Members Tusks Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Just wondering if there are simply "better" synth signal paths to the traditional ones we use. I am not just asking about alternative paths. If we think of the traditional path as: Oscillator => Filter => VCA (with the potential to modulate all three stages) .. isn't Oscillator=> VCA => Filter Capable of all timbral variety in the traditional path plus some extra oomph from the VCA envelope's behavior in the filter? This would be technically interesting, and also analagous to acoustic instruments, where acoustic resonance is the final stage. Is there any particular reason we continue to place VCA (volume) last? Especially if the VCA is capable of some overdrive? Please discuss. Thanks, Jerry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teoman Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 VCA is the physical stage of the sound, i.e. the volume. The spectral stage, the filter, is before the VCA. This maybe due to the fact that too much volume may distort the filter. I believe VCF-->VCA path behaves more linear and predictable than VCA-->VCF path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mate_stubb Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 There are lots of examples of instruments doing things differently: Chroma lets you play with this routing. Buchla combines spectral and volume shaping into one in their famous timbral gate module. Some synths pass the final mix through an additional fixed resonant filter set for generating a characteristic resonant tone. Modulars, of course, provide complete control of the path. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 I believe that the VCA isput after the filter to minimize noise. The same reason that you keep all stages of a mix as hot as reasonable before adjusting the volume on the final fader. (Note: I am not a real engineer) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mate_stubb Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 The real reason is historical. Minimoog was the first synth with a prepatched architecture. The crowd went wild. Everybody copied. Simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Actually, I'd like to see multiple VCAs, with one in front of each oscillator before the filter, and then a final VCA after the filter. Or maybe I should just shut up and just get back to work on my neglected modular and do whatever the hell I want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J3RK Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 modular and do whatever the hell I want. That's the approach I like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r33k Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Actually, I'd like to see multiple VCAs, with one in front of each oscillator before the filter, and then a final VCA after the filter. You want an Ensoniq ESQ1???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ElectricPuppy Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 You want an Ensoniq ESQ1???? Perhaps I do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mfb Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Just wondering if there are simply "better" synth signal paths to the traditional ones we use. I am not just asking about alternative paths. If we think of the traditional path as:Oscillator => Filter => VCA(with the potential to modulate all three stages) .. isn'tOscillator=> VCA => FilterCapable of all timbral variety in the traditional path plus some extra oomph from the VCA envelope's behavior in the filter? This would be technically interesting, and also analagous to acoustic instruments, where acoustic resonance is the final stage.Is there any particular reason we continue to place VCA (volume) last? Especially if the VCA is capable of some overdrive?Jerry If you have a perfect VCA and VCF, then there is no difference in which order you put them (provided you're not modulating either of them at audio freqs). Others have pointed out the practical reasons for the VCF->VCA order. I agreethat with an (imperfect) overdriven VCA, you'd get a different sound with the VCF after, however, in the real world most people seem to get their overdrive from the VCF. Anyway, I think changing the VCA-VCF order would in practice make a pretty minor difference. There's probably more to be got from e.g., two VCF's (Korg MS20 and others), adding other wave-shaping options, e.g., voltage-controlled distortion somewhere in the chain. Or, just pull out your modular, and patch away in whatever damn order you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Meatball Fulton Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Actually, I'd like to see multiple VCAs, with one in front of each oscillator before the filter, and then a final VCA after the filter. Or maybe I should just shut up and just get back to work on my neglected modular and do whatever the hell I want. The ESQ-1 had that architecture (OK they were digital amps before the filter) back in 1986. It's really just a modulatable osc mixer. Of course, you need more EGs or LFOs to make use of it (the ESQ-1 had four EGs and three LFOs). For some reason, relatively few subtractive synths let you modulate the osc mixer. The Korg Radias and DSI Evolver are two exceptions I know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Teoman Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Actually, I'd like to see multiple VCAs, with one in front of each oscillator before the filter:lol: Oscillator level mixers already do that. They amplify the raw waveforms in a somewhat linear and static fashion. The only difference is that amplification is not thru a sweepable ADSR envelope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J3RK Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Perhaps I do! Seems like another good place to link this: http://www.buchty.net/ensoniq/ Free SQ80 VST. (Enhanced ESQ1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Awake77 Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Seems like another good place to link this:http://www.buchty.net/ensoniq/Free SQ80 VST. (Enhanced ESQ1) Hey thanks for the link!! That's really spiffy - sounds really authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 (Note: I am not a real engineer) but i play one on the internet but to be on topic theres also EMUs Zplane filters, which FL studio have copied to some extent.. they call it something else, but it's 8 filters in serial.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 this is what has always burned me up about synths since the 70s: there is no traditional signal path a synthesizer is a set of generators and processors that can be freely connected in order to build patches a small group of modules hardwired together into a vco>vcf>vca patch and slapped into a keyboard case is NOT a synthesizer- it is an electric organ designed to emulate brass/strings and other acoustic instruments USING some synthesizer componets- to me the most useful and best sounding patches in a synthesizer use complex feedback routing and patch audio rate output from generators as mod sources- feedback patching and audio/control swapping were the first things thrown out when Moog/Smith/et al started trying to bring diminished synth technology to the rock musician- they threw the baby out with the bathwater- Dave Smith's karma was neutralized though- at the same time he took out full patchability when making the Prophet he added digital patch storage and then MIDI- so -1+1- he comes out even- too bad the prophet wasn't a fully modular synth or it would have been a much bigger revolution when digital patch storage came along- I knew he was trying to make amends with the Evolver when he added some of the oscillators to the mod source list and added the feedback loops- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r33k Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 there is no traditional signal path that's just not true Your definition is so narrow that it's useless. I think most synthesists would reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 that's just not trueYour definition is so narrow that it's useless. I think most synthesists would reject it. most 'synthesists' are rock/pop keyboardists who wouldn't know what to do in a proper electronic music studio with no keyboard instruments- reject if you like- but it is the TRUTH- and not me or you or anyone else is going to change what actually happened- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r33k Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 "Beware of any man who claims to know the truth." - College History Professor, 1993 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 whatever- I just get sick of people gainsaying things I say for no other reason than to be contrary- this issue with 'pseudosynthesizers' is all well documented in interviews with people like Don Buchla and Brian Eno- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r33k Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Um, I'm not gainsaying to be contrary. I'm doing it because you're wrong. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members setAI Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Um, I'm not gainsaying to be contrary. I'm doing it because you're wrong. Big difference. I am obviously not wrong- or do you claim that there is some fully modular patch matrix that is hidden in old keyboards like an easter egg? when I say someone is wrong- I at least try to find SOME piece of evidence to support why- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members r33k Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Your statement is ridiculous on its face and therefore does not require rebutting. An electronic keyboard with sound generation circuitry in it may be defined as a synthesizer and there is absolutely no problem with that. As I said before, your definition is so specific as to be useless. Rather, I would ask on what authority or reference you base your definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Metrosonus Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 if you follow his logic, he's correct, to which I'm not wholly disagreeing. However, if you were to make the statement that traditional = most common, I'd agree with you too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members J3RK Posted April 22, 2008 Members Share Posted April 22, 2008 Who cares? Instruments that can do either are available. Get what synthesizes sound the way you like to synthesize sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.