Korg Wavestate

anon45924993 · 2020-01-11T02:03:46.575Z

I don’t think the difference is all that vast.

I can use Iris in either manner (synth, rompler, somewhere in between).

Iris 2 Overview | The world is your instrument

Discover new sounds with iZotope’s Iris 2, a visual sample-based instrument plug-in with the power of a sampler and the flexibility of a modular synth.

papernoise · 2020-01-11T10:02:09.157Z

This is getting a bit of a philosofical discussion here. Maybe let’s stick to discuss the Wavestate, shall we?
Feel free to open a new thread about why romplers are good/bad and what a rompler actually is.

xidnpnlss · 2020-01-11T10:11:30.432Z

An Iris with sample start/stop/loop modulation with keys and analog filters would be a dream.

xidnpnlss · 2020-01-11T10:19:06.891Z

hyena:

i’m sure you wouldn’t call this a sampler.

No I wouldn’t as it doesn’t sample nor am I asking it to. But it does play samples (however intricately), therefore a sample player.

Nitpicking semantics aside, if one is good with preset samples, godspeed. I’m a bit jealous you’re OK with such a capable machine. I just know myself well enough that I would get frustrated quickly that I can’t use my own.

equipoise · 2020-01-11T14:26:00.560Z

xidnpnlss:

But it does play samples (however intricately), therefore a sample player.

Nitpicking semantics aside, if one is good with preset samples, godspeed

You’re missing the point. All synths except samplers have fixed initial waveforms and can be considered sample players (even Moogs meet this definition). It is not merely a semantic argument. You’re saying the only “valid” synth is a sampler. I don’t think thats anywhere close to a legitimate argument against the Wavestate.

xidnpnlss · 2020-01-11T14:32:31.757Z

Respectfully I think to call electrically generated sound a sample player is strange.

Nevertheless, I already have a Moog. I would like a (unique) keyboard into which I can load field recordings. I cannot load them into my Moog.

I never said the only valid synth is a sampler. I would never say that (obviously re above).

xidnpnlss · 2020-01-11T14:40:43.806Z

I also enjoy it but the Wavestate sequencer is considerably more powerful.

tenembre · 2020-01-11T18:37:35.705Z

All synths except samplers have fixed initial waveforms and can be considered sample players (even Moogs meet this definition).

This is rather a torturing of the term “sample”. An analog synth does not store sampled values of a waveform in memory. The waveforms it generates therefore are not samples. Try it yourself with a schmitt inverter (CD40106), a cap and a resistor if you don’t believe me - triangle and square waves galore with no samples whatsoever.

Mattb · 2020-01-11T18:56:20.927Z

On a slightly different note, I find the audio quality on Iris far from great.I like the concept though.

anon45924993 · 2020-01-11T19:14:56.645Z

To each his own.

It works for me, but then, most musical instruments do, it’s mostly a question of context.

Mattb · 2020-01-11T19:54:47.993Z

Of course to each its own, it was just a thought. I am glad it works for you, did not mean to attack you.

Smapti · 2020-01-11T20:33:38.883Z

I propose that the sample/waveform distinction is not binary but rather a continuum. I think a good example is granular synthesis: if you have 1 single grain equal to the entire sample then nobody would argue that you are indeed playing a sample. But if you have a cloud of repitched microsecond grains run through an envelope and a filter, I’d say you have something much more on the synthesis end of the spectrum. And, of course, you have many styles of granular synthesis in between those two poles, where it’s not exactly classical synthesis but also not exactly sampling.

So, when it comes to the Wavestate (or Iris 2, which sounds great to me but also brutalizes my poor CPU), it seems to be somewhere in the middle of this continuum.

equipoise · 2020-01-11T22:03:11.474Z

Of course I know they aren’t samples. My point is that in the context of user-uploadable or user-sampled waveforms, there’s no difference between a fixed waveform from a synth (in the sense that it’s not user uploadable) and a sample that’s fixed. I’m talking about in practice, not in implementation.

You don’t upload new waveforms to a Moog, and the minute differences between one sawtooth cycle to the next are, if anything, more analogous to the sweep of subtle wavetables than anything else, yet some people complain that they can’t change the waves in a wavetable synth yet never think twice about complaining that a Moog has a fixed set of waveshapes.

equipoise · 2020-01-11T22:04:06.995Z

Smapti:

I propose that the sample/waveform distinction is not binary but rather a continuum

In fact, not only is it a continuum, it’s effectively identical. It’s all in how you use the result.

kirklandish · 2020-01-12T00:03:36.732Z

It seems like this same interminable debate happens every time a new synth that has fixed sample playback or wavetables comes out. People inevitably want to load samples/waves, which is understandable, but not every synth can be everything to everyone. Maybe it will be updated in the future.

Also… I don’t know if this debate about what an oscillator is is useful at this point.

tenembre · 2020-01-12T00:25:41.693Z

some people complain that they can’t change the waves in a wavetable synth yet never think twice about complaining that a Moog has a fixed set of waveshapes.

That’s probably because an actual analog waveform tends to be more satisfying than a sample of one. Sample based instruments need the variety. But this is getting way off topic.

equipoise · 2020-01-12T03:18:20.040Z

I really thought lines, of all places, would be where people finally dropped the whole “analogue is better” argument, but apparently not. Anyways, I agree most of this discussion about synthesis is off topic except my point which was that none of this is a meaningful criticism of the Wavestate. So far, what I’ve seen suggests its a brilliant re-take on wavetable synthesis, with a massive step forward in user programming and performance controls, a vastly improved UI and modulation set, and a pretty neat set of extras. Will I be buying one? Probably not as I’m a huge Nord fan and a virtual analogue lover and already have plenty of interesting and beautiful digital oscillators at hand (as well as an enjoyable stack of analogue), but If I were in the market for an affordable, deep, and quite fascinating synth that has some serious promise for being truly interesting in a field of mostly same-old contenders, this is the one to watch, IMO. Good on Korg for making a reissue something far more usable than the original, and for pricing it very reasonably to boot.

LLK · 2020-01-12T03:30:18.165Z

equipoise:

So far, what I’ve seen suggests its a brilliant re-take on wavetable synthesis

Just to be precise, there’s no wavetables in the wavestate / wavestations. Just single cycle waveforms, wave sequences and vector synthesis. But it’s not wavetable synthesis at all.

For the sake of ending this argument with clear facts for those who would be interested in this as a hardware wavetable synth.

equipoise · 2020-01-12T03:42:30.477Z

Sorry, I see no difference in evolving and mixable sequences of related single cycle waveshapes and wavtetable synthesis, but you’re right - it’s not exactly the same thing. What I mean is it’s a brilliant re-take on the original Korg Wavestation idea. Fair enough?

tenembre · 2020-01-12T05:09:33.669Z

really thought lines, of all places, would be where people finally dropped the whole “analogue is better” argument, but apparently not.

I assume that’s in reference to my comment? I didn’t say “better”, I said “tends to be more pleasing”. As in, it’s personal taste. The robust sales of “moogs” suggests that that taste is shared by many.

And, if you’re going to now argue that there is no difference between analog and digital waveforms…please don’t. Let’s drop this subject.