qolelis on 16/7/2020 at 02:58
Great piano(-ish) sound. Not perfectly like a piano, but very enjoyable and similar to one in the overall feeling and structure. You have set the bar.
That white noise sounds musical (
even if the noise itself might still be a little too prominent).
I have finished my drone for now, so here it is:
[video=youtube_share;JLNHWMEPKYI]https://youtu.be/JLNHWMEPKYI[/video]
I'm working on something bigger (maybe as part of the next challenge (depending on how you define "melody")), so the set-up is prepared for polyphony, but in this case I'm using only one channel, playing one note only. There's more I wanted to do with it, but I'll save that for the bigger thing.
The set-up might need a more detailed description, but I need to go to bed now, so I'll add that tomorrow (in short, the most relevant stuff happens at the top).
If the video quality happens to be low, that's because YouTube is still processing it.Edit:
Top left:
I started with all four waveforms with the idea of getting a more complex sound (levels were tweaked until I had a mix I liked). CV for each is controlled either by white noise, black noise, or the first LFO to add more dynamics (and the LFO is itself changed by another LFO (because why not!?)).
The volume envelope is maxed out for extra long sounds. A filter envelope would have been nice (applied to the cut-off frequency) for local changes, but I haven't yet figured out how to do that with what I have.
Middle left & bottom left:
The second LFO also controls delay settings. In this case, only one of the delays is used (VCV's delay module is not compatible with polyphony, so I had to add one for each channel). Delay settings are controlled either by the second LFO or by non-delayed sound (instead of just another LFO, with the idea of creating a more organic "randomness" or more complex pattern in regards to how the sound changes locally). The delayed sound also changes the LFOs (because I felt like it and it worked, so I kept it).
Middle left:
The second LFO resets itself, because I didn't want the full loop (the sound otherwise got too complex for what I wanted). I previously used a separate LFO for this, but the self-resetting worked too, so I went with that (reducing the total number of modules). The first LFO is reset every time a note starts playing (i.e. when the performer presses a key) for consistency.
The third LFO controls the cut-off frequency on a global scale. It's reset when the very first note starts to play (i.e. at the start of a performance). The downside of this is that it would also get reset if the very first note is ever played again (although, if timed right (by the performer), this can be made seamless). Changing the cut-off frequency is the only global change (per channel) right now (I wanted more, but it was time to move on).
Top right:
In lieu of a mixer module with stereo positioning, I winged it by doubling all out-signals (the two main parts are the filtered, delayed, and the filtered, non-delayed), routing them to different mixers, each routed to either the left or the right stereo channel, and by tweaking the levels for each, I could control the stereo position. For a deeper sound, I doubled the signals again, mixed them together, and gave the result its own place in the stereo landscape. The fourth LFO adds a bit of extra dynamics, although the effect is kind of subtle.
Bottom right:
The per-channel scopes are fun to look at, but also provide visual clues when performing.
***
Some effects are more noticable in the polyphonic case, with notes of different pitch behaving differently.
Edit 1B:
I forgot to mention the reverb: It being applied to only the left stereo channel is a leftover from earlier experiments (because... "dynamics"). It does give a fuller sound, but maybe the right stereo channel wants some to.
Edit 2:
Quote Posted by PigLick
i think the piano sound one would be quite difficult as well, i find emulating acoustic instruments through synths hard, with the exception of distorted guitar sounds.
Pretty much all of them seem quite challenging to me. That's why I'm here, though.
Edit 3:
On the subject of hardware, I have none, not even a simple piano keyboard, so I use my standard computer keyboard in VCV (it works, although some might call it awkward). I'm "in the process" of getting at least a simple master controller keyboard thing, but "these things take time, you know". I was going to joke about owning a "stripped down, highly customized version of the Zilch 1000 N-model", but decided not to -- and instead went for the meta-joke.
Also, look, Renz, no double-posting: do I get gold star now?
qolelis on 16/7/2020 at 19:05
Here's an example of polyphonic use of my drone set-up:
[video=youtube_share;Oo8XB5GKdn0]https://youtu.be/Oo8XB5GKdn0[/video]
I did a few modifications to it as well to tone down the previously kind of jarring higher pitch sound going on earlier. The thing to the upper left is me trying to create a compressor/limiter replacement thing (since such didn't come in the standard package and requires downloading extra modules). When too many channels are activated, there can be a problem with clipping, so I had the idea to average the channels instead of summing them, but unfortunately the standard average module comes with only six inputs, while I need eight (or maybe more), so I had to try and solve that too. The mess I came up with worked for only a very specific case, so I disconnected it temporarily and instead just tweaked the volumes for this video only, which was easier.
In VCV, to not having to hold down each note while it's played, I hold it down, open any text input field (by right-clicking on any of the knobs), then release the key and close the input field. This makes the key release not register, because it's stolen by the text input field. If I want to stop the note from playing, I just press and release the key normally. This probably works only if you, like me, use your computer keyboard for note input. It's also only until I find a better solution.
Is there a way to calculate an average using a function taking fewer inputs than you need? The limiting factor here is that I can use only addition or the existing average function (no other operators (unless they exist in the standard VCV package)). Hmmm, could a mixer module help? It has only four inputs, but might perhaps still be of use... I'll try that later.
To compensate for earlier, time to double post (I don't want no stinkin' gold star)...
demagogue on 17/7/2020 at 07:55
@qolelis, sounds like some computer room in the 1970s. Very atmospheric.
Yes I think some good mixers will do what you want. MixMaster has one of the best mixers, and the larger one I think has like 16 channels. Also I think logic type modules can do things like signal addition or logic operations, one of which may be averaging. Also you can always use attenuators (VCA) to always contain any individual signal, the pitch or the loudness.
I didn't really catch the logic of why you want to stick with only standard VCV modules when there are so many great modules out there. I'm not convinced it's actually better for learning. The thing is, different modules appeal to different ways of thinking and working. So what may be really hard to figure out on one module may be really intuitive on another. So I think the best way to learn is to try lots of different kinds of modules, and pretty soon you're going to start figuring out what style works best for your way of thinking, and then you start looking for those kinds of modules. The other thing to do is just watch lots of YouTube tutorials. Omri Cohen consistently makes great ones. That's my advice. But as this is art, of course there's no wrong way to do, so keep doing whatever is working for you.
Anyway, Aja didn't add my idea of a steel guitar sound on his list, but I went ahead and made one today anyway (in Absynth). Here it is: (
https://soundcloud.com/user9513654/ttlg-guitar/s-CQS7SuW6mcU)
qolelis on 17/7/2020 at 11:27
Quote Posted by demagogue
I didn't really catch the logic of why you want to stick with only standard VCV modules
Yeah, to expand on that:
First thing is that it's only an initial thing. If I stick with VCV long enough, chances are high that I will eventually go as far as to write my own plugins -- which is quite the opposite of my current stance. I did the exact same thing with DromEd back in the day: I started by learning and using all the basic tools, before looking at custom scripts, then moved on and eventually started writing my own scripts -- and the thousands of lines of code I wrote for one mission is quite the opposite of not using custom scripts at all, so, yeah, the restriction I put on myself was definitely just an initial phase while getting started. Restricting myself helped to really get into DromEd and to later write the scripts I needed (for things that actually couldn't be done without lifting the restrictions). Admittedly, it was also a bit of a sport, but that is besides my point.
In the case of VCV, restricting myself (initially), helps me think in new ways, to really get into what VCV is about, and get closer to the innermost essence of what it is that I need or want. Not having access to everything at once helps me focus while learning the basics. The time scale can vary, though: moving on to the next level might come earlier for VCV, as the standard set of modules can seem quite small and lacking (with even standard tasks not being possible (at not only a first glance)) -- especially as projects with time get bigger and more complicated.
A practical example of the essence aspect is the stereo positions problem I had: not just simply downloading a better mixer made me really think about what stereo position is about. A basic thing, perhaps, but later, that hands-on realization could become useful (even in seemingly unrelated fields). The same thing could be said about reverb: Although I did download a module for that, not having it available could have been motivation enough to learn what reverb really does to a sound (even if I would have ended up downloading the module anyway). After downloading the module, I no longer had the same motivation to learn more.
Quote Posted by faetal
I'm pretty happy that [the thread-start] led to this cool patch workshop, so thanks to Dema and Aja for that :)
Ah, right, I was so excited about the workshop that I kind of forgot about the original subject. Oops. Is it perhaps time that we move the workshop to a new thread (or are people more comfortable keeping it here)?
Edit:
I remember my very first workshop, led by one Ewa Justka, in which they built synths out of vegetables. I never entered it, because I was too anxious, so
this is actually my very first workshop.
PigLick on 17/7/2020 at 11:31
I thinks its fine here personally
faetal on 17/7/2020 at 18:48
Yeah. I just wanted to chat about synths with other nerds, but it morphed into something way cooler.
qolelis on 18/7/2020 at 20:46
Especially for those of you using hardware modular synthesis: I have a question or two regarding software versus hardware:
* In VCV, as far as I know, each input and output can be used either for control signals or audio signals (it's all just a matter of voltage levels), so I can draw cables any way I want and use modules for whatever I want and still get a useful signal (with the exception of polyphonic versus monophonic). In Reason (which isn't truly modular, although it borrows from that world too), they differentiate between control signals and audio signals, so the two cannot be mixed. How does this work in hardware (or, more specifically, the hardware you are using)?
* What would you say the advantage of hardware is (compared to software)? I can imagine a couple, but I'd rather hear it from someone with practical experience.
* How easy is it to find and add new modules?
For me, as a beginner, software in general has the advantage of not taking up any extra space, and VCV in particular has the advantage of making it very easy to find and add new modules, with many of them also being free (just like VCV is), so I can try things out without spending a lot of money. Also, as someone with more programming experience, creating my own plugin would be easier than having to build the hardware for it (not that I would mind getting into that as well, but it would take a lot more effort (and beginner mistakes might have more severe consequences)).
The disadvantage of software is that it's clearly not as hands-on as hardware; turning a hardware knob is an experience that is hard to emulate. VCV in particular lacks a method of labeling a module, while Reason can do it (in hardware, it's easy with just a pen and some tape).
***
Today I have experimented solely with different methods of calculating an average in VCV:
* It turns out that the Unity module can be set to use either 6 or all 12 inputs for one average, so that made it easier to calculate an average for 8 inputs. This method can be expanded to work also for higher number of inputs (see below).
* Use two mixer modules to sum together all 8 channels. Then use a third mixer module to divide the result by 8, which requires a bit of extra math. I started by looking up the definition for dB (which is what the mixer module use for setting the level of an input):
dB = 10*log10(fP), where fP is the factor we want to multiply the power level with. For the mixer module, we instead need the change in amplitude:
fA = sqrt(fP) => dB = 10*log10(fA^2) => dB = 20*log10(fA)
fA = 1/n (n is the number of channels) => dB = 20*log10(1/n) = -20*log10(n)
So, with 8 channels, we must set the input level to dB = -20*log10(8) ~ -18.062 in order to calculate the average (to be certain I had calculated everything correctly, I used a Scope module to compare the result with that from method #1). This method can be extended if more channels are needed, but there will be lots of mixers (one per every fourth channel plus one more). We can also have some fun by routing the note gate values to each cv input on the channel mixers. This means that a channel will be counted as having a level of zero as soon as its note key is released, ignoring the release value of the volume envelope -- although the usefulness of this can be debated.
* Use a sum module to add all channels together and then an attenuator model (VCA) to calculate the average. The attenuation factor is measured in percent, so it's easy to calculate its value in order to divide by 8 (i.e. 100%/8 = 12.5%). Easy to adapt for more channels and requires only two modules.
Averaging all channels, currently 8, solves the problem of clipping, but all channels are counted, not only those that are currently in use, so if only one channel is in use, the volume of it will still be divided by eight, so the fewer channels in use, the quieter the result (and vice versa). This could be considered an artistic choice, but it would be interesting to also be able to average only used channels. I can calculate the number of used channels by adding together all note gate voltages and then divide the sum by 10 (a gate is either 0 or 10 volts), but I haven't yet figured out how to divide something with an arbitrary number (i.e. the number of used channels). Counting only channels with active gates will ignore the release value of the volume envelope (as for method #3 above), so that would have to be solved as well (if we want a tone to fade out instead of ending abruptly).
***
And to answer my own question from earlier:
Quote Posted by qolelis
Is there a way to calculate an average using a function taking fewer inputs than you need?
Yes, with a few exceptions: factorize the number of inputs and then use lower order average functions for each of these factors. This means that it's not possible if the number of inputs is a prime number (higher than the number of existing inputs), or if a lower order function doesn't exist for a given factor.
Example: Calculate the average for six inputs.
6 is the product of 2 and 3, so we use either 2 average functions of order 3 and one of order 2, or 3 of order 2 and one of order 3:
g(a, b, c, d, e, f) = g(g(a, b, c), g(d, e, f)) = g(g(a, b), g(c, d), g(e, f))
***
(
https://i.imgur.com/LbfguzP.jpg)
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/LbfguzPt.jpg
demagogue on 19/7/2020 at 00:13
Really quickly, there is a label module by Stoermelder called (
https://library.vcvrack.com/Stoermelder-P1/Glue) Glue that allows you to add a label to any module and knob. You drop it anywhere in your rack, click the "Label" button, the little LED light will light up, and you left-click on any module and a label will pop up on the module and you can drag it where you want it. Then right click the label and you can change the text and any parameter (the color, size, font, etc.).
Another useful labeling module to have is Submarine's TD-202, which you just add text on directly so it can effectively label a whole area of your patch.
If you want to have hands-on performance, not just using switches and LFOs, you really need a physical knob.
The thing is that VCV allows you to map other synth and keyboard controllers to control VCV parameters. The standard VCV module Midi Map is the one that does that. So you can hook your computer up to your controller with a Midi to USB (or I think just a plain USB) cable, and then map one of their knobs or buttons to any knob or button on any VCV module. You still need a physical controller, but you can get a really cheap one and use it to control VCV Rack. It also allows you to integrate VCV Rack with actual Eurorack modules, and if you search, you can see lots of people that freely mix Eurorack modules with VCV Rack modules in the same patch.
Aja on 19/7/2020 at 00:58
So much to catch up on here.
Dema, I actually really like the lonely pyramids tone; it's maybe not as rich as the others, but it sounds like it would sit well in a mix. The clear waters track is great, too. Can't help but think of Mario 64.
I agree with everyone that your piano patch is great, too, and could see it working in a track with a bit of reverb. I like the snappy attack, but it still somehow sounds soft, like halfway between an acoustic and tine piano. Your steel guitar is a bit general-midi sounding but in an endearing way ; ) I meant to add steel guitar to the list, too, and just forgot.
Qolelis I like your polyphonic drone best. I could see it as the base of an ambient or soundtrack piece.
Pig, I feel like your musical white noise is basically what I was going to do, so I guess I'll have to think of something else.
(
https://soundcloud.com/dimedancing/july-18-airy/s-XH7BQY4sQv9?in=dimedancing/sets/ttlg-synth-contest/s-xPO4W7SMupH) Here's my entry for airy. I let it record for five minutes because I was enjoying it, but the actual sequence is only 8 notes long. I probably should've high-passed it more to make it airier, but EQ after the fact seems to go against the spirit of this.
Aja on 19/7/2020 at 01:11
Quote Posted by qolelis
Especially for those of you using hardware modular synthesis: I have a question or two regarding software versus hardware:
* In VCV, as far as I know, each input and output can be used either for control signals or audio signals (it's all just a matter of voltage levels), so I can draw cables any way I want and use modules for whatever I want and still get a useful signal (with the exception of polyphonic versus monophonic). In Reason (which isn't truly modular, although it borrows from that world too), they differentiate between control signals and audio signals, so the two cannot be mixed. How does this work in hardware (or, more specifically, the hardware you are using)?
* What would you say the advantage of hardware is (compared to software)? I can imagine a couple, but I'd rather hear it from someone with practical experience.
* How easy is it to find and add new modules?
For me, as a beginner, software in general has the advantage of not taking up any extra space, and VCV in particular has the advantage of making it very easy to find and add new modules, with many of them also being free (just like VCV is), so I can try things out without spending a lot of money. Also, as someone with more programming experience, creating my own plugin would be easier than having to build the hardware for it (not that I would mind getting into that as well, but it would take a lot more effort (and beginner mistakes might have more severe consequences)).
With hardware modular synths you can generally patch any voltage out to any voltage in, but not all inputs on all modules are designed to work with both. If an input is AC coupled, it means it filters out signals below a certain frequency, which means control voltages will do nothing. Conversely, some inputs that expect slow-moving control signals will accept audio-rate signals, but they won't necessarily respond in a useful way. Some will work with both, and those are usually the most fun to play with, in my opinion.
As for the advantage of hardware, for me it's mostly about the interface. Personally I don't feel as inspired making music with a mouse and keyboard than a dedicated hardware interface, but it's more psychological than anything. As far as sound quality, analog synthesizers tend to have elements of unpredictability, instability, and imperfection that for me makes them more engaging and interesting to play with. Good software can definitely have these qualities, too, though.