Two envelopes, what a PITA

[konaboy]

appreciate all the help and even some of the audio examples!

I'm still not convinced though!  seems to be extra complexity just for the sake of it. the increased flexibility is outweighed by the inconvenience of having to make changes twice.

the old juno and many other synths could do great strings & brass sounds with a single env.

will study your responses and see if there is an interesting angle for a video topic in here somewhere.

 

[analogika]

I’d just like to chime in and mention how this thread was posted by someone with a (to head-up-our-patchbay gearheads) seemingly ridiculous question, and rather than ragging on him, it turned into a super interesting discussion, which included audio examples and explanations, but also went way beyond the initial question. 
 

I love this place. My people. 

[vonnor]

And here I was getting ready to do a few jumping jacks, crack my knuckles, and hit the caps-lock, but I believe you other guys handled it beautifully.

 

Something I used to do a lot on the Memorymoog was set the filter to release kinda fast but the amp release a little slower, to simulate a reverb effect. Release the key and the filter slams closed (sound get's mellower and less bright) but the mellow tone kinda rings on a little longer from the amp envelope. That was before you had reverb built into the synth.

 

~ vonnor

[analogika]

Oh, and to contribute actual content: 

The moment you have the option to invert one of the envelopes, things get WAY more interesting, and options arise that are simply out of the question with only one envelope. 

[Reezekeys]

5 hours ago, konaboy said:

the increased flexibility is outweighed by the inconvenience of having to make changes twice.

 

How about those synths with two oscillators? Or maybe even more? 🙂 

[JazzPiano88]

1 hour ago, analogika said:

Oh, and to contribute actual content: 

The moment you have the option to invert one of the envelopes, things get WAY more interesting, and options arise that are simply out of the question with only one envelope. 

Similarly, the single envelope Juno 106 has an envelope invert switch on the filter section.  So you are using two different envelopes for amplitude and frequency, albeit constrained. 

[Tusker]

6 hours ago, konaboy said:

will study your responses and see if there is an interesting angle for a video topic in here somewhere.

 

Not to invade your thought-space but did you notice there are diversities of opinions, just as there are diversities of synths? 

 

I have noticed that there is a huge diversity of training in the synth community ranging from "self-taught" to "reads periodicals for tips" to "took a college class" to "professional sound designer getting feedback from film composers." Isn't it great that synths can be fun and expressive across such a wide range of people? 😎

[Bill H.]

Just for fun I asked Google what the top synthesizer songs are. Here are some results. I suppose you could approximate the opening sweep by gating the Juno's VCA but it really wouldn't be the same. 

[Bill H.]

A second envelope is really handy for replicating brass attacks by modulating the pitch of one of the VCO/DCOs. It's more obvious in other tracks, but once again this is Google's choice.

 

 

 

[Bill H.]

OK you're going to need a little more than just a second envelope for this one  

 

 

 

[johnchop]

Btw Omnisphere has amp and filter envelopes per layer and four global envelopes per part.

 

The “zoomed out” view is one thing, but once you zoom in, you can get way into the weeds. Fortunately, they have the “complexity  but with presets” approach mentioned above.

More envelopes than a box of Christmas cards. 

[vonnor]

For "Let's Go" by  the cars yes. You need a second envelope to control the frequency of the the master (modulating) oscillator that the slave (audible) oscillator is hard-syncing to.

 

~ vonnor

[Baggypants]

I have a korg poly 800 AND a casio cz-1000. Envelope flex.

[Konnector]

I really like having 3 envelopes on a synth with the 3rd one for pitch - or assignable to whatever you want.

Having "hold" (AHDSR) is handy sometimes as well.

[Tusker]

15 hours ago, konaboy said:

appreciate all the help and even some of the audio examples!

I'm still not convinced though!  seems to be extra complexity just for the sake of it. the increased flexibility is outweighed by the inconvenience of having to make changes twice.

the old juno and many other synths could do great strings & brass sounds with a single env.

will study your responses and see if there is an interesting angle for a video topic in here somewhere.

 

 

Woody, I love your videos and I am going to myself a chance to help you reconsider just a few of these thoughts while keeping the ones that you feel are valuable.

 

Your comment about complexity for the sake of complexity is the first one I'd like to address. The Juno (brilliantly simple synth with a huge sweet spot) arrived at a time when analog was getting more expensive and reduced cost was the way to go. It was a cut down version of the Jupiter 8 which had two ADSRs. Cleverly done. But are two ADSRs complexity for the sake of complexity? These were expensive circuits at the time. What analog manufacturer would embrace that philosophy?

 

No, the Juno's creative cutting away of features (just one oscillator, just one ADSR, add chorus unit to compensate) is what revealed to synthesists that you could make do with less, much of the time. I had access to Junos and JX8Ps around that time though, and even with the slower envelopes I would take the two oscillator, two ADSR synth every time.

 

The second thought I'd like to address is the the one about the Juno being able to do great strings and brass sounds. I agree with that actually. I think most people would. It's just that it's a subset of sounds that a Juno does very well. The blip (pitch sweep) brass, the sync brass, and the CS80 (Vangelis) horn would be impossible. Strings are generally good. Probably the place where I would miss the second ADSR is in the design of leads, where the difference between the volume and the filter for attack and decay stages can create brassy, wood-windy, blippy or plucked nuances. And of course the use of the longer amp release as a poor man's reverb as someone else has already mentioned. Then there's a pile more stuff you can do with pads and drones when you have a second envelope ...

 

Not meaning to argue with you at all. Please accept the thoughts which work and cheerfully discard the ones which don't. Love your videos. Hope this thread helps you in some way. 

 

Jerry

[AROIOS]

@konaboy

Looks like if all synths have an option to link the controls on Amp and Mod envelopes, everyone would be happy.
 

Short of writing that into law, we can achieve what you're looking for with some hacks (on soft synths).
 

With external MIDI controllers, we can simply MIDI-Learn the same CC on multiple parameters. E.g., assigning CC21 to both the Amp Attack and Mod Attack. Now turning the same knob/slider moves both parameters.
 

In DAWs, we can create an on-screen knob/slider for that CC and achieve the same result with mouse moves. (example in Reaper attached below).

[JazzPiano88]

28 minutes ago, Tusker said:

The second thought I'd like to address is the the one about the Juno being able to do great strings and brass sounds. I agree with that actually. I think most people would. It's just that it's a subset of sounds that a Juno does very well. The blip (pitch sweep) brass, the sync brass, and the CS80 (Vangelis) horn would be impossible. Strings are generally good. Probably the place where I would miss the second ADSR is in the design of leads, where the difference between the volume and the filter for attack and decay stages can create brassy, wood-windy, blippy or plucked nuances.

 

Yes, follow Steve Porcoro's instructional video into the second half, and you see where the Oberheim Expander was shown with the number of LFOs.

Sampling has overtaken, but this is the complexity that required strings to be believable.

[K K]

16 hours ago, konaboy said:

I'm still not convinced though!  seems to be extra complexity just for the sake of it. the increased flexibility is outweighed by the inconvenience of having to make changes twice.

 

Different people, different needs.

 

On one side, many buy digital pianos or synths with a few dozens adjustable parameters and they are very happy.

 

On the other side, there are weirdos like me. Before I buy a machine, I read the user manual and most of the time, the ones offering the most possibilities or the largest number of adjustable parameters will be among those I will chose from in the final round before purchase. Of course, I need to connect with the machine playing it live and other criteria, but... That's why I now have a Kronos. And I should continue to discover its possibilities for at least another 5 years. And that is what makes me very happy.

[Mark Schmieder]

And here I thought, when I saw the title, that this was going to be about a music awards show. 🤩

[AROIOS]

1 hour ago, AROIOS said:

...With external MIDI controllers, we can simply MIDI-Learn the same CC on multiple parameters. E.g., assigning CC21 to both the Amp Attack and Mod Attack. Now turning the same knob/slider moves both parameters.
 

In DAWs, we can create an on-screen knob/slider for that CC and achieve the same result with mouse moves. (example in Reaper attached below)...

 

Just found an even simpler trick.
 

Turns out Reaper allows linking parameters from the same synth/plugin. To link "Amp Attack" and "Mod Attack" for example, simply wiggle the latter, click "Param" and select "Parameter Modulation/Link". At the bottom of the pop-up window, check "Link from MIDI or FX parameter" and select "Amp Attack" from the list. And voila! Amp Attack slider now affects both envelopes.
 

Now we can apply this trick to any synth, save the project and have our "linked envelope" version. Cheers.

[Stokely]

Filter envelope is the one that has always been a bit confusing to me in use.  I understand the idea, but dialing things in has often been iffy.  It's mainly just needing to step back and take the time to experiment and get to where I'm at the point of "when I move <x> up, I should hear <y> happen after a bit of time" etc.

I tend to re-use patches a lot, and one poly synth patch gets re-used on a few songs.  However, it needs to act a bit differently--in particular, the filter decay needs to be a lot shorter on one tune.   Sustain for all variations needs to be "forever" it's just how long I want the more open filter sound to last and fall off to get to the sustain sound.  So I just tweak that at the start of the song (or alternatively, make it longer for the other variation).  Turn all the way up for essentially a Jump-style patch.  Saves me a patch for what is essentially the same sound.  Fortunately I don't have to menu dive to do this on my main keyboard.

Then you have filter envelope amount, if the keyboard has this, and key follow, and more advanced modulations say to have LFOs adjusting any or all of this.  Just takes time to experiment.  The Nord Stage 3 I'm using has a weird control where you choose (iirc) filter envelope vs velocity control (all the way left is one, all the way right is the other).