Your thoughts about rompler synthesis

[mute]

as a side note, seems some ppl easily confuse wavetable synths (cycles) vs. romplers (read only sample libs) vs. samplers (duhr).. thats always annoyed me a bit.

[clubbedtodeath]

Not quite correct - ROMplers use wavetable synthesis.

[meatballfulton]

as a side note, seems some ppl easily confuse wavetable synths (cycles) vs. romplers (read only sample libs) vs. samplers (duhr).. thats always annoyed me a bit.

What about all the hybrids out there?

Many VAs have some form of wavetable synthesis as well, today's flagship workstations all can sample, some FM synths have filters (making them FM+subtractive) and there are instruments with multiple synth engines.

All these approaches are valid, each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

[Automatic Gainsay]

Once again, it's easy to blur distinctions and seemingly disable generalizations by noting a few exceptions.
This invariably leads to "everything is subjective" and eventually "none of this matters, it's all about the music!"

[I12]

It only became an acoustic-emulative device when it fell into the hands of other musicians and marketing people.

In regard to my posts that what i was talking about, when synths became
popular and cheap!
They were marketed as being able to emulate accoustic inst, why? cause many did and a good job of it for some sounds.
Decent playing, articulation, use of the after touch and synth controls on my ol sh2000 you can do some pretty
realistic stuff.
Certainly musically emotive enough for many to pick what sound it was emulating.
If the $$$ moogs or early test equipment were the only
synths available.
they wouldn't exist like they do today.

So please give it up for the preset synths and synth patch sheets
the precursors to the Romplers

[balma]

All these approaches are valid, each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

+1

I've read people judging the ROMplers as "cheaper wavetables" and stablishing some remarkable differences between them ..... but clubbedtodeath says that they use wavetable synthesis, now I'm a little bit confused, because I though there were remarkable differences between them ?

[clubbedtodeath]

but clubbedtodeath says that they use wavetable synthesis, now I'm a little bit confused, because I though there were remarkable differences between them ?

Beg your pardon, I've done a bit more research and I was wrong..

I got confused because I remember Soundblaster and Gravis cards and the like using the term 'wavetable'. As one says in Amerika: my bad.

[tallowwaters]

Futurely.

[wildstar]

Just wondering if anyone in this thread can tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin whilst accompanied by the Angelic Choir patch on my Kurzweil?

[meatballfulton]

I've read people judging the ROMplers as "cheaper wavetables" and stablishing some remarkable differences between them, now I'm a little bit confused

To most people the term wavetable conjures up machines that can index through the waveform memory rather than always pointing to the same sample.

Early examples were machines like the PPG Wave or Ensoniq VFX. To get around the expense of modeling resonant filters in the digital domain with the slow CPUs of the 80s, they would sweep through a series of similar waveforms of varying resonance being run through a non-resonant filter. Of course, users discovered much more bizarre sounds could be created by sweeping through unrelated waveforms. This led to the Prophet VS, Korg Wavestation and other so-called "vector" synthesizers.

Sweeping wavetables is not possible in most modern S+S machines but can be found in some VAs (Radias, Virus TI, Blofeld), the DSI Evolver's digital oscillators (with the Prophet VS tables) and a huge number of softsynths...all of which support waveform selection as a modulation target.

[OriginalJambo]

Beg your pardon, I've done a bit more research and I was wrong..

I got confused because I remember Soundblaster and Gravis cards and the like using the term 'wavetable'. As one says in Amerika: my bad.

The term "wavetable" is a bit of a funny one IMO. Technically you could say some older synths that use sampled cyclic waveforms (e.g. the Ensoniq ESQ-1/SQ-80) as the basis for the sounds they create can be described as such, since they are a lot like the old SoundBlaster cards which the term "wavetable" stemmed from. This term was used to differentiate them from cheap FM soundcards at the time, that generated their sounds with - you guessed it - FM synthesis. Ah, the Golden Age of PC gaming!

However on top of this you also have the "wavetables" used in Waldorf synths. Whilst the idea of the "wavetable" itself isn't really any different, how it is manipulated really is! So when someone mentions "wavetable" they could be taking about either form of synthesis really. And it doesn't end there - "Vector" (Prophet VS, Wavestation) and "Linear Arithmatic" (Roland D-50) synthesis both make use of short samples as well!

In fact Microsoft still to this day use the term for their "Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth", which is often the default MIDI device in most Windows computers. So what Angus stated isn't entirely incorrect.

[balma]

I wonder how does the engine of the V synth works. I've read both mentions on the V synth: rompler and wavetable.

the transwaves concept has become a topic of my main interest since I adquired the Fizmo. Without knowing anything about the theory, I have found that they are more dinamic, more easy to shape into something else than on romplers or other synths that uses a wave list of samples.

FIzmo uses 54 (or 58) transwaves. But they are more than enough to create a large, wide spectrum of sounds due to their dynamism.
Truly, that factor counts for me a lot and that small bunch of sounds have provided me with a lot of fun. I feel I can get more "weird" soundst than on a Yamaha Aw2M synth with 600 wavs.

Maybe is just the selection of waves???

Fizmo transwaves selection is bizarre. One by one, some of them seems to be not the great stuff, there are a few ones that sound like oboes. But when being shaped, they can become in something totally different from the recording on the Fizmo's memory.

I does not exactly how does Fizmo operates its list of sounds, but I'm quite impressed.

Also, I have compared the string or harmonic pads that I can generate with the AW2M engine of the Yamaha, and the Karma and Triton engine.

Higher and lower notes of the strings of a Yamaha EX5, sound a lot better and more consistent than the same notes of the strings of the Karma.

On the Ex5, you browse the sample categories, and there are only a few sounds of strings. there are in total 480-490 waveforms.

But the system allows you, to access a second area, that has around 1480 samples. First time, I thought it was an expansion, but soon I realized that the 490 waveforms, were made with those 1480 samples, and a single waveform, sometimes was made of 15 samples assigned to keyzones.

I feel kind of ridiculous for not knowing exactly the differences between transwaves, wavetables and romplers, but I know how to operate the instruments and I'm becoming able, with a lot of practice, to already obtain X sound on the Fizmo, but I dunno why is so much fun.

[Automatic Gainsay]

I would say, based on all of the information everyone has just stated, that you're less likely to find ROMplers (or instruments that should be called ROMplers) implementing this wavetable business. (This is your cue to list the three exceptions) The simple fact that this process (as you seem to be describing it) is one where new sounds are generated, and unique outcomes result, is contrary to the de facto definition of ROMplers.

ROMplers, named for their distinction from Samplers, draw sounds from PCM samples instead of being able to sample themselves. Since the samples used in ROMplers are usually longer than a single waveform cycle (as per the comparison to Samplers, whose sounds are also usually longer than a single waveform cycle), it doesn't sound like some connection between wavetables and ROMplers is a very strong one. All of the synths I've seen named as being "wavetable" synths are synthesizers for the purposes of designing new sounds.

[meatballfulton]

All of the synths I've seen named as being "wavetable" synths are synthesizers for the purposes of designing new sounds.

Just to really throw a monkey wrench into the works, the Ensoniq Transwave synths and all the Korg Wavestations except the original one devoted a large portion of the waveform ROM to piano samples because the lack of a good piano preset was enough to sink a synthesizer in the marketplace. Buyers had come to expect it and even today one topic that always seems to come up in hardware synth reviews is how good the piano sounds are (or at least that there aren't any!).

"Vector" (Prophet VS, Wavestation) synthesis makes use of short samples as well!

Vector synthesis isn't really a type of synthesis.

I could argue that any synth with a deep mod matrix or a "motion sequencer" is a "vector synth". In fact I wrote an article about how to get "vector" sounds on the ESQ-1 for the Transoniq Hacker 20 years ago.

Everyone used short looped samples in the 80s because memory was so darn expensive.

[balma]

I had a Prophet VS during 2 years until it died. "Vector synthesis" refers more to a type of control than to a synthesis itself.

In fact, on certain synths you can have something similar to vector synthesis if the synthesizer allows detailed crossfading control between waves inside a patch, and assign that crossfading between waveforms to specific controller(s). But the result will be distant to the accurated transformations between waveforms that you can get on the VS.