Hmmm let me think about it... I'm focusing on VHIKK X for now though.I assume that VHIKK ONE will not be developed any further (in my opinion no improvements are necessary). But I would recommend producing another small series!
Because this first version of VHIKK has remained perfect to this day! It continues to produce new sound structures and has remained extremely versatile.
Without knowing version two exactly - I would buy this first edition again without hesitation!
Thanks!I have to say, the Vhikk X has the easiest update process of any digital module I've owned, bar none. 4ms, Intellijel, Mutable, Squarp, Bastl, Qu-Bit, 1010. Vhikk's is the smoothest and quickest.
It's heavily based on the uf2 spec (here is some relevant info), but I had to make some tweaks for some VHIKK X specific things, so changed the file extension and header/footer to reflect that.
Thanks for the feedback! Good thinking, I'd love to hear some examples with 100 Grit =]Had my first real play with this last night. Even on my small, wimpy monitors the bass sounds HEAVY. I can only imagine what it sounds like on a proper system with a sub. As I think has been noted just some slight modulation on one parameter is enough to create enough movement to keep things interesting when droning away. The field filter is so useful, no need for resonance as far as I'm concerned. So satisfying to turn to low pass for heavy rumble and then to high pass for killer textures. This through 100 Grit is cheating and should be banned since it makes things too easy
I think we're on the same page with the Field parameterisation, though the current algorithms' implementations are a simplified take on the notions/methodologies/experiences I'm pursuing.I would disagree, my favorite Field algorithms are the ones that do have multiple notch filters or resonance.
In keeping with the goal of parameterization, I don't think any algorthm should have a Field that is just a simple lowpass/highpass. It should always act to emphasize lows/highs, but it should also do that in a characterful way. Say, notches + LP/HP, Comb + LP/HP, Phaser + LP/HP. That way you always know turning this knob will make it deeper or brighter, but never in a straightforward way.
I have a lot of thoughts about parameterization and the current algorithms, but I'm not sure it'd even be helpful at this stage, if ever.
For example I've been playing around with parameterisation of large banks of oscillators/filters/grains(/IFFT bins) to try to get interesting low-to-high timbral sweeps for Field which will hopefully make it into some algos.
I'd love to hear your thoughts! Post here and we can have a fun discussion =]
Statistics: Posted by forge_tme — Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:32 pm