42

The Wavestation iOS app is a great alternative to this. It’s pretty easy to program with the touch screen and very cheap by comparison.

3 Likes
45

Can you define the distinction between “sample player” and “synthesizer that happens to work with samples instead of oscillators”? It’s not clear to me.

46

I get the sense that you’re emotionally attached to your argument here. Maybe it’s best to step away from whatever it is you’re trying to prove.

All synthesis is based on fundamental waveforms. Whether they are samples, single cycle waveforms, oscillators, granular synthesis, whatever. The fundamental waveform is then further modulated by other waveforms, filtered, processed, strips, repitched, enveloped, wavefolded, etc, to yield timbres. These timbres are then evolved over time to create music.

Whether something starts with a sample, a recording (same thing), a single cycle waveform (same thing but smaller), or an oscillator (same thing but usually with specifically fixed harmonic content) is totally irrelevant. They’re all timbral sources.

The distinction between a ROMpler and any synth is that the ROMpler uses the sample as the primary sound - in a recognizable format - the sound is the product. ROMplers are basically glorified playback devices. Samplers are the same but they can record their own waves.

All digital synths use waveforms as their fundamental oscillator whether that is generated dynamically or from playback of single cycles, etc. The main difference is that the source waveform is used as one component of many in the synthesis process, usually in such a way that whatever it is is not intended for direct playback as “the sound itself” - rather the modulation techniques and processing form the bulk of the recognizable timbral/spectral/evolutionary content.

@hyena’s point is the same as mine: the point of these wave synths - like granular synths - is NOT the waveform itself - they use them only as raw material in place of an oscillator. The point of a ROMpler is to listen to the original sample with various degrees of (usually slight) modification.

Intent, tooling, and practical use are what make the difference. And the difference is vast.

3 Likes
47

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

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

1 Like
48

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.

1 Like
49

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

50

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.

52

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.

53

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).

54

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

1 Like
55

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.

56

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

57

To each his own.

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

58

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

59

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.

2 Likes
60

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.

61

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

62

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.

4 Likes
63

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.

64

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.

3 Likes