Please help to make nice lead on R3

[tpantano]

woops forgot the link before,
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasy.mp3

and that's unison in addition to all other thickening methods- waveshaping, saw modulation (I could've used osc1 unison too), detuned second osc, lots of LFO work to pitches and volumes, chorus, and modulation delay.

beat it without unison and I'll admit defeat.

also, please play better than me >.>

[xmlguy]

Very true, but I simply adjust my play/sequence style to Accommodate Mono1/2. Besides, in some patches I'm specifically after Mono 1's

Anyways here's a gigantic saw I just made that wouldn't be able to have poly since it uses two timbres and full on unison. If you can make something as large without them, you'll've convinced me to screw unison forever.

The more experienced you become, the more you can break rules. You know you're ready to break rules when you know the full consequences and make a conscious decision that the benefit of breaking the rule outweighs those consequences for a specific situation. This means that advanced users can use Unison without being newbies, but they know they aren't newbies and therefore aren't worried about my rule because they know that Unison is a last resort, not a first choice option, particularly on the R3 where you've only got 8 poly to start. On the Radias you can use Unison more readily because you've got a lot more polyphony to start with.

[tpantano]

Very true, but I simply adjust my play/sequence style to Accommodate Mono1/2. Besides, in some patches I'm specifically after Mono 1's

Anyways here's a gigantic saw I just made that wouldn't be able to have poly since it uses two timbres and full on unison. If you can make something as large without them, you'll've convinced me to screw unison forever.

The more experienced you become, the more you can break rules. You know you're ready to break rules when you know the full consequences and make a conscious decision that the benefit of breaking the rule outweighs those consequences for a specific situation. This means that advanced users can use Unison without being newbies, but they know they aren't newbies and therefore aren't worried about my rule because they know that Unison is a last resort, not a first choice option, particularly on the R3 where you've only got 8 poly to start. On the Radias you can use Unison more readily because you've got a lot more polyphony to start with.

what you just said exactly. your other posts make it seem like you're saying "Unison kills babies"

If I'm making a pad, no more than 2 unison and probably none at all since I'll probably layer 2 timbres. But if I'm making a rave lead, which I'll never play in poly, I'll probably use mono2 and max unison, then sequence it in a way where notes won't get cut off. it's really a choice between fluid playability and massive sound, but when I'm sequencing I can adapt it to Mono2s cuts.

And should I ever want to have the rave lead playing two notes, like some sort of harmony mixed in, I can always record it as a separate track.

[xmlguy]

woops forgot the link before,
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasy.mp3

and that's unison in addition to all other thickening methods- waveshaping, saw modulation (I could've used osc1 unison too), detuned second osc, lots of LFO work to pitches and volumes, chorus, and modulation delay.

beat it without unison and I'll admit defeat.

also, please play better than me >.>

Please send me a midi file of the lick. I need identical notes, timing, and velocity for an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, if you have a specific song/phrase in mind as a goal, a link to an audio file of it would be helpful too, so I have a clear objective to what constitutes "better" in your opinion.

[tpantano]

woops forgot the link before,
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasy.mp3

and that's unison in addition to all other thickening methods- waveshaping, saw modulation (I could've used osc1 unison too), detuned second osc, lots of LFO work to pitches and volumes, chorus, and modulation delay.

beat it without unison and I'll admit defeat.

also, please play better than me >.>

Please send me a midi file of the lick. I need identical notes, timing, and velocity for an apples-to-apples comparison. Also, if you have a specific song/phrase in mind as a goal, a link to an audio file of it would be helpful too, so I have a clear objective to what constitutes "better" in your opinion.

Oh, I'm not trying to imitate the song, I just played the first Rave melody I could think of. It's Raver's Fantasy played poorly-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RrtY2lpf40

I'm pretty sure it's at 145 bpm but I played it somewhere around 140.

Here, to make it exactly the same I'll record my playing again as both audio and MIDI and upload it, gimme a sec.

Note- the song is a very compressed multisaw, I was patching to make something as wide in both stereo and pitch as possible.

[tpantano]

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasy2.mp3

again, terrible playing, but usable. I don't feel like sequencing atm, have work to do >.<

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasymidi.mid

[xmlguy]

Got it. I'll post it when it's ready.

Oh, wait, I need your .R3P of course, so that I can explain how I transform it to the result.

[xmlguy]

I've got a preliminary patch ready. It uses no unison, only one timbre, and has full 8 polyphony. The nice thing about design a patch this way is that you can always add +1 to unison, after the fact when you know you don't need the polyphony, then go back to No Unison and get the polyphony back and still have a very rich timbre. tpantano, or anyone else, send me your email address by private mail or in this thread and I'll send the r3p to you. It's called RaveSaw.

[ultravvox]

woops forgot the link before,
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715217/raversfantasy.mp3

and that's unison in addition to all other thickening methods- waveshaping, saw modulation (I could've used osc1 unison too), detuned second osc, lots of LFO work to pitches and volumes, chorus, and modulation delay.

And for me it sounds bad. It is very thin and has exsessive modulation on it. For my taste that kind of sound must be fat, but straightforward and not "morphing".

[ultravvox]

Unison is a last resort, not a first choice option, particularly on the R3 where you've only got 8 poly to start

So please make sound from my last mp3 without unison. I think you'll never achieve this, it's impossible.

And a polyphony isn't an issue (however ability to use all 8 notes for 8x unison will be pretty interesting ), I always can record as many tracks as I want and mix them.

[ultravvox]

Yes, it should be programmed like any other VA synth.

No, it shouldn't. I never ever have a problem to dial something good from scratch on XioSynth, or MicroKorg, or on many VST. They all are very predictable. And R3 is something completely different.

How do I know this? Because I looked at both the programs you posted. I saw LOTS of differences.

Maybe I upload wrong version of patch, but when I try to "remove" one-by-one virtually all features from second patch it still screams. And when I add these features to old patch, it doesn't.

You also apparently missed or misunderstood my previous message

Because you misunderstood what I'm talking about. I made that patch, and I know that there is only oscillators, unison, chorus and delay. ADSR is "open", on/off like you say. And some trick with bass notes. I've tried to dial that settings on R3 and it sound totally disappointing. This is what I'm talking about, not about how oscillator and filter works. I know that all waves are really harmonics, that filter "cuts" some frequencies...

There are tons of ways to make the sound thicker without using wasting polyphony.

I don't need polyphony. I use synth only for recording.

You can use a rich DWGS wave on OSC1. You can use a detuned wave on OSC2. You can use the WaveShaper with SubOSC (acts as a 3rd OSC). You can use 2 filters in serial with resonance. You have two IFX for Ensemble and LCR Delay. You can do Reverb on MFX. You can use LFOs to modulate parameters like panning, filters, pitch, and waveshape. You've got a bunch of virtual patches. You've got a modulation sequencer. You've got formant motion. All of these make a thick sound without eating up polyphony.

That's because we have totally different feeling of what is "thick" sound.

As a general rule, keep Voice Assign to Poly and Unison to Off. You want to preserve all 8 notes of polyphony whenever possible.

I don't like much how Poly mode sounds when it lacks voices. I prefer Mono2 that "returns" to last pressed note, very good for that continuous bass among solo notes. Sometimes Mono1 is also OK...

[xmlguy]

Yes, it should be programmed like any other VA synth.

No, it shouldn't. I never ever have a problem to dial something good from scratch on XioSynth, or MicroKorg, or on many VST. They all are very predictable. And R3 is something completely different.

Well, the R3 is more powerful than the XioSynth or MicroKorg. The architecture is the same: OSC >> FILTER >> AMP >> FX, with modulations. Making a detuned sawtooth on them is the same. More powerful programming, like the patch I just sent you, use features like DWGS, Waveshaping, both filters in serial, comb filter on FILT2, and finely dialed in FX.

How do I know this? Because I looked at both the programs you posted. I saw LOTS of differences.

Maybe I upload wrong version of patch, but when I try to "remove" one-by-one virtually all features from second patch it still screams. And when I add these features to old patch, it doesn't.

Removing elements doesn't always change the parameters they modulated to the defaults. There is always a reason for the sound you get. You need to trace the whole signal path and all the parameters involved, which is a lot of parameters.

You also apparently missed or misunderstood my previous message

Because you misunderstood what I'm talking about. I made that patch, and I know that there is only oscillators, unison, chorus and delay. ADSR is "open", on/off like you say. And some trick with bass notes. I've tried to dial that settings on R3 and it sound totally disappointing. This is what I'm talking about, not about how oscillator and filter works. I know that all waves are really harmonics, that filter "cuts" some frequencies...

I looked at the patches you posted. They had Release parameters on EG2 > 40. That proved that those patches had long releases.

There are tons of ways to make the sound thicker without using wasting polyphony.

I don't need polyphony. I use synth only for recording.

Polyphony is important even when recording because when you run out of polyphony, bad things happen because the notes get cut off in the middle of their playback. That means they won't do what they're supposed to do and you'll also get Clicks when the sound is cut off. Polyphony is a resource that's foolish to waste when you only have a max of 8 to start. It's even worse for the microKorg when you start with a max of 4.

You can use a rich DWGS wave on OSC1. You can use a detuned wave on OSC2. You can use the WaveShaper with SubOSC (acts as a 3rd OSC). You can use 2 filters in serial with resonance. You have two IFX for Ensemble and LCR Delay. You can do Reverb on MFX. You can use LFOs to modulate parameters like panning, filters, pitch, and waveshape. You've got a bunch of virtual patches. You've got a modulation sequencer. You've got formant motion. All of these make a thick sound without eating up polyphony.

That's because we have totally different feeling what is "thick" sound.

Wait until you hear my versions compared to yours. Plus you can always add unison to mine, if you want. Once you start at Unison 4, you've got nowhere to go to make the sound richer except to use some of the more advanced techniques I described. Unison 4 paints yourself into a corner. Sometime chords are good, and you have a hard time doing many chords with only one or two notes at a time.

As a general rule, keep Voice Assign to Poly and Unison to Off. You want to preserve all 8 notes of polyphony whenever possible.

I don't like now polyphony mode sounds when it lacks voices.

Until you try building voices without heavy Unison, perhaps you haven't explored all the other possibilities.

If you're using Massive/Absynth on a Core 2 Quad or i5/i7, then you can use all the Unison you want, since you've got so much polyphony and resources. But VA hardware synths have more limited resources, so taking advantage of more efficient techniques can prove valuable.

On a Radias, you can use lots more unison and still have notes left. The R3/MKXL have 1/3 the polyphony, and the MK has 1/6 of the Radias.

When you write the patch yourself, you can do whatever you want.

[ultravvox]

It seems all "magic" in my second patch was just high EQ boost and heavy feedback in St.Delay. Very interesting. To be honest I've never used EQ on any synth itself to add extra something to sound. I have a prejudice that EQ and some other effects must be used only in DAW and only for mixing.

[xmlguy]

It seems all "magic" in my second patch was just high EQ boost and heavy feedback in St.Delay. Very interesting. To be honest I've never used EQ on any synth itself to add extra something to sound. I have a prejudice that EQ and some other effects must be used only in DAW and only for mixing.

Yes, EQ and FX can be used for additive and subtractive synthesis.

For example, you might want to use resonance or other modulations to increase certain harmonics that you want, but you get too much of other harmonics that you don't want as a result. The EQ can be used as a filter. After all, that's what a filter is - a programmable parametric EQ. So the R3 EQ is like two free Filters. The Radias/R3 FX are among the best available.

Did you try my patches? Sometimes I have difficulty understanding your English, so I'm not exactly sure what you mean, so please don't take offense if I misunderstand what you're trying to say.

[xmlguy]

I forgot to mention that you should try the RaveSaw2 patch I sent you with the vocoder on and argeggiator latched, for a little surprise.