NI Massive on Reason 4?

[Jizz]

what is the best way to get a massive wobble on reason 4 like the ones you get from ni massive on fl? am i better off trying to emulate a similar sound on one of the synths? if so which synth would be best? and there isnt really any way to rewire massive into reason is there?

[benjam]

FL and reason are DAWs whereas massive is a vst synth.
FL supports VST effects and instruments but reason does not so your stuck with the reason synths.( which ive heard are brilliant anyway though)
But there is hope because massive can be run without a host DAW as a standalone program. Ive never used massive separatly from a DAW before so you might have to research this though.

[Ldizzy]

massive is a wavetable softsynth...

malstrom is a wavetable softsynth as well if thats what u want to know...

[Ongelegen]

malstrom is a graintable synth, a combination of wavetable and granular synthesis, a minor difference tho

[MrSpank]

Hey why don't u try to make a track without wobble bass !? can come out something much better than u thought !

[Jak The lad]

what is the best way to get a massive wobble on reason 4 like the ones you get from ni massive on fl? am i better off trying to emulate a similar sound on one of the synths? if so which synth would be best? and there isnt really any way to rewire massive into reason is there?

Rewire from Fruity/Ableton/Logic

Sample from Massive, import into nnxt

Learn the synths in Reason. It may take a little while longer to get the sound you're after, but you can generally make the same sounds in both.

[Jizz]

Hey why don't u try to make a track without wobble bass !? can come out something much better than u thought !

all this rewiring and technical things required to make a wobble really are making me reconsider making a dubstep tune without a wobble lool

[hifi]

what is the best way to get a massive wobble on reason 4 like the ones you get from ni massive on fl? am i better off trying to emulate a similar sound on one of the synths? if so which synth would be best? and there isnt really any way to rewire massive into reason is there?

use another DAW. something easy to get familiar with and make sure it can use VST's. only use that daw for massive export a bassline you like bring it in the NNXT or the other sampler in reason and there you go

[iamepoch]

when ever these types of reason 4 questions come about, for some reason thor's wavetable oscillators never come up. brilliant little guys these are, and if youre diligent you'll find a couple that set you about 3/4 of the way to making the "yoy" sound.

[WingWeaver]

Hell yeah, wavetable, is the one which makes all the dirty sounds!

[Jizz]

when ever these types of reason 4 questions come about, for some reason thor's wavetable oscillators never come up. brilliant little guys these are, and if youre diligent you'll find a couple that set you about 3/4 of the way to making the "yoy" sound.

yeah i've come to realize the brilliance of the wavetables, earlier i used to think you couldn tnreally get filth out of thor; now i've learnt about the scream 4 aswel, have to say thor is pretty sick

[Wrigzilla]

Hey why don't u try to make a track without wobble bass !? can come out something much better than u thought !

Heresy

[hakka]

All DAWS are the same basically. There is not much you can do in one that you cant do in the other. Just a case of knowing WHAT to do

[futures_untold]

Specifically, automate or modulate the index start position on the wavetable oscillators on either Thor or Malstrom. If using Malstrom, perhaps also turn the motion 'rate' down to 0 so that the shape of the modulation curves = the wavetable playback 'head' scanning backwards and forwards...

If none of that made sense, maybe go away and do some reading then jump onto Malstrom and get experimenting!

[makemerich]

wave table snythesis
create a thor

.add the blue wave table oscillators
modulate the WT knob...

[Jizz]

Specifically, automate or modulate the index start position on the wavetable oscillators on either Thor or Malstrom. If using Malstrom, perhaps also turn the motion 'rate' down to 0 so that the shape of the modulation curves = the wavetable playback 'head' scanning backwards and forwards...
If none of that made sense, maybe go away and do some reading then jump onto Malstrom and get experimenting!

i will make it my mission to try and understand what you meant by that equation.

[Grime Syndicate]

All DAWS are the same basically. There is not much you can do in one that you cant do in the other. Just a case of knowing WHAT to do

While this is mostly true, Reason isn't a DAW in the classical sense of the term, so your statement could confuse the un-initiated. A DAW, as i understand it, should be able to manipulate audio directly, as well as have the ability to integrate third party instruments and/or effects. Reason comes close to this when used with Record and Recycle, but still no third party support/integration. So, yes, a DAW is a DAW. But Reason isn't a DAW, so, yeah...

[futures_untold]

Specifically, automate or modulate the index start position on the wavetable oscillators on either Thor or Malstrom. If using Malstrom, perhaps also turn the motion 'rate' down to 0 so that the shape of the modulation curves = the wavetable playback 'head' scanning backwards and forwards...
If none of that made sense, maybe go away and do some reading then jump onto Malstrom and get experimenting!

i will make it my mission to try and understand what you meant by that equation.

I'll try to explain it simply.

Picture in your mind the shape of a sinewave LFO. When a note is triggered, the LFO starts moving along the shape of the sine wave.

If a filter frequency slider is being modulated by our sine wave LFO, as the synth tracks the top portion of the sine wave up and back down, the filter fader will move up and back down at the same speed as the LFO.

Now picture in your mind a standard view of a sample waveform loaded up in an audio editing program or DAW. We tend to read it left to right because when we press play in most audio editing programs, the cursor/playhead starts on the left at 00.00 and moves right as the song plays.

Now imagining the wave table is in fact the same waveform as we had loaded into our audio editor. With a normal play speed, the cursor/playhead will 'read/play' the waveform so that it sounds natural. But if we slow the play rate down to 0, all we hear is the part of the waveform the cursor/playhead is located on. If we move the cursor/playhead forward to another point, then we'll hear a different static/repeating tone than the one which played on the first position.

The cursor/playhead can be modulated on a wavetable synth using LFO's, ADSR's and other variations of envelopes. If we use a sinewave LFO to modulate the position of a cursor/playhead scanning a waveform or wavetable (pretty much the same thing), as the synth tracks the shape of the sinewave up and then back down, the playhead will move forwards and then backwards in a loop in time with the LFO.

If we used a saw wave LFO, the playhead would scan forwads only and then 'jump' back to the initial position the playhead was located (which is generally known as the sample start point or 'index position'). If we used a 'ramp' wave LFO (backwards saw), then the playhead would scan through the wavetable or sample backwards. It would also jump back to the initial sample start position once the LFO has cycled through the LFO shape fully.

If we use a pulse or square wave, the play head will only jump between point a and point b, playing whatever 'tone' is at each point. If that doesn't make sense, assign a square wave to your synths oscillator pitch control and listen to how the pitch of the oscillator jumps between the same low and high pitch every time as the LFO cycles through the 'square' waveshape.

Now the great thing about Malstrom is that it allows users to assign modulators (such as the LFO's) to the wavetable 'playhead'. So instead of the sample playing back 'normally', it will play back randomly according to the shape of the LFO. If on your LFO there is a continuos line up, then this will mean the playback head will scan forwards as normal. If there is a continous downwards line, then the playhead will scan backwards. If the LFO is random, like white noise, then the playback head will randomly jump backwards and fowards to different points.

The motion control on the Malstrom controls how much 'normal' forwards movement there is as the playhead scans the wavetable. If the motion control is set to 0, then the playhead will not move forwards at all (unless the playhead has been attached to an envelope which will cause the playhead to move backwards and forwards according to the shape of the envelope). If the motion control is set to 10, then the playhead will scan forwards at the rate of '10'. But we can also assign a modulator/envelope to the playhead, so not only does it move forwards at a rate of 10, but it also jumps to different sections of the waveform/wavetable according to the shape of the envelope that we've assigned...

If non of that makes any sense, I recommend reading Reasons inbuilt manual.

I also recommend reading up more about wavetables and wavetable synthesis.

Look at this image of a waveform. Each line represents a different possible position in our 'wavetable' for the playhead to 'read' from.



Now imaging your eyes are the cursor/playhead. Scan from left to right as you would read a sentance in a book, and the sound will play 'normally'. Scan from right to left and the sound will play backwards. If you look at random different segments of the waveform, the sound will play only the random segments that your eyes land upon. That should hopefully help you understand how they operate in principle and you might be able to figure out what I'm on about when discussing 'assigning modulators(LFO) to the playhead'.

-----------------------------------------------

It is my belief that wavetable synthesis is cabable of the most diverse range of sounds possible out of any synthesis type. For every waveform/wavetable, one can control the playback speed, the playback direction and the pitch of each segment of the waveform!.

Only 'graintable' synths can do better than that. A decent graintable in theory would also allow each section/slice/position/segment/index poisition of a waveform/wavetable to have its own pitch, volume and pan position as well as being able to playback each waveform forwards, backwards or randomly.

It would get ridiculous if someone made a proper 'graintable vector synth, because then instead of having a 2D waveform, one could have a 3D waveform/terrain! Look up vector synthesis and look at images of vector 'wavetables' to get what I'm on about. Merging a vector wavetable with the powers of granular synthesis would be insane!

Here are two images of vector wavetables, also known as a 'waveterrains'. The playback head can be moved backwards and forwards, along the X axis, closer and farther away along the Y axis and up and down along the Z axis.



/rant

[Grime Syndicate]

is that not what scan synthesis is? I thought scanned synthesis referred to a head scanning a three dimensional surface. If not, can you please elaborate on the differences? You've piqued my curiosity now.

BTW, highly informative post above (as usual, such patience you must have. And although its not charting any new territory for me, I commend your efforts)

[futures_untold]

From the info on scanned synthesis found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scanned_synthesis, I think waveterrain synthesis and scanned synthesis are similar in concept but fundementally different.

There are two crucial differences.

- The first is that waveterrain synthesis uses a static, precomputed '3D' waveform.
- The second is that a waveterrain is not created 'on the fly' as is a scanned synthesis waveform.

Think about it, if we left our playback head in the same position with scanned synthesis, because the waveform itself is 'moving' or 'evolving', even with a 'motion rate of 0 one would still get an animated evolving waveform.

With waveterrain synthesis, if we set a motion rate of 0 (such that the playback head remained in one static 'location'), the resultant sound would also be static. Viewed on an oscilloscope, the sound would show one waveform with no movement, animation or evolution at all. To get evolution from a waveterrain synth, one would need to modulate the either the X/Y or Z position of the playhead (or all at once).

Waveterrain synthesis is essentially 3D wavetable synthesis, whereas scanned synthesis could be considered 'live' wavetable synthesis.

Tbh, buy Roads Computer Music Tutorial and give a quick read through the wavetable/sampling sections. Roads covers it in there better than I ever could here hehe.