Is Vital A True Synth Or a Glorified Sample Playback Unit?

An idea of an additive synthesizer seems easy enough: take sine waves, add them, get the output signal. But when you go into digital sound processing, you learn that computing lots of sine values for each audio sample is just unnecessarily costly, even on current hardware. So instead one either uses recurrent formulas that are in effect just resonant IIR filters, or, yes, uses resampling if the sum of all the sines is periodic—first generating a waveform for a suitably low pitch and then using it with very cheaply to computation, if compared to a giant stack of filters each for its own frequency.

Alas, the fact is, resampling can reproduce waveforms extremely well if implemented using many long-known improvements over dumb nearest-neighbor method when you just pick whatever value the sample has at the phase nearest to the phase you’re interested in. As resampling artifacts go, both harmonic and inharmonic aliasing are well-known how to deal with (starting with oversampled generation, highpass filtering and then downsampling—but there is more). There are other resampling artifacts and I don’t remember about them right now but they are also not a mystery regarding what to do about them.

So in the end it’s not hard to have good resynthesizing oscillator which is equivalent to blind summing of mathematically pure sines sampled at the output sample rate. Or at least equivalent up to noise well below any sensible level (say, −200 dBFS). That’s why I would think the OP question as a kind of suspect audiophile stuff. Sorry.

2 Likes

I love this conversation. Is so productive that I revisit many many times. Please let’s discuss

2 Likes

That’s why I would think the OP question as a kind of suspect audiophile stuff. Sorry.

Well I did write, ‘purist’, in my original post, although purist and audiophile seem a little different. My favourite synths, so far, are additive. If, in theory at least, you can do any sound with additive, as it is often said, I am unsure why you would find the apparent cost ‘unnecessary’-- a few older synths were/are doing it-- Loom 2, Cube 2, Razor, Parsec, Spectral, Harmor-- all fantastic synths, if none FLOSS. That Zebralette 3 and presumably Zebra 3 would have additive seems to say something about additive, yes? Which is in part why I am curious about Vital and what’s going on under its hood and how it compares. I wonder how much sense it would make to turn Vital into a bit, or more, of an additive synth.
Granted, Madrona Labs’ Sumu-- another additive-- is creating problems for some people’s CPU’s (hogging it), including mine-- so much so that I haven’t really worked with it, but it could just be a question of making the code more efficient and so forth and less about outright computational over-demands with additive in particular.
Thanks for your elaboration.

1 Like

I steer clear of romplers…

BTW, recently, I looked into vector phase-shaping synthesis, which has some interesting character, and found that, apparently, our Matt was pitching someone’s Cadmium vector phase-shaping synth on Reddit.

1 Like

It’s unnecessary when the same end is attainable with a smaller cost. The synths you mention likely use the methods 05deg described to contain the CPU load.

~ Surface-Treatments (Wavetable) Versus Interference Patterns (Additive)? ~

The additive synths, right?

Sounds like a bit of a ‘cheat’, but a fair one…

It’s been awhile, but did we establish what’s going on with Vital in that context? Is it ‘just’ storing and working with, say, waves-as-samples, or waves-as-sines?

We throw a small stone into a pond… the additive synth replicates and mods each wave and lets each wave interact/interfere with each naturally-- peaks and valleys, etc.-- as they presumably would in the pond… or the wavetable synth takes a cross-section of each of the ripples and modifies their cross-sections over time to emulate the outlines of the ripples…

Would that be a fair hypothesis of the difference between the two synths?

Seems the additive deals with the interactions/computations of the sines, whereas the wavetable deals more with a surface-treatment or net-effect computations of the ‘results’ of the hypothetical natural sine interactions…

If so, perhaps the effects and filters and so forth, are generally based on and depend on whether they are treating the ‘surfaces’ or ‘waveforms’ or, conversely, the ‘discrete sines’ (which ultimately produce the sound), which would seem to also help define/determine how the synth will ultimately sound.

AFAIU, all waves in nature are sine waves. The differences are simply how narrow/tall/many they/there are and then how, WRT sound, how they might interfere/amplify/cancel out/etc. to ultimately create the specific/final sounds we hear.
That said, it would then seem to be that additive synths are more true to nature in terms of wave-propagation and interference, whereas wavetable synths try to get the end-result, the outline, the surface, the ‘waveform’.

To add to my immediately-preceding comment, I had thought about something Vital Audio posted on You Tube that made me think about what could be a ‘sinification’ or ‘sine-ifying’ of the waveforms:

Spectral oscillator warping + wavetable phase warping

This seems reminiscent of maybe ‘wave-folding’ and/or ‘vector phase-shaping’, which, again, seem like attempts at turning waveforms (and/or tables of them) into something more like sine waves.

If I am correct, this would seem to speak of the power of additive, when wavetable synthesists are trying to get sines by warping the waveforms… sort of the inverse perhaps of how additive synths approach it.

No, all waves in nature aren’t sine waves. Quite the contrary, it’s unlikely that in nature any wave is a mathematically perfect sine wave. Vibrating objects produce waves according to their vibration pattern that’s likely not even even over multiple cycles. F.ex. a violin string vibrates in a pattern close to a saw wave. Nature is messy. Breaking the sound down to its sine components is a theory that works in a perfect world. It’s like economic theory, a pure ideal that only exist in a model.

Analog synthesizers or other electronic devices could make an exception to this of course. They can produce near perfect sine waves. Whether that’s nature or not is a matter of definition.

“Everything is a sine wave. Square waves are infinite amounts of sine waves put together basically. The sine wave is the most basic wave you can get in nature & is the basis for all others. I’m an EE.”

~ Nijuro, 15th June 2014

"Everything is a bunch of sine waves.

FTFY. [Thumbs Up smiley]…

‘Everything’s a sine wave? Can you expland?’ [~ dogma]

Fourier series - Wikipedia"

~ EvilDragon,

https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.php?p=10186895&postcount=11&s=322dab5967272e0b29b8740af22ed190

See also Quora thread

Why do sine waves appear to be fundamental in nature? Is there some property of the universe that causes periodic waveforms to be expressed accurately in series of sine waves rather than some other continuous function? Could this have been otherwise?

…and video, Every sound is SINE.

From that Quora thread:

But there is nothing really fundamental about these sine waves: mainly they are just a mathematical concept that happens in many cases to admit interpretation of the individual components in the sum.

~ Little Fluffy Sines ~

All sounds in nature are fundamentally constructed of sine waves. More complex sounds simply contain more oscillations at different frequencies, stacked one upon another. Higher-frequency, oscillations which are tonally related to the fundamental frequency (the base note or tone) are known as harmonics. All sounds in nature produce harmonics simply because the physics of air and other materials create simultaneous tones in higher octaves, the process of which is described in the standing waves wiki page.

Sine wave

A sine wave is a curve, a continuous function with this shape:


This is a picture of a sine wave.

All waves can be made by adding up sine waves. The sine wave has a pattern that repeats. The length of this repeating piece of the sine wave is called the wavelength. The wavelength can be found by measuring the length or distance between one peak of a sine wave and the next peak. The wavelength can be found in many other ways too.

Waves made of Sine Waves

Waves are found everywhere in the natural world. Examples of waves:

All of these waves are the sum total of many signals."
~ Wikipedia

Little Fluffy Clouds
“Layering different sounds on top of each other…”

all you have is like one little dot that is supposed to represent the position of a speaker cone between a maximum range of motion before it breaks. and whatever number you give that dot to be at, the power supply going into a coil of copper wire around that magnet will try to move that cone into that coordinate. if it doesn’t move, then it’s just DC and it will probably melt the coil after a while. so to get the thing to move, you need to do some basic arithmetic at a decided upon rate of change. how you decide to do that math is up to you because whether you like it or not, you are in the domain of synthetic or digital sound. different math stuff results in more or less interesting transformations to a given set or range of numbers. even if you have an analog oscillator, it’s clamped to move between certain extents that have been basically programmed by an electrical engineer. what makes an analog oscillator a synthesizer? the moment it is plugged into a speaker and causing that speaker to vibrate in a way that creates something your ear can detect. interestingly, a rompler is more of a syntheisizer than a real Minimoog because it’s more synthetic on a couple layers of abstraction at least. a moog is only one layer of syntheticness.

next it just comes down to the cleverness of the design of a synthesizer. an a.i. voice cloner software is a synthesizer even above the level of an original moog modular in terms of the layers and layers of abstraction and syntheticness is concerned.

the really great thing is you can say vital isn’t a synth if you want. some people will say it is. about 10 years ago i was wondering if serum was a real synth or not, and now i’m like “friggin of course” because my understanding on the subject has increased.

digital synths are more synths than analog synths are, just like analog synths are more synths than a piano or a trumpet is.

As for the reddit discussion, the main point being made was that an infinite number of square waves could also be used to create a sine wave, so there is nothing special about it, and all sound waves are not composed of sine waves. The OP was also a bit unclear about whether he was wondering about sound waves or just waves in general.

This question about what things ‘really are’, can never be satisfactory. The sound that’s emitted by an object can either be described in the Time Domain, which is the graph of the Pressure over time or in the Frequency Domain, which is the amplitudes and frequencies (and phases) of sinusoids that will add together to produce the sound you hear. Both are equally valid BUT the Frequency Domain description is much much harder for most sound waveforms and we always use short cuts. The classic description of the way a square wave or some other shape can be transformed into a set of harmonics (a Fourier Series) only works for very simple (cyclic) waveforms.

Reference: Are Non-Sinusoidal Sound Waves Just Magic?

If you want to claim that all sound waves are composite sine waves in nature, you gotta show that in nature all sound waves emerge from practically infinite number of physical objects vibrating in a sine pattern and summing up to different waveforms.

In physics, how do we know that electromagnetic waves travel as a sine wave if we cannot see the shape of them?

The understanding that electromagnetic (EM) waves travel as sine waves is rooted in theoretical principles, experimental evidence, and mathematical formulations. Here’s a breakdown of how we know this:

  1. Maxwell’s Equations

James Clerk Maxwell formulated a set of equations in the mid-19th century that describe how electric and magnetic fields interact and propagate. These equations predict that a changing electric field generates a magnetic field and vice versa. When solved under certain conditions, these equations reveal that EM waves propagate through space as sinusoidal waves.

  1. Wave Equation

From Maxwell’s equations, one can derive the wave equation for electromagnetic waves. The solutions to this wave equation are sinusoidal functions (sine and cosine), which describe how the electric and magnetic fields vary in space and time.

  1. Superposition Principle

The principle of superposition states that when two or more waves overlap, the resultant wave is the sum of the individual waves. Sinusoidal waves are particularly useful in this context because they can be easily added together. This property leads to phenomena like interference and diffraction, which can be observed experimentally.

  1. Experiments

Numerous experiments have confirmed the sinusoidal nature of EM waves:

  • Interference Patterns: Experiments like the double-slit experiment demonstrate that light behaves like a wave, producing interference patterns consistent with sinusoidal waves.
  • Polarization: The behavior of polarized light can also be explained by the sinusoidal nature of EM waves.
  • Spectroscopy: The interaction of EM waves with matter provides evidence for their wave-like properties, as seen in the emission and absorption spectra of atoms.
  1. Fourier Analysis

Any periodic wave can be decomposed into a series of sine and cosine waves through Fourier analysis. This mathematical tool shows that even complex waveforms can be understood in terms of their sinusoidal components, reinforcing the idea that many physical phenomena, including EM waves, can be represented as sine waves.

Conclusion

While we cannot ‘see’ electromagnetic waves directly, the combination of theoretical predictions from Maxwell’s equations, experimental validations, and mathematical analyses provides strong evidence that they propagate as sinusoidal waves. This understanding is foundational in both classical and modern physics, influencing technologies like radio, microwaves, and optics."

"Electromagnetic waves in free space must be solutions of Maxwell’s electromagnetic wave equation. Two main classes of solutions are known, namely plane waves and spherical waves. The plane waves may be viewed as the limiting case of spherical waves at a very large (ideally infinite) distance from the source. Both types of waves can have a waveform which is an arbitrary time function (so long as it is sufficiently differentiable to conform to the wave equation). As with any time function, this can be decomposed by means of Fourier analysis into its frequency spectrum, or individual sinusoidal components, each of which contains a single frequency, amplitude, and phase. Such a component wave is said to be monochromatic.

Interference is the superposition of two or more waves resulting in a new wave pattern. If the fields have components in the same direction, they constructively interfere, while opposite directions cause destructive interference. ~ Wikipedia"

"Are Electromagnetic Waves Sinusoidal?

Most recent answer: 05/23/2018

Q:
‘Are all electromagnetic waves sinusoidal in nature? I know that we can generate any waveshape (say, a square wave) using Fourier series from sinusoidal harmonics. Whenever I see a representation of an EM wave, whether it be the E or B vector, it’s always in form of a sinusoid. Is this the fundamental nature of EM waves (derived from mathematical models) or is there another answer? Hopefully my question was clear enough.’ ~ Vaibhav Singh

A:
'As you say, EM waves can follow all sorts of patterns. What’s special about sine waves?

In a vacuum, plane waves of any shape propagate keeping the same shape. In materials (e.g. glass or water) the shape of the wave in general changes as it propagates. Each sine-wave component, however, keeps its sinusoidal shape. (I’m assuming that the intensity is low enough that the propagation is linear, typically an excellent approximation.) The shape of a non-sinusoidal wave changes because the sine-wave components propagate at slightly different speeds. So the sine-wave shape is special because it’s the shape that doesn’t change while propagating through materials.

Closely related to that, it’s the single-frequency sinusoidal waves that transfer well-defined quanta of energy to materials. The size of the energy quatum is hf, where f is the frequency and h is the universal Planck’s constant. Waves wiith other shapes are made of mixtures of different frequencies and thus have a range of different possible sizes of quantum energy transfers.’ " ~ Mike W., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, The Grainger College of Engineering

That seems the catch or part of it; the model-- sines, wavetables, complex waveforms and/or physical models, etc.-- as determining the approaches and results/the ‘sound/character’, maybe flexibility. As an aside, I had been somewhat recently looking into Impulse Responses (IR), 3D sound and panning and even the idea, inspired by my knowledge of 3D, of ‘ray-tracing’ an artificial environment for some kind of IR and speaking of physical modeling. If you can import a free Blender model of a cityscape or kitchen, you have an IR right there. Maybe the audio gets ‘raytraced’ as though it were a ray/wave/photon of light.

I will mention the Syrum 2’s new ‘spectral’ oscillator. I’m unsure how that might compare and contrast to ‘additive’ (easier, for one, on the CPU?), but I guess that can be part of the discussion and research. (Can the spectrum move like a landscape/waterscape or video, and morph into others? Scanline shapes/movements?) Anyone try the new Syrum 2? I know that some have been bugged by Vital’s dev-cycle, so there it is, FWIW.

Might be interesting if the idea of additive and physical modeling somehow merged. Even genetic algos as applied, say, to waveform evolution over time. A ‘biosynth’. Synplant might be a bit like that perhaps, but unsure how it compares to my idea of something more automated, realtime and real genetic (‘sexual’/multigenerational waveforms over realtime). There is or was a free synth called, Trilobite, for example, although it looked non-realtime and tedious and escaped my interest at the time.

Sticky-note to self: Maybe mention the case of the video synthesizer as applied to audio/‘moving-terrain’ synthesis (non-static/evolving ‘wavetables’/‘scenes’/events, adding ‘wind’ and ‘rain’, etc., parameters, etc.).

But but but… sound isn’t electromagnetic?

I think one or more of the links referenced include (sine) waves through mediums, like air, water and even the earth’s crust (earthquakes).
At the same time, it may be worth mentioning that Vital is designed to run on and output via electromagnetic devices-- computer and speaker-- the latter one that of course outputs to the medium.
But I mean, if you have a better argument/case than one-liners, unsupported declarations, cherrypicks or gaslights, please feel free and we can take a look.
Of course you’re also free to believe whatever you want. People certainly do. There’s religion and ‘Flat-Earthers’ afterall.
If Syrum can get a spectral oscillator, perhaps one day, Vital or Vitalium can get an additive oscillator, if it doesn’t already sort of have one and it might make sense to.

“Seismic waves produced from earthquakes contain sine waves of many different frequencies.” ~ U.S. Geological Survey

“But but but… Gotta admit my technical knowledge doesn’t stretch to this, if someone is able to shed light on the subject I’d surely be interested in reading it.” ~ HermanVonElsewhere (modded)

<3

Hmh. You posted a number of links to internet discussions that are inconclusive or even contradict what you claimed, without doing any synthesis yourself. That could be called flooding. Bad habit in discussions. Please note you cherry picked quotes from those yourself. I replied with cherry picked quotes from those that contradict your claim.

Then you posted quotes from internet discussion about electromagnetic radiation that’s irrelevant because they don’t discuss sound.

You’re claiming that all sound is sine waves in nature. Whatever mathematical tricks we do to cyclic waveforms don’t really tell anything about what sound really is. FT is a tool for analysis. I haven’t seen anything that concludes your remark.

We can define sound in multiple ways. It’s not really anything but vibrations that living beings hear. Sound is a psychological phenomenon. Without a being that experiences the sound it’s just vibrations propagating through a medium. The time domain of the sound dictates the experience.

E. I’m not saying that if nobody hears a tree falling it doesn’t make a sound. I’m saying that no living beings had a biological ability to translate the vibrations in air to a subjective experience we would not have a concept of sound to begin with. Thus, sound is a subjective experience.

1 Like

physical modeling is like a set of idiomatic techniques that you can use, you just need to learn them. check out Eric Bowman.

Synthesis is like drawing with a pencil on paper. and it’s up to how much you want to practice. everyone starts out with the same pencil and paper, you just need to sketch and shade and erase your way to whatever image it is that you “want” to draw. key word is “want”. and just because you “want” the picture to be a certain way doesn’t mean that other people “want” to look at it. so the key is to figure out what it is that you “want”.

also, if you don’t use a filter and you are using 3 oscillators then you are using additive synthesis, especially if you go in and edit the harmonics. the subtractive part of synthesis is just adding a filter that takes stuff away.

spectral synthesis sounds like some kind of FFT paintery. which is fine. if serum is doing that, then it probably is dope.

convolution creates added latency to your synth. you typically do not want any latency in your virtual instrument itself.

if you want to mess around with lots of fancy synthesis, revisit XOXOS old stuff. it’s just a bit buggy and cpu hungry.

but overall, just study Eric Bowman’s vital patches. Trust me, vital is a synth. but really your brain is the most important synth. you are solely responsible for synthesizing the thoughts you are going to think with your brain, and create the commands for your hands. Just take it easy, take a deep breath and keep on going. Even better than engaging here in chat is to ask a competent A.I. like Perplexity all these questions. don’t give leading questions, just ask ask ask all the crazy questions you can, and it can help you a lot better than we can.

You can even get AI to help you write a synthesizer of your dreams in code and after a few months probably get a vsti.

also, the field of math and where it intersects with engineering is a super complex thing and will keep anyone busy for more than a lifetime. so don’t expect to know it all ever.

edit: here’s a physical modeling synth

“No, all waves in nature aren’t sine waves. Quite the contrary…” ~ HermanVonElsewhere

“But but but… sound isn’t electromagnetic?” ~ HermanVonElsewhere

Make up your mind, Herm.

All waves in nature? Sound only?

The rest of your comment is essentially just self-referenced declarations without external support.