Post by jiffy on Sept 27, 2009 9:42:37 GMT
Page 5:- www.promusicproducts.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=4970&start=60
Aha! I found something over here in the dark, gathering dust in the backrooms of the Fusion, where no one seems to go... what is this, yes, a lost engine!
Check it out, guy: ==> the Drum Engine!
-- each keyboard note has 4 "drums" (like the 4 OSCs in sample playback)
-- each of these "drums" can have up to 64 samples = 64 "waveforms" a la Wavetables
-- each sample/waveform has its own filter choices (64 filters all at the same time )
-- programmable Sample Start, Loop Start & End
-- standard Mod Matrix access (minus LFO's as a source )
Looks like there's a lot of options to get close to some kind of rudimentary wavetable sequencing simulations. Too many, in fact. Scares me away.
How would you get the 'sequencing' part done anyway, to get a sustained sound that sweeps through these waveform? Tables? The Arp, using velocity playing to trigger buried waveforms in some kind of programmable sequence? Ack, too much thinking. Forget it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
undocumented feature: CREDITS
Go to global
System
Info (lright side)
then last button bottom right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
/bump
A very basic but important synthesis technique I've re-discovered lately: the SINE wave.
As we should all know as synthesists, the sine wave is the fundamental, "pure" frequency which determines the pitch of a note. Or rather, any musical note of whatver pitch or color can be said to be made up a bunch of sine waves added together at various frequencies, amplitudes, and phases.
But without getting too technical, using a sine wave along with another sampled waveform can give more "beef" to a sound. This is a technique used with the old analog synths... add a Sine Wave to "thicken" up a sound.
This can be forgotten with today's synthesis where sampled waveforms abound by the hundreds or thousands -- want a xylophone sound? Use a xylophone waveform. A trumpet? Use a trumpet sample. Etc. But then this can result in a blame game where we say one sampling synth sounds worse or better than another because Synth X sounds fatter, but Synth Y sounds thin and digital.
To the point, I've found that a great way to quickly thicken up a Fusion patch that uses sampled waveforms is to include a Sine wave for one of the 4 possible waveforms.
The new bell pad you made sound pretty but weak? Add a sine wave.
The analog brass sawtooth patch just doesn't feel fat? Add a sine wave, maybe even an octave below.
The vintage electric keyboard lack sparkle, oomph, or expressive response? Add a sine wave with amplitude that responds to velocity... harder playing makes the sine wave louder. Better yet, add two sine waves, one an octave below that responds to amplitude changes via velocity, and a second an octave above the Wurlitzer that has a reverse response to velocity concerning amplitude, but a positive increase in FM modulation of the lower sine wave the harder you perform.
I'm amazed at how much more responsiveness and expression can be got just by wisely using sine waves here and there. I've been addicted lately to the AX80 sawtooth with a sine wave, as well as some of the "fair" Fusion vintage electric keyboards that have been beefed up and finessed simply by adding sine waves here and there...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and another thing, concerning "phat"...
Stereo vs mono..... Mono is fatter than stereo.
Remember that the old classic vintage synths were mono, and that fact alone helped the fatness of the sounds. Don't believe me? Try taking an acid bass patch, play a groove in stereo. Nice. Now take the same sound, remove a patch cord so that it only plays in mono. Voila. It sounds and feels thicker, phatter.
I just knew those extra AUX outputs on the Fusion were good for something...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
psionic wrote:Stereo vs mono..... Mono is fatter than stereo.
It depends... In whole mix bass often sounds fatter, when there's some little phase differences between channels left and right.
BTW. It is a question, what we have in mind, when we're saying "fat"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, "fat" means punch, solid, focus, localized and thick...
The opposite would be "thin" -- spread around, transparent, wispy or background.
Of course, this is largely subjective... depends on personal interpretation. It's just that I noticed more coherence, a tighter, more concentrated bass sound by going mono versus stereo with the same patch.
Stereo ambience is pretty, don't get me wrong, but it can get kinda bland when everything is stereo, not mono positioned in a stereo field. Imagine if your drum parts were all "stereo", equally spread out between both left and right. A generic ambience... ymmv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I first got my Fusion, I did explore sounds sometimes using the CATEGORY feature. I don't use it too much anymore. Takes too long to load and browse when sample-based sounds are involved, patience-investment not worth the results imo.
Too much of a good thing can be counterproductive, esp on an instrument with tons of storage like the Fusion or a computer.
Thing is, for the ROM presets, categorization is fine (for the average/ho-hum presets that let the Fusion down commercially, that is)... After that, Categories is arbitrary, cumbersome, and often inaccurate... if you make a nice new sync-lead patch using VA synthesis, name it "SyncLead", and store it, guess what Category it defaults under...? PIANO. You have to actually go in and manually change the Category to LEAD.
That's all well and good if you're OCD and want to spend a small fortune in Time & Energy to get organized. Be the perfectionist librarian, audition each 3rd party sound (HS, KPR, Picaja, forum users, your own, etc), and re-label and re-categorize each sound by editing its CATEGORY and changing it from its likely default of PIANO to its proper category. Literally thousands of Patches to go thru this way. Using this method, I'll bet your largest Category will end up being "Other." =0
I suppose you could COPY/STORE each likable sound as you audition the Fusion's repertoire and gather them into new Favorites Banks... Many different ways to get organized, and what works for one doesn't work for another. One man's pleasure is another man's pain-in-the-arse. (TM)
As mentioned elsewhere, a more intuitive, responsive, and productive way is --
............LOCATE + INC....................
You can use this fast and consistent search/audition method in several scenarios:
SONG mode:
which Song from all Songs (main Song page, Global Item)
which Patch for which Track (SONG/Edit/Track/Program)
which Pattern for each ARP (SONG/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
MIX mode:
which MIX from all Mixes (main MIX page, Global Item)
which Patch for which Part (MIX/Edit/Part/Program)
which Pattern for each ARP (MIX/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
PROGRAM mode:
which Program (aka "patch") from all Programs (main Program page, Global Item)
which Pattern for the ARP (PROGRAM/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
which Multisample for the Patch (PROGRAM/Edit/Synth/Select/Multisample; for sample-based patches only)
Note that LOC + INC changes depending on whether you have the BANK or PROGRAM selected when you hit LOC+INC.
Disclaimer: I still cling to calling a single "sound/voice/program" a "PATCH". On the Fusion, PROGRAM = PATCH. (for me)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MATRIX: VOLUME MODS
Velocity ==> Volume: Use additive or multiplicative?
To get the greatest headroom or range in volume, use Additive.
PROGRAM/EDIT
Mod/Add Mod
Source: Velocity
Destination: Volume
Type: Additive
Amount: 10-80%
Set the EDIT/Program/Output/Volume (Jump Dest) really low, maybe even to 0. Yes, zero. It's likely that the ENV1 ==> Volume is already set to multiplicative, so you will always get a sound to play.
Then experiment with amounts varying from 10% to 80%. Once set right, you'll have a sound that responds very, very sensitively to your velocity playing, going from pianissimo (very quiet) to fortissimo (very loud).
Alternatively, you can get the same impression but with more steady levels by making a Mod for Velocity ==> Filter Cutoff to additive as well, but keeping the Volume's Amount more conservative around 10%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it be great if all these pages of tips & info were available as a pdf or a book or series of youtube videos or something? Despite the 5000+ viewings, leaving only like 3 other long-standing posts having more replies, I'm doubtful that many would find much use at all with some alternative form of getting this info into their Fusion. I keep having new insights and ideas, but feel most of this falls on deaf ears anyway.
Like using the data wheel as a live performance controller, or how to eke the best out of the 2-pole LP filter, or how Velocity as a source for 10 different destinations can really make a stagnant sample come alive... Things we ponder while in the luxury of an altered/heightened state...
I wonder how many actual Fusion owners there are out there that read this forum, and how many still feel they could use some more tips for harnessing the power of their Fusions... a dozen? around 50? maybe a hundred? Things that make you go "hmmmm..."
Anyways, just bumping an ancient post trying to get within the all-time Top 5 posters here.
Aha! I found something over here in the dark, gathering dust in the backrooms of the Fusion, where no one seems to go... what is this, yes, a lost engine!
Check it out, guy: ==> the Drum Engine!
-- each keyboard note has 4 "drums" (like the 4 OSCs in sample playback)
-- each of these "drums" can have up to 64 samples = 64 "waveforms" a la Wavetables
-- each sample/waveform has its own filter choices (64 filters all at the same time )
-- programmable Sample Start, Loop Start & End
-- standard Mod Matrix access (minus LFO's as a source )
Looks like there's a lot of options to get close to some kind of rudimentary wavetable sequencing simulations. Too many, in fact. Scares me away.
How would you get the 'sequencing' part done anyway, to get a sustained sound that sweeps through these waveform? Tables? The Arp, using velocity playing to trigger buried waveforms in some kind of programmable sequence? Ack, too much thinking. Forget it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
undocumented feature: CREDITS
Go to global
System
Info (lright side)
then last button bottom right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
/bump
A very basic but important synthesis technique I've re-discovered lately: the SINE wave.
As we should all know as synthesists, the sine wave is the fundamental, "pure" frequency which determines the pitch of a note. Or rather, any musical note of whatver pitch or color can be said to be made up a bunch of sine waves added together at various frequencies, amplitudes, and phases.
But without getting too technical, using a sine wave along with another sampled waveform can give more "beef" to a sound. This is a technique used with the old analog synths... add a Sine Wave to "thicken" up a sound.
This can be forgotten with today's synthesis where sampled waveforms abound by the hundreds or thousands -- want a xylophone sound? Use a xylophone waveform. A trumpet? Use a trumpet sample. Etc. But then this can result in a blame game where we say one sampling synth sounds worse or better than another because Synth X sounds fatter, but Synth Y sounds thin and digital.
To the point, I've found that a great way to quickly thicken up a Fusion patch that uses sampled waveforms is to include a Sine wave for one of the 4 possible waveforms.
The new bell pad you made sound pretty but weak? Add a sine wave.
The analog brass sawtooth patch just doesn't feel fat? Add a sine wave, maybe even an octave below.
The vintage electric keyboard lack sparkle, oomph, or expressive response? Add a sine wave with amplitude that responds to velocity... harder playing makes the sine wave louder. Better yet, add two sine waves, one an octave below that responds to amplitude changes via velocity, and a second an octave above the Wurlitzer that has a reverse response to velocity concerning amplitude, but a positive increase in FM modulation of the lower sine wave the harder you perform.
I'm amazed at how much more responsiveness and expression can be got just by wisely using sine waves here and there. I've been addicted lately to the AX80 sawtooth with a sine wave, as well as some of the "fair" Fusion vintage electric keyboards that have been beefed up and finessed simply by adding sine waves here and there...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, and another thing, concerning "phat"...
Stereo vs mono..... Mono is fatter than stereo.
Remember that the old classic vintage synths were mono, and that fact alone helped the fatness of the sounds. Don't believe me? Try taking an acid bass patch, play a groove in stereo. Nice. Now take the same sound, remove a patch cord so that it only plays in mono. Voila. It sounds and feels thicker, phatter.
I just knew those extra AUX outputs on the Fusion were good for something...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
psionic wrote:Stereo vs mono..... Mono is fatter than stereo.
It depends... In whole mix bass often sounds fatter, when there's some little phase differences between channels left and right.
BTW. It is a question, what we have in mind, when we're saying "fat"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
For me, "fat" means punch, solid, focus, localized and thick...
The opposite would be "thin" -- spread around, transparent, wispy or background.
Of course, this is largely subjective... depends on personal interpretation. It's just that I noticed more coherence, a tighter, more concentrated bass sound by going mono versus stereo with the same patch.
Stereo ambience is pretty, don't get me wrong, but it can get kinda bland when everything is stereo, not mono positioned in a stereo field. Imagine if your drum parts were all "stereo", equally spread out between both left and right. A generic ambience... ymmv
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I first got my Fusion, I did explore sounds sometimes using the CATEGORY feature. I don't use it too much anymore. Takes too long to load and browse when sample-based sounds are involved, patience-investment not worth the results imo.
Too much of a good thing can be counterproductive, esp on an instrument with tons of storage like the Fusion or a computer.
Thing is, for the ROM presets, categorization is fine (for the average/ho-hum presets that let the Fusion down commercially, that is)... After that, Categories is arbitrary, cumbersome, and often inaccurate... if you make a nice new sync-lead patch using VA synthesis, name it "SyncLead", and store it, guess what Category it defaults under...? PIANO. You have to actually go in and manually change the Category to LEAD.
That's all well and good if you're OCD and want to spend a small fortune in Time & Energy to get organized. Be the perfectionist librarian, audition each 3rd party sound (HS, KPR, Picaja, forum users, your own, etc), and re-label and re-categorize each sound by editing its CATEGORY and changing it from its likely default of PIANO to its proper category. Literally thousands of Patches to go thru this way. Using this method, I'll bet your largest Category will end up being "Other." =0
I suppose you could COPY/STORE each likable sound as you audition the Fusion's repertoire and gather them into new Favorites Banks... Many different ways to get organized, and what works for one doesn't work for another. One man's pleasure is another man's pain-in-the-arse. (TM)
As mentioned elsewhere, a more intuitive, responsive, and productive way is --
............LOCATE + INC....................
You can use this fast and consistent search/audition method in several scenarios:
SONG mode:
which Song from all Songs (main Song page, Global Item)
which Patch for which Track (SONG/Edit/Track/Program)
which Pattern for each ARP (SONG/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
MIX mode:
which MIX from all Mixes (main MIX page, Global Item)
which Patch for which Part (MIX/Edit/Part/Program)
which Pattern for each ARP (MIX/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
PROGRAM mode:
which Program (aka "patch") from all Programs (main Program page, Global Item)
which Pattern for the ARP (PROGRAM/Edit/ARP/Pattern)
which Multisample for the Patch (PROGRAM/Edit/Synth/Select/Multisample; for sample-based patches only)
Note that LOC + INC changes depending on whether you have the BANK or PROGRAM selected when you hit LOC+INC.
Disclaimer: I still cling to calling a single "sound/voice/program" a "PATCH". On the Fusion, PROGRAM = PATCH. (for me)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE MATRIX: VOLUME MODS
Velocity ==> Volume: Use additive or multiplicative?
To get the greatest headroom or range in volume, use Additive.
PROGRAM/EDIT
Mod/Add Mod
Source: Velocity
Destination: Volume
Type: Additive
Amount: 10-80%
Set the EDIT/Program/Output/Volume (Jump Dest) really low, maybe even to 0. Yes, zero. It's likely that the ENV1 ==> Volume is already set to multiplicative, so you will always get a sound to play.
Then experiment with amounts varying from 10% to 80%. Once set right, you'll have a sound that responds very, very sensitively to your velocity playing, going from pianissimo (very quiet) to fortissimo (very loud).
Alternatively, you can get the same impression but with more steady levels by making a Mod for Velocity ==> Filter Cutoff to additive as well, but keeping the Volume's Amount more conservative around 10%.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it be great if all these pages of tips & info were available as a pdf or a book or series of youtube videos or something? Despite the 5000+ viewings, leaving only like 3 other long-standing posts having more replies, I'm doubtful that many would find much use at all with some alternative form of getting this info into their Fusion. I keep having new insights and ideas, but feel most of this falls on deaf ears anyway.
Like using the data wheel as a live performance controller, or how to eke the best out of the 2-pole LP filter, or how Velocity as a source for 10 different destinations can really make a stagnant sample come alive... Things we ponder while in the luxury of an altered/heightened state...
I wonder how many actual Fusion owners there are out there that read this forum, and how many still feel they could use some more tips for harnessing the power of their Fusions... a dozen? around 50? maybe a hundred? Things that make you go "hmmmm..."
Anyways, just bumping an ancient post trying to get within the all-time Top 5 posters here.