Vintage Synth Explorer Forums

I12 wrote:

If you are a synthesist looking for a synthesizer which affords great synthesis controls, you're not going to consider a ROMpler.

think your just trying to be controversial for the sake of it

That wasn't a controversial statement at all, it was a purely logical statement. Why would you think it controversial?
It's no different from saying "you don't use a screwdriver for a chisel." Okay, it's a bit different than that, as you shouldn't use a screwdriver for a chisel in addition to having the good sense not to.

I think you're inferring a value judgement in that statement which doesn't exist.

yoozer wrote:Guess what - that's exactly how it works. There's a quarter of a rather high-resolution sinewave in a lookup table there, and it's mirrored up and down and left and right to create the whole sinewave.

How do you think the new waveforms were "generated" on the TX81z and others?

From the DX7 service manual:

11. OPS (Operator)
The OPS uses a sine table to generate waveform data to be sent to the DAC from the
received envelope and frequency data.

The lookup table in DX synths is a table of pre-calculated values of the sine function not an actual wavetable (table of samples) like in Waldorf Wave. These values are only ingredients that are combined with other input data in order to generate the waveform fed to DAC.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:"you don't use a screwdriver for a chisel." Okay, it's a bit different than that, as you shouldn't use a screwdriver for a chisel in addition to having the good sense not to.

I call bs. A well made screwdriver can be used as a chisel.

A screwdriver ceases to be a screwdriver and becomes a chisel when used as a chisel. I call BS too. They can be both, in case anyone was thinking otherwise. A rompler can be a synthesizer, just because you don't call it one, doesn't mean it isn't one.

Earthman7883 wrote: The lookup table in DX synths is a table of pre-calculated values of the sine function not an actual wavetable (table of samples) like in Waldorf Wave.

"Generation" implies that what's in there is a formula of sorts that has as result a waveform, and it turns into actual data at the last moment. Compare vectors and pixels.

Anyway, dismissing something on beforehand because it uses a certain technology only hurts yourself. "Versus" exists in the wallet and the mind only.

IMHO, a true synthesist never cares about what some device was meant to do, he only cares about what's possible to achieve with it.
And also, saying something like "this device is meant for preset playback" is just putting a label on the device, it has nothing to do with device itself and its capabilities. If I write "PRESET PLAYBACK MACHINE" on Jupiter 8 it will not change anything about the Jupiter 8; it will still stay as much a synthesizer as it was before. If you say that people need to disregard some devices only because someone attached a "non-synthesizer" label to them, then it's just stupid.

yoozer wrote:"Generation" implies that what's in there is a formula of sorts that has as result a waveform, and it turns into actual data at the last moment. Compare vectors and pixels.

The quoted service manual indicates that there is a formula which takes the variables: sine value, frequency value and envelope data to generate the waveform data at the last moment before it hits the DAC.

Megakazbek wrote:IMHO, a true synthesist never cares about what some device was meant to do, he only cares about what's possible to achieve with it.
And also, saying something like "this device is meant for preset playback" is just putting a label on the device, it has nothing to do with device itself and its capabilities. If I write "PRESET PLAYBACK MACHINE" on Jupiter 8 it will not change anything about the Jupiter 8; it will still stay as much a synthesizer as it was before. If you say that people need to disregard some devices only because someone attached a "non-synthesizer" label to them, then it's just stupid.

Sound reasoning that will likely fall on deaf ears or will be argued pointless into oblivion with no real purpose.

Those that don't already get it never will.

[quote="balma"]But how far can you go with a frozen sample on the synthesis edition on a rompler?

Instrument 1.



LFO1 square 1/8 fluctuation linked to sample start retriggering
LF2 sine 4/1 fluctuation linked to sample start point

Now let's program the MidiKnob 1 to increase/decrease the LF02, so each time the sample retriggers, will restart on a higher or lower point of the waveform.

Quarter clock (pseudo LFO) will go to a 4GainX Lag
4GainX Lag will modulate Amplitude.

Now let's program the MidiKnob 2 to increase/decrease the 4GainX presence.

Etc.....

There are romplers that allow deep programming, and a huge and detailed control of other things different than the classic ADSR for the filter, pitch and amp, and a LFO to control them.

I know their nature is very digital, but they have Pink noise, plus white noise.

I can send the pink and white noise, to a lag processor, with derivates on a association of both, and then, sent that lag processor to filter,pitch,amp, or an auxiliary envelope.

Furthermore, I can dissasociate the amp from its ADSR envelope, and use that amp, for, let's say, the resonance. So I can have individual separated ADSR envelopes for the filter and the resonance. Or I can control the resonance with any LFO, pink, noise, and 3 different randomizations. In fact, you can include 5 different types of random inside 1 instrument of a patch.

I can program 24 different variations with a huge list of sources at my left, and a huge list of destinations at my right.

And I have 12 instruments. At the end, I can program 288 associations between parameters inside one single patch.

That sounds pretty deep to me, and I feel I could sculpt sounds on this engine, for ever.

And that's a rompler wich work from frozen waveforms. At the end, this is very decent alternative to sculping waveforms on realtime.[/quote]


balma: EXACTLY.

The advantages of current-day digital, rom-based synthesis over other sorts are rather extensive, aren't they? The actual depth in terms of modulation matrix, flexibility, the massive knowledge embedded into the engineering of samples and architecture in same.... h**l, I don't discount the joys of my Voyager, either, but, heresy, the software interface on that is a substantial contribution to its own flexibility in sound, and that software contribution is all, surprise, digitally-based as well, Thank You, Rudy. Even so, the number of envelope and LFO options on it are quite limited compared with those available in most ROM workstations -- well unless you want to add a CP-351 etc. to it, which you really need to do to give it comparable flexibility. My XP-80 is over 13 years old now, and I still am not done with what I can do that's "new" with it. I haven't even exhausted the knowledge base Eric Persing built up in that instrument after years of his brilliant contribution to what we now think of as the "Roland" sound. My Radias is actually one of the deeper, more musically flexible rack instruments I own; I'm not a big fan of the slightly more commercial default soundset present in it, but there are plenty of good starting points in same, and they often save me the three weeks of "programming from scratch" I'd have to go through to get to where they start me off at, so... thanks again, guys.

Automatic Gainsay wrote:If you are a synthesist looking for a synthesizer which affords great synthesis controls, you're not going to consider a ROMpler.

I am a synthesist 17 years in sound design. Just packed two cds here with 1800 samples, ready to be shipped to one certain company. Made those with a ROMpler. Roland JD-990. What are you talking about ?

Synthesis control?
12db, 24db, lpf, hpf, bpf, notch, reso, x-mod, osc sync, ring mod, 2 x lfo (with tri, sin, saw, sqr, trap, s/h, rnd, noi), a matrix mod and much more. Seriously man, what are you talking about?

JD-990 is no rompler synth, its a metal box

I was thinking synths like the JD-800 and 990 are the earlier versions of what romplers where truely capable of in comparison to the other coveted synths. Some other examples I think of are the yam CS1x and 2x, korg Prophecy and Karma, rolland MC-505/909 and my personal fav is my RS7000 which can't even layer voices on the same channel are groovegear style rompler synthesizers. I'm sure there are a lot more too, those are just ones I can think of off the top of my head that are both great synthesizers and romplers. Nothing derogatory about calling them romplers in my opinion, and they are synthesizers. Workstation rompler synthesizers, well hmmm, they still have a lot of bad stigma they have to overcome for me to like, but they can too still be great synthesizers. I also have this thing called a Maestro, only has 4 rom tones, no adsr, 1 analog filter, 1 coarse effect, total suck, but its still a pretty cool synthesizer.

However, and maybe I'm wrong and still don't know what AG is talking about, but I think he is getting at that these don't fit the derogatory term of being a rompler because they have some decent analog or virtual analog style features tacked on to them, so they cease to be simple play back romplers and then become a synthesizer that can sculpt some cool sounds. That is just not fair I think, they are still romplers in my book, and that they have to have certain features to become synths is BS when RA and VA don't have to meet similar requirements to still be considered a synthesizer. If its a crappy rompler it may not be a synth, but if it generates its own tone via analog circuitry or software algorithms and thats all they do, then it seems to still be a cool, all be it limited, synthesizer.

Wow people can get lost within their own arguments... or too far in the desert.

Your thought about rompler synthesis ?

I think we can universally agree that when we refer to a rompler, we refer to a synth using ROM waveform to be played back. Piano recorded sounds, trumpet recorded sounds, single cyclic waveform, car sound, dog barking sound. And I am not talking about a mathematical function generated waveform (that would be VA).

As for asking "Your thought about Rompler synthesis". This is a so bad question ! You cannot do synthesis at the ROM level ! But to answer your question, there is two possible answers : At the waveform level and at the whole synth level.

A the waveform level, you cannot do much. Your waveform is fixed. You cannot PWM square wave rom. It cannot transform itself from a sine to square wave. It is a playback tape. There is not much synthesis going there. The barking dog won't transform itself in a meowing cat. And furthermore, you cannot update your synth waves database. It is a ROM.

But, while dodging some flying pans and Gaia synth thrown at me, the second answer resides in the whole synth level. The answer would be : it depends of the synth ! Some ROM synths propose really good option for synthesist, other don't. It depends of the goal of the machine.

The goal of the EMU Proteus synth line was to use their 64 something different type of filters with their waveform. It also featured a lot of modulations capacity. But the digital effect were pretty lame.

For transwave and wavetable synth, it was the ability to scan through the wave ROM to create sound that made its strength.

Roland's V-Synth use an arsenal of COSM effect processor and sample manipulation to bend & filter the original sound wave.

And some other synth just simply play a ROM sample and the only available option is to apply a lame digital sounding LPF filter. And that's probably why people says that ROM synthesis isn't as great as VA or real analog synth.

For the synthesist, a ROM synth is as strong as its weakest link. You cannot polish a Turd, so if you have a bad series of waveform in the ROM, well, whatever the filters and waveshapping option, it is still going to sound bad. Filters are important. Imagine the Virus filters on a rompler. That would sound great on many waveform. Why the ESQ-1 or the Emax are still praised ? They have a nice analog filter. Some other synths may have a nice filter adapted to the ROM content (this is what I suspect of the JD-880 and 990 to still have such praise after 20 years).

What about doing an inventory of all ROM synths there is and highlight their forces in weakness instead of arguing about generalistic clichés

Here's my go

Emu Proteus 2000 line :
Pros : Wide variety of filters type. Loads of modulations. Ability to modulate the sample start point. BPM envelopes (name me an other synth who has that). Internal sequences.
Cons : user interface not great for deep programming. Has a characteristic sound. Computer software to program synth left to be desired. Effects are not that great.

tallowwaters wrote:

Automatic Gainsay wrote:"you don't use a screwdriver for a chisel." Okay, it's a bit different than that, as you shouldn't use a screwdriver for a chisel in addition to having the good sense not to.

I call bs. A well made screwdriver can be used as a chisel.

My grandfather would kick your a*s for saying that. And he could, as he was not only Irish, but also a cowboy.

Zamise wrote:A screwdriver ceases to be a screwdriver and becomes a chisel when used as a chisel. I call BS too. They can be both, in case anyone was thinking otherwise. A rompler can be a synthesizer, just because you don't call it one, doesn't mean it isn't one.

From now on, I am going to respond to every Zamise post with a simple asterisk.
This asterisk will, from this point on, in regard to every Zamise post, mean: "What the f**k are you talking about?"
*

Megakazbek wrote:IMHO, a true synthesist never cares about what some device was meant to do, he only cares about what's possible to achieve with it.
And also, saying something like "this device is meant for preset playback" is just putting a label on the device, it has nothing to do with device itself and its capabilities. If I write "PRESET PLAYBACK MACHINE" on Jupiter 8 it will not change anything about the Jupiter 8; it will still stay as much a synthesizer as it was before. If you say that people need to disregard some devices only because someone attached a "non-synthesizer" label to them, then it's just stupid.

A synthesist engages in synthesis.
Simply because a device has presets doesn't make it a preset playback device. Keeping that in mind, rework your premise.