On this current NS2 song I’m working on I have a string group but then I have a pizz type group, full string group, violins group, etc. This way I can apply insert processing on those sub groups because they are similar frequency and sound types. Saves processing because I can throw eq’s, compressors etc on the sub group. Further, I can then do stuff like volume automation for 3 violin tracks on the single sub group channel. Extremely useful.
That's a Great story, bro, indeed: for 'classy-cal' music and 'composing', nanostudio is really well suited, it should be said +1:
That’s a technical, more out of curiosity question and sorry for taking your time to answer it but I’d like to know, not that I can hear the difference, if the FM operators of the oscillator add up to the 16 voices at the final output. If it doesn’t that means, since there are three operators (voices) in each FM Osc, having all 3 Oscillators of the Obi (that would be the nick name of Obsidian for short I guess... no, I just made up that) that means 9 voices (operators) per single key (voice) of the Obi....
...Ok I lost it...
Additionally and as a follow up you think it could be handy some day to be able to route the oscillators of the Obi (or Obsi?... um no that sounds as a sneeze) to the different FXs of the synth, and adding a compressor effect some time in the next century?
Thanks in advance...
And no I am not talking to you Matt. It’s all about Dendy here.
if the FM operators of the oscillator add up to the 16 voices at the final output.
Single FM oscillator == single voice .. So yes, you are thinking right way - if you send all 3 FM oscillator operators out (into filter) technically it means you have 9 playing oscillators for single voice
Additionally and as a follow up you think it could be handy some day to be able to route the oscillators of the Obi (or Obsi?... um no that sounds as a sneeze) to the different FXs of the synth
That sounds like pretty much overkill and major implementation change in Obs internal processing flow .. Not sure that Matt would be opened something like that ...
But i think i know where this points - more advanced layering I think better (more universal) solution for layering and advanced FX processing would be feature which is on Matt's list - possibility to save mixer track with all it's child tracks (including instruments and FX inserts on those tracks) - after this you will be able to create layer of multiple Obsidians, receiving notes from their parent track, each one with own independent FX chain - and then save whole that madness as your complex channel preset.
And no I am not talking to you Matt. It’s all about Dendy here.
Hah, no no, it’s not bad at all. I just believe that I am aware of the current situation here and what you’ve been going through and don’t want to waste anyone’s time, and trying to be funny of course.
Yep, it is definitely about sound layering and versatility though I minor one.
Although saving per mixer track stuff and multi synth combinations sounds overkill to me regarding sound synthesis, I am not sure I made myself clear for the effects, or worse if I even understood what you are saying, but was talking only about routing inside Obsidian’s current internal FX’s.
To be fair, now I am thinking of it again, I know nothing about Obsidians, or any other synth for the matter architecture, so I’ll take your word for it.
Anyway it was just pointless academic questions affair I guess.
The thing is, I was quite scared to mess with FM synthesis for a long time because they either didn’t make enough sense or my monolithic cell brain couldn’t handle them. Of course there is also my physics ignorance since to come up with something useful from this method you either need to know how waves interfere (which I don’t) or be lucky while accidentally fiddling with parameters... which remains to be seen
Eventually thanks to the “master of the making an utterly and total sense UI” (that would be Matt), the FM part of Obi was a breeze to understand by just messing about a few hours and not only love it but it proves to produce much more complex and evolving timbres than I could imagine.
And that concludes my muble about Obi, for today at least.
@Zupi said:
Eventually thanks to the “master of the making an utterly and total sense UI” (that would be Matt), the FM part of Obi was a breeze to understand by just messing about a few hours and not only love it but it proves to produce much more complex and evolving timbres than I could imagine.
Amen. It's the magic OSC. Easy to use and yet deep as hell. Especially because, in addition to its internal Envelopes, so many component parts of it can be targeted by Obsidian's regular LFO, Envelope and Macro sources.
For sure, have a play with assigning several FM components to a single macro, each at different amounts. You'll find all sorts of goodness.
@Zupi said:
Additionally and as a follow up you think it could be handy some day to be able to route the oscillators of the Obi (or Obsi?... um no that sounds as a sneeze) to the different FXs of the synth, and adding a compressor effect some time in the next century?
I think I get where you're coming from here. Like the way you can use OSC panning and filter configuration to have OSC2 go through a LPF and OSC2 go through a HPF separately. It's easy to go deep enough with a single instance of Obsidian that I've found myself in this exact same situation.
Like dendy said, doubt this will happen because it's a pretty big change and, importantly, it's big enough that it might mess up existing patches/projects.
Still, there's a relatively easy way to do this 'in the moment' via layering that doesn't involve using separate mixer insert FX. When you're messing around with a second OSC and think "man, I wish I could route this OSC through the phaser by itself", use the OSC's hamburger menu to copy the current OSC, create a new track and paste it in (oh, and mute the original second OSC). You can use a parent track or internal MIDI sends to combine them. Or just sequence them separately.
Might sound steppy but it's quite fast in practice. I the copy and paste functions!
As admittedly good it Is and I wholeheartedly appreciate the copy-paste, the ability to save chunks of the synth’s settings and reuse them blows away anything in terms of usability.
I might dive in to your suggestions some time as I am still scratching the surface of the app and I try to go a piece at a time before I proceed to the next level. It’s easy with so many settings to lose focus... or sanity.
I think this is a common problem with the eternal requests anyway. The deeper you go, the more you wet your appetite so none ever will be completely satisfied.
@Zupi said:
I think this is a common problem with the eternal requests anyway.
The deeper you go, the more you wet your appetite so none ever will be completely satisfied.
This one should be probably written with big font, eventually with blinking effect on top of forum, or directly at www.blipinteractive.co.uk SO much true !
@Blip Interactive I guess you are silently crying during reading this
Because, in the age of texting, our fingers have just become too jaded to spell out complete words, let’s all agree that O = Obsidian and S = Slate.
FWIW IMHO LOL M8!
FFS...
🙄
@dendy said:
This one should be probably written with big font, eventually with blinking effect on top of forum, or directly at www.blipinteractive.co.uk SO much true !
Actually I saw that sentence at a porn site but yeah, it could fit here too.
@dendy said:
This one should be probably written with big font, eventually with blinking effect on top of forum, or directly at www.blipinteractive.co.uk SO much true !
Actually I saw that sentence at a porn site but yeah, it could fit here too.
This isn’t a porn site?! Uh, I’d better stop… whatever I’m definitely not doing! 😬
Comments
Actually looks like @blueveek ‘s MIDI Key Zone plug-in will take care of this
@drez said:
That's a Great story, bro, indeed: for 'classy-cal' music and 'composing', nanostudio is really well suited, it should be said +1:
That’s a technical, more out of curiosity question and sorry for taking your time to answer it but I’d like to know, not that I can hear the difference, if the FM operators of the oscillator add up to the 16 voices at the final output. If it doesn’t that means, since there are three operators (voices) in each FM Osc, having all 3 Oscillators of the Obi (that would be the nick name of Obsidian for short I guess... no, I just made up that) that means 9 voices (operators) per single key (voice) of the Obi....
...Ok I lost it...
Additionally and as a follow up you think it could be handy some day to be able to route the oscillators of the Obi (or Obsi?... um no that sounds as a sneeze) to the different FXs of the synth, and adding a compressor effect some time in the next century?
Thanks in advance...
And no I am not talking to you Matt. It’s all about Dendy here.
Single FM oscillator == single voice
.. So yes, you are thinking right way - if you send all 3 FM oscillator operators out (into filter) technically it means you have 9 playing oscillators for single voice 
That sounds like pretty much overkill and major implementation change in Obs internal processing flow .. Not sure that Matt would be opened something like that ...
But i think i know where this points - more advanced layering
I think better (more universal) solution for layering and advanced FX processing would be feature which is on Matt's list - possibility to save mixer track with all it's child tracks (including instruments and FX inserts on those tracks) - after this you will be able to create layer of multiple Obsidians, receiving notes from their parent track, each one with own independent FX chain - and then save whole that madness as your complex channel preset.
Uhm, hope that's not bad
Hah, no no, it’s not bad at all. I just believe that I am aware of the current situation here and what you’ve been going through and don’t want to waste anyone’s time, and trying to be funny of course.
Yep, it is definitely about sound layering and versatility though I minor one.
Although saving per mixer track stuff and multi synth combinations sounds overkill to me regarding sound synthesis, I am not sure I made myself clear for the effects, or worse if I even understood what you are saying, but was talking only about routing inside Obsidian’s current internal FX’s.
To be fair, now I am thinking of it again, I know nothing about Obsidians, or any other synth for the matter architecture, so I’ll take your word for it.
Anyway it was just pointless academic questions affair I guess.
Thanks again.
yeah got the point
Just i have to admit that 732 posts which i have here looks scary :-D
wait.. there is no such thing as pointless debate about synthesis !
The thing is, I was quite scared to mess with FM synthesis for a long time because they either didn’t make enough sense or my monolithic cell brain couldn’t handle them. Of course there is also my physics ignorance since to come up with something useful from this method you either need to know how waves interfere (which I don’t) or be lucky while accidentally fiddling with parameters... which remains to be seen
Eventually thanks to the “master of the making an utterly and total sense UI” (that would be Matt), the FM part of Obi was a breeze to understand by just messing about a few hours and not only love it but it proves to produce much more complex and evolving timbres than I could imagine.
And that concludes my muble about Obi, for today at least.
Amen. It's the magic OSC. Easy to use and yet deep as hell. Especially because, in addition to its internal Envelopes, so many component parts of it can be targeted by Obsidian's regular LFO, Envelope and Macro sources.
For sure, have a play with assigning several FM components to a single macro, each at different amounts. You'll find all sorts of goodness.
I think I get where you're coming from here. Like the way you can use OSC panning and filter configuration to have OSC2 go through a LPF and OSC2 go through a HPF separately. It's easy to go deep enough with a single instance of Obsidian that I've found myself in this exact same situation.
Like dendy said, doubt this will happen because it's a pretty big change and, importantly, it's big enough that it might mess up existing patches/projects.
Still, there's a relatively easy way to do this 'in the moment' via layering that doesn't involve using separate mixer insert FX. When you're messing around with a second OSC and think "man, I wish I could route this OSC through the phaser by itself", use the OSC's hamburger menu to copy the current OSC, create a new track and paste it in (oh, and mute the original second OSC). You can use a parent track or internal MIDI sends to combine them. Or just sequence them separately.
Might sound steppy but it's quite fast in practice. I
the copy and paste functions!
As admittedly good it Is and I wholeheartedly appreciate the copy-paste, the ability to save chunks of the synth’s settings and reuse them blows away anything in terms of usability.
I might dive in to your suggestions some time as I am still scratching the surface of the app and I try to go a piece at a time before I proceed to the next level. It’s easy with so many settings to lose focus... or sanity.
I think this is a common problem with the eternal requests anyway. The deeper you go, the more you wet your appetite so none ever will be completely satisfied.
The deeper you go, the more you wet your appetite so none ever will be completely satisfied.
This one should be probably written with big font, eventually with blinking effect on top of forum, or directly at www.blipinteractive.co.uk
SO much true !
@Blip Interactive I guess you are silently crying during reading this
Also can we just call it the big O? Sounds about right to me.
Because, in the age of texting, our fingers have just become too jaded to spell out complete words, let’s all agree that O = Obsidian and S = Slate.
FWIW IMHO LOL M8!
FFS...
🙄
Actually I saw that sentence at a porn site but yeah, it could fit here too.
This isn’t a porn site?! Uh, I’d better stop… whatever I’m definitely not doing! 😬
Obsidian is synth porn.