Minimax and Profit5 ASB

sergiosimoes · Post by **sergiosimoes** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 8:40 am

Do someone know FOR SURE if the hardware units sounds IDENTICAL to the Scope plugins? I mean, disregarding any differences due to D/A converters; my concern is about the DSP algorithms.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 9:55 am

the differences are explained in the pdf doc available in the announcement forum - a very nice doc btw

cheers, Tom

sergiosimoes · Post by **sergiosimoes** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:11 am

Tom, are you refering to the Minimax ASB Manual? If so, could you say the page where the differences are explained.

Thanks

Sergio

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 12:55 pm

I think it's on page 6 and has already been mentioned by those who have heard the instrument. For simplicity here is the paragraph:

The quality of the synthesis algorithms in this instrument is
remarkable. Because the oscillators use the frequency
spectrum’s full bandwidth, more overtones are produced as in
earlier algorithms. Even the saturation level in the mixer
section for internal and external signals were taken into
consideration. Saturation gives the sound more presence.
Especially the filter which profits greatly from the new algorithms.
Existing filter-algorithms may have had resonance, but in
general they weren’t that exciting like the analog archetype.
Using digital filters caused high attention to avoid Aliasing
when using filter sweeps. Many filters therefore reduce the
amount of resonance or don’t open wide enough to not cross
the borderline to Aliasing (half sample frequency). Filter
sweeps with such filters have been "so so", but normally were
lacking kind of vitality. The filter implemented in your
MINIMAX ASB now provides all the resonances and
distortions, you desire. Filter resonance can be fully tuned on
and sweeps can be performed without Aliasing, even when
exceeding the half sample frequency border. This way also a
Filter FM with all the possible side chains occurring is easily
possible.
Besides that the envelopes of the MINIMAX ASB don’t need
hideaway from the analog paragous. They’re not only fast, but
also exactly modeled like the Original’s behavior.

cheers, Tom

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:49 pm

Yeah? They said all that kind of stuff for the Scope version of Minimax (not to mention Noah). I don't think this is any different.

ChampionSound · Post by **ChampionSound** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:25 am

Indeed, in the quoted text above, they don't compare the ASB directly with the software version of the minimax, but they compare it just in general with other softsynths, AFAIK.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:55 am

more overtones are produced as in
earlier algorithms is of course up to interpretion: does Creamware comment their own or other people's work ?

I can't remember the thread, but it has been mentioned that (at least some) ASB presets were impossible to reproduce with Minimax - and it was mentioned the box was strangely 'brighter'.

this could depend on the output conversion stage, but (personally) I'm convinced they use the same converters as in Scope - the latter is pure speculation, of course

cheers, Tom

[ This Message was edited by: astroman on 2005-07-23 02:56 ]

ChampionSound · Post by **ChampionSound** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 2:08 am

more overtones are produced as in
earlier algorithms is of course up to interpretion: does Creamware comment their own or other people's work ?

hehe, my interpretation was that Creamware was commenting other peoples work

But you're right, I read the other thread too, where it has been mentioned that (at least some) ASB presets were impossible to reproduce with Minimax. So that explains it all I guess.

Wouldn't it have been great if the ASB had some (optional) SPDIF or balanced outputs (as well) to improve the output signal a little bit more to preserve as much detail of the crystal clear sound/new algorithm as possible?

Oh well, I bet the asymmetrical outputs will sound great too!

petal · Post by **petal** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:14 am

Because the oscillators use the frequency
spectrum’s full bandwidth, more overtones are produced as in
earlier algorithms.

What I read here is that: "because the oscillators use the frequency spectrum's full bandwidth, more overtones are produced LIKE in earlier algorithms".

It's proppably not what they mean, but that's how I understand the text, if I only read it. My guess is that it should say, "... THAN in earlier algorithms".

Anyways, it's a fascinating detail in this excellent manual

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 6:27 am

Yep I noticed the English in the manual was not up to the high standards of previous Scope manuals...

Post by **garyb** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 8:54 am

v1......

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 10:03 am

Yeah, it reads similarly to their Web site, which says things like: "certain delivery time"....

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:03 pm

What's a "paragous" ?

Cheap proofreading done here, CW, drop us a line

Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:41 am

this seems like a typo. Sh*t happens

the word is paragons"

Use the word "model" instead. As gary pointed out it is the first release v1.

later on when they have time CWA will take another closer look at the manual and
fix all the typo.

that is why the manual did not make it yet to the CWA site. Gary simply posted the v1 of it.

[ This Message was edited by: antar on 2005-07-25 11:47 ]

sergiosimoes · Post by **sergiosimoes** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:56 am

On 2005-07-22 19:49, Shayne White wrote:
Yeah? They said all that kind of stuff for the Scope version of Minimax (not to mention Noah). I don't think this is any different.

I'd like to hear an official word from CW about the differences between the plugins and the ASB units. If the ASB algorithms are more advanced It'd be nice if the plugin versions could be upgraded too.

Sergio

Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:58 am

send them a direct email.

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 11:42 am

On 2005-07-25 11:41, antar wrote:
that is why the manual did not make it yet to the CWA site. Gary simply posted the v1 of it.

[ This Message was edited by: antar on 2005-07-25 11:47 ]

Good point.. although you'd hope they would have it fixed for the shipping date.

Or maybe they're trying to go for the endearing 'bad English manual' approach much loved by Roland fanatics...

Post by **Guest** » Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:34 pm

Well here is an idea. Let us tell CWA what they need to change in the manual to make it sound better.

However the first shipment of minimax will have the v1 manual as I am sure those who read the manual won't have trouble making music out of misspelled words/sentences

[ This Message was edited by: antar on 2005-07-25 13:35 ]

Post by **Guest** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:15 am

I have send your email to CWA in Germany and here is your answer:

Quote:

A) The sound is one on one with original. You can't go further, as you can't get better.

B) The algorithms had to be adjusted to the new processors used within the ASBs.
So the revised algorithms wouldn't work on the boards anyway. But the revision has
only been excuted in a technical sense and not in the sense of quality --> see point A)

Wolf Roth
CreamWare Audio

sergiosimoes · Post by **sergiosimoes** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:29 am

Thanks antar (and Wolf from CWA) for the clarification.

Sergio