the ring mod, pencil tool and some of the hardware i had in my life gave me this idea
i mean, a basic synth is: 2 oscillators, a ring mod switch, a sync switch, 1 filter and an ADSR… we allready have all of these features to allow us do the same with samples excepted the “sync switch”
don’t know if it’s possible… or maybe it’s allready existing with tips but i don’t get it… anybody?
yep! cool, i knew this stuff… dc to trig the osc in the ring mod is one of the ideas… but i think this way you still have one oscillator sounding… not 2 interfering each other no?.. i mean 2 samples (anything, from looped sines to rich complex waveforms, drumloops or whatever, synced together with another source to create something completely new depending to the note/pitch of the master oscillator/sample)
check this link
meanwhile i gonna check dblues xrns examples just to get sure it isn’t the same idea but i think it isn’t for now
Dude, did you produce the album ‘repaired’?
…the problem with Frequency modulation and Phase distortion synthesis is that they use one oscillator, to modulate another one ; the ringmod device is a DSP effect, but not a meta-device. The ringmod can then only be used in a kind of additive synthesis (where a sine wave is “added” to another sine wave for example), and not other types of FM or PD synthesis.
yes! lol i thought nobody knew it here 
yep, i knew it, yhat’s why i didn’t mention the ringmod… i was thinking about some meta device, or some “sync” slot on each xrns… but i’m really not sure it’s doable… i just suggest
Holy shit! I bought that album yeaars ago. Good stuff ^^
lol thanks, small world 
I understand. I also would like to see that kind of extra feature in Renoise. I also directly suggested to add a basic 2 OSC Synth, and to save its parameters directly in the XRNI instrument file format. But I also know that the dev-team for now prefer to focus its energy on something else than a specific sound generator.
Renoise is historically based on noisetrekkr that included a native 2 OSC synthetiser (and even a tb303 emulator). Today, everything has been more or less rewritten, there is probably nothing left from the original noisetrekkr code. During the early stages of Renoise developpement, the dev-team has decided to “remove” the tb303 emulation and to also remove the native 2 OSC synth. Why? Because Renoise was focused on the integration of VSTis synths (more flexible) instead of a unique instrument with its own limitations. Those limitations could have been a source of neverending suggestions and complaints. And the problem is that if you change one thing in a Synth code, it sounds differently. Imagine the people that complain because the synth in version 1.1 sounds differently than the one in version 1.3… and that want this synth to come back in their favourite DAW, when the other ones prefer the 1.3 synth and dislike the previouys one… there are so many virtual (analogue) synths VSTis freely downloadable on internet. Coding a “native synth”, in fact isn’t probably the real goal of Renoise. Renoise has probably seen first as flexible and intuitive DAW loved for its inner ans easy edititing features.
However if Renoise was one day sold as a demomaker-oriented tool, things could change. Because demo-makers love compact code. They would probably require a dev-kit, for example a very small .DLL library, with the associated APIs, that could just be called by any kind of demo program, and that would perform a XRNS song playback. Demo-makers are always searching for a way to make their demos smaller and smaller they probably would like to be able get rid of samples, and to use an internal synth instead of samples… For now the dev-team has made a first step in the direction of coders, through the LUA script philosophy. Maybe one day because of a growing coders community, things could change, who knows…
seeya
yep! thanks for the answer, but i’m really not talking about oscillator generator or something else, but real “sampled waveforms”, because when talking about samples, you get all the pattern effects so you can apply some from time to time to create something “living” instead of (in general) most of “static vst’s oscillators”.
in the past , i owned a clavia nordlead, this little beast was the first “digital analog clone” using the “non static oscillator” wich means, each time you trigged a key (enveloppe) the start dc offset of the oscillator were allways different, i mean, it was “free” from the triggers, and that’s why this synth bluffed every analog purist…
it’s possible to do the same in renoise, i’m really addicted using this method for now, for example, you take the same sawtooth with the same note on 2 channels, root them in one send containing a filter, and apply pattern enveloppes (volume, filter automation), and you detune one of them with the vibrato pattern effect, this way you get a “real synth clone” but you have to use 2 channels (and one send) per note to get polyphony, i really feel the result is bigger, more natural and hudge more precise than any free vsts on the web, even if it’s really more complex to realise…to me, most of vst instruments are not really convincing, i still have some hardware pieces and prefer having crackles or shuffle than any vst on the market… a question of taste anyway… excepted this method,if i use some vst,i’ll just pick up its waveforms and leave it to trash 
…
in adlibtracker, for example, you can sync 2 pattern channels to be able to use a 4 operator fm synth instead of 2 op by default one channel as a slave, the other as the master…
that’s why i make this request, i’d like to be able to sync 2 channels/oscillators/samples, one master, and one slave, i think, added with the ring mod, that with this method, we will have all the elements to perfectly be able to re-create “real-sounding” virtual analog (or whatever, depending of the samples used) with a lot of work and a lot of pattern effects etc
greetz
I’ve discovered something close to this “better sound” effect, while trying to explore and simulate a simple flanger, when I was working on the old FastTracker ][. Cloning a track (I mean, a pattern channel), then applying on the cloned track, very subtle pitch shifts, up and down, every 4 or 8 row for example (in the pattern command), plus a wise stereo separation, between the original track and the cloned one, and the result was already interesting. You can even emulate a “real chorus” in FastTracker][ without any DSP involved : you clone a track and you apply a fast and deep vibrato on the cloned track (but you’ve got to do a 50% / 50% mix, otherwise the effect doesn’t work very well). Those techniques are in fact quite basic BUT realistic, because they are not harming harmonics in the spectrum, and the way they work is close to the original mechanical method people used when they didn’t had our super-computers. Now it’s true that it’s a pain in the ass, to deal with 2 tracks with modulated “send devices”. I think that we need something that is the opposite, such as a “receive” device, that would be placed into send tracks and that would be able to precisely define the amount of sound it would receive from a send track.