Acoustic modular sounds

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

Moderators: luketeaford, Joe., lisa, Kent

User avatar
dougcl
Number 6
Posts: 4043
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 3:04 am
Location: Portland OR

Post by dougcl » Wed Sep 22, 2010 6:17 pm

A-117 stuff here (with help of QMMG)... uh holy shit virb just imploded. Goodbye virb! So long! Screw you! :lol:

User avatar
AndreasKrebs
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Post by AndreasKrebs » Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:54 am

en. wrote:thank you andreas for your very detailed and nice old school demos!
somewhere, in the first track mostly, it seems you are playing objects more than acoustic instruments, that is interesting anyhow
Thanks! The tracks were not intended to be demos, but I'm happy if they are useful as such.
I like it to be able to use the synth as some kind of "percussive instrument" as well as a tonal one (and everything in between). The BBDs are quite helpful for this.
Andreas

User avatar
en.
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:47 am

Post by en. » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:03 am

AndreasKrebs wrote: Thanks! The tracks were not intended to be demos,
:sadbanana: i thought you did them for me :lol:

ahaha sorry i used the wrong word, not meant to decry your works
thanks again for the links to your tracks!

:bananaguitar:

frijitz
Super Deluxe Wiggler
Posts: 1637
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:37 pm

Post by frijitz » Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:15 am

dougcl wrote:Holy cow I had no idea the finite element method (and finite differences) were being applied to sound synthesis.
The original work was:

"On the oscillations of musical instruments", McIntyre, Schumacher and Woodhouse, J. Acoust. Soc. Am 74(5), 1983.

This was the basis for the Yamaha VL1 Virtual Acoustic Tone Generator and other physical modeling synths. (Physical modeling originally refered to machines running physics models of instruments, not the current meaning of emulating synth circuits.) Julius Smith (Stanford CCRMA) probably still has a lot of his work up at his site.

:grin:

Ian

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Still deciding between 256 and 512?

Post by dykesh » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:30 am

After researching all this stuff, I'm still not sure which to get between the 256 and 512. It seems like most of the demos of the 256 sound a little more like Karplus Strong to me and the 512 sounds a little more like a delay. Any opinions on this? I was set on the 512 but now I'm not so sure....

User avatar
selfoscillate
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:45 am

Post by selfoscillate » Thu Sep 23, 2010 10:39 am

i prefer the 256 stages bbd for karplus strong synthesis.
the highest possible pitch in a karplus strong patch is
determined by the shortest delay time possible with the bbd chip.
a 256 stages bbd goes one octave higher than a 512 stages bbd.

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Post by dykesh » Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:17 pm

Does that mean the 256 cannot go as low as the 512 or is the limitation just on the higher octaves? Thanks...

User avatar
AndreasKrebs
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Post by AndreasKrebs » Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:46 pm

dykesh wrote:Does that mean the 256 cannot go as low as the 512 or is the limitation just on the higher octaves? Thanks...
When you go lower in pitch, you will sooner hear the 256's internal clock oscillator than the 512's (i.e. you will sooner need to apply a steep lowpass filter like the A-108 to its output).
Andreas

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Post by dykesh » Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:09 pm

Great, now I got it. Thanks

User avatar
selfoscillate
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:45 am

Post by selfoscillate » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:31 pm

dykesh wrote:Does that mean the 256 cannot go as low as the 512 or is the limitation just on the higher octaves? Thanks...
the highest and lowest possible pitches are directly coupled
to the number of stages in a bbd. a bbd has a maximum and
a minimum delay time, limiting the frequency range on both
ends. bbd's with different size play in different octaves, to say so.
my personal impression is that the shorter bbd's give better results
than longer bbd's, when used in a karplus strong patch. the smaller
bbd's sound cleaner and less distorted. or in other words,
less "delay" and more "oscillator".

User avatar
AndreasKrebs
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Post by AndreasKrebs » Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:42 pm

You may also take a look at the 128 stage BBD: very usable as a sound source, quite clean. (I've bought it as a complement to my A-188-2, which is still the best allround-superversatile BBD)
Andreas

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Post by dykesh » Thu Sep 23, 2010 4:19 pm

It looks like the 188-2 goes down to only 396? Am I looking at this correctly? I'm reading the manuals but I'm not sure what I would lose with a 188-2? Reading the description makes me think the clock noise may be a little too much??? Oh, and Andreas, I loved those songs you put up!!!

User avatar
Umcorps
Will patch for food
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:33 am
Location: Currently unrecognisable

Post by Umcorps » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:04 am

I think just for KP applications, the 256 stage version of 188-1 is the best compromise in terms of usable range and simplicity. With that one the clock noise isn't normally an issue when you are trying to produce pitches above 250 Hz or so.

Just to muddy the waters though, you don't always have to lower the clock rate to the point where it is audible to get lower frequency pitches. Putting a filter in the feedback loop can change the pitch and timbre of the output quite dramatically. I had a weird kind of baritone sax thing going on the other day doing just this at a clock rate that, unfiltered, produced tones an octave higher.

It was a bastard to get it to track properly though. So ideal for microtonal free jazz.

User avatar
darenager
Bad Mother Fucker
Posts: 3885
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:59 pm
Location: England

Post by darenager » Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:15 am

Doepfer A-137-1 excellent for string, brass and woodwind stuff, as well as all the weird stuff it can do. The trick is to animate the CV inputs at differing rates and amounts, amazing module IMHO :tu:

User avatar
selfoscillate
Wiggling with Experience
Posts: 440
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 6:45 am

Post by selfoscillate » Fri Sep 24, 2010 4:10 am

dykesh wrote:It looks like the 188-2 goes down to only 396? Am I looking at this correctly? I'm reading the manuals but I'm not sure what I would lose with a 188-2? Reading the description makes me think the clock noise may be a little too much??? Oh, and Andreas, I loved those songs you put up!!!
the a188/2 uses a 3328 stages bbd, it only has an output tap for 396 stages,
which is not the same as if it would have 396 stages in total.
the a188/2 is much noisier than f.e. the a188/1 with 256 stages, not
only regarding the clock noise, but in general.
i like the a188/2 too, but not for karplus strong stuff.

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Post by dykesh » Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:19 am

Thanks so much for the info. I'm really trying to simulate many of the songs I've heard that were done with the 256 and maybe try to get some of the banjo/guitar type stuff; so it sounds like the 256 will do all this.

User avatar
AndreasKrebs
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Post by AndreasKrebs » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:12 pm

The A-188-1X (128 stages only) can reach quite low regions. Here's a short sound demo:
http://www.andreaskrebs.de/assets/media/A-188-1X.mp3

Patch: A-155 Sequencer triggers an A-142 VC Decay envelope which controls an A-132-3 VCA (short decay time). VCA input is some noise from an A-117. VCA out goes into an A-188-1X BBD. The BBD frequency is controlled by the A-155 and an A-185-2 (to switch octaves - something like octaves: 1 oct down every 30 seconds).
In the feedback loop, an A-108 is inserted with bandpass out, no emphasis and manually changed filter frequency. BBD output is sent into another A-108 (filter frequency is controlled by BBD frequency CV out), the 48dB out is then sent into DAW.

Andreas
Last edited by AndreasKrebs on Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
AndreasKrebs
Common Wiggler
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:45 pm

Post by AndreasKrebs » Fri Sep 24, 2010 2:30 pm

Same patch as above, but this time with an A-188-2 (396 stages tap used):
http://www.andreaskrebs.de/assets/media/A-188-2.mp3

Around 3:00 you can hear that there's a little bit more noise / crosstalk involved with the tapped BBD. (Nothing a Stratocaster player would even care...)

Andreas
Last edited by AndreasKrebs on Sat Sep 25, 2010 5:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Monobass
thonk.co.uk
Posts: 8805
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 5:39 pm
Location: Brighton, UK
Contact:

Post by Monobass » Sat Sep 25, 2010 4:24 am

The thread that keeps on giving :sb:
Thonk - CLICK HERE - Modular Synth DIY + Eurorack Accessories Store

User avatar
dykesh
Common Wiggler
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 12:35 pm

Post by dykesh » Sat Sep 25, 2010 7:52 am

Andreas, thanks for those comparisons, that helps a great deal. I think a 256 will be the best choice for me.

User avatar
KNYST
hiding in the forest
Posts: 2934
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:09 am
Location: the Taiga, Sweden
Contact:

Post by KNYST » Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:32 am

Scaff wrote:yesterday i made a recording that sounds like a mixture of marimba and contra bass with my digital vcos and the qmmg

Gates sind die besten
Damn that's great! :sb:

-EDIT-
Lovely thread!
NOISE HEALS.
patch responsibly.
LISTEN | WATCH

julianop
1-Post Wiggler
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:47 am

Re: Acoustic modular sounds

Post by julianop » Fri Jul 31, 2020 11:34 am

frijitz wrote:
Sat Sep 18, 2010 11:22 am
Monobass wrote:I like those modular sounds that tread that edge between sounding electronic and sounding somehow acoustic in nature.
Not sure exactly what you are looking for, but I did a lot of stuff like this at one time:
http://home.comcast.net/~ijfritz/sf_sc1.mp3
http://home.comcast.net/~ijfritz/sf_sc1.mp3

:grin:

Ian
Hey, Ian, you still around??

Xomrys
Common Wiggler
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:54 am

Re: Acoustic modular sounds

Post by Xomrys » Sat Aug 01, 2020 5:16 pm

There are basically two classes of instruments: instantaneously excited (plucked or struck) and continuously excited (bowed or wind instruments). Hard to think of another category right now. The Macintyre-Woodhouse paper cited above seems to focus on the continuously excited instruments with the feedback loop. But here you need the right kind of controller because you don't just hit something and let it go. The performer has to be actually in feedback with the instrument -- all 'expression' comes from this. Other than having the performer actually use a bow or wind controller, I'm not sure how you would model this aspect.

But for the instantaneously excited instruments, I think the most important ingredient is simply a fast envelope, so you get that surface fidelity and crispness. The problem is everything today is marketed as fast, despite almost nothing being actually so. Even the Minimoog and SEM envelopes are too slow, the acoustic element only comes out when you record a sound and speed it up 2x or 4x. Minimoog also has a deliberately 'blunt' attack, with a nonzero constant region. 2600 or Serge DSG (when used as an AD generator, with feedback for exponential shape) perhaps are fast enough. But this kind of 'crisp' attack is otherwise very hard to find. When it's there and you have a complex timbre or even with a simple pulse wave, the result can really fool you sometimes.

User avatar
ferran
Veteran Wiggler
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:58 am
Location: Barcelona

Re: Acoustic modular sounds

Post by ferran » Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:59 am

:mrgreen: 10 years-old thread :mrgreen:

noisewreck
Common Wiggler
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:51 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Acoustic modular sounds

Post by noisewreck » Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:39 pm

ferran wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 9:59 am
:mrgreen: 10 years-old thread :mrgreen:
Indeed. But, it’s amazing to see how much things have changed isn’t it?

Post Reply

Return to “Eurorack Modules”