STS improvement suggestions

Talk about the STS series of Creamware samplers.

Moderators: valis, garyb

User avatar
braincell
Posts: 5943
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Washington DC

Post by braincell »

Naturally sample playing is less DSP intensive than physical modeling. The STS doesn't have to create a sound, the sound is stored in your ram. With physical modeling sounds are created on the fly.
Guillermo
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Spain

Post by Guillermo »

STS suggestions:
- Program Pool like the standard preset window.
- Envelopes and other parameters (also decay please) with midi controllers
- A better interface... like Lightwave synth?
ernest@303.nu
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by ernest@303.nu »

Sharc:
Back in the Old Days I've been experimenting with using my ESi-32 (later with Turbo upgrade and thus about 19(?) filter types) as a synthesizer by creating (by using various software programs and then sent to the ESi-32 through SCSI) or sampling carefully looped waveforms and applying VCF and VCA envelopes/modulation to them. Especially when stacking layers with different filtering, applying opposite LFO's between layers, etc etc some *very* complex synthi-sounds could be accomplished. Really liked the 'rough' character of the ESi-32 when tuning waveforms extremely up or down amd then applying filters to them. Results were unearthy for that time!
Programming these sounds was hellish, however.... :sad:
Anyway, so far for the sweet memories... :smile:

What I want to say is that the STS-engine (especially 4/5k) should be perfectly able to perform this kind of wavetable synthesis while maintaining good polyphony, or create truly 'new' wavetable synths based on the STS-algorythms; It has many filter-types (although they often sound worse than the stand-alone filters, as you may have noticed... a bit 'grainy' or something), realtime modulation of formant/pitch/length, etc.

Another type of interface (the explorer-like tree structure someone mentioned earlier sounds cool!) for the STS-sampler should make it at least easier to explore the STS-engine more in depth.

I hope Creamware will pick this up! :grin:
junklight
Posts: 101
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by junklight »

Yeah - a new interface - given that knobs are only virtual and therefore don't add anything to the cost - there is no real reason why there can't be more controls available at once.

cheers

mark
__________________________________________
junklight - dark experimental electronics
http://www.junklight.com
Jez
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: London

Post by Jez »

For my ten pence, I really like the interface. It looks good, is uncluttered and doesn't take up too much space on the desktop.
subhuman
Posts: 2573
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Galaxy Inside

Post by subhuman »

<i>For my ten pence, I really like the interface. It looks good, is uncluttered and doesn't take up too much space on the desktop.</i>

Exactly. My only (very minor) suggestion would be to have a way of locking all the sections together (Main window + Keygroups + Samplewindow) so they can all be moved around together. But really I just can setup a screenset I guess...
User avatar
braincell
Posts: 5943
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Washington DC

Post by braincell »

When it is open who cares how much space it takes up? Does anyone leave them Open? I want it to take much more space up so it isn't so teeny tiny. Can you imagine having to use this with arthritus? also it should show way more data at once. This is not a well designed interface even if it does get the job done.
User avatar
alfonso
Posts: 2224
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Fregene.
Contact:

Post by alfonso »

On 2002-05-13 07:10, sharc wrote:
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that the STS range offer far more polyphony per dsp than any other CW device? why not put this to good use. A range of sound modules based on the STS architecture would in my opinion be a welcome addition to the CW arsenal. All it would take is some sonic creativity and a redesigned GUI. The end results could also be sold on as STS expander packs.
High polyphony is due to the fact there is very little dsp calculation power to playback a sample, not comparablen with the task of synthetizing it.
derdahli
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 4:00 pm
Contact:

Post by derdahli »

Hi !
For me the STS userinterface is the reason I nearly never use it.
I hate this wannabe hardware way....
And more than one window makes it worse.

Regards,
Christian
Post Reply