Oh you’re right is is a shaper not a straight up folder, the basically instead of the clipping doing the shaping/folding the second waveform shapes.
MSHAPER — my (VladiS) Dankeschön to all of you. M shaper is the same as MW2 shaper (OSC2 Wave as shape curve) with one exception — it uses not an Extra parameter but real actual wave from OSC2. I.e. it is a modulable shaper, i.e. shape curve will constantly change as long as the wave of OSC2 is changing. In other words, it always takes an actual wave of OSC2 to shape the signal. (Shape curve is an actual wave from OSC2, Extra - Depth (mix between processed and dry signal)). Try it, and welcome to the darkest side of M!
Vladis did say firmware 1.09 is well underway after announcing his new project ideas for whatever it is worth
Some of the new filter types do different types of wave shaping and (possibly) folding; I don’t think any of those new filters are in the manual yet.
I’m not sure if the new filters on the M are doing actual wavefolding, but wavetables in general don’t stop you from wave folding since it’s a process that happens after the initial oscillation whether the oscillator is analog or digital. In a modular system there’s no problem sending a wavetable oscillator into a wavefolder for instance. You can send anything into a wavefolder! It might not come out looking “folded” in the same way it would if you used a sine wave, but you can process anything with a wavefolding circuit (or a digital approximation). I love sending drums through a wavefolder for instance.
To your first point, Vladis has been very involved and committed to the development of the M; it’s pretty incredible how much he has put into the synth after its release.
Hmm thinking about it you might be able to recreate a clipping style folder effect using the same waveform twice and adjusting the phase and changing pitch to increase fold amount and using the shaper settings to do the amount.
16 voice version with extension available for existing owners. I wish more synth makers would do expansions for their existing gear, but wow, 700 euro for 8 more voices… idk Waldorf M With 16 voices
Idiosyncrasies do make me wonder about the workflow of the M over Revision A.
Obviously there is a lot in the M that makes more sense for modern studios and patch/upload maintenance
If
I want “that sound”
I could save up for a used MW 1-A, roughly similar cost to a new M
I was not as interested in software wavetable synths
I was looking to use it as a texture in my arsenal, something hearkening to a specific industrial aesthetic (though desire to use m the instrument is not a need for exact mimicry)
Are there any factors others have used to select one or the other?
Specifically, it’d be nice to hear a thought on which is more important after receiving theirs-
the A being less of a PITA to program for than i recall for storage/management of wavetables and creating motion in well made patches
the M’s sound, while not the exact level of crispy crunchy in direct comparison) sounds just fine, even in a simple mix
I can get frustrated with things that aren’t intuitive and have sold more than a few items that were inspiring sounding, but aggravated or confused me until i felt less likely to record with them.
As a follow-up: much as I love my M, I think I’m going to have to let it go simply because of the eye strain induced by the screen. I’ve got my unit rack-mounted & upright, with the screen directly at eye level, and simply can’t get around the eye strain after about 20 minutes of solid programming. The fine-point fonts on the various Mod routing pages are especially egregious.
Feeling pretty disappointed about it. Maybe it’s worth giving Iridium a go instead.
That’s not how i took the thread? He did develop for the product and i know was working on ensuring things were left in a stable state.
The engagement with him ended up with others trying to engage on questions that he couldn’t comment on out of professionalism, he wasn’t authorized to, or longer term plans he didn’t have to begin with.
I’m not interested in the Kyma, so I haven’t trawled through the long threads about the Kyma; I was just summarizing complaints I did see about the Kyma with the SW developer finishing cooperation with Waldorf without some bugs and some anticipated and much requested features being addressed / implemented. As a potential customer, I’m wary a similar scenario might play out with the M, what with its SW developer also being on a temporary contract.
Since writing the post you quoted, I see that the M’s SW developer, Vladis, has confirmed on the M thread on Gearspace that he’s working on a new OS, so hopefully the issues with multimode on the M will be resolved.
You do know literally every piece of software has bugs of varying degrees and even if the dev continued to work on it then more different ones could just be introduced.
People want all kinds of features that it doesn’t ship with and some companies add stuff post shipping and it is a good strategy.
However when you buy, you buy the feature list and functionality it ships with, not the feature list you want and unless the company has stated we are delivering X and failed to deliver X, they are under no obligation to implement anything.
Excellent, I know he appeared frustrated that his words were being used for more absolute purposes he did not intend or trying to get him (while not under contract at the time) to make statements on matters outside his control or provide “official” backing of theories unrelated to his experience.
I’m not engaging in rhetoric here or “just asking questions” to belittle your concerns.
I’m concerned that the M is already dead. No evidence of this, just reading between the lines.
It would be disappointing if there were never a new manual released to go with the updates. I remember looking for release notes on the Waldorf site and it was a broken link.
How half-assed is it to have to dig through forum posts to know how to use your synth? I keep browser tabs open to a couple forum pages for the info I need.
The M has a LOT more features than when it shipped. So it already exceeds its initial intent and position. It also has a new OS on the way, which should resolve a few remaining issues.
As of right now, it’s stable, and an absolute joy of a synth.
Arbitrarily calling it dead due to some kind of speculative wish-list is silly.
Yes, there are a couple of features that are still somewhat flaky, but they are in the priority list for the new OS to resolve. The dedication to this synth has already been proven. Once those remaining items are resolved, it’s complete. It already does more than advertised.
What the M has already would be more than enough for me, but I wouldn’t buy unless I’m sure they work properly. So I’m waiting to see if they fix the issues with multimode and whether LFO’s and multienvelopes keep in sync, or at least resync to external clock following a program change.
I don’t have a wish list for features, it’s dead in that Waldorf has seemed to have forgotten about it, aside from this lone contractor engineer. I think we all deserve a proper manual. The the Octatrack has had features added over the years, and the manual has been updated. Waldorf come off like a poorly managed failing company
