Minimoog vs Minimax (vectorscope, spectrograph & waveforms)

[Spielraum]

.

[Bud Weiser]

unfortunately I have to agree with you now
OSC1-3 waveform
GO ani-frames not correctly matched.
frame range must be corrected ...
faxi was allowed to pimp the sdk project,
but he didn't think of the BUG,
then he probably didn't correct the CC-BUGs,
I have to check ...
SCmini7-GUI-BUG-2020_05_06.gif

Now, since SCOPE v7 64bit (latest build) is up w/ all the included and commercial 3rd party devices,- I looked into it in depth last nite.
Well,- it´s probably more worst than I recognized before (or already was ...) !

Here it comes step by step:


OSC #1

Range Switch:

1)
Start moving the switch from position "LO" upwards to 32', 16' and back to "LO".
You can go back ´n forth between LO / 32' and 16' ,-
and pitch follows graphics (movement of chicken head switch) ...

2)
NOW,-
start w/ 16' and slowly move the mouse slightly upwards,-
you´ll hear an octave jump (up to 8') w/o any movement of the switch visible in direction to 8' position !
Then,- when moving the switch to 8' position, you´ll hear 4' and when you switch up to 4' you won´t hear any change.
When you´re back to 16', you hear 8'.
Now move mouse 1-2mm downwards and you´ll hear 16' but again won´t see any movement of the switch.

3)
Go up to 2' and back to 4' you´ll see and hear the change,- go back to 8',- no change ... go back to 16' you hear 8',- move mouse down a bit, you hear 16' but don´t see the change.

So,- in most settings for OSC #1 & #2, OSC ranges look different even sounding 8' unison !

4)
OSC #2 (and #3)

Chicken head pointer not accurate in 8' position,- also not in 4' position, but less ...
OSC #3 is better but also not perfect.
But I dunno how perfect it can be realized in SCOPE SDK, but I think the gross errors should be fixed.

AND ...

5)
ALL the OSC waveform switches show exactly the same behaviour than the OSC #1 "RANGE" switch !!!
Check the same movements I described above, listen and watch the chicken head pointer of the switch.
It´s exactly the same pattern as discribed for the RANGE switch and you don´t hear what you see

And while we nitpick,-

6)
OSC #2 & #3 tune controls need some finer adjustment options, especially around the center (12:00h) of the "fine tune" pot.
The difference between NO OSC frequency beat and the slightest change up or down is much too large.
No way to get the narrow tuning for (p.ex. Jan hammer´s) leads introducing very slow OSC pitch drift.

And I´d still wish for a post VCF/ pre- (int.-)FX mono insert point even that has nothing to do w/ bugs and fixes a.t.m..

And now, we should think about moving the thread to "general scope" discussion or perhaps "devices".
It´s MINIMAX in general, not only ASB and Klangbox.
Can be, all the users not owning ASB and/or Klangbox don´t read.



Bud

[Spielraum]

And now, we should think about moving the thread to "general scope" discussion or perhaps "devices".
It´s MINIMAX in general, not only ASB and Klangbox.

Board index > Discussion > Tips & Tricks
MINIMAX v7 GUI Pot Study 2020
https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36476

check Global Setting
PotMovement
Round1/2: oK
Vertikal: Bug

i can life with it
we don't want to scare holger completely...

[Bud Weiser]

And now, we should think about moving the thread to "general scope" discussion or perhaps "devices".
It´s MINIMAX in general, not only ASB and Klangbox.

Board index > Discussion > Tips & Tricks
MINIMAX v7 GUI Pot Study 2020
https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=36476

check Global Setting
PotMovement
Round1/2: oK
Vertikal: Bug

i can life with it
we don't want to scare holger completely...

That´s a workaround !
But w/ all my software, I always prefered working w/ vertical mouse movement,- so I did w/ SCOPE too and never tried the other options.
Why should I ?
They offer "vertical" so I wanna use it, last but not least because it´s a "global" setting for overall SCOPE and not Minimax alone.
It´s much easier clicking on a virtual control and just only hoover the mouse up or down vs drawing circles.
It should be fixed IMO.

thx for diving in !



Bud

[Spielraum]

It should be fixed IMO.

...and if the vertical option is removed in the next update, what then? i would be sad then.

[Bud Weiser]

It should be fixed IMO.

...and if the vertical option is removed in the next update, what then? i would be sad then.

Do you call removing not working things "fixes" ?



Bud

[garyb]

yes.

there are always complaints. of course things that don't work correctly are certainly frustrating, but i notice that nobody ever complains about the inconsistencies of Windows. Windows NEVER works 100% correctly. no software does, or ever has, if it is even somewhat complex, unless it's in a custom os, and even then, there are usually bugs.

[Bud Weiser]

..., but i notice that nobody ever complains about the inconsistencies of Windows. Windows NEVER works 100% correctly.

Yeah ! It´s me ... I complain about Windows all day !
But it doesn´t help since almost everything is made for Win or Mac OSX,- and SCOPE isn´t for Mac at all.

no software does, or ever has, if it is even somewhat complex, unless it's in a custom os, and even then, there are usually bugs.

Right,- but sometimes there are easy fixes,- no ?
I recognized that Minimax issue already w/ SCOPE 4.0 on PCI !



Bud

[garyb]

no. right now, there are no easy fixes. it's better to focus on the big problems.

OSX won't be any better.

[Bud Weiser]

no. right now, there are no easy fixes. it's better to focus on the big problems.

OSX won't be any better.

I think so ...
In the past, I hoped for BeOS,- but didn´t happen unfortunately.



Bud

[bigovum]

This has been an amazing thread, thanks Bud (and all). I've learnt more about the Model D in the last 20 minutes than the last 20 years. I didn't realise the haptics played a part in the sound being generated. Very interesting to think about in relation to MPE and how that could evolve with an 'imperfection' layer.

[jksuperstar]

I just had a wicked jam at a friend's house with his Behringer Poly-D, and found the polymode with arp/seq turned on to be so inspiring and instantly accessible. Does anyone know of a small playable arp/sequencer in scope (or VST) realms that is similar?

[Bud Weiser]

I just had a wicked jam at a friend's house with his Behringer Poly-D, and found the polymode with arp/seq turned on to be so inspiring and instantly accessible. Does anyone know of a small playable arp/sequencer in scope (or VST) realms that is similar?

AFAIK, B´s PolyD isn´t fully polyphonic, paraphonic instead.
So, voltage controlled envelope behaviour is different from Minimax in poly-mode,- and there isn´t paraphonic mode for Minimax.

How about CWM sequencer devices ?
http://www.cwmodular.org/seq_devices.html



Bud

[Spielraum]

...Then, Minimax has a graphic bug in regards of it´s octave/footage switch.
Typing from my head I think it was in OSC #1 ... maybe #2 (?) ...
It annoys me all the time because it looks different than it sounds. ...

BUG fixed:
https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=36853

[masterec]

I have latest Arturia Moog models, NI Monark and now Minimax.

This is subjective opinion so take it as that. To my ears Minimax is world apart Monark or Arturia emulation. And yes I also have U-he Diva which can sound very Moogish. I don't know it's hard to describe this for me but Minimax tops them all.

It's just somehow more solid in a mix I am unsure how to express myself. I am aware this isn't proper description at all. Like I add Minimax to my mix and it's there, sound is ballsy, alive and I actually need to tame it and control it. I don't need to load additional processing plugins to meet and to achieve what I am after. With Natives I am always doing something to get them alive and to lead mix. Minimax - no sir that thing is believable. I noticed some other problems with Minimax sound like filter stepping at a times. But hey I don't produce music for crickets. Nor am I into drones making 10 minutes filter sweeps.

This things sounds like Moog.

Here is another even less smart description - Minimax is super fat.

[Bud Weiser]

In digital domain, there will be some disadvantages always,- like "stepping" of controls p.ex..
In theory, it´s history w/ MIDI v2.0,- but old devices will have to talk that language before improving.

As a 1st owner of a vintage Minimoog D, I can live w/ these digital disadvantages for the advantage to get preset memory w/ Minimax.
A few years ago,- a VSTi developer who I worked with, said in a email,- "Minimax is the best Minimoog emulation".
It might be matter of taste,- but at least, it´s a very, very good one.

I myself and in comparison to my own hardware Minimoog D (which received some mods over the decades),- I´d wish, Minimax had some more "hotter" input level for the "loopback/feedback" trick (audio out into ext. filter input).

It´s indeed the main difference between Minimax and my original hardware synth,- and I´m using the "feedback trick" more or less always and w/ carefully adjusted level settings.
So,- some better adjustable "range" would be an advantage for Minimax.
Actually, there´s "cranking it up" or almost "inaudability" what´s selectable.
On the (my) hardware, most sensitive range is between 10:00 and 12:00h on the ext. input pot and to fatten up sound.
Going beyond is distortion.
I´d wish, I´d had that "headroom" w/ Minimax and were able to control via MIDI CC in a usefull way.
For the hardware, I received Lintronics LMC-2,- the latest MIDI interface for Minimoog D (and other analogues).
It´s now controllable via MIDI in realtime,- all,- in the interface implemented,- parameters user assignable to MIDI CCs via an application.
That´s great !

But using Minimax on NoahEX, PCI cards and XITE-1 (w/ laptop) gives the option leaving my Minimoog D at home and dealing w/ preset memory (like MOOG Voyager) since decades.

For the time being, I hope for a SDK user diving in and increase "audio-out to ext. input volume" range in Minimax "feedback path" to have more control.
I can imagine, someone here is able to realize since he gave us somewhat optimized "Prodyseey" and "Minimax" versions for SCOPE v7 already.



Bud

[valis]

You can compensate for the stepping internally, but this adds lag (slew limiter/lowpass filter between input & control) and reduces 'snappiness'. The age-old workflow for 7bit (plus status) midi is to use a modulator tied to an expression control. Lfo, Envelope etc. In most cases if you 'engage' the modulator using the control, and let the modulator run things from there (or simply use the expression input to 'dial in' the amount of modulator used) then the worst aspects of the 'stepping noise' can be avoided.

Alternatively, you guys can ask Spielraum to put slew limiters inline, as suggested in my first sentence. It might be worth having a toggle for this for those that want a more immediate response, or perhaps it's possible to build a simpler slew limiter in the SDK than I can in mod3/4 (and thus reduce the latency of the smoothing function).

[fra77x2]

Scope inside uses 32bit integers for audio and for control parameters. The interface has a function that when you select click a pot with a mouse and then drag the mouse away while holding the click the resolution of the assignment increases. This makes the mouse a very fine device to control potentiometers. In the sdk you can also adjust the range and the curve of each parameter so the mouse can work very good when fine-tuned if such resolution is desired. This function is one of the pros of scope against vst's where most of the time the daws or certain vsts do not care about fine tuning of parameters and offer unworkable coarse mouse adjusting of parameters.

Midi offers 7bit messages. Using midi controller to adjust a potentiometer means the steps are 127. This is steppy.
Commonly there are "dezippers", a module that applies a lag and smooths out the value when the parameter is changed. These apply a small amount of smoothing which is quite fast and takes care of abrupt changes that could lead to audible clicks.

In the sdk 14 bit midi can be implemented or even higher. Some daws support 14-bit midi (16384 steps) it works by assigning 2 controllers to control 1).

With custom applications someone can make even higher bit midi by using 3 or 4 controllers. Does it worth it? It depends.

Best way in scope is to adjust certain parameters in audio rate. (32-bit). This is the highest resolution available and makes sense for parameters like filter cutoff. But also other parts of a patch, work and sound better in audio rate. This is up to the programmer (synthesist) to know what and how to control in such a way so to get the best performance.

As Valis said slew limiters can be used, they are called "envelope followers" in scope and AFAIK the modular module and the sdk module are similar and AFAIK can not get improved. (the algorithm is already optimal) Putting an envelope follower after an envelope greatly improves the sound by reducing artifacts. Don't get misled by the names: Envelope follower means it follows a signal and creates the "envelope" of it. But It can also be used to smooth control signals like "envelopes".

About minimax. Yes it is good. For me one of the best parts of its design lies in the envelopes. The programmer has taken its time to sit down and try to mimick the way analogue envelopes work on sound. If you observe the attack of each note you will see this. This makes the synth sit better on the mix because it has less artifacts. Also the oscillator is aliasing free and sounds way better than the standard multi oscillator in scope that has a lot of aliasing and sounds quite nasty. (the standard osc is old technology for nowadays, minimax, pro5 and other synths provide good aliasing free oscillators). For the filter I don't really like minimax filter. I prefer the standard multi-filter of scope over it. (better resonance IMHO good sound)

Comparing with the real thing I don't think makes sense. The problem with digital lies that it is abstract. Digital signals do not obey physical laws, they are equations or arbitrary designations. Equations provide the ideal. The ideal in the field of sound is inferior to reality because our hearing follows the dynamical nature of the real world which is complex and organic. Of course mixing digital and analogue sources or if you manipulate in analogue domain digital sources the digitalitis dissapears (they get real) and they can be useful.


Some clarification because reading my post it seems that i confuse bit-rate and sample rate.
Bits of a parameter is the range of the values it can codify.
Binary numbers can represent 2^bit rate so 1 bit = 2 values, 8 bit = 256 values, 32 bit = 4294967296. for an integer that can also represent negative values 32 bit range means a range between -2147483648 to 2147483647.

Sample rate is how often a parameter is computed i.e 44100, 96000 etc. Commonly "audio rate" refers to sample rate not bit rate.

[garyb]

the latest ASB firmware has little to no steppiness. that was fixed in 2006 or 2007, just before Creamware died.

as explained above, there is still some steppiness that cannot be improved because of the way that the ASB devices work. for the most part, it is smoothed, however.

[valis]

Thank you gentlemen, that was very thorough.