wrote:
I was considering removing the delay, and add the two panner dials instead. But I see that a lot of the user-made presets are already using the delay, so I’m afraid we’re stuck with the delay. I’ll look at ways to improve the delay later on.
Sure the delay is not the funkiest, but considering that there is not yet a Zdelay, it is still very useful for overall ‘out of box’ usability, especially in regard to making some demo tracks using Podium/Nucleum exclusively. So please keep this in. (or do a Zdelay)
Panning controls would just about complete the main elements needed for a well rounded synth.
The one thing I would like to see is an arpeggiator, but do not expect such at this time, for the moment EnergyXT/Arp4midi provide an alternative.
🙂
Per Lichtman@Zynewave wrote:
Hi Per,
Thanks for the detailed report. Overall, I’m pleased to hear that the synth has a fair chance of being useful for a lot of people.
The delay is the SM default “ping-pong delay”. I wouldn’t mind replacing it with a more useful delay implementation, if that can help with the creation of pad patches. I tried with the SM default reverb module, but to my ears it sounds terrible. Can you refer me to some examples of delays you find useful?
-ADSRs: Setting the ADSRs is a lot trickier than I am accustomed to in other synths for several reasons.
1) The ranges don’t seem to be ideal and the knobs quickly go past the “sweet spots” with little detail in the ranges I tend to favor. The range covered by 0.000 to 0.400 on the knobs would much more usefully be covered by 0.000 to 0.700. Not as much detail is required with really long settings (e.g. 2 seconds or more)I agree with you here. The current formula for the ADR time in millisecs is: 8*x^3. So a max time of 8 seconds, and the knob at 0.5 gives a time of 1 second. I already increased the low end resolution in v0.24, but I can easily increase it further. Changing the formula to 8*x^4 gives a time of 500 millisecs at 0.5. Changing it to 8*x^5 gives 250 ms at 0.5. What seems reasonable to you?
4)Curves/lines used in the envelope scaling by default seem “off”. I haven’t had luck using Shape 1 and Shape 2 in the Mod Matrix to correct this yet. Lots of experiments but no results. Maybe I am missing something obvious though so feel free to help fill in the blanks for me.
Do you mean the “AD Time” modulation targets? They apply a linear scaling of the AD times in milliseconds. If you think a different scaling is more appropriate, please let me know.
Some of my favorites delays are (from the tracker side of things) the Buzz FSM Panzer Delay, Ninja Delay and HD Combo Delay (going from memory a little bit there so bear with me). From the more mainstream side of things, Kjaerhus Classic Delay, Audio Damage Dubstation, Logic Tape Delay and the delay included with the Arturia CS-80v.
The new ADSRs sound much nicer than when I made my post but if you could post (or send) an alpha release that applied a different scaling, especially to release, I have a hunch it might improve the sound. I apologize for not giving a more academic response but I am a little burned out in the brains department from the intensity at the studio the last few days.
The numerical readouts and LFO issues have been addressed beautifully. I have nothing further to add other than kudos.
One note regarding the delay: I know that several people would miss it if it were gone, and I can respect that. For instant gratification or a more unified workflow, having delay settings integrated into the plug-in makes life much easier. As an audio engineer (and an avid reader of many trade magazines from the last 5 years) I can tell you that many professionals have a slightly different criteria for judging FX. If the effect does not significantly add to the sound, then the first thing we usually do is turn it off. Often, when first getting a new synth, we may audition most of the presets dry, regardless of how they were programmed, to get a better sense of the timbre of the synths. Plus, we tend to have a lot of our own favorite FX in our rack.
Professionals and hobbyists alike do have one thing in common, however: we love it when an effect is good enough to become part of the character of a synth’s sound. Think of the chorus on several Juno models or more recently of the delay on the Arturia CS-80v. I often leave that delay turned on because it sounds different to me than many of the others I use in a positive way. The SM default delay does not have much character, as should come as no surprise, so if a delay is left in it should really develop a character so that it is an asset to the synth. Right now, come review or evaluation time by many professionals, the delay is a liability.
One last thing I’d like to add is that the synth is still in an alpha build so I think we are all expecting to have to make significant re-writes to our presets before launch. That’s just what goes with changing the synth to make it better. But I will say that given the current simplicity of the delay, I could probably re-write the settings for a whole bank of presets in less than 10 minutes. I doubt it would take most people much longer either, especially given that we now have a time readout.
In other words, don’t feel to tied down to the current configuration. It’s still early in the game and it’s better to make things high quality in the synth now rather than worry about preserving legacy support for content that is still small in scale and easily re-written.
Just my 2 cents. I think I have neglected to respond to one or more points however so I will start a new post soon. 🙂
Per Lichtman@Zynewave wrote:
@Per Lichtman wrote:
Would it be possible to extend the maximum ADR times (say to 20 seconds or at least to 10) without losing the recently acquired detail in the early part of the knob?
I can’t make this change without affecting all existing presets, so I think I prefer to let it stay at 8 seconds max.
See my earlier comment about preserving legacy presets at the alpha stage, but it is indeed already working well at 8 seconds so I’m not attached at all. 🙂
@Zynewave wrote:
-Master Level (Volume) ADSR: I know, there are already several envelopes but here is an issue as I see it. If I am going to tweak the release times of the different oscillators to use them to change the sound of the release, then sometimes I need to have them be longer than the length of the sound itself. If I use them with such long release times while playing a pad right now, then all voices are rapidly eaten up. Also, I can tell you from my early experience with synths that having a master ADSR makes it much easier to design your first patch if you are a newbie, even if you aren’t worrying about the complexities I mentioned. Depending on what is easiest to deal with, it might also be made to only attenuate relative to the current level position just so that the level won’t blast your ears if something goes wrong in the modulation, but that really isn’t necessary.
I assume you mean the case where you use an osc as a pure modulator, and set the release to longer than the actual sound output. I see your point, but it would require a rework of the synth design to fit in an extra amp envelope. One of the challenges I set myself with this synth was to find a ballance between flexibility and using as few parameters as possible.
Actually, I would replace the shape dials with the Master ADSR. The shape dials are a bit overkill here and most presets don’t use them so you would have space there. I haven’t found any of my own presets improved significantly by using the shape dials in combination with the mod matrix either. It would definitely keep the polyphony from getting eaten up as quickly.
@Zynewave wrote:
The filters are mono, but I could add two panners for the two filter outputs. Those should of course be modulatable as well. From one of your previous recommendations, I was considering removing the delay, and add the two panner dials instead. But I see that a lot of the user-made presets are already using the delay, so I’m afraid we’re stuck with the delay. I’ll look at ways to improve the delay later on.
As rinxai indicated in his last post (where he also defended keeping the delay) adding panning would help flesh out the synth. To that I would add that delay can be externally added, while panning the filters cannot. In fact, without some way of internally panning different elements it would require having to load up an entirely different instance of Nucleum, disabling one of the filters in the first instance, opening up the same patch in the second instance, reworking the filter… and then finally panning each one externally. Not only is it a lot more work (and a lot more CPU) to accomplish the same result but the also potentially more MIDI tracks, more output tracks and potentially worse sync between the two.
So, in short, one more vote for panning dials. If space is an issue, I would recommend decreasing the space above and below the OSC dials in Filter 1 and 2 to make room for a small panning dial beneath the filter selection dialog.
rinxai@Per Lichtman wrote:
Actually, I would replace the shape dials with the Master ADSR. The shape dials are a bit overkill here and most presets don’t use them so you would have space there. I haven’t found any of my own presets improved significantly by using the shape dials in combination with the mod matrix either. It would definitely keep the polyphony from getting eaten up as quickly.
Agreed. I have not noticed much if any result on the sound from the shape dials, so if these were to be replaced with Master ADSR or Panning dials as Per Lichtman suggests here, that would perhaps improve the synth.
Also as Per noted, the numerical readouts are excellent.
Please look at improving the delay, which as Per noted is perhaps too limited to keep in, however as limited as it is, it provides an essential sound shaping component and without it many presets would sound dull.
It is no problem for me too use external delays for my own purposes, however I am interested in contributing presets and demo tracks that make exclusive use of Podium and Nucleum, without having to resort to external tools.
H-man@rinxai wrote:
Agreed. I have not noticed much if any result on the sound from the shape dials, so if these were to be replaced with Master ADSR or Panning dials as Per Lichtman suggests here, that would perhaps improve the synth.
The Shape dials only affect the LFOs (I think this is right?). So if you are using an LFO to modulate a parameter then you can use the Shape dials to tweak the LFO. Depending on the speed of the LFO, I thought this could have a substantial impact on the sound, especially at the start of a note.
Frits, can you confirm?
Ben
H-manoh, and +1 for panning 😀
rinxai@H-man wrote:
The Shape dials only affect the LFOs (I think this is right?). So if you are using an LFO to modulate a parameter then you can use the Shape dials to tweak the LFO. Depending on the speed of the LFO, I thought this could have a substantial impact on the sound, especially at the start of a note.
Frits, can you confirm?
Yes, please confirm. I suppose I need to test this more attentively.
Per Lichtman@rinxai wrote:
@H-man wrote:
The Shape dials only affect the LFOs (I think this is right?). So if you are using an LFO to modulate a parameter then you can use the Shape dials to tweak the LFO. Depending on the speed of the LFO, I thought this could have a substantial impact on the sound, especially at the start of a note.
Frits, can you confirm?
Yes, please confirm. I suppose I need to test this more attentively.
I would also appreciate the confirmation on this. I haven’t been able to employ them effectively myself. So far one of the only routings I was able to use to achieve any effect with them was as follows
Shape 1 —> LFO 1 Speed
LFO 1 —> Shape 1
LFO 1 —> [Parameter desired to be automated by LFO]
Using Shape 1 in only 1 of the two spots designated above produced no results. If it is working properly, I would still say that it is a bit too counter-intuitive given how easy the synth is to use in general. I mean, you can open up a patch “reset” and just start experimenting with the knobs really. Okay, so you do have to assign at least the 2nd or 3rd oscillator to a waveform if you want to use a knob other than 1>1, but seriously: really easy to delve into. 🙂
ZynewaveThe two shape dials works as two independent busses. You need to route a modulator into a shape, and then route the shape to a target. When the shape dial is at the default center position, the modulator is routed straight thru. With the shape dial you can twist the modulator curve. Turning the shape down produces a curve like (sorry for the crude gfx):
*
*
*
*
**
***
***Turning the shape dial up produces the inverse curve:
***
***
**
*
*
*
*So the shape dial controls the offset of the center point of the transformation curve.
My main intention with the shapes were to make it possible to control how keyboard velocity would affect a parameter. Like in other synths where you can select different keyboard response curves from a predefined set of choices. The shape busses can of course be used for other things such as modwheel response, or warping the curve of an LFO output.
rinxai@Zynewave wrote:
The two shape dials works as two independent busses. You need to route a modulator into a shape, and then route the shape to a target. When the shape dial is at the default center position, the modulator is routed straight thru. With the shape dial you can twist the modulator curve. Turning the shape down produces a curve.
Aha, ok, thats helps. 🙂
I’ve checked this out again and indeed there is some curve shaping going on, though I’m not sure what exactly, nonetheless the result is usable and probably will become more determinable with experience.
😉
Per LichtmanClearly I was more tired than I realized because I really thought I had responded to Zynewave’s most recent post. *Thinks.* No I remember: I spent time experimenting with using Shape vs. Bus and Bus Multiplier. Not going to lie: the results that shape produced were different. In fact they were sometimes closer to how I “felt” that I wanted a parameter to scale. Interesting results using velocity via shape 1 to osc 1>osc 1. But, it still seems less useful than the other 2 features that seem to be competing for the GUI space. 🙂 Plus, if users with a preset designing background had a tricky time getting the hang of it, how would a novice fair?
Seems like more of a Nucleum 1.5 feature to me. 😉 Thanks for helping to sorting that one out so clearly and quickly though!
ZynewaveNucleum 0.27 is uploaded.
Added a panner dial to each filter, next to the osc level dials. The panners are also available in the mod target menus.
Removed one of the shape dials and replaced it with a “Mod Glide” dial. This can be used to set a glide time for a modulator. It’s a cheap way of creating a slower responding output of e.g. an LFO, or to create different parameter responses to modwheel action. The one remaining shape dial has been renamed to “Mod Warp”.
The delay effect has been redesigned to have separate delays for L/R channels to allow for proper processing of the pannable filter outputs. Also added a lowpass to the delay feedback, to immitate a more natural decay.
Per Lichtman@Zynewave wrote:
Nucleum 0.27 is uploaded.
Added a panner dial to each filter, next to the osc level dials. The panners are also available in the mod target menus.
Removed one of the shape dials and replaced it with a “Mod Glide” dial. This can be used to set a glide time for a modulator. It’s a cheap way of creating a slower responding output of e.g. an LFO, or to create different parameter responses to modwheel action. The one remaining shape dial has been renamed to “Mod Warp”.
The delay effect has been redesigned to have separate delays for L/R channels to allow for proper processing of the pannable filter outputs. Also added a lowpass to the delay feedback, to immitate a more natural decay.
Exciting stuff. Downloading now. 🙂
H-manWicked 8), thanks Frits.
I’m working on an all Podium/Nucleum track (mini track) and will upload in the next day or so.
I’m trully impressed by the spectrum of sounds that one can create with Nucleum. And now it just got better!
Ben
rinxaiSuper! 🙂
I’ve been going through presets and correcting for the new panning feature and am pleased with the results of the new panning controls. The delay’s response also sounds a lot better.
Although some patches can be fairly demanding on CPU, it is possible to get some great sounds out using just 2 osc and 1 filter. There seem to be certain combinations of settings that push CPU demand, mainly for pad type sounds. Mostly I think performance is acceptable in terms of the quality of the sound which is great.
Thanks
8)