just want to thank you for offering to send this device presetless (i'm sorry i won't be able to hear all the presets spirit has done ) to us pre os3 users.
some neat stuff going on in this device, just one thing though (i tried to mail this to you but your inbox is full so my mail got returned). i can't see all the algo diagrams, and they aren't numbered (in the diagram).
so could you or someone else post a simple text file with the differing algo's, numbered.
hmm, i got yer email and subsequent attachment. didn't change the behavior though.
i'm on a mac and have experienced quite a few display problems with devices, none are really inhibiting or all encompassing, just detractive, if anything.
[ot] do you still have that older video card? you should try to run in millions of colors, with at least an 16meg video card. Also, I see you are running in OS mode. That mode has ALL KINDS of graphics problems, use Desktop/Luna/Pulsar mode (whatever its called). You can change that setting in the View > Options pulldown.
Do you think possible to build a more complete FM synth like a clone of Yamaha DX7?
It seems that CW will never develope a poyphonic version FMOne for Pulsar boards, and the one that exist only works on Scope.
The 4 operator device is an interesting begining , but many of the FM benefits shine when you dispose of the multistage EG and Keyboard scaling features that the original DX7 had.
Also it would be fine to have configurable algorythms instead of fixed conections.
Don´t look this as a critic to your effort, the device is really nice, but for to have real power in the FM field are necessary at least 6 operators and a wider variety of algorythms with feedback capabilities.
I´m using in this moment the Native Instruments FM7, although it has some important limitations in the realtime control , the sound pallette that it brings is more complete and "fat" (what unmusical term).
Anyhow thank you for the device
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2002-04-22 08:27 ]</font>
Dear Spirit:
The Wavelength device is far of to be an FM synthsizer, and they explain it clearly in the web page as an hybrid analog/FM synth.
Looking at it's design it has much more of an analog synth than of an FM symth.
The exact example of what an FM synth is, is perfectly represented by the Creamware's FMOne: it is and advanced version of the Yamaha DX7 (but monophonic).
It also works using the principles with what John Chownining defined how the FM synthesis must work.
Please dont confuse synths that use FM in one or more of it's modules with a classic FM synth, that's based in algorythms that interconect carriers and operators in multiple combinations and have feedback.
The FM synths DON'T HAVE FILTERS OF ANY KIND, and the different timbres are the result of the operator's combination called algorythms.
The definition of operator (by CCRMA and Yamaha) is : An oscilator with a multistage Envelope Generator associated, that's modified by the keyboard scaling, pressure scaling, velocity scaling, external MIDI continous controls and LFOs as modulators.
The way of programming this type of synthesis is much more complex than substractive synthesis, commonly called "analog", due this is near impossible to have an simple intuitive approach.
Also it requires from the programmer to have a clear target for to reach, if not the results can be unpredictable.
Probably this was one of the commercial "weak" points that carry the FM synths to disapear from the market at the end of the 80's.
Is important to signal that the potential sound palette of a real FM synth is much more wider than in a substractive synth, (although it's sound is not so "fat").
In facts the Yamaha FM synths "replaced" the wonderful Moogs, Oberheims and Sequential Circuits synths of the 70's and 80's for this reason.
Today I can't say that a Yamaha DX7 sounds better than an Oberheim Matrix 12 (probably the better analog synth ever built), they are kings in different dimensions.
But yes it replace with advantage a lot of cheapper substractive synths like for example the Roland Juno 106 or the less expensive models of Moog and Sequential Circuits.
The main problem that the early FM synths had, was that the realtime control over the the circuit was near impossible for it's completely digital nature.
They were the first synths "completely digital" in an historic moment (1983) where the CPUs and the DACs were not to much powerful, for not to speak about the memory chips.
Now with the powerful DSP and CPUs there's not a valid reason for not to build a polyphonic FM synth with realtime control over all the parameters.
So my dear guys from Creamware, you know well that I'm waiting for this develope since the first release of Pulsar I and there are not technical reasons that impede to build it.
A comment to everybody, proof the Native Instruments FM7 and post your comments.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2002-04-28 21:21 ]</font>
That's not the matter, simply I said that the Wavelegth synth is not, strictly speaking, an FM synth although it use this type of synthesis in the wave generation.
And of course it looks really interesting, the fact is that I'm searching other type of synth.
did you have any luck doing up a modular patch of the fm model you were looking for?
i caught an inspiring post made awhile back with you talking about doing this among another thing, but no followup.
i imagine you would need a significant amount of dsp to do a 6 operator fm patch with all the trimmings and get 10-16 voices. or maybe not? arikama's ym2151+ (i think) 4 op fm patch gets more than a decent amount of polyphony (for a mod patch) out of my lowly elektra.
best.
//c
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: castol on 2002-04-28 22:02 ]</font>
First of all I want to congratulate Mjerom for the 4 operators FM symth, I like it and I use it.
About if it's possible or not to develope a complete polyphonic 6 operators FM synth (or 8 operators like FMOne) with feedback and with the complex modulation matrix of a Yamaha DX7, I will give my personal and subjective opinion.
In the past I have talked about this matter with Creamware's team , Michael Olsen, Guy Eastwood and John Bowen (who I supose is who designed the FMOne).
Also I spoke more than one time with John Chowning, the creator of the FM synthesis when he was the director of CCRMA at Stanford University.
Creamware said that the FMOne required to be modified for to be compatible with Pulsar.
All Scope users know that a polyphonic version of this synth exist for Scope DP.
But when I asked about details of the modifications that the device require I never received any repply.
Also the FMOne is a closed device, protected with a key, so nobody can debug it and modify anything of it's structure.
In my personal and subjective opinion, as I said above, the tools that the Scope DP provide includding the most advanced that only Creamware have, are not appropriate for to develope this type of synth, due probably the amount of DSP cycles required for the purpose exeed the system capability or the available modules consume an excess of DSP power that make impossible to have a 16 voices synth in a single Pulsar board.
Also like with the Yamaha DX7 , probably there will be very few people with interest in to program the synth.
For my own experience, to get a satisfactory result, can take days of working over a single sound.
I have tried to create one with the Modular 2 and the complexity of the design surpased my possibilities and my knowledge.
But there's a very strange thing : Why the Native Instruments FM7, a host based synth, can give me without any problem 16 voices of polyphony (and more)in an old BX440 Pentium II 350Mhz using less than 30% of the processor power????
I suposed that the Sharc DSP chips should be much more efficient than a standard CPU, that use much more cycles for to to the same job that a DSP chip do in a single or two cycles.
Probably for to reduce the amount of DSP load this type of synth require to be programmed in a low level language instead of using the Scope stock dsp modules or in the best case the Creamware's DSK.
But the reality is that I have more questions than anwsers about this matter.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2002-04-29 20:43 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: PabloFasan on 2002-04-30 21:36 ]</font>
Hi
I 've just finished the debug of the new FM4
It looks like many problem are solved now .
I included more presets (from MICHU)too.
I hope that everything is fine !
Its a nice atempt to great the sound of the yamaha dx100.
i own a dx100 and i made a a-b comparison but the softsynth cant beat the hardware synth. its way to clean and there is no low end in the sound that u hear from the real dx-100
So keep up the good work m but it is not even near the real dx 100.
) to us pre os3 users.
