## Possible with SDK or a shot into dark?

Scope and XITE Development

Original topic on PlanetZ: https://forums.scopeusers.com/viewtopic.php?t=17337

####

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:02 am
by Stige
I don't own SDK, but I have a question for you who have worked with it, if this could be possible..
This might sound a bit silly, but I've never seen an SDK and this is just my theoretical idea.
Could it be anyhow possible to 'transfer' a SynthEdit circuit diagram to SDK?
Are there similar modules available in SDK?
I have constructed a compressor plugin with SynthEdit, and it sounds too promising to be buried away. I've tested it against some commercial plugins.
If this could be replicated with Scope SDK, I wonder how much the quality improved further.
Any ideas?
Wouldn't a new compressor device benefit this scope commynity?
If you are interested to try my plugin, please let me know.
cheers

####

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:20 am
by voidar

> On 2005-11-17 08:02, Stige wrote:
> I don't own SDK, but I have a question for you who have worked with it, if this could be possible..
> This might sound a bit silly, but I've never seen an SDK and this is just my theoretical idea.
> Could it be anyhow possible to 'transfer' a SynthEdit circuit diagram to SDK?
> Are there similar modules available in SDK?
> I have constructed a compressor plugin with SynthEdit, and it sounds too promising to be buried away. I've tested it against some commercial plugins.
> If this could be replicated with Scope SDK, I wonder how much the quality improved further.
> Any ideas?
> Wouldn't a new compressor device benefit this scope commynity?
> If you are interested to try my plugin, please let me know.
> cheers

I don't know either SynthEdit or Scope SDK, but to my understandment you have very low-level atoms available, like "add" and such, so why not?

####

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:56 pm
by hubird

> On 2005-11-17 08:20, voidar wrote:

> > On 2005-11-17 08:02, Stige wrote:
> > I don't own SDK, but I have a question for you who have worked with it, if this could be possible..
> > This might sound a bit silly, but I've never seen an SDK and this is just my theoretical idea.
> > Could it be anyhow possible to 'transfer' a SynthEdit circuit diagram to SDK?
> > Are there similar modules available in SDK?
> > I have constructed a compressor plugin with SynthEdit, and it sounds too promising to be buried away. I've tested it against some commercial plugins.
> > If this could be replicated with Scope SDK, I wonder how much the quality improved further.
> > Any ideas?
> > Wouldn't a new compressor device benefit this scope commynity?
> > If you are interested to try my plugin, please let me know.
> > cheers

> I don't know either SynthEdit or Scope SDK, but to my understandment you have very low-level atoms available, like "add" and such, so why not?

Voidar, OT but: great quoting from the only other post in your post... I see this often and I always ask myself, why o why...

####

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2005 8:09 pm
by Me$$iah

> On 2005-11-17 16:56, hubird wrote:

> > On 2005-11-17 08:20, voidar wrote:

> > > On 2005-11-17 08:02, Stige wrote:
> > > I don't own SDK, but I have a question for you who have worked with it, if this could be possible..
> > > This might sound a bit silly, but I've never seen an SDK and this is just my theoretical idea.
> > > Could it be anyhow possible to 'transfer' a SynthEdit circuit diagram to SDK?
> > > Are there similar modules available in SDK?
> > > I have constructed a compressor plugin with SynthEdit, and it sounds too promising to be buried away. I've tested it against some commercial plugins.
> > > If this could be replicated with Scope SDK, I wonder how much the quality improved further.
> > > Any ideas?
> > > Wouldn't a new compressor device benefit this scope commynity?
> > > If you are interested to try my plugin, please let me know.
> > > cheers

> > I don't know either SynthEdit or Scope SDK, but to my understandment you have very low-level atoms available, like "add" and such, so why not?

> Voidar, OT but: great quoting from the only other post in your post... I see this often and I always ask myself, why o why...

and then you have to quote them both to make your point....
Damn.....and now Ive quoted all three posts
It seems to be catching...this over use of the quote funtion
Me$$iah

####

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 7:43 am
by voidar
I am sorry . Let me take upon me all our sins.
Anyway, let's get this thread rolling again. We could always use more devices for our cards!

####

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 11:30 am
by astroman

> On 2005-11-17 08:02, Stige wrote:
> ...I have constructed a compressor plugin with SynthEdit, and it sounds too promising to be buried away. I've tested it against some commercial plugins.
> If this could be replicated with Scope SDK, I wonder how much the quality improved further.
> Any ideas?...

if the quality improves further depends on the basic 'strategy' of your plugin.
If it's a very unusual (or even completely new) approach to implement a compressor, then there is at least a chance that it has the potential to increase quality.
If you received a surprisingly good sound with rather 'standard' methods, then this may result from the specific implementation of the synth edit modules.
In that case a Scope device would probably produce a very different output - and it's in no way guaranteed to be 'better'.
but in any case a diagram is a very good startpoint for a project.
Pencil and paper at the right moment are still the most powerful design tools imho
cheers, Tom

####

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2005 12:39 pm
by Stige
Thanks Tom for your comment.
I think there is nothing really new in my circuit. I doubt it's very easy to create something that hasn't been already invented.
But the sound character it's quite different than stock pulsar hard-knee compressor. It's closer to Vinco, but of course without any emulation functions.
It's clean, smooth and breathing sounding, can be used to bring low level details up.
There are two independent treshold adjustments, hard knee and soft knee (in dB scale). Also an adjustable hipass filter driven sidechain for peak detector.
Lets assume that we keep the circuit design intact for both, synth edit and scope SDK. If they sound different, that must be due to operation of 'building blocks' used. I'm keen to believe that scope environment is capable to produce higher quality output (less distortion and other artifacts) than synth edit.
The problem is that I'm not personally able to make this effort any further without owning SDK. (I have 'only' 2x Pulsar II cards).
So, if anyone is interested in building a compressor, perhaps we could co-operate.

####

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:30 am
by cannonball
hi
a new compressor is always appreciate
can be usefull for sure
i would like to see from creamware too
new high end tools

####

Posted: Sat Nov 19, 2005 2:13 am
by astroman

> On 2005-11-18 12:39, Stige wrote:
> ...If they sound different, that must be due to operation of 'building blocks' used. I'm keen to believe that scope environment is capable to produce higher quality output (less distortion and other artifacts) than synth edit...

you may as well assume the opposite
A less precise math is not always producing an inferior result.
a DX7 versus FM7 is a good example - the latter is much more precise, but sounds a bit thin and sterile (imho) in a similiar patch.
Yet it's a great device if you're exactly after a crisp and crystal clear sound.
I don't know what you used to test the compressor, but a device with a relatively narrow 'significant' frequency spectrum (like voice or guitar), can sound amazingly good due to some amount of phase shift.
The drawback is that it's not exactly predictable and relatively few tones benefit.
Since the simultaneous extinction effect (on other tones) is much easier to detect (and annoying to say at least...), the method is usually avoided.
But as another thread shows, people have even made a feature from this and supply it as a plugin - with a surface to control the 'error'
you've probably run into such a situation by pure chance.
You could repeat your test with different sources and try to detect if it's frequency depending.
Like a bass pattern that is repeatingly transposed upward.
cheers, Tom

####

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2005 4:15 am
by at0m
Hoi Stige,
Do you have flexor? You can try patching it in modular, it's very easy to make a basic compressor:
input > ringmod in1 > output
> hyper follower > half invertor> ringmod in2
That's for a most basic compressor. Instead of ringmod, you could have use dynamic shaper set to max, and hyper follower to dynamic shaper's negative modulation for a more characteristic/coloured sound. Apply band split filter and send both to negative mod of the shaper and you have sort of a 2band compressor.
Just stating some simple methods to patch your own compressor, have a look at alfonso's compressor patch for more idea's.
It's quite easy to make a decent compressor in modular or SDK. But why wait for someone to make a device, if you can patch your own?

####

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 7:51 am
by cannonball
hi
fx devices are more usefull (insert and understanding) and more users
can benefit from them

####

Posted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 8:09 am
by Stige
I've been thinking about modular, but unfortunately I own only mod II, nothing else. That alone is very inadequate for my purposes.
Actually now I have added something special in my compressor plugin. It's an attack/transient shaper, controlling how much peaks will get thru. Of course attack time can be used to adjust the length of peaks, like in traditional compressor.
Works great in mastering purposes, as you can stop the transients (like limiters) but still use gentle soft knee with longer attack time.
In order to construct this in scope, there should be something more 'mathematical' approach available, as I believe SDK is.