The Holy Grail ? (second reprise)

#1

Hi guys

I recently posted an earlier version of the text below but put it in the hardware catagory, which probably wasn't the best spot. I still got a few interesting reactions but this catagory might be the better place to find some people with actual programming skills.

So here I go again:

What I am dreaming of is an instrument that can use samples, say WAV´s, and then ¨mangle¨ them in any way possible via a physical modeling environment. One could see it as a 3 step system.

1 – A driver section based on sample input and processing or treatment. A full additive re-synthesis system would of course be preferable but since that is difficult to implement (Only the Alchemy VST seems to go the whole route) a granular sample treatment will be a very reasonable alternative. I have seen a few Axoloti trials in this direction but cannot find proof of anybody truly cracking that nut in Axoloti yet.

2 – A physical modeling resonator section to superimpose real time expression onto the sampled drivers created in section 1. That might sound like a tall order but much earlier machines have provided such facilities on the basis of wave guide modelling, so by using delays to create a response that is similar to a resonator body. If a whole bag of such treatment "filters" with limited tweakability would be available one could simply chose from them. For instance: a wooden body, a metal pipe, a drum head. Stuff like that. In this way one does not have to use a fully modeled variable resonator, so it is cheating a bit, but it would probably make a physcial modeling implementation in Axoloti much easier.

3 – Not totally necessary but preferably still: A conventional subtractive section to further shape envelopes, add LFO modulations, do some filter finetuning, etc. But since Axolotie provides all these facilities already I see no problems here.

For an impression of I what direction I am thinking see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiT117i6YnE&t=23s6
Other examples would be the Roland V-synth or the ultra rare Technos Acxel (but both then with physical modeling options added). One could also say that I am dreaming of a Technics WSA1 with added resynhtesis or granular user sampling.

Are there community members who would be prepared to develop the coding for section 1 and 2 building blocks/ facilities? The above instrument concept is of course rather specific but I am sure that any such additions would also benefit many other users.

This is all very exiting so I hope you guys like my idea's!

Marc Brassé
www.brassee.com

#2

The only person (that I have seen) who has made any offer of making objects for others is sirsicsic. You could try asking him.
You are asking a lot, so you may find you are going to have to put in a lot of the work yourself.

#3

I can assure you that I am very aware of the fact that I would also have my own work cut out. What I can for instance provide is a very broad knowledge of the physics of sound and synthesis, conceptualization (working out functional diagrams and logical charts), the designing of a user interface, building hardware, writing manuals. Stuff like that.

This would actually be my 4th big customization project. For information on the existing ones see: http//www.brassee.com/instruments.html. I also always share my designs and experiences http://www.brassee.com/writing.html#music (Both pages will be update very soon, by the way).

Writing object software would however probably be one step too far for me. First of all because I would have to start from scratch and secondly because I have the temperament of a man of all seasons but not that of a focussed, single dsicipline expert.

I am actually already quite sure that Axoloti will be able to delvier the goods. It's exactly the right hardware / software mix I was looking for. I recently compared a VST with a lightbulb. A lightbulb still needs an actaul lamp armature, wires in the wall and a switch to work. Axoloti delivers all that in one package.

I do not mean this as a single focus project for my pleasure only. The hardware interface I have in mind could for instance also be used for many other instrument models.

What I am trying to find out at the moment is if the community is strong enough for such a venture.

I hope that clarifies my intentions a bit.

Is there any way I can contact sirsicsic? Is he present on this platform.

Kind regards,

Marc

#4

sirsicsic = @SirSickSik

@brasso , As a mod, can I ask next time you don't cross post, just ask me to move your topic if you believe it's in the wrong category.

#5

@thetechnobear you meant @brasso, didn't you??

#6

Yes... I tagged SSS because @brasso wanted the correct username
( I've my post clearer now, just in case )

To be tidy :slight_smile: here is original post, which I will close

https://sebiik.github.io/community.axoloti.com.backup/t/the-holy-grail?source_topic_id=2996
#7

well, the loading of wavs is, as far as I know, still a problem. At least my axoloti crashes after using the wav-modules live..
Furthermore, the resonator-timings will ask a lot of actual, physical research of recording impulse-responses, which is a problem as I lack the right recording equipment (way too much noise at this moment) and time (I still need to work fulltime)..
Next to this, I wonder whether axoloti can handle the amount of taps needed to make a good response. We'll probably hit the ceiling on either CPU or sram.

I think the best idea is to just use the elements modules (osc/MI) and try to come close

#8

Yeah, sorry for that. They call it enthusiasm. Hopefully it catches on a bit. If you think Software is the right catagory just leave it here and delete / close the other 2.

#9

No problem... its just not necessary, I think you'll find most users are using the 'latest post' view, so will see posts across all categories. (Ive closed the previous one. and deleted the challenges one, as it had no replies on it)

this was my suggestion in the previous version of this post.

can I just make one small point on the MI objects/modules that i created.

Id recommend for this release to use 'as is', and let me know if there are any minor(*) changes needed,
(*) I dont have much time for doing anything other than bug fixes though.
I would not recommend others creating variations for two reasons:

a) you can't edit the MI code, as its in the firmware - so this means theres not much you can do, over whats already exposed. (see this thread for more details)

b) Im hoping/planning for the next release to remove the MI code from the firmware, to remove the above restriction.
this WILL break any objects which try to use MI code.
of course, I will fix this for the my factory objects, so user's patches using these will not be affected - but I cannot make any guarantees that 'derivative objects' will be easy to fix... the MI code base will be different, by how much I cant say at the moment, but obviously want to keep my options open.

so, please experiment/play with these objects in 1.0.12 and provide feedback, its all useful... but just wait till the next release to create derivatives (where it will be much easer/controlled, assuming my current experiments work :wink:)

#10

Dear Sirsicksic et all,

1) Having looked at how the first hardware generation did it (see my previous mail) I also came to a similar thought: Having a whole library of responses is actually not that important because sampling libraries seem to have won the emulation wars anyway. My thing is more to add a maximum of expression and a certain acoustic quality to "fantasy instruments".
In that case one can patch a relatively simple but flexible triggered delay setup between the oscillator section and the subtractive section. I should have thought of that right away but I gues I still have to get accustomed to the openess of this system. And, er, I'll also look at those OSC/Mi's you mention.

2) I saw some modeling oscillators have also been put in the object list already. Cool!

3) But what about the granular sampler? I already reacted to this Youtube vid by Mathew Tyas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxMsG1UFpQ4 where he seems to use something similar but then only controlled in pitch by a pot. Or am I mistaking a relativley simple sampling delay setup for a granulator? Anyway: How difficult will it be to implement a basic granular sampler? Say one with a looppoint, variable grain length and variable cross fading (to go from intentional stuttering to more smooth stuff)? I assume a sort of wavetable-scanning solution would fit the bill?

3) About the sample format: Do I remember right reading that RAR's will do the job and that they can be made out of WAV's by Audacity anyway?

5) This early in the audio chain flexibility and character are much more important then high audio resolution. 8 Bit samples often have more character then 16 bits anyway. So maybe that is another way to preserve processor power?

5) Working with a line-input, like Matthew Tyas does, would already be very intuitive. I personally would actually find it even more important then sample import. Just rub an orange while holding a mike beside it and off you go! :slight_smile:

5) Since I have spent a "helluvoloti" of work on building special isomorphic Janko convertors for my MIDI keyboards (see teaser here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k_l88AXu2I) and poly aftertouch is very important to me anyway the next question is: Can an Axoloti instrument process poly aftertouch data received via MIDI?

6) Putting all that into one practical frying pan: Do the experts think that such a "reduced" but stable 6 to 8-voice "physical modeling" instrument per Axoloti would be feasible?

Marc

#11

OK I just tried to look osc/MI up myself but could not find anyhting. So information overload! What the hell is a osc/MI and where can I orient myself on the subject? :slight_smile:

#12

Hi, thanks for watching my videos

That granular patch is actually one of the most loved patches when people pay around with my different boxes, and it gets a few questions on youtube too.
The patch in question is just a very small adaptation of @johannes patch that he has in the community patch folder called : grainy-table (axoloti-contrib\patches\jt\grainy-table.axp)
The pitch input responds very well to a keyboard pitch too and can even be polyphonic. You can use it with input or pre-recorded materials.
When you open up the patch, you realize how simple it is actually, and adjusting it to whatever you want not too difficult.
and it uses very little CPU too :slight_smile:

#13

this thread has some discussion, but unless you have the patcher software installed (and really an axoloti board to play with it) , your lacking quite a lot of context.

fyi, MI = Mutable Instruments (not sure what the osc referred to :wink:)
as I mentioned on the other thread, I think you main interest is elements, and possibly clouds....
you can find more info on these here : http://mutable-instruments.net

unlike the eurorack module, some parts of these modules are available separate e.g. tube/string/diffuser... and of course then there are reverbs/choruses/delays lines etc

as i said before though, this is easier to experiment with rather than talk about... axoloti has most of the parts that you talk about, but if they are sufficient for your needs only you will be able to tell.

yes, axoloti can deal with poly aftertouch, it can also deal with MPE which is what I use with my Eigenharps and Soundplane.

#14

Thanks Matthew,

If it works like a granulator type polyphonic sampler indeed it is about the last link I was looking for. Together with thetechnobears next post about polyphonic aftertouch this answers my most pressing questions for the moment.

Is it alright if I sooner or later pump you for your experiences with hardware interfacing solutions?

Marc

#15

Hi Technobear.

Ah yes, the penny drops. I already saw a lot of interesting Mutable Instruments derived objects, among them the modeled oscillators I already mentioned. Is this because Mutable Instruments also runs on open source code or is it more a special courtesy of its developers?

So the next step for me should indeed be to get my feet wet and learn the propper dialect before I put in more stupid questions. Here in the Netherlands they do however say: "1 fool can ask more then 10 wise men can answer" so you might in the end still regret giving this advice! :slight_smile:

Marc

#16

Wow, i just heard the Mutable Instruments Braids general Soundcloud demo and my jaw has now firmly hit the floor. All this is already present within Axoloti as it is? The posibilities are mindboggling!

Marc

#17

@brasso
Yes, those MI objects add a lot of ulility to Axoloti, they're great objects (and fun). They remind me of the KORG Z1, I used to own one back when they were new.

Anyway, just wanted to say I'm enjoying the article I downloaded from your website, about the CS80. About a quarter the way though so far I think, and will read some more tonight.

Was interesting to hear of it's ancestry to the GX1 as well.

#18

I used the Korg Z1 for some time as well but found it's models a bit too restricting. You are simply pushed into a certain environment and it can be difficult to make a blown wood model or whatever sound like anything else. So fantasy instruments are hard to create. That is why I love the Technics WSA1 so much. It might not add specific response artefacts like overblowing because it works with an "impulse / exiter" sample pool but everything is freely interchangeable which makes it very flexible. Since I have gotten around to using it my benchmark when encountering something else has always been: Can it do stuff that my WSA cannot? Most of the time the answer was / is NO, however esoteric or beguiling the other instruments might seem to be. The only thign one can not do is load ones own samples inot it. If I could find a way around that problem I would probably still not switch to anything else. Can there be higher praise for an instrument, especially for one that is almost 30 years old? For more see my Starship One project. By the way: A major update of the INSTRUMENT and WRITING sections is presently underway so press control R regularly.

#19

It's great that you like my CS80 article. Do also read the one about the Son Of GX project. A second part is about to be added. You'll be surprized how much commonality there actually was within the Yamaha range. Most of us might see organs as a different, inferior species (I certainly used to think so) but Yamaha surely didn't.

#20

The WSA1 does sound pretty incredible, and I already have downloaded that album you mentioned, I chose to download the original version over the remastered version. Have listened to two of the tracks so far, was listening to them while browsing this forum!

I will indeed read the other stuff you mention :relaxed:

Regards the KORG Z1, I can't remember exactly what it was that frustrated me about it, but what you said would sound about right I think. If I recall, they marketed it as a sort of synthesists dream toolbox, and it was really for string type instruments I bought it, I wanted really nice violins etc, but it didn't satisfy, not in the way I specifically wanted it to anyway. I realised a few things over the years after I sold it, so my frustration with it might even be unfounded for all I know, but yes, I do remember feeling restricted by it in ways I would never expect from such a synthesizer, so it was probably the models themselves.

Was certainly a nice sythesizer though, no doubt about that!