What sorcery is this Monotone brilliance?

[BRIGGS]

I've tried to duplicate a Monotone patch in Europa, Grain, and Complex-1.

It's a root/5th detuned saw pluck lead. Out of those, Complex-1 is the only synth that comes close.

Which brings me to the question...

Does Monotone use oversampling, like Complex-1?

[deeplink]

I've also got some great sounds out of the monotone, I just put it down to the Drive and slight FM being used within the Monotone

[BRIGGS]

I've also got some great sounds out of the monotone, I just put it down to the Drive and slight FM being used within the Monotone

This article explains a lot:

"There are of course many small desktop synths and modules along these lines, but the feature set particularly reminds me of the original Novation Bass Station. I actually think Monotone sounds better than this classic, with great punch and a gloriously sticky filter."

ref: https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques ... tone-synth

[selig]

I've tried to duplicate a Monotone patch in Europa, Grain, and Complex-1.

It's a root/5th detuned saw pluck lead. Out of those, Complex-1 is the only synth that comes close.

Which brings me to the question...

Does Monotone use oversampling, like Complex-1?

I have to wonder if it does - when you compare the spectrum of both waveforms with the filters wide open, you see MonoTone rolls off the top octave a bit. This is an easier fix to aliasing than the more complex and CPU intensive antialiasing/oversampling approach. One thing to note about MonoTone is you cannot bypass the filter - and it's a ladder type that looses low end as you boost resonance. So if you adjust the resonance to produce a more "flat" sounding result (set to around 25-26%) you can match other waveforms/filters response very easily. I do this by alternating the same note on each synth and looking at the spectrum (I set the peak level to match as a starting point, then fine tune from there using the spectrum and level meters to get as close as I can). Hard to hear any difference when doing this with Subtractor and Complex.

Thor's oscillators also roll off top end - you can get an excellent match with Thor (Default Ladder II) and MonoTone, leading me to wonder if they use the same filter/oscillator code (Thor might have a little extra on top, but not by much).
Which brings me to: did you try Thor?

[BRIGGS]

I have to wonder if it does - when you compare the spectrum of both waveforms with the filters wide open, you see MonoTone rolls off the top octave a bit. This is an easier fix to aliasing than the more complex and CPU intensive antialiasing/oversampling approach. One thing to note about MonoTone is you cannot bypass the filter - and it's a ladder type that looses low end as you boost resonance. So if you adjust the resonance to produce a more "flat" sounding result (set to around 25-26%) you can match other waveforms/filters response very easily. I do this by alternating the same note on each synth and looking at the spectrum (I set the peak level to match as a starting point, then fine tune from there using the spectrum and level meters to get as close as I can). Hard to hear any difference when doing this with Subtractor and Complex.

Thor's oscillators also roll off top end - you can get an excellent match with Thor (Default Ladder II) and MonoTone, leading me to wonder if they use the same filter/oscillator code (Thor might have a little extra on top, but not by much).
Which brings me to: did you try Thor?

Yes, Thor nails it.

I failed to tune the second oscillator by 10 cents when testing Europa/Grain.

10 cents is a lot. It messes with all kinds of stuff.

It works now!

[miscend]

I have always assumed Monotone sounded a bit more high fidelity than Thor and Subtractor. Closer to modern analogue emulations like the Legend and Viking. But I've never compared them.

[BRIGGS]

I have always assumed Monotone sounded a bit more high fidelity than Thor and Subtractor. Closer to modern analogue emulations like the Legend and Viking. But I've never compared them.

It seems that way at times. But, I can't say exactly, either. The chorus and delay, certainly help.

It may boil down to random analog artifacts and/or analog drift, or other wizardry under the hood.

Whatever it is, it sounds awesome!

[integerpoet]

I ignored Monotone for a long time because I guessed it was just an obligatory device for the "proper" app to make it compatible with tracks made with one of the iPhone apps, and thus it couldn't possibly sound good, right? But it does.

[DaveyG]

I ignored Monotone for a long time because I guessed it was just an obligatory device for the "proper" app to make it compatible with tracks made with one of the iPhone apps, and thus it couldn't possibly sound good, right? But it does.

It sounds great and it's simple to use. I like it.

[selig]

I have always assumed Monotone sounded a bit more high fidelity than Thor and Subtractor. Closer to modern analogue emulations like the Legend and Viking. But I've never compared them.

Depends on what you mean by "high fidelity"!
If you mean frequency response, Subtractor wins followed by Europa, with Monotone in the rear. But that doesn't take into account aliasing or other attributes…

Notice the difference in the high end when you align the levels. Filters removed in Thor and Europa, opened as much as possible in Monotone and Subtractor.

[moofi]

The difference between Montone and Thor is already visible in the saw waveform:
.
EDIT: Actually it´s not the saw wave but Monotone´s output playing a sawwave with all accessible influencing parameters set to 0.
.

Montone Thor Saw.jpg (162.9 KiB) Viewed 1172 times

[moofi]

I also noticed the labels actually show an inverted saw while the waveform is a saw. Guess it´s because of labeling design/arrangement reasons.

[moofi]

EDIT: Actually it´s not the saw wave but Monotone´s output playing a sawwave with all accessible influencing parameters set to 0.

[moofi]

In an A/B comparison you can hear a difference even though they sound quite similar. Montone is punchier, grittier and also appears cleaner. Aswell the resonance behaviour is different. Monotone is bubblier in liquidity terms. The first half is Thor, the second is Monotone:
.

Thor-Monotone.mp3

(632.3 KiB) Downloaded 38 times

.

Saying if they are based on the same osc/filtermodel, Monotone´s is at least an altered, though I would even say improved version.
Could aswell be some internal post-processing though I don´t know if Montone´s bubbly filter resonance behaviour could be achieved that way.
.

[...]

Thor's oscillators also roll off top end - you can get an excellent match with Thor (Default Ladder II) and MonoTone, leading me to wonder if they use the same filter/oscillator code (Thor might have a little extra on top, but not by much).
Which brings me to: did you try Thor?

[BRIGGS]

In an A/B comparison you can hear a difference even though they sound quite similar. Montone is punchier, grittier and also appears cleaner. Aswell the resonance behaviour is different. Monotone is bubblier in liquidity terms. The first half is Thor, the second is Monotone:
.
Thor-Monotone.mp3
.

Saying if they are based on the same osc/filtermodel, Monotone´s is at least an altered, though I would even say improved version.
Could aswell be some internal post-processing though I don´t know if Montone´s bubbly filter resonance behaviour could be achieved that way.

The difference is very slight. I notice it more when making pluck sounds. Maybe there is an envelope difference too?

Thanks!

[jlgrimes]

I have always assumed Monotone sounded a bit more high fidelity than Thor and Subtractor. Closer to modern analogue emulations like the Legend and Viking. But I've never compared them.

Depends on what you mean by "high fidelity"!
If you mean frequency response, Subtractor wins followed by Europa, with Monotone in the rear. But that doesn't take into account aliasing or other attributes…

Notice the difference in the high end when you align the levels. Filters removed in Thor and Europa, opened as much as possible in Monotone and Subtractor.

Wow I didn't realize how close Monotone does sound to Thor (at least in terms of the Saw Waves).

They both have a thicker (and louder saw sound) than the other synths.

[Carpainter]

The difference is very slight. I notice it more when making pluck sounds. Maybe there is an envelope difference too?

Thanks!

Monotone's envelopes have always felt snappier to me than Thor's. I wouldn't be surprised if they glued Subtractor's envelopes to Thor's analog oscillator.

[moofi]

Yes, the envelope behaviour is different or at least it appears that way. I at least assume it could for example aswell be the filter reaction time causing Monotone to sound snappier or a combination or any overtime shaping potentially happening in the process. Then for example I learned about EQs having a reaction time aswell just recently, saying I´m not really experienced in that field yet.

Overall the difference between the two might initially appear very slight because they bascially sound quite similar in their behaviour and overall shape that can at first quite easily trick into thinking they sound the same. Then through listening closer the differences become more and more prominent perceptionwise.

Possibly like twins, where it can be hard to tell the difference at first potentially due to similarities dominating the impression psychologically, colouring, possibly masking perception. The detailed differences you get to discover by looking closer along a growing experience perceiving the two, unravel especially when you experience them in a variety of situations, bascially like receiving and implementing informations having been at least partially covered by the upper hand of similarities, working their way into perception.
The closer you look, the better you know them, the clearer the differences become, maybe even up to a point where you wonder how you could not ever have clearly seen these differences, though this could be a trick aswell because it might be due to focussing on these differences like listening to the result of an inverted channel phase cancellation, leaving out everything that actually is identical, though the final sound contains similarities and differences.

The doors of perception can be quite flexible.

Here it´s a learning process after all, refining perception, evening out deceptions, improving concious receptions, along incoporating informations broadening perspectives.
I find it being quite essential for mastering music production where it´s not only about perceiving itself but translating, connecting, adapting, adjusting, transferring and also applying its results in a resonating connection, fundamentally evolving one´s production qualities/capabilities.

Along this process I increasingly experience decreasing differences becoming increasingly crucial.
Potentially because when geting closer to the soundquality I aim for, the dynamic range of changes I can actually apply with the given tools to improve it decreases, comparable to using a coarse and a fine tune knob afterwards, shifting conciousness to a finer resolution level sensitising perception.

I feel music production and also learning musicproduction is like an overall tuning process anyway, accompanied by varying tastes, perceptions, moods and circumstances, refined by information, understanding, experience and practice, altered by ideas along evolving possibilites.

In an A/B comparison you can hear a difference even though they sound quite similar. Montone is punchier, grittier and also appears cleaner. Aswell the resonance behaviour is different. Monotone is bubblier in liquidity terms. The first half is Thor, the second is Monotone:
.
Thor-Monotone.mp3
.

Saying if they are based on the same osc/filtermodel, Monotone´s is at least an altered, though I would even say improved version.
Could aswell be some internal post-processing though I don´t know if Montone´s bubbly filter resonance behaviour could be achieved that way.

The difference is very slight. I notice it more when making pluck sounds. Maybe there is an envelope difference too?

Thanks!