IS FM synthesis your goto?

[empphryio]

Reading this thread I got to thinking maybe I should be using something other than dexed. (It's great for free, etc.) The idea of Bazille sounds great. But in the one synth challenge I personally thought Dexed sounded a lot better. And some of these others seem to sound like subtractive synths so doesn't seem to be a point.

[pdxindy]

Bazille sounds amazing... the sound quality is exceptional... because it is semi modular and can be freely wired in a truly vast number of ways, it is easy to make crap sounds too.

When I first started using Bazille I had no idea how to use it or what rectifiers or lag generators were for. Coming from more standard subtractive and fixed architecture synths, I had a learning curve. Someone coming from hardware modular could jump right in.

Once learned, it’s an amazing sonic playground!

[GRUMP]

Yes the dx only had sine waves only , why asking ?
Are you aware you can get a square and a saw wave out of dx ?
Square wave ; modulator set to ratio 2 :1 ( just double of the carrier ) with a tiny bit of self feedback going into a carrier set to 1:1
On the tg 77 , sy77,sy99 you can adjust the phase of the operator so you can create pure triangle waves ( same procedure for square --> 2:1 going into 1:1 but phase of modulator is adjusted )
To get a saw wave , just one operator feedbacking itself is enough
And please don't throw in words like HARD FM , what does that even mean ??

Tip : throw in an operator in between set a low hz value for chorus/phasing effects

HARD FM meant that the Effect of th Frequency Modulation is quickly/immediately severe - and I´m looking for "soft" and gentle Sounds, so the first Thing that comes to my mind is that Zebra has "hard" FM. It is intensive and loud.

I have heard really nice "siny-soft" FM Sounds already and I always wondered waht I did wrong with the Zebra. Now I know.

[GRUMP]

Yes the dx only had sine waves only , why asking ?
Are you aware you can get a square and a saw wave out of dx ?
Square wave ; modulator set to ratio 2 :1 ( just double of the carrier ) with a tiny bit of self feedback going into a carrier set to 1:1
On the tg 77 , sy77,sy99 you can adjust the phase of the operator so you can create pure triangle waves ( same procedure for square --> 2:1 going into 1:1 but phase of modulator is adjusted )
To get a saw wave , just one operator feedbacking itself is enough
And please don't throw in words like HARD FM , what does that even mean ??

Tip : throw in an operator in between set a low hz value for chorus/phasing effects

I just quickly generated a little FM Comparison between Zebra 2, DUNE 3 and Dexed.

2 Ops - Ratios 1:2
slowly increasing the "Amount/Level" resp. Zebra: OSC Vol: 2, increasing the FM in the FMO (OSC Level 2!

It´s packed in a .zip, I hope that this in no Problem here?

Result: Zebra sounds completely different than Dune and Dexed. The FM Amount seems to work like a Mixer that slowly fades one and the same "FM" (harsh Overtones) over the Carrier. DUNE and Dexed are quiet similar. They colorize the Carrier first and then slowly start to produce harsh Overtones. Dexed produces remarkable "Irritations" on the Way.

I recommend to try it yourself. As I have said the OSC Level in ZEB is 2 what should mean "nearly nothing" from my Point of View.

As I have already said - it seems that the Uhes have made some "little Descisions" that have big Effects in the End. The Results that DUNE and DEXED produce can simply not be achieved with ZEB.

I like Synths with Character and everything is fine with ZEB. But the Opinion that FM is FM is simply false, you should always test different Synths to get to know a Type of Synthesis and ZEB seems not to be the right Choice if you want to come close to a DX for Example, ...

[gentleclockdivider]

There is no such thing as HARD FM , the amount of fm is defined by the gain output of the operator and the contour of the envelope , adjust envelope attack for less immediate results .
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about ..throwing in buzzwords like Hard, soft fm won't help either .

p.s. post the patches , I have both dexed and zebra 2.6
I will try to recreate the dexed patch on zebra ( no more then 4 operators allowed )


I just listen to youe audio file , the first part is No FM at all , I think you're doing something totally wrong

[mholloway]

HARD FM meant that the Effect of th Frequency Modulation is quickly/immediately severe - and I´m looking for "soft" and gentle Sounds, so the first Thing that comes to my mind is that Zebra has "hard" FM. It is intensive and loud.

I have heard really nice "siny-soft" FM Sounds already and I always wondered waht I did wrong with the Zebra. Now I know.

Now you know what, exactly? You've made up a bunch of bogus terms and decided they tell you something about FM synthesis and how it's implemented in specific VSTs... but no, they don't.

My guess is that you simply played some synth patches in which the FM depth is modulated by velocity (a common setup) and others where it wasn't -- the latter resulting in a much louder, potentially more abrasive FM sound.

[GRUMP]

There is no such thing as HARD FM , the amount of fm is defined by the gain output of the operator and the contour of the envelope , adjust envelope attack for less immediate results .
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about ..throwing in buzzwords like Hard, soft fm won't help either .

p.s. post the patches , I have both dexed and zebra 2.6
I will try to recreate the dexed patch on zebra ( no more then 4 operators allowed )

"I believe in the Power of Mathematics and that we all always do everything the same Way".

Try my Demo and do it yourself afterwards. Patches won´t help here, they are excluding too many of us!

[GRUMP]

HARD FM meant that the Effect of th Frequency Modulation is quickly/immediately severe - and I´m looking for "soft" and gentle Sounds, so the first Thing that comes to my mind is that Zebra has "hard" FM. It is intensive and loud.

I have heard really nice "siny-soft" FM Sounds already and I always wondered waht I did wrong with the Zebra. Now I know.

Now you know what, exactly? You've made up a bunch of bogus terms and decided they tell you something about FM synthesis and how it's implemented in specific VSTs... but no, they don't.

My guess is that you simply played some synth patches in which the FM depth is modulated by velocity (a common setup) and others where it wasn't -- the latter resulting in a much louder, potentially more abrasive FM sound.

The Patch was calles INIT - have you tried it already?

[gentleclockdivider]

Learn about FM , it's obvious you don't understand it or how to use it
It' s not zebra's fault , it's a damn fine Phase modulation synth

[GRUMP]

Learn about FM , it's obvious you don't understand it or how to use it
It' s not zebra's fault , it's a damn fine Phase modulation synth

As I have said already: I like Synths with Character. And it should be mentioned that ZEBs FM is veerry characterful. It sounds completely different than other Synths (as shown before). BTW the same thing is quiet obvious concerning additive OSC. ZEB is much more "peaky" here than Harmo. Or Vertigo. Or DUNE. Or even the PPG.

Take it cool. It´s not YOUR Fault. I mean ... you´re not seriously arguing in a Way that could make Things clearer.

Best Practice: try yourself.

[GRUMP]

Learn about FM , it's obvious you don't understand it or how to use it
It' s not zebra's fault , it's a damn fine Phase modulation synth

As I have said already: I like Synths with Character. And it should be mentioned that ZEBs FM is veerry characterful. It sounds completely different than other Synths (as shown before). BTW the same thing is quiet obvious concerning additive OSC. ZEB is much more "peaky" here than Harmo. Or Vertigo. Or DUNE. Or even the PPG.

Take it cool. It´s not YOUR Fault. I mean ... you´re not seriously arguing in a Way that could make Things clearer.

By the Way ... I think that I really don´t know much about FM. I´m looking up to the Yamahas and feel like a bloody Fool. But setting up an OSC and an FMO (by Input) may seem challenging to you, but me personally I´d not call this FM Synthesis

Best Practice: try yourself.

[gentleclockdivider]

I know well enough about fm , I made fm synths in reaktor , been into modular stuff well over 20 years etc..
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/r ... show/8291/
I'm sorry but I am not going to argue with you any further ,it seems like a waste of time
Good luck

[KBSoundSmith]

Yes the dx only had sine waves only , why asking ?
Are you aware you can get a square and a saw wave out of dx ?
Square wave ; modulator set to ratio 2 :1 ( just double of the carrier ) with a tiny bit of self feedback going into a carrier set to 1:1
On the tg 77 , sy77,sy99 you can adjust the phase of the operator so you can create pure triangle waves ( same procedure for square --> 2:1 going into 1:1 but phase of modulator is adjusted )
To get a saw wave , just one operator feedbacking itself is enough
And please don't throw in words like HARD FM , what does that even mean ??

Tip : throw in an operator in between set a low hz value for chorus/phasing effects

HARD FM meant that the Effect of th Frequency Modulation is quickly/immediately severe - and I´m looking for "soft" and gentle Sounds, so the first Thing that comes to my mind is that Zebra has "hard" FM. It is intensive and loud.

I have heard really nice "siny-soft" FM Sounds already and I always wondered waht I did wrong with the Zebra. Now I know.

In Zebra, don't use just the "FM" Amount knob. Adjust the Volume knobs as well. Gain staging is extremely important for FM. There is no such thing as "hard" FM.

Anyway, here's an example of a familiar FM patch I made in Zebra (plays once dry, then with internal fx): https://bit.ly/2GaRt8T

[KBSoundSmith]

Reading this thread I got to thinking maybe I should be using something other than dexed. (It's great for free, etc.) The idea of Bazille sounds great. But in the one synth challenge I personally thought Dexed sounded a lot better. And some of these others seem to sound like subtractive synths so doesn't seem to be a point.

IMO, Bazille is undoubtedly one of the best synths on the market -- hardware or software. But I will grant that it is not as easy to program as many synths. I think it demands more knowledge of the user than most, so if someone was trying Bazille for the first time for a one-synth-challenge, they may not get ideal results, compared to living with the synth for an extended period.

I still have a lot to learn with it, but I do think I've gotten some good results. Check this out: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=532621

I think you'll find Bazille rewards dedication, definitely give it a demo. U-he's demo method is great, you can pretty much demo it for months before committing (just uses occasional crackling/noise).

[empphryio]

Bazille sounds amazing... the sound quality is exceptional... because it is semi modular and can be freely wired in a truly vast number of ways, it is easy to make crap sounds too.

When I first started using Bazille I had no idea how to use it or what rectifiers or lag generators were for. Coming from more standard subtractive and fixed architecture synths, I had a learning curve. Someone coming from hardware modular could jump right in.

Once learned, it’s an amazing sonic playground!

Curious if you listened to the OSC for Bazille and Dexed and what thought if how they compared there?