#41

The difference as a raw material for a whole variety of transformation is, what, exactly? This isn’t a rompler. The source waves are intended to be utterly concealed and reinterpreted.

#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
#43

aaah wow! this is really important for old wavestation users frustrated by that quirky save methods! mmmm i dont NEED a synth right now but…

#44

fact is: it is not a sample player. if you ever played an original wavestation i’m sure you wouldn’t call this a sampler. it is a synthesizer that happens to work with samples instead of oscillators. but it still IS a synthesizer.
i think the concept behind wavestation and wavestate is great, and the amount of really diverse and intriguing sounds you can generate with bread and butter samples on board is really vast. you just have to be creative with modulations, wavesequences, vector envelopes etc.
the major upgrade here is the ability to decouple the length of the various parameters in wavesequences! this alone opens up wonderful opportunities for odd polymetric stuff that was impossible on the original wavestations

that said, i really hope they bring in user waves in a firmware upgrade (pretty sure they will, it’s 2020… think about ableton’s own wavetable, initially they said user tables were not on the roadmap but in fact it was already doable via navigating internal folders…and now its as easy as drag and drop…)

#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.

#51

you perfectly stated what is my thought about it.
the key here is that samples are used as a basis for a complex process that ends up with the final sound. of course we can say that a sampler or even a rompler can be used as synths (especially when using simple waveforms and working with filters) but the purpose for which are built is different.
we have many examples, i think sy-99 by yamaha, powerful fm with samples, or even the d50 that used samples for the attack of the sounds. the use of samples in those cases is to form entirely new sounds thru a more or less complex process. hence no one usually calls a d50 or an sy99 romplers.

#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.