Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

Hello all Evolver lovers,

I was wondering if some of you could share their experiences 
when using Evolver as an FX processor.  
I was looking (a real dirty look ) at the Sherman Filterbank  the 
other day but  money is rare and sould be rare for a long time.
Anyway, a Lexicon MPX200 is my next purchase when i get the $.

Then i thought, don't i have an FX Processor with analog filters ?
Yes, i was smart enough to get the wonderfull Evolver. 

So, i  plugged my Elec Guitar and really liked what i was hearing.
But it's when i plugged a cd player and put on an old Black 
Sabbath that things REALLY started to come alive. Man those 
feedback, distortion + delay can really transform an harmless 
signal (well not in this case) in to  sonic madness.

I'd really like to hear some comments about  the FILTERS and 
using them on vocals, guitars and drums. I don't have much 
experience with filthering and mastering  but i'm now 
comfortable  with my set-up and  i'm ready to lear more about the 
last part of the process. 

I'm satisfied with the sound comming out of my other gears. 
However,
i have a Korg ES1 that i really love for noise ballad or distorted 
drumming, but it really needs  help sometimes when you want a 
fat sound from this box.
  
Thanks for  any comments,

Simonvolt

many single instrument sounds don't cover a lot of frequencies at 
once at high levels.  you may already know, but the low-pass filter 
cuts out higher frequencies (essentially the more "treble" range 
frequencies) progressively as you close the filter.  What this means 
is that if the sound you are filtering doesn't cover many lower 
frequencies, and you close the lowpass filter... things will get 
quiet quickly long before you reach the bottom of the cuttoff point.  
the same goes for low frequency sounds without much high 
frequencies... you open up the filter and at a certain point much 
before it's completely open there will be little audible change.  So 
what you have to do is limit your modulation to sweep the most 
effective frequencies.  In the case of your Black Sabbath music 
running through it... you noticed a big difference while sweeping the 
music and that is because it was a full instrumental set you were 
filtering which covered a wide range of low, mid and high 
frequencies.  You know the evolver is full of modulation sources... 
if you tune these well to modulate the filter within more focused 
frequency ranges, you will be able to tune your sounds more 
effectively.

tip 2:  sound gating in combination with filtering can lead to making 
many external audio sources have synth like qualities.... what I mean 
is, learn how you can control making a sound louder.... slowly moving 
towards softer.... and cutting off and then kicking in volume at any 
time you want, on command.  

tip 3:  gating the noise level (you know what a noise generator is?) 
using the external in can add some neat things to your sound.   The 
evolver has a pretty nice distortion effect built in.... if you feed 
that a gated noise signal along with your guitar sound, you can make 
it "fuzz" a bit more :).  

tip 4:  turn up the level of a delay line and modulate time below the 
100 milllisecs line... great for flanging effects.  tune the feedback 
level.

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Simon  <bontrip@v...>" 
<bontrip@v...> wrote:

> Hello all Evolver lovers,
> 
> I was wondering if some of you could share their experiences 
> when using Evolver as an FX processor.  
> I was looking (a real dirty look ) at the Sherman Filterbank  the 
> other day but  money is rare and sould be rare for a long time.
> Anyway, a Lexicon MPX200 is my next purchase when i get the $.
> 
> Then i thought, don't i have an FX Processor with analog filters ?
> Yes, i was smart enough to get the wonderfull Evolver. 
> 
> So, i  plugged my Elec Guitar and really liked what i was hearing.
> But it's when i plugged a cd player and put on an old Black 
> Sabbath that things REALLY started to come alive. Man those 
> feedback, distortion + delay can really transform an harmless 
> signal (well not in this case) in to  sonic madness.
> 
> I'd really like to hear some comments about  the FILTERS and 
> using them on vocals, guitars and drums. I don't have much 
> experience with filthering and mastering  but i'm now 
> comfortable  with my set-up and  i'm ready to lear more about the 
> last part of the process. 
> 
> I'm satisfied with the sound comming out of my other gears. 
> However,
> i have a Korg ES1 that i really love for noise ballad or distorted 
> drumming, but it really needs  help sometimes when you want a 
> fat sound from this box.
>   
> Thanks for  any comments,
> 
> Simonvolt

Thanks Collin, that's the kind of info
i was looking for. I just recorded and filtered
my Korg Es1
thru Evolver and it did make the sound more
focused and it added depth to the sequence.
I just cut some of the higher frequencies and
used the In Peak Amount modulation to
modulate the delay1 amount just a little bit.

I did try tips 2, 3 and 4 and i have to say Evo
can really make any signal real nasty, or flangy
or noisy. It's all good so far.

At this price, Evolver is a MAJOR deal. It's so
versatile and sounds great. One of the best
investment i made recently since i bought a
Microwave XT  2 years ago.



on 19/02/03 6:14 PM, Collin  <collin_meyer@...> at
collin_meyer@... wrote:

many single instrument sounds don't cover a lot of frequencies at
once at high levels.  you may already know, but the low-pass filter
cuts out higher frequencies (essentially the more "treble" range
frequencies) progressively as you close the filter.  What this means
is that if the sound you are filtering doesn't cover many lower
frequencies, and you close the lowpass filter... things will get
quiet quickly long before you reach the bottom of the cuttoff point.
the same goes for low frequency sounds without much high
frequencies... you open up the filter and at a certain point much
before it's completely open there will be little audible change.  So
what you have to do is limit your modulation to sweep the most
effective frequencies.  In the case of your Black Sabbath music
running through it... you noticed a big difference while sweeping the
music and that is because it was a full instrumental set you were
filtering which covered a wide range of low, mid and high
frequencies.  You know the evolver is full of modulation sources...
if you tune these well to modulate the filter within more focused
frequency ranges, you will be able to tune your sounds more
effectively.

tip 2:  sound gating in combination with filtering can lead to making
many external audio sources have synth like qualities.... what I mean
is, learn how you can control making a sound louder.... slowly moving
towards softer.... and cutting off and then kicking in volume at any
time you want, on command.

tip 3:  gating the noise level (you know what a noise generator is?)
using the external in can add some neat things to your sound.   The
evolver has a pretty nice distortion effect built in.... if you feed
that a gated noise signal along with your guitar sound, you can make
it "fuzz" a bit more :).

tip 4:  turn up the level of a delay line and modulate time below the
100 milllisecs line... great for flanging effects.  tune the feedback
level.

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, "Simon  <bontrip@v...>"
<bontrip@v...> wrote:
> Hello all Evolver lovers,
> 
> I was wondering if some of you could share their experiences
> when using Evolver as an FX processor.
> I was looking (a real dirty look ) at the Sherman Filterbank  the
> other day but  money is rare and sould be rare for a long time.
> Anyway, a Lexicon MPX200 is my next purchase when i get the $.
> 
> Then i thought, don't i have an FX Processor with analog filters ?
> Yes, i was smart enough to get the wonderfull Evolver.
> 
> So, i  plugged my Elec Guitar and really liked what i was hearing.
> But it's when i plugged a cd player and put on an old Black
> Sabbath that things REALLY started to come alive. Man those
> feedback, distortion + delay can really transform an harmless
> signal (well not in this case) in to  sonic madness.
> 
> I'd really like to hear some comments about  the FILTERS and
> using them on vocals, guitars and drums. I don't have much
> experience with filthering and mastering  but i'm now
> comfortable  with my set-up and  i'm ready to lear more about the
> last part of the process.
> 
> I'm satisfied with the sound comming out of my other gears.
> However,
> i have a Korg ES1 that i really love for noise ballad or distorted
> drumming, but it really needs  help sometimes when you want a
> fat sound from this box.
>   
> Thanks for  any comments,
> 
> Simonvolt


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

hi simon,


speaking about microwave xt : these are on blow out sale over here  and i 
always wanted to have some orange in the setup :-)

how do you like it ? would you buy one these days or are there real 
alternatives ?


Later,

Oliver

Hi Oliver,

I will probably keep the XT for the
rest of my life :)
 
However, it depends on what you're looking
for in terms of sound. It's a special synth
and if you're looking for a dance/trance/house
crap (sorry i just can't help it) there are
better alternatives.

But if you're looking for a
synth that can scream and can do experimental/ambiant
kind of sounds, the XT fits in this category.
It can sound very hardcore digital (but the sound stays pure and
undiluted)  AND does very good analog
emulation. It can also emulate the old DX7.
I love the knobs and the metal case.

I find the XT very inpiring and i'm still finding new
sounds after 2 years. As far as alternative Wavetable synths,
i don't think there is any at these prices.

I'm now thinking of getting a MicroQ KB because i was
so impressed by Waldorf, although i think a new OS
should have been released a long time ago ;)

As for the price, i saw them  at 1000$USD (10 voices)
a year ago and thought it was a good price for a
8 multitimbral with a great sound.
But if you get one i suggest you take the 30 voices.
How much ar they now ?

Hope this helps,

Simonvolt












on 20/02/03 6:47 PM, c00kie at cookie@... wrote:

> hi simon,
> 
> 
> speaking about microwave xt : these are on blow out sale over here  and i
> always wanted to have some orange in the setup :-)
> 
> how do you like it ? would you buy one these days or are there real
> alternatives ?
> 
> 
> Later,
> 
> Oliver
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

Hi Simon,

>I will probably keep the XT for the
>rest of my life :)

that says enough :)

> 
>However, it depends on what you're looking
>for in terms of sound. It's a special synth
>and if you're looking for a dance/trance/house
>crap (sorry i just can't help it) there are
>better alternatives.

Personally, I like more sound based techno stuff like Sven V\ufffdth, Adam 
Beyer, Der Dritte Raum, Anthony Rother, Dopplereffekt, \ufffdNN etc. 

OTOH, I like ambient tracks a lot, elektrolux stuff, spacenight, saafi 
brothers, sushi club etc. 

I\ufffdm looking for a box that gives me some non-typical VA pad sounds plus 
FX and some experimental stuff. I liked the Wavestation very much and 
Wavetablesynthesis seems to be very promising. 

The interface looks pretty cool, I like direct access to parameters

>I'm now thinking of getting a MicroQ KB because i was
>so impressed by Waldorf, although i think a new OS
>should have been released a long time ago ;)

From what I\ufffdve heard there will be a new OS at Musikmesse for the XT as 
well, v3.0 IIRC, with some new filters and stuff.

>But if you get one i suggest you take the 30 voices.

Since I already have some stuff around, the XT will do what it can do best, 
but not anything. Therefore, plus I would use a maximum of 3 voices 
anyway (FX limit, outputs), I think the 10 voice version will be ok. It sells 
for 899 Euro over here.

A special question : 

Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ? 

Would it be possible to use the XT engine for producing some pad with fx 
on the stereo out, while using another voice of it to filter signals from audio 
in thru the filters to the sub outs without fx ? Like using the XT as a synth 
and as an FX box at the same time ?



Later,

Oliver

The XT is great. But the Microwave I is also great because it has the real
deal analog filters. What you give up in comparison to the MWII/XT is two
extra voices, extrea filter types and the effects. The microwave however is
a ballsier sound for similar non-effected patches, clearly as a result of
the analog filters. I had an XT, but it got neglected in my studio for some
reason, although the sound is GREAT. In a long oddessey, I traded it for a
Raven, then bought a MWI which I still have, then traded the Raven for a
FIZMO which is another cool wavetable synth that wasn't that well recieved
but is indeed underrated and is pretty lush. Lately however I have been
looking for a MWII or an XTK mainly because I am peaked at the promise of a
new OS. But then again, they have been promisting that for 3 years. Simple
bugs still exist. Like for example, not downward portamento? Crazy but true.
But bottom line. Microwaves are great. And in many respects can be compared
as well to amazing VA's when the basic non-wavetable waveforms are used.
Can't go wrong. You just have to pick your flavor: MW, MWII, MWXT, XTK or
even the soundcard XTs, terratek?

Ravi

----- Original Message -----
From: "c00kie" <cookie@...>
To: <DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Evolver] Re: Evolver as an FX Processor // MWXT


> Hi Simon,
>
> >I will probably keep the XT for the
> >rest of my life :)
>
> that says enough :)
>
> >
> >However, it depends on what you're looking
> >for in terms of sound. It's a special synth
> >and if you're looking for a dance/trance/house
> >crap (sorry i just can't help it) there are
> >better alternatives.
>
> Personally, I like more sound based techno stuff like Sven Väth, Adam
> Beyer, Der Dritte Raum, Anthony Rother, Dopplereffekt, ÜNN etc.
>
> OTOH, I like ambient tracks a lot, elektrolux stuff, spacenight, saafi
> brothers, sushi club etc.
>
> I´m looking for a box that gives me some non-typical VA pad sounds plus
> FX and some experimental stuff. I liked the Wavestation very much and
> Wavetablesynthesis seems to be very promising.
>
> The interface looks pretty cool, I like direct access to parameters
>
> >I'm now thinking of getting a MicroQ KB because i was
> >so impressed by Waldorf, although i think a new OS
> >should have been released a long time ago ;)
>
> From what I´ve heard there will be a new OS at Musikmesse for the XT as
> well, v3.0 IIRC, with some new filters and stuff.
>
> >But if you get one i suggest you take the 30 voices.
>
> Since I already have some stuff around, the XT will do what it can do
best,
> but not anything. Therefore, plus I would use a maximum of 3 voices
> anyway (FX limit, outputs), I think the 10 voice version will be ok. It
sells
> for 899 Euro over here.
>
> A special question :
>
> Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ?
>
> Would it be possible to use the XT engine for producing some pad with fx
> on the stereo out, while using another voice of it to filter signals from
audio
> in thru the filters to the sub outs without fx ? Like using the XT as a
synth

> and as an FX box at the same time ?
>
>
>
> Later,
>
> Oliver
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

> 
> Personally, I like more sound based techno stuff like Sven V?th, Adam
> Beyer, Der Dritte Raum, Anthony Rother, Dopplereffekt, ?NN etc.
> 
> OTOH, I like ambient tracks a lot, elektrolux stuff, spacenight, saafi
> brothers, sushi club etc.
> 
> I?m looking for a box that gives me some non-typical VA pad sounds plus
> FX and some experimental stuff. I liked the Wavestation very much and
> Wavetablesynthesis seems to be very promising.
> 

The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.
I don't think you'll be disapointed if you like those
bands. HOWEVER, don't buy it just because you heard
great things about it, it's a great synth but it's
not for everyone.
And that's why you need to try it first.

You can make complex sounds with the Wavetables and
the modulation matrix and, althought it's not
that complex of a synth, you still need to
spend some time learning how to work with it.
I personnaly like to just use raw wavetables with no
FX and sweep the wavetable with a LFO.


> From what I?ve heard there will be a new OS at Musikmesse for the XT as
> well, v3.0 IIRC, with some new filters and stuff.
> 
Yeah, so they say ;)
I'll believe it when it's IN my XT.
> 
> Since I already have some stuff around, the XT will do what it can do best,
> but not anything. Therefore, plus I would use a maximum of 3 voices
> anyway (FX limit, outputs), I think the 10 voice version will be ok. It sells
> for 899 Euro over here.

So yes the 10 voices represent a good choice.
It's about the same price as last year (Canada/USA) but still a
good price i think at 899 Euro.


>> A special question :
> 
> Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ?

It has only one Analog input so it's mono.
I'm using the Evolver for stereo inputs.
> 
> Would it be possible to use the XT engine for producing some pad with fx
> on the stereo out, while using another voice of it to filter signals from
> audio 
> in thru the filters to the sub outs without fx ? Like using the XT as a synth

> and as an FX box at the same time ?

You know what, i was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago and did
not look further it to it. I was to busy with Evolver :)
But the manual states that you can use the filters and the FX from
the analog input. 
 
Maybe someone else could help us with this question.


Simon

Sorry,  i wanted to say that it does not have
analog filters and "can sound as a VA".


on 21/02/03 12:24 AM, Ravi Ivan Sharma at noision1@... wrote:

The XT is NOT a VA! It is a wavetable synth with a digital filter. It can
sound like a VA because each wavetable has a square, triangle and sin wave
that you can use. It sounds *as good* as a VA most of the time if programmed
correctly but its dsps are not doing any Virtual Analog Modelling--which is
what a VA is.
 
Ravi

----- Original Message -----
From: simon leclerc <mailto:bontrip@...>
To: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Evolver] Re: Evolver as an FX Processor // MWXT


> 
> Personally, I like more sound based techno stuff like Sven V?th, Adam
> Beyer, Der Dritte Raum, Anthony Rother, Dopplereffekt, ?NN etc.
> 
> OTOH, I like ambient tracks a lot, elektrolux stuff, spacenight, saafi
> brothers, sushi club etc.
> 
> I?m looking for a box that gives me some non-typical VA pad sounds plus
> FX and some experimental stuff. I liked the Wavestation very much and
> Wavetablesynthesis seems to be very promising.
> 

The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.
I don't think you'll be disapointed if you like those
bands. HOWEVER, don't buy it just because you heard
great things about it, it's a great synth but it's
not for everyone.
And that's why you need to try it first.

You can make complex sounds with the Wavetables and
the modulation matrix and, althought it's not
that complex of a synth, you still need to
spend some time learning how to work with it.
I personnaly like to just use raw wavetables with no
FX and sweep the wavetable with a LFO.


> From what I?ve heard there will be a new OS at Musikmesse for the XT as
> well, v3.0 IIRC, with some new filters and stuff.
> 
Yeah, so they say ;)
I'll believe it when it's IN my XT.
> 
> Since I already have some stuff around, the XT will do what it can do best,
> but not anything. Therefore, plus I would use a maximum of 3 voices
> anyway (FX limit, outputs), I think the 10 voice version will be ok. It sells
> for 899 Euro over here.

So yes the 10 voices represent a good choice.
It's about the same price as last year (Canada/USA) but still a
good price i think at 899 Euro.


>> A special question :
> 
> Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ?

It has only one Analog input so it's mono.
I'm using the Evolver for stereo inputs.
> 
> Would it be possible to use the XT engine for producing some pad with fx
> on the stereo out, while using another voice of it to filter signals from
> audio 
> in thru the filters to the sub outs without fx ? Like using the XT as a synth

> and as an FX box at the same time ?

You know what, i was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago and did
not look further it to it. I was to busy with Evolver :)
But the manual states that you can use the filters and the FX from
the analog input. 

Maybe someone else could help us with this question.


Simon






To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

----- Original Message -----

simon leclerc <bontrip@...> writes:
> The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.

`VA' is a very vague term; I think it really has more to do with intent
and style rather than exact technical implementation details, but some
people probably would claim that a VA can't use sampled oscillators...of
course, the virus includes sampled oscillators!

Since a large part of the uwave's sound stems from its use of sample
manipulation, it's arguable that it wasn't intended to be a VA -- which
in some sense makes it not one.  However as VA became more popular,
it's my impression that Waldorf focused more on the `VA' aspects of the
uwave and XT in both software upgrades and in marketing, so perhaps it
later became one...

-Miles
-- 
o The existentialist, not having a pillow, goes everywhere with the book by
  Sullivan, _I am going to spit on your graves_.

I love the SOUND of the XT, and to me it's all that matters :)
On that subject again, what do you think the XT can't do,
in terms of sound, that a VA can.  Just curious.





on 21/02/03 2:15 AM, Ravi Ivan Sharma at noision1@... wrote:

Well sorry to pres the point, but such, in my opinion, is simply
misinformation. I don't think we are talking semantics here. While you may
claim the virus isn't *all* virtual analog, it is clear tha the rest of it
is. it is so, not because someone name it, but because of the type of
programming and tools it uses to make the sound.
 
The MWs on the other hand do not use *any* VA coding that I am aware of,
save perhaps the filter, but even then I doubt it. And I am at a loss to
recall any mention or implication of such in any Waldorf literature or
statements.
 
VA is virtual analog synthesis, not just something that kind of sounds
pretty close to analog. If that were the case I might start calling my
Yamaha FS1R a VA because it can pull off some good fakes. That of course
would be nonsense and misleading.
 
Finally what's the big push to call the MW something it isn't? It doesn't
change its sound, which is all that matters. Or am I missing something?

----- Original Message -----
From: Miles Bader <mailto:miles@...>
To: simon leclerc <mailto:bontrip@...>
Cc: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:53 AM
Subject: [Evolver] Re: Evolver as an FX Processor // MWXT

simon leclerc <bontrip@...> writes:
> The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.

`VA' is a very vague term; I think it really has more to do with intent
and style rather than exact technical implementation details, but some
people probably would claim that a VA can't use sampled oscillators...of
course, the virus includes sampled oscillators!

Since a large part of the uwave's sound stems from its use of sample
manipulation, it's arguable that it wasn't intended to be a VA -- which
in some sense makes it not one.  However as VA became more popular,
it's my impression that Waldorf focused more on the `VA' aspects of the
uwave and XT in both software upgrades and in marketing, so perhaps it
later became one...

-Miles

That's not really my point. What VA are we talking about? Each synth 
has its own sound. I think I can definitively say that an XT cannot 
sound as much like a virus as a viurs can. and vise versa :) If it 
were all about specs, the we would just want one synth. Don't ask me 
which one!


--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, simon leclerc <bontrip@v...> 
wrote:
> I love the SOUND of the XT, and to me it's all that matters :)
> On that subject again, what do you think the XT can't do,
> in terms of sound, that a VA can.  Just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> on 21/02/03 2:15 AM, Ravi Ivan Sharma at noision1@h... wrote:
> 
> Well sorry to pres the point, but such, in my opinion, is simply
> misinformation. I don't think we are talking semantics here. While 
you may
> claim the virus isn't *all* virtual analog, it is clear tha the 
rest of it
> is. it is so, not because someone name it, but because of the type 
of
> programming and tools it uses to make the sound.
>  
> The MWs on the other hand do not use *any* VA coding that I am 
aware of,
> save perhaps the filter, but even then I doubt it. And I am at a 
loss to
> recall any mention or implication of such in any Waldorf literature 
or
> statements.
>  
> VA is virtual analog synthesis, not just something that kind of 
sounds
> pretty close to analog. If that were the case I might start calling 
my
> Yamaha FS1R a VA because it can pull off some good fakes. That of 
course
> would be nonsense and misleading.
>  
> Finally what's the big push to call the MW something it isn't? It 
doesn't
> change its sound, which is all that matters. Or am I missing 
something?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Miles Bader <mailto:miles@g...>
> To: simon leclerc <mailto:bontrip@v...>
> Cc: DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:53 AM
> Subject: [Evolver] Re: Evolver as an FX Processor // MWXT
> 
> simon leclerc <bontrip@v...> writes:
> > The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.
> 
> `VA' is a very vague term; I think it really has more to do with 
intent
> and style rather than exact technical implementation details, but 
some
> people probably would claim that a VA can't use sampled 
oscillators...of
> course, the virus includes sampled oscillators!
> 
> Since a large part of the uwave's sound stems from its use of sample
> manipulation, it's arguable that it wasn't intended to be a VA -- 
which
> in some sense makes it not one.  However as VA became more popular,
> it's my impression that Waldorf focused more on the `VA' aspects of 
the
> uwave and XT in both software upgrades and in marketing, so perhaps 
it

> later became one...
> 
> -Miles

"Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@...> writes:
> VA is virtual analog synthesis, not just something that kind of sounds
> pretty close to Analog.

Care to define `virtual analog synthesis', or `VA coding'?

I can't think of anything except rather trivial things like `doesn't use
sampled oscillators' -- and that seems mindlessly pedantic; surely the
virus would still be a `VA' if they decided to only use sampled
oscillators, but changed nothing else.

Indeed I think it's accurate to say that there's precious little
qualitative difference between a particularly well-speced rompler and a
VA (certainly Roland's recent synths have been playing fast and loose
with this confusion).

> Finally what's the big push to call the MW something it isn't? It
> doesn't change its sound, which is all that matters. Or am I missing
> something?

There's no push.  However, it is a bit annoying to see the term `VA'
tossed around like it has some deep meaning.  It doesn't, it's a
marketing term.

-Miles
-- 
Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:25:03 +0100, c00kie <cookie@...>
wrote:

>Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ? 

It is a stereo socket, labelled stereo but actually is summed
internally to mono. This has been a marketing con by Waldorf for years
but I really hope they intend to fix it in the next OS release.

I sold my XT and kept my Virus. I may get another one day but I
haven't honestly missed it that much. I found that, whilst I
programmed it extensively, I almost always replaced it with some other
synth in my final mixes. 

Paul

MW XT: I loved the idea of it, and had one for a while, but I always 
found in the mix it din't really do it for me - for me I didn't find the 
overall sound was quite defined enough for me (or something, not edgy 
enough).  I'd jump at an MW with the analogue filters, that would do it 
for me.

Its funny that this should come up here as I found that the evolver is 
much closer to the sound I was after.  I know that they aren't really 
comparable, but I was after something that had that digital element (a 
wider range of textures then tri, pulse n' saw), and was bit different, 
and for me the evolver fills that gap.

But then I don't sweat the polyphony ;)

Paul Nagle wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:25:03 +0100, c00kie <cookie@...>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Since the XT has audio inputs, are these mono or stereo ? 
> 
> 
> It is a stereo socket, labelled stereo but actually is summed
> internally to mono. This has been a marketing con by Waldorf for years
> but I really hope they intend to fix it in the next OS release.
> 
> I sold my XT and kept my Virus. I may get another one day but I
> haven't honestly missed it that much. I found that, whilst I
> programmed it extensively, I almost always replaced it with some other
> synth in my final mixes. 
> 
> Paul
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> 
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 
>

Alex <zero@...> writes:
> Its funny that this should come up here as I found that the evolver is 
> much closer to the sound I was after.
>
> But then I don't sweat the polyphony ;)

If everybody bugs him enough, maybe Dave will release a polyphonic
evolver...  I think the evolver's sound would be _great_ polyphonically
but I can't really afford to just buy 6 of them!

-Miles
-- 
Is it true that nothing can be known?  If so how do we know this?  -Woody Allen

Well I can't really do your homework for you. But I will hold your 
hand a little: 
http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul98/articles/synthschool9.html Just 
read and learn. Its a completely different method for creating sound. 
Like digital circuits are different from analog circuits are 
different from additive synthesis are different from yodelling. Sure 
the marketing people loved the concept of something new as they 
always do, but that doesn't mean VA is not different just because you 
think it doesn't matter. It's saying bicycles are the same as slow 
cars because they both get you to point b.

And again I never saw Roland or Waldorf come out and try to say that 
their digital synths (i.e. XV or MW) were VA's. You say fast and 
loose, what examples do you have? The SH-32 is a different story, so 
don't bother throwing it up until you learn what you are arguing 
about. 



--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Miles Bader <miles@g...> wrote:
> "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> writes:
> > VA is virtual analog synthesis, not just something that kind of 
sounds
> > pretty close to Analog.
> 
> Care to define `virtual analog synthesis', or `VA coding'?
> 
> I can't think of anything except rather trivial things like 
`doesn't use
> sampled oscillators' -- and that seems mindlessly pedantic; surely 
the
> virus would still be a `VA' if they decided to only use sampled
> oscillators, but changed nothing else.
> 
> Indeed I think it's accurate to say that there's precious little
> qualitative difference between a particularly well-speced rompler 
and a
> VA (certainly Roland's recent synths have been playing fast and 
loose
> with this confusion).
> 
> > Finally what's the big push to call the MW something it isn't? It
> > doesn't change its sound, which is all that matters. Or am I 
missing

> > something?
> 
> There's no push.  However, it is a bit annoying to see the term `VA'
> tossed around like it has some deep meaning.  It doesn't, it's a
> marketing term.
> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down.

Hi Ravi,

>The XT is great. But the Microwave I is also great because it has the real
>deal analog filters. 

Yes, this is one of my concerns as well. OTOH, I can always route the MW 
output thru some external filter, like the evolver - WHICH HAPPENED TO 
ARRIVE JUST A FEW HOURS AGO ! *fat grin*

>I traded it for a Raven

Are you kidding ? :-) I once had a 309,  a friend of mine had a raven max, 
but both are gone since a long time. 

>Can't go wrong. You just have to pick your flavor: MW, MWII, MWXT, XTK 
>or even the soundcard XTs, terratek?

I definitely look for a MWXT, since I want to screw around with the 
sounds. Nothing beats direct access, so the XT is the way to go. Don\ufffdt 
have the space for a keyboard version, sigh, but the rack unit should be 
fine. 

Since I already have a Nordlead 1, I don\ufffdt look for something that gives me 
the typical virtual analog sound. Although the MW can do this too. But I\ufffdm 
more interested in wavetable synthesis, experimental sounds and FX, using 
the XT as an FX box too and from time to time I may need some chords or 
pads. 



Later,

Oliver

Hi Simon,

>The XT is a VA but IS different from other VA.

Then it may be a good choice :-). 

I checked the manual plus all the reviews and sound demos I could get, so 
I hope I got a good impression on the box. Anyway, we have a two weeks 
return no questions asked policy over here, so the risk is not that high. 

It\ufffds a pity that most demo sounds seem to be made for the dance trance 
people, which gives an unnecessary bias. I\ufffdd like Waldorf to do some 
things that show the true possibilities of the machine...

>I personnaly like to just use raw wavetables with no
>FX and sweep the wavetable with a LFO.

Habe you ever tried to make up your own wavetables ? I heard there is 
some way to reconstruct sound by using sounddiver. There are also some 
small utilities on the waldorf ftp server that seem to do this job.

>Yeah, so they say ;)
>I'll believe it when it's IN my XT.

hehehe, true, there are promises galore these days.... but waldorf don\ufffdt 
seem to do much vapourware afaik.

>You know what, i was wondering the same thing a few weeks ago and did

:-)



Later,


Oliver

Hi Miles,

>If everybody bugs him enough, maybe Dave will release a polyphonic
>evolver...  I think the evolver's sound would be _great_ polyphonically
>but I can't really afford to just buy 6 of them!

hehehe, but that\ufffds what the price point for a polyphonic evolver may be 
anyway :-).

Let\ufffds use 6 evolvers for a polyphonic setup and call it six-shooter LOL.



*I\ufffdm in funny mode just because I\ufffdm so happy with the little box the 
mailman dropped today*


Later,


Oliver
 
>

Hi Alex,

>MW XT: I loved the idea of it, and had one for a while, but I always 
>found in the mix it din't really do it for me

What were the problems you ran into ? Sometimes, sounds that sound 
great for demo purposes use all the frequency spectrum and therefore kill 
your mix before you start it :-).

Or is it more like \ufffdt always collided with other tracks, like the old Bassdrum 
vs. Bassline problem ?



Later,

Oliver

Hehehe, 


while I prefer to use well defined terms, I don\ufffdt want to start flame wars 
about the meaning of VA :-).

As far as I can see, all "true" VAs are built to simulate analog synths, i.e. 
they use classic subtractive synthesis which happens to follow the scheme 
VCO, VCF, VCA plus some goodies (there is no real V in these, of course).

Therefore, the typical VAs to me are Nordlead, Virus, Q, AN1X etc. THey 
try to model their analogue counterparts, especially doing the little nasty 
analog anormalities that give the warm sound we all love. 

The XT is somewhere in between, for it you can limit yourself to use just 
the "analog" waveforms (SIN, SAW, SQR) but I think the XT tends more to 
be a wavetable synth with a classic subtractive synthesis architecture. 
Since the main feature is not emulating analog circuitry, but the wavetable 
synthesis, I wouldn\ufffdt call the XT a VA, but it\ufffds something pretty close. 


Happy evolving alltogether :-)


Later,

Oliver

Hi Paul,


>It is a stereo socket, labelled stereo but actually is summed
>internally to mono. This has been a marketing con by Waldorf for years
>but I really hope they intend to fix it in the next OS release.

Depends... of course this detail should be mentioned, but I can think why 
they did so. AFAIK, the XT has no true stereo engine like the evolver, but 
the engine is mono and stereo is produced at the amp stage of the signal. 
Therefore, it is only possible to work with mono input. A mono jack would 
be enough, but by the way they did it, you can simply connect any stereo 
source without having to worry about signal levels when panning occurs in 
the source. 

If they advertised stereo input, they may have hired someone from the 
marketing division of the sirius cybernetic corporation :-)

Anyway, mono is not as great but still godd enough...


Later,

Oliver

On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:22:40PM -0000, Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...> wrote:
> Well I can't really do your homework for you. But I will hold your 
> hand a little: 

Please don't be such so obnoxious.

> http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul98/articles/synthschool9.html Just 
> read and learn. Its a completely different method for creating sound. 

That article is very vague (in the same way that you're being), it never
quite comes out and specifies anything.

It's certainly _possible_ for a synth to, say, emulate the electron flow in a
bunch of transistors, and e.g., in the Q, Waldorf has claimed to do something
similar (well, not on such a low-level, but they claim to do more than just
use bog-standard software-synth techniques).

But to the best of the my knowledge (I haven't seen the source code!), most
synths that are tagged with the term VA don't do anything nearly so
sophisticated -- they're simply straightforward combinations of typical
techniques that get used on all sorts of synths these days, `VA' or not.

Sure, they tweak, and tweak, and tweak, their filters to sound like their
favorite analogue synth; in this sense, they're `modelling' where a rompler
manufacturer might take less care (though these days, rompler filters sound
pretty damn good to me!).  But I don't think they're `modelling' in the sense
of really attempting to emulate the low-level working of analogue components.

> And again I never saw Roland or Waldorf come out and try to say that 
> their digital synths (i.e. XV or MW) were VA's.

They haven't, as far as I know (the only manufacturer I've seen use the term
is clavia).  However the term VA has been clearly adopted by users to refer
to any synth that attempts to work like an analogue synth, and it's also
clear the manufacturers are rather narrowly targeting this market.

Note that I'm not saying it's a _useless_ term; it isn't, it's just vague,
and doesn't have any specific _technical_ meaning.

It's more a reference to _intent_, and emphasis -- I'd say that a VA synth is
one that (roughly):

   (1) Doesn't depend on complex sampled waveforms for good sounds (as many
       romplers do, though I must say I'm in awe of some of the samples you
       find in romplers!)

   (2) Has high-quality filters that can add character in the same manner as
       in an analogue synth

   (3) Allows more complex interaction between different parts of the voice
       oscillators than just mixing, e.g., ring-modulation or FM

   (4) Emphasizes dynamic control over whatever audio-mangling is happening
       within the voice (which is important since you can't depend on complex
       source waveforms for animation)

[anything more?]

I apologize for the length of this, and it's certainly off-topic (especially
since the evolver is sort of an `anti-VA' -- it uses digital only for things
that digital is particularly good at, and leaves all the analogue techniques
to real analogue!), but I actually find this a rather interesting topic...

But if people are bothered, I'll shut up!

-Miles
-- 
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 07:34:09PM +0100, c00kie wrote:
> >If everybody bugs him enough, maybe Dave will release a polyphonic
> >evolver...  I think the evolver's sound would be _great_ polyphonically
> >but I can't really afford to just buy 6 of them!
> 
> hehehe, but that?s what the price point for a polyphonic evolver may be 
> anyway :-).

My hope is that it could be somewhat cheaper, because many components could
be shared between voices:  at least, case, controls, power supply, midi &
audio interfaces, probably the CPU that deals with midi & the UI, and perhaps
the DSP (e.g., use a faster more expensive DSP, but which would be cheaper
per-voice).

At, say, $250 per voice, it'd be quite a deal!

-Miles
-- 
"Most attacks seem to take place at night, during a rainstorm, uphill,
 where four map sheets join."   -- Anon. British Officer in WW I

Like i said b4, the XT is not for everyone.
You've sure come a long way from your review of the XT
in SOS ;)


I sold my XT and kept my Virus. I may get another one day but I
haven't honestly missed it that much. I found that, whilst I
programmed it extensively, I almost always replaced it with some other
synth in my final mixes.

Paul

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor   ADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DSI_Evolver-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

I give up! But I am sorry I can't agree with much of what you say. 
But I think we have to leave it at that.

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Miles Bader <miles@g...> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:22:40PM -0000, Ravi Ivan Sharma 
<noision1@h...> wrote:
> > Well I can't really do your homework for you. But I will hold 
your 
> > hand a little: 
> 
> Please don't be such so obnoxious.
> 
> > http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul98/articles/synthschool9.html 
Just 
> > read and learn. Its a completely different method for creating 
sound. 
> 
> That article is very vague (in the same way that you're being), it 
never
> quite comes out and specifies anything.
> 
> It's certainly _possible_ for a synth to, say, emulate the electron 
flow in a
> bunch of transistors, and e.g., in the Q, Waldorf has claimed to do 
something
> similar (well, not on such a low-level, but they claim to do more 
than just
> use bog-standard software-synth techniques).
> 
> But to the best of the my knowledge (I haven't seen the source 
code!), most
> synths that are tagged with the term VA don't do anything nearly so
> sophisticated -- they're simply straightforward combinations of 
typical
> techniques that get used on all sorts of synths these days, `VA' or 
not.
> 
> Sure, they tweak, and tweak, and tweak, their filters to sound like 
their
> favorite analogue synth; in this sense, they're `modelling' where a 
rompler
> manufacturer might take less care (though these days, rompler 
filters sound
> pretty damn good to me!).  But I don't think they're `modelling' in 
the sense
> of really attempting to emulate the low-level working of analogue 
components.
> 
> > And again I never saw Roland or Waldorf come out and try to say 
that 
> > their digital synths (i.e. XV or MW) were VA's.
> 
> They haven't, as far as I know (the only manufacturer I've seen use 
the term
> is clavia).  However the term VA has been clearly adopted by users 
to refer
> to any synth that attempts to work like an analogue synth, and it's 
also
> clear the manufacturers are rather narrowly targeting this market.
> 
> Note that I'm not saying it's a _useless_ term; it isn't, it's just 
vague,
> and doesn't have any specific _technical_ meaning.
> 
> It's more a reference to _intent_, and emphasis -- I'd say that a 
VA synth is
> one that (roughly):
> 
>    (1) Doesn't depend on complex sampled waveforms for good sounds 
(as many
>        romplers do, though I must say I'm in awe of some of the 
samples you
>        find in romplers!)
> 
>    (2) Has high-quality filters that can add character in the same 
manner as
>        in an analogue synth
> 
>    (3) Allows more complex interaction between different parts of 
the voice
>        oscillators than just mixing, e.g., ring-modulation or FM
> 
>    (4) Emphasizes dynamic control over whatever audio-mangling is 
happening
>        within the voice (which is important since you can't depend 
on complex
>        source waveforms for animation)
> 
> [anything more?]
> 
> I apologize for the length of this, and it's certainly off-topic 
(especially
> since the evolver is sort of an `anti-VA' -- it uses digital only 
for things
> that digital is particularly good at, and leaves all the analogue 
techniques
> to real analogue!), but I actually find this a rather interesting 
topic...

> 
> But if people are bothered, I'll shut up!
> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:47:52 +0100, c00kie <cookie@...>
wrote:

>Depends... of course this detail should be mentioned, but I can think why 
>they did so. AFAIK, the XT has no true stereo engine like the evolver, but 
>the engine is mono and stereo is produced at the amp stage of the signal. 
>Therefore, it is only possible to work with mono input. A mono jack would 
>be enough, but by the way they did it, you can simply connect any stereo 
>source without having to worry about signal levels when panning occurs in 
>the source. 

I think they intended to allow individual input processing using the
multitimbral mode. Maybe they still will. There are cool things still
coming for the Microwave series I think/hope.

>If they advertised stereo input, they may have hired someone from the 
>marketing division of the sirius cybernetic corporation :-)

It was advertised that way in the UK at least - and you can't blame
the distributors. Waldorf labelled the input "stereo".

>Anyway, mono is not as great but still godd enough...

Not for me. I may get another one day though because it was *fun* to
program... and nothing does those "Forbidden Planet" noises quite like
a Microwave <g>. Well, actually the Evolver has an amazing range of
weirdy sounds too!

Simon wrote:
>You've sure come a long way from your review of the XT
>in SOS ;)

Hehe, well I *did* buy one. And then I waited a few years for some
fixes, the synth to be "finished off". When I got fed up waiting, I
sold it. Maybe after Frankfurt I'll be encouraged to get another. I
only keep instruments that excite me, that work for me in mixes, that
do a valuable job of their own. I'm not a collector...

Paul

I'm with you on this one, about the fixes. I too am waiting to see
what will happen at Frankfurt. I do believe the rumors about a new
OS and the end of the Mono Bug Saga.

As for using synths that work in mixes and that do a valuable job
on their own, well i'm on the other side. I use the XT as my main
sound source cause that's the sound i'm looking for. That doesnt
mean i would not like to get a Virus C or a Clavia Nord Lead 3 but
the set up i have right now works.

And now with is new buddy
Evolver, i don't really need anything else at this moment. But
that's just me, i know peaple usually thinks the XT takes to much
place in a mix but i think it depends what you're after, and i'm kind
a glad i'm alone on this one ;)

I keep a minimalistic approach to song writing and, like you, i only
keep what i really need.

Simon




Simon wrote:

>You've sure come a long way from your review of the XT
>in SOS ;)

Hehe, well I *did* buy one. And then I waited a few years for some
fixes, the synth to be "finished off". When I got fed up waiting, I
sold it. Maybe after Frankfurt I'll be encouraged to get another. I
only keep instruments that excite me, that work for me in mixes, that
do a valuable job of their own. I'm not a collector...

Paul

On Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 02:35:48AM -0000, Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@...> wrote:
> I am sorry I can't agree with much of what you say. 
> But I think we have to leave it at that.

Fair enough.

To get back on topic, you have two evolvers, right?

Do they play well together?  How do you usually use them?

Thanks,

-Miles
-- 
`There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

I have been using them in polychain mode. It is pretty good with the 
second evolver being a total slave to the first (i.e. patch changes 
and all parameter changes live, so you can program both together from 
one, but you have to save individually i believe). Duophonic is 
pretty good for sloppy basslines . . .  Differing sequences on 
different patches is pretty fun.
 
It could be my imagination though, but I feel like I percieve the 
mididelay, I have no way of testing but I wonder if its in my head or 
whether it is longer than it should/could be. Even if I am wrong, it 
could be an issue if one had 6 evolvers chained. But who knows?
 
it would be nice if the inputs could be set to shunt  and sum 
directly to the outputs so that you could chain the outputs of 
chained evolvers through each other and finally out the main one, so 
you don't have to find so many extra inputs.
 
Mainly I want to keep one in the studio, and take one out for abuse.
 
I have yet to play with the external inputs which is nex on my list. 
I can see dedicating one for effects and one for monosynth.

cool..
there are mididelay/units for delays.
peter.

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/