Hardsynth

[emkay]

To have an example of "what is missing", I created this "thingy"....

I shows an instrument with a slow arpeggio going over several octaves and without losing its colour.

Once again the explanation, that a finetuning of this is nearly impossible because it sounds too different inside RMT though RMT isn't fully supporting it.

 

The other two channels are only playing some separate sounds, just to show that they are not interfered by the switching of the channels clocking-speed.

[analmux]

To have an example of "what is missing", I created this "thingy"....

I shows an instrument with a slow arpeggio going over several octaves and without losing its colour.

Once again the explanation, that a finetuning of this is nearly impossible because it sounds too different inside RMT  though RMT isn't fully supporting it.

 

The other two channels are only playing some separate sounds, just to show that they are not interfered by the switching of the channels clocking-speed.

879015[/snapback]

 

It's not music??

 

What do you mean by 'one instrument using 15kHz & 1.79 MHz)

 

is it a filtered voice 1+3 combination with

-voice 1: 15 kHz , 3: 1.79MHz or

-voice 1: 1.79MHz, 3: 15 kHz ?

[emkay]

What do you mean by 'one instrument using 15kHz & 1.79 MHz)

 

is it a filtered voice 1+3 combination with

-voice 1: 15 kHz , 3: 1.79MHz or

-voice 1: 1.79MHz, 3: 15 kHz ?

879380[/snapback]

 

It's "one instrument" ... the lower notes are played with the 15kHz setting and the higher notes are played with the 1.79MHz setting.... tuned (mostly) to fit together and to give the instrument a higher frequency/notation range (up to 9 octaves)

 

 

Edit:

Analmux:"It's not music??"

 

 

Now that you are saying.... it's quite better than the tune that was used for "One Man & his Droid"

Edited June 23, 2005 by emkay

[emkay]

What would be needed for those sound enhancements to have "better" music?.

 

Example:

 

 

RMT is able to do the following:

 

000000000000000000

000000000000000000

* * * * * * * * * * *

(theoretical envelop)

 

The "*" are switching the filter setting only.

 

Let's say we create an 'arpeggio' with filter on and 15kHz for clean bass sounds:

 

101010101010101010

808080808080808080

******************

hlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlhlh (h=high tone l=low tone)

 

This can be done with 15kHz only, but higher notes are more scratchy or even to different sounding. The probleme here : Unwanted click-sounds and "crying" high tones.

1.79MHz has the problem vice versa:

The high notes get clear and the low tones get an unwanted "beep"

 

All that was to do, was to allow the Tracker to set the clocking at the envelop.

 

000000000000000000

000000000000000000

ababababababababab (a=filter at 15kHz b=filter at 1.79MHz)

 

With this it would be possible to use the clean low tones of 15kHz and the clean high tones of 1.79MHz, together in one instrument.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

The perfect solution would be, to have commands for the envelop to take control over the full AUDCTL.

Edited June 24, 2005 by emkay

[analmux]

......

All that was to do, was to allow the Tracker to set the clocking at the envelop.

 

000000000000000000

000000000000000000

ababababababababab (a=filter at 15kHz b=filter at 1.79MHz)

 

With this it would be possible to use the clean low tones of 15kHz and the clean high tones of 1.79MHz, together in one instrument.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

The perfect solution would be, to have commands for the envelop to take control over the full AUDCTL.

880089[/snapback]

 

The solution is weird but simple : turn to songspeed 01/01/01 and then you'll have exact control of instrument every VBL (1/50 sec.). Then on even note entries use instruments with 15kHz, and on odd note entries use 1.79MHz

[emkay]

The solution is weird but simple  : turn to songspeed 01/01/01 and then you'll have exact control of instrument every VBL (1/50 sec.). Then on even note entries use instruments with 15kHz, and on odd note entries use 1.79MHz

880142[/snapback]

 

 

.... and when the tune is finished, we need a memory expansion

 

To do a "testtune" would be interesting, but the correction of the sounding-accuracy has the absolute priority...

[emkay]

Another "hard try" ... showing, hopefully, the advantage of using 1.79MHz sounds...

This time, 2 filter voices are used, so no third channel is left for basstones, thus the "bass" is managed with some voltage-bit playing.

[emkay]

Another "hard try" ... showing, hopefully,  the advantage of using 1.79MHz sounds...

This time, 2 filter voices are used, so no third channel is left for basstones, thus the "bass" is managed with some voltage-bit playing.

883800[/snapback]

 

More mixed up, more progressive...

[emkay]

Another "hard try" ... showing, hopefully,  the advantage of using 1.79MHz sounds...

This time, 2 filter voices are used, so no third channel is left for basstones, thus the "bass" is managed with some voltage-bit playing.

883800[/snapback]

 

More mixed up, more progressive...

885112[/snapback]

 

Perhaps a better demonstration...

[analmux]

.....okay....another Mux contribution :

 

crazy sfx instruments

[emkay]

.....okay....another Mux contribution  :

 

crazy sfx instruments

885230[/snapback]

 

 

 

Very good!

[analmux]

For those people that may want a .sap of what I've done:

 

I've made a .sap here but all 1.79 MHz instruments are silent

Edited July 3, 2005 by analmux

[emkay]

For those people that may want a .sap of what I've done:

 

I've made a .sap here but all 1.79 MHz instruments are silent 

885283[/snapback]

 

 

Seems you have the approach I made once before

Just imagine: 1900 songs in the ASMA are played correctly, but 50% of pokey doesn't work.

[emkay]

OK... Another experiment.

 

Is this recognizable?

 

The "complex" melody uses only one filter setting at 15 khz.

A listener may recognize tones which are much higher, than 15khz is able to "produce clearly".

Some parts are "that" precisely, that someone might think, it's done with a portamento, but it isn't.

 

...

[analmux]

OK... Another experiment.

 

Is this recognizable?

 

The "complex" melody uses only one filter setting at 15 khz.

A listener may recognize tones which are much higher, than 15khz is able to "produce clearly".

Some parts are "that" precisely, that someone might think, it's done with a portamento, but it isn't. 

 

...

885916[/snapback]

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'produce clearly': is it sound without filtering? ...just because the filter seems to make notes one octave higher in most settings.

 

you used alternating (dynamic) filtering settings in the loop ?? ...like:

command: 666666
         0000f0
         0100f0

 

(maybe slightly different filter settings in some higher notes ??)

Edited July 4, 2005 by analmux

[emkay]

It's simply using "FShift" and correcting the shift with commando 4. Different "places" in the envelope and different values give fully different results and the possibility to reduce unwanted noise.

[analmux]

It's simply using "FShift" and correcting the shift with commando 4. Different "places" in the envelope and different values give fully different results and the possibility to reduce unwanted noise.

885922[/snapback]

 

daft

[analmux]

Here's my try.

 

......though I didn't use a main FShift, but only command 4 (but not looped). I tried this command to get rid of some noises and 'notes not being played'.

[analmux]

.........and a 31 year old synth tune:

 

scream your balls off...

 

I used this command envelope in the (4 step) loop:

 

4646
00ff
11ff

[emkay]

.........and a 31 year old synth tune:

 

scream your balls off...  

 

I used this command envelope in the (4 step) loop:

 

4646
00ff
11ff

885960[/snapback]

 

 

I wonder why I don't know the original

Not that bad and very balanced as well.

[emkay]

Here's my try.

 

......though I didn't use a main FShift, but only command 4 (but not looped). I tried this command to get rid of some noises and 'notes not being played'.

885933[/snapback]

 

Most of the problems with "noise" and "not played notes" are simply emulation probs. POKEY itself isn't that problematic, because the timing is always at 100%.

[emkay]

The "what is it" tune with a different filter setting (more fitting sound and better pitch)...

 

(hm this one with a cool baseline and some percussions )

 

 

.... what to say? Endless variations for fintuning

Edited July 5, 2005 by emkay

[analmux]

.........and a 31 year old synth tune:

 

scream your balls off...  

 

I used this command envelope in the (4 step) loop:

 

4646
00ff
11ff

885960[/snapback]

 

 

I wonder why I don't know the original

Not that bad and very balanced as well.

886141[/snapback]

 

It's from the Genesis album 'the lamb lies down on broadway'. Not that popular, but has some funny synth tunes....(Peter Gabriel's last genesis album: he still had that awful voice in that period).

[analmux]

(hm this one with a cool baseline and some percussions  )

 

well, where are the baseline+percussions then ??? I didn't hear any in the testsong.

[emkay]

(hm this one with a cool baseline and some percussions  )

 

well, where are the baseline+percussions then ??? I didn't hear any in the testsong.

886768[/snapback]

 

 

You mean this?