Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Cwejman, Livewire, TipTop Audio, Doepfer etc... Get your euro on!

Moderators: Kent, luketeaford, Joe., lisa

Post Reply
User avatar
mdoudoroff
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:10 am
Location: New York City

Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by mdoudoroff » Thu May 04, 2017 8:28 pm

Since I happen to have three of the most “pingable” filter modules in my rack, I thought it would be interesting to attempt a comparison.

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/321033230" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

This is four series of ping tests, designed to be (as much as possible) apples-to-apples. In each, I’m using four different pitches while manually wiggling the Q, and manually triggering the pings.

First up is the QMMF-4, pinging only the first of the four filters in RES mode. A major feature here is that I can turn Q all the way up and get remarkably long ping decays (especially at lower frequencies). Obviously, there are three more filters here I could be pinging, too.

Second up is the Epoch implementation of Twinpeak, with the dial set all the way counterclockwise to LP. You can get a lot more out of this filter than this demo presents—and I’m not taking advantage of both peaks here—but you get a sense of the “character” of Twinpeak’s ping sound, which is quite similar to the QMMF-4.

Third up is Three Sisters in crossover mode. Unlike the other two, Three Sisters will happily self-oscillate, which means that pinging it requires tweaking Q just below the self-oscillation point. (Sometimes I go too far with my manual adjustments and you hear the whine. Backing off a bit fixes it.)

Lastly is Three Sisters in formant mode. Same deal, different sound. Note that in either mode, the output you choose on Three Sisters can sound a bit different; moreover, you could get three differently-pitched pings out of Three Sisters by using all three outputs (or All) and adjusting Span.

If you have any suggestions to improve on the methodology, I’m all ears. Perhaps you have other examples to add?

User avatar
starthief
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4976
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:39 am
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by starthief » Thu May 04, 2017 9:28 pm

Synchrodyne is pingable, with the right combination of settings. It can take a while to find them, and it's more inclined to self-oscillate and/or leak aliased weirdness. With the PLL track speed and damping both cranked up, it sounds a lot like it's being FM'd whenever you change the frequency.

Since I have a Three Sisters anyway I'm more inclined to ping that instead :hihi:

BillyB909
Common Wiggler
Posts: 230
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2016 12:59 pm

Post by BillyB909 » Fri May 05, 2017 1:41 am

Three Sisters is the king (queen) of my filters for pinging.

The Bastl Cinnamon pings, and has character switches and drive that make for a few different options sound wise. However, the 'biting point' on the resonance is a bit narrow and this makes it tricky to dial in nice lengths.

My two Doepfer filters (a120 and the Xpander filter) are both pingable and make a fairly standard sound to my ears. But the Three Sisters is the one.

User avatar
starthief
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4976
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:39 am
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by starthief » Fri May 05, 2017 6:35 am

Disting's bandpass filter makes a clean, snappy little ping -- a bit like a water drop. Not amazing, but very consistent and easy to set up since it doesn't self-resonate.

User avatar
mdoudoroff
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:10 am
Location: New York City

Post by mdoudoroff » Fri May 05, 2017 9:44 am

It’s great that all these filters generate significantly different sounds when you poke them.

The nature of the poking is clearly important. I suppose that’s obvious, but I’ve found that a lot of pulse-emitting modules are a bit anemic at it. I suppose a gentler (or attenuated) pulse might be desirable in some situations, but in my experience so far, the most interesting results tend to come from a pulse 10V or higher.

The best module I have for this job seems to be the EOR on MN Function. That emits a 10.5V pulse, and it’s a little bit longer in duration than most. This combo of voltage and duration seems to produce the strongest ringing effect—almost a double ring. By comparison, the EOR on my Maths emits only a little above 9V, and it’s noticeably weaker in effect. My NE Repetitor modules seem to perfectly nail 10V with an extremely short pulse. They work well, but the results are also “cleaner” sounding than when I use the Function EOR. Gatestorm comes in a little below 10V, whilst my Doepfer clock divider is a bit over 11V! The 11V pulse from the Doepfer—obviously—rings the filters well, but it’s shorter than the one from Function, and again, it sounds different. Cleaner.

One of the many little cool things about Control Forge is you can set the duration of the triggers it emits. You can even change the duration on the fly. Here’s a new comparison that takes advantage of that control to show the effect of ping duration across the same three filters.

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/321112830" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

The pulse durations tested for each are “Fast”, “1ms Hi”, “1ms Hi/Lo”, “10ms”, “12.5ms” and “25ms”.

As the pulse length gets longer, a delay appears between the sounds produced by the rising and falling edges of the pulse until they’re completely discrete.

User avatar
starthief
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4976
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:39 am
Location: St Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by starthief » Fri May 05, 2017 10:16 am

Usually I ping with the triggers from my CV.OCD, which are only 5V (though with adjustable duration), so I'll often run them through Gozinta to give them a boost. This also helps with LPG pings, etc.

I also like to use rapid exponential decay envelopes to make sure I'm not getting a double-trigger -- I find I prefer this with LPGs since I can extend the decay a bit while still getting a vactrol feel from them.

Envelopes, or multed triggers, into the filter's frequency control alongside the ping can also be fun. Of course that's a common way to createa kick drum. On Three Sisters one could also do this to Span.

Also it's worth pointing out that Three Sisters, and no doubt some other filters, can be pinged either through an audio input or through the resonance CV. I didn't have any luck with that on Synchrodyne.
Last edited by starthief on Fri May 05, 2017 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
mdoudoroff
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:10 am
Location: New York City

Post by mdoudoroff » Fri May 05, 2017 10:35 am

Good tips, starthief! I need to spend more time adding envelopes to the mix.

enno
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:14 am

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by enno » Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:12 pm

Wanted to revive this thread.

I’ve been browsing for a pingable filter, ideally something that can create a range of percussive and odd sounds.

What should be on my shortlist?

Of the filters above, the three sisters seems to be pretty much unavailable in Europe.

Currently I am thinking Serge variable Q VCF.
Or maybe QPAS?

I already own the doepfer SEM filter and ALM mum m8, and am getting some cool blobs out of the doepfer, but hard to get variety, so looking for more.

Thanks for any recs!!

enno
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:14 am

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by enno » Tue Jan 12, 2021 5:19 am

enno wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:12 pm
Wanted to revive this thread.

I’ve been browsing for a pingable filter, ideally something that can create a range of percussive and odd sounds.

What should be on my shortlist?

Of the filters above, the three sisters seems to be pretty much unavailable in Europe.

Currently I am thinking Serge variable Q VCF.
Or maybe QPAS?

I already own the doepfer SEM filter and ALM mum m8, and am getting some cool blobs out of the doepfer, but hard to get variety, so looking for more.

Thanks for any recs!!
Adding another question here - when I apply reverb onto the pinged Doepfer filter (106-5 SEM), I get a really extreme, low verb, which doesnt sound like a natural verb would to that kind of sound. Is this because the "filter ping" is very high in voltage?

User avatar
ozmoziz
Learning to Wiggle
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:59 am
Location: Duisburg

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by ozmoziz » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:07 am

The Instruo io47 is my favorite filter for pinging. It doesn't selfascillate (until you hit the feedback switch) and has a strike input. This allows you to create some really long and musical pings.

SSF Stereo Dipole is also nice for pinging.

johny_gtr
Ultra Wiggler
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 8:49 am
Contact:

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by johny_gtr » Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:34 am

I have 3.5 modules that provides good ping.

Klangbau Twin Peaks - most crazy pings. very verstatile. I ping it like - CV - for gates or textures from Zadar, V/oct in Audio. In this case I got most interested sounds when difference between nearby notes is big. like A2->A6

RS Serge VCFQ - good v/oct, Q - for configure pings from clicks to long bongos to notes, Freq and several outputs for tone. Much louder than Twin Peaks

SSF Stereo Dipoles - even two pingers instead of one. It's interesting to setup stereo pings or ping with slightly different tones and create rhythmic patterns with it

Verbos ATCv1 with some configuration can create a mix between lpg sound/pinged filter sound.
modular percussion and scapes - http://ovod.bandcamp.com
mu modular space electronica https://7k-ok.bandcamp.com

User avatar
stepvhen
Common Wiggler
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2020 10:41 am
Location: Indianapolis
Contact:

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by stepvhen » Tue Jan 12, 2021 9:04 am

NLC Feague is my current main filter, and pinging it was the main voice in my recent release, Tuesday (bandcamp below). Instead of a pulse to trigger it however, I used a sequencer (NLC Bindubba) that ran from 0-10V. The different jumps in voltage (either up or down) determined the loudness, and in some cases the timbre of the sound. Plus, using a sequencer I didn't have to worry about the voltage drop of a pulse re-pinging the filter.

I love my Feague very much, and I highly recommend it. It also doubles as a quadrature VCO/LFO.

Estes
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 3:28 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by Estes » Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:28 pm

mdoudoroff wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 8:28 pm
Since I happen to have three of the most “pingable” filter modules in my rack, I thought it would be interesting to attempt a comparison.

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/321033230" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

This is four series of ping tests, designed to be (as much as possible) apples-to-apples. In each, I’m using four different pitches while manually wiggling the Q, and manually triggering the pings.

First up is the QMMF-4, pinging only the first of the four filters in RES mode. A major feature here is that I can turn Q all the way up and get remarkably long ping decays (especially at lower frequencies). Obviously, there are three more filters here I could be pinging, too.

Second up is the Epoch implementation of Twinpeak, with the dial set all the way counterclockwise to LP. You can get a lot more out of this filter than this demo presents—and I’m not taking advantage of both peaks here—but you get a sense of the “character” of Twinpeak’s ping sound, which is quite similar to the QMMF-4.

Third up is Three Sisters in crossover mode. Unlike the other two, Three Sisters will happily self-oscillate, which means that pinging it requires tweaking Q just below the self-oscillation point. (Sometimes I go too far with my manual adjustments and you hear the whine. Backing off a bit fixes it.)

Lastly is Three Sisters in formant mode. Same deal, different sound. Note that in either mode, the output you choose on Three Sisters can sound a bit different; moreover, you could get three differently-pitched pings out of Three Sisters by using all three outputs (or All) and adjusting Span.

If you have any suggestions to improve on the methodology, I’m all ears. Perhaps you have other examples to add?
Sorry I somehow cannot open the Soundcloud link.

User avatar
brandonlogic
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2980
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2015 9:17 am
Location: Milwaukee WI

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by brandonlogic » Tue Jan 12, 2021 3:25 pm

mdoudoroff wrote:
Thu May 04, 2017 8:28 pm
Since I happen to have three of the most “pingable” filter modules in my rack, I thought it would be interesting to attempt a comparison.
Thanks for the comparison!
The klangbau twin peak and resonator and r*s vcfq are also very essential pingers.

One thing that the klangbau’s respond to nice to is different levels of incoming triggers (trigger/gate through a vca, then into the audio input). This is thanks to their internal envelope follower features. The followers also really allow you to sculpt pings sound very nicely, even when using a non vca modulated trigger. It really allows you to dial in the sharpness of each peak.

The resonator is very cool because it also has a cross fm feature where the second peak freq fm’s the first. This opens up a whole new world of fm ping synthesis!

Also, I’m interested how mutable blades compares to all filters mentioned in this thread for pings!

User avatar
mdoudoroff
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 4145
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:10 am
Location: New York City

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by mdoudoroff » Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:07 pm

Estes wrote:
Tue Jan 12, 2021 2:28 pm

Sorry I somehow cannot open the Soundcloud link.






And a little ping-intensive ditty:


User avatar
wavejockey
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 426
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:07 am
Location: belgium

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by wavejockey » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:17 am

i just sampled a Rossum Evolution filter into an EMU E4 & E4 ultra
pinged with the 5V trigger of my Vermona LFO - didn't know about the +/- strong(er) Voltages you could apply, will try that next

it gives a beautifull tone/sine over 10 octaves!
many things to alter the sound, like QC (q level compensation), 3/4/5/6 poles (which influence the sound quite subtle) and species (which is normally an analog -over-drive, but when self resonating & pinging it goes to sustain and sonar ping territory)
also double/fast pinging gives very musical results, these are sounds you can build a song on/into

joskery
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 567
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 3:15 pm

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by joskery » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:38 am

Mutable Blades is very pingable.

User avatar
Naenyn
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:37 am
Location: Arizona, USA

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by Naenyn » Wed Jan 13, 2021 5:08 pm

The Teia Optocore is also nicely pingable.
-n :ninja:

My FOR SALE thread
My racks on ModularGrid
Find me on MuffWiggler's Discord

User avatar
hawkfuzz
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 2203
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:33 pm
Location: East Coast
Contact:

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by hawkfuzz » Wed Jan 13, 2021 6:37 pm

enno wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 1:12 pm
Wanted to revive this thread.

I’ve been browsing for a pingable filter, ideally something that can create a range of percussive and odd sounds.

What should be on my shortlist?

Of the filters above, the three sisters seems to be pretty much unavailable in Europe.

Currently I am thinking Serge variable Q VCF.
Or maybe QPAS?


I already own the doepfer SEM filter and ALM mum m8, and am getting some cool blobs out of the doepfer, but hard to get variety, so looking for more.

Thanks for any recs!!
The thing I'll miss the most until I'm reunited is the pings from the QPAS. It is unmatched in my experience. I think someone recently made a video about the ping side of the QPAS. Since it doesn't self oscillate and has four core you can get soooooo many tones. Also the fact that it has the vca before means that resonance really rings. It's great.
THUMPR BC SC

Bachelard
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:37 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by Bachelard » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:05 pm

G-Storm Electro XaVCF pings very nicely as well. Just posted this elsewhere but this is all XaVCF and the Bard Fonoton 2069 (Korg Poly-800 filter chip):



I also have a Three Sisters and indeed it pings quite nicely. I should also mention that the filter on the Benjolin is also very pingable, and I often set the oscillators to LFO rate and just have them ping its filter all day.

User avatar
bodo
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 678
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:08 pm
Location: Antwerp, Belgium

Re: Pingable/percussive filter comparison

Post by bodo » Wed Jan 13, 2021 7:37 pm

As said before, the SSF Dipole pings pretty nicely
Here's a long jam with a lot of cross-modulation and modulated resonance to give it a more 'voice' like ability.
Still only pinged though! :love:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/azyvmqepmwr6q ... s.mp3?dl=0

Post Reply

Return to “Eurorack Modules”