Notifications
Clear all
I've referenced my visualization tools that help "tune" simple waveforms in FM-X and also visualize frequency, time, amplitude domains for other discoveries. These are (lately) biased towards iOS since it's the easiest device for me to carry and lay on top of the keyboard. However, I also have other threads where I used the x86 (Windows) PC for the same type of data and mainly use VA64 (visual analyzer). Other threads before I used (or owned) an iOS device I gave source credit to VA64 for software scope plots.
These tools are probably best kept outside of the box only because they haven't been designed inside from the get-go. Like how Korg's small keyboards have an OLED screen showing the waveform. I say this because the tools are readily available, easy to use, and - most of all - do not require a team to distract development away from other items that cannot be satisfied with external freely available tools.
I don't really subscribe to the "use your ear" as a sole source of inspiration. Although I think this is important - and that the ear makes the final decision - visualization with waveforms, spectrum analysis, etc are helpful along the way (for some) to supplement the process. And for those with a more analytical approach, I don't fault anyone. Unless, that is, if there's some glaring technical flaw by incorrectly applying theory -- then some coarse correction (education) is required.
I also understand the glassy eyed stares of musicians who couldn't care less about the technical side. And, to some extent, I understand where the ridicule sometimes comes from when taking the analytical approach. It would be nice to have more tolerance for all approaches - but that doesn't change you absolutely lose some when going too deep into either end of the pool. I personally think there's no real "going too deep" as an absolute - but certainly there's a threshold different groups have.
At any rate - the best way to steer this whole thing is to end with -- have fun with creating sound. Have fun with struggle. Have fun with success. If you're "into" sound design - and I gather you are - then have fun with the limitations and the features. Limitations have been a thread that weaves through all digital and analog equipment. Still, great sounds have been produced by even less capable gear. It's counterproductive to turn on the hardware due to perceived shortcomings. Which is why I cast wishes into a wishing well of possible features and do not make demands and why I have a positive experience when others don't sound like they do. I'm not labeling "you" (whoever is reading this) one way or the other. But sometimes it's worthwhile to be reminded to have fun and stay optimistic.
Posted : 24/05/2022 4:33 pm
[quotePost id=116930]I've referenced my visualization tools that help "tune" simple waveforms in FM-X and also visualize frequency, time, amplitude domains for other discoveries. These are (lately) biased towards iOS since it's the easiest device for me to carry and lay on top of the keyboard. However, I also have other threads where I used the x86 (Windows) PC for the same type of data and mainly use VA64 (visual analyzer). Other threads before I used (or owned) an iOS device I gave source credit to VA64 for software scope plots.[/quotePost]
SuperVision in Cubase/Nuendo is my fav tool for FM (and not only, of course) visualisation.
You can lay out multiple views of the audio signal:
Unfortunately, only available in upper versions of Cubase and in Nuendo.
Posted : 24/05/2022 7:21 pm
Back to the filter modulation - check out the visualization using spectrum analysis over time (waterfall graph). The top of the graph is where the "notch" in the dual BPF is squelching out the harmonics - you can see the trail is a triangle pattern. Up and down is frequency and left and right is time. Higher frequencies are at the bottom and lower at the top.
It took some time to find a tool with the right resolution and visualization characteristics to show what's going on. It's a video since I couldn't get enough samples to show two triangle periods. It was easiest to animate and post that.
Tool credit: https://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/software/sndpeek/
It's open-source which allows for further customization. Targets are macOS, Windows, or Linux.
Posted : 27/05/2022 6:59 pm
Topic starter
[quotePost id=117021]Back to the filter modulation - check out the visualization using spectrum analysis over time (waterfall graph). The top of the graph is where the "notch" in the dual BPF is squelching out the harmonics - you can see the trail is a triangle pattern. Up and down is frequency and left and right is time. Higher frequencies are at the bottom and lower at the top.
It took some time to find a tool with the right resolution and visualization characteristics to show what's going on. It's a video since I couldn't get enough samples to show two triangle periods. It was easiest to animate and post that.
Tool credit: https://soundlab.cs.princeton.edu/software/sndpeek/
It's open-source which allows for further customization. Targets are macOS, Windows, or Linux.[/quotePost]
Impressive analysis and monitoring!
Are you making sure to have the Filter's Cutoff at about the midway point and using a Filter Modulation value of about 40-50 to get that without crunching on either end of the Y scale?
Posted : 27/05/2022 8:20 pm
I paid close attention to the bias presented by the initial cutoff value in the filter menu. However, not as suggested. I had to bias to max in order for the combination of filter type, tools, and desired signature. Any lower of a cutoff would have ran the triangle into the low end weeds given my capture ability. I know the frequency range default of the graph (tool) runs too high. Well outside audible. That's an issue for another day. I spent more time hacking the code to try to get the 3d view to transform differently. Abandoned that due to rotation nearly dead on (from "top" ) solving that issue.
At any rate, I know what you're throwing and yes - the result is not accidental (includes the spirit of the suggestion).
Posted : 27/05/2022 9:19 pm
Topic starter
[quotePost id=117025]I paid close attention to the bias presented by the initial cutoff value in the filter menu. However, not as suggested. I had to bias to max in order for the combination of filter type, tools, and desired signature. Any lower of a cutoff would have ran the triangle into the low end weeds given my capture ability. I know the frequency range default of the graph (tool) runs too high. Well outside audible. That's an issue for another day. I spent more time hacking the code to try to get the 3d view to transform differently. Abandoned that due to rotation nearly dead on (from "top" ) solving that issue.
At any rate, I know what you're throwing and yes - the result is not accidental (includes the spirit of the suggestion).[/quotePost]
With that kind of reverse engineering of results ability... the CDC will be headhunting you for a job, soon.
Posted : 27/05/2022 9:35 pm
Topic starter
Whilst I appreciate that you've kept this thread in mind, the information provided by Bad Mister is, at best, adjacent to the question. And, to my thinking, was inherent to the understanding of the 2nd LFO already, such that the question about what it's doing to the Filter exists in the context of knowing what he's saying, since it's transparent in the other things that it modulates.
What it's doing to the Filter is a bit of a mystery, still, as is its range of doing.
There's surely a few folks at Yamaha that know exactly what it's doing, and what they intended to empower users to do with this feature.
Sadly, the Filter for FM-X is probably the weakest link. Though I'd also say that Darryl's recent comments about the lack of customisation of algorithms, the inability to overdrive any and all operators and the fact that we can't instantly solo stacks of operators from their carrier are also big issues... and the lack of saw, square and triangle waves...
The biggest problem with the Filter: the FEG is really a FDEG (Filter Depth Envelope Generator) and unable to modulate the cutoff or resonance values on a per voicing/note basis, and there's no other envelopes or LFOs in the architecture that can do this, ether.
This means everything since the 80's ideas in terms of cutoff and resonance modulation on a per voicing/note basis are simply not possible, and that the filter squawks in an ugly manner when you try to use Depth modulation to reduce the filtering in rapid, modern ways. And, again, by modern, I mean anything since 80's monophonic synth approaches to filtering being brought to polyphonic synths.
This is why I've suggested a Cutoff Envelope Generator and Resonance Envelope Generator.
Ideally, these would be merged into the Filter Envelope Generator, such that it had the ability to modulate the Cutoff and Resonance along with its existing abilities with regards Depth. But I don't think Yamaha could conceive of how to do that in the UI, let alone holistically add it to the FM-X side.
Perhaps Yamaha's using their custom silicon for much of the FM sound creation in hardware ways that limit them to what we see in FM-X. I don't think there's enough spare CPU power laying around to add simple waves, let alone do this kind of thing. And because the whole sound engine is probably a very quaint, old chip design from another era, it's likely quite primitive and non-modular, such that even inserting Cutoff Envelopes and Resonance Envelopes as lookup tables in the signal's development chain is not possible.
Nevermind.
Whilst you're looking for another hobby, have a look at the Operator synth in Ableton Live. It's a little gem of a FM synth/thing.
Posted : 26/10/2022 11:52 am
Topic starter
It's Phase Modulation Synthesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_modulation
Stare at that animated diagram for a while and it'll click.
Brian on these forums was the one that woke me up to this, as I couldn't get my coded signals to match 1:1 when using Frequency Modulation, but could once given the tip that it's actually Phase Modulation... which is also why there's so many horrid sounds possible, whereas purely FM synthesis doesn't have such a big range of variation.
https://www.yamahasynth.com/forum/fm-x-ratio-1-1-what-exactly-is-going-on
After playing with it a LOT, in both the MODX and code, Phase Modulation and in particular the modulation of Phase Modulation properties, began to become somewhat intuitive... but it did take a LOT of experimentation before it clicked.
The way Korg does FM (which is actually PM) in their OpSix is arguably significantly better AND more musical than what's going on in the MODX/Montage.
Have a listen to some "DarkWave" sounds on Korg OpSix...
Posted : 10/12/2022 2:34 pm
Page 5 / 5
Prev
