Korg Opsix - Operator Modes In Depth: Ring Mod and Filter Mod

[@d3tuned378]

This series is criminally underviewed.

[@OscillatorSink]

Kind of you to say. I'm glad you like it!

[@Waldemar_la_Tendresse]

Best in depths videos on the OPsix I have seen so far. Thanks!

[@OscillatorSink]

Cheers!

[@pthomas36]

I finally got my Opsix!!! I managed to pay the price I wanted as well, which was an added bonus. Now I'm back to binging all your Opsix videos... You have without a doubt the best videos on youtube about it.

[@OscillatorSink]

Thank you, and well done for tracking down the right opsix for you! I hope you enjoy exploring it!

[@KooriGraywolf]

I don't know if you purposely skipped this to not go over too much detail, but the reason why the scope compensates for the phase inversion during the >50% depth is because the oscilloscope places the center of the picture (both horizontally and vertically) where there is a downward zero crossing :) But I'm loving your videos! I've had my Opsix for about half a year but I am watching your stuff to learn new things I might have glossed over and I've definitely learned some new tricks. 35:37 was such a WTF moment for me in this one! My only minor feedback (heh feedback) is that at times the synth audio can be a bit too loud, especially during extended notes and with how nice and soft your voice is :) Thanks for your videos!

[@macronencer]

Thank you very much for providing these deep dives into the OpSix. You've clearly put in a lot of work and this level of technical explanation is very hard to find on KZbin. I look forward to the rest of the series! My OpSix is currently in storage while I look for a new place to live, but I'll have plenty to experiment with when I get access to it again, that's for sure. My initial experiments included the RM and Filter FM modes, but I don't think I really got anywhere near understanding them properly, and this video has been a massive help!

[@populvuh]

Thanks for your tutorials. Keep 'em coming. Opsix has so many layers to learn.

[@lordflatworm]

Thanks for making these. I'm amazed at the sounds I can make with the Opsix.

[@eyeball226]

Yess, I've been waiting for more of this series. I love audio rate filter modulation, not enough polys support it. EDIT: Audio, not auto. Stupid autocorrect!

[@robertfoy5886]

Another fine video, good sir. The more I look the more complex the OPSIX seems to be. To be honest, I do not spend nearly enough time with it. It is a bit daunting compared to my other (subtractive) synths. Thanks for taking the time!

[@OscillatorSink]

It's true that there's a lot going on in there, but once you know what's available to you and know your way around, it becomes a a bit of a sound design playground - hopefully I'm helping with that a bit.

[@GrootsieTheDog]

That last part is awesome. With all the capabilities of this synth, I would have wanted a few more LFOs. I had a suspicion that using ring mod I could get some lfo action but didn’t think i could take it further. Thanks!

[@stylabmusic]

Amazing work. I love your deep review and clear explanation on pretty much everything about opsix. Thank you for sharing your knowledge!!!

[@uliseslabaronnie3987]

Your videos are delicious ! This is an excellent depth of exploration of Opsix. very happy and hands on with inspiration!

[@OscillatorSink]

Thank you!

[@percussionboy4357]

I’ve also been waiting restlessly for this episode. It does not disappoint. Thank you for putting the work in!

[@OscillatorSink]

Cheers! Glad you enjoyed it! Wave Folding and Filter modes coming...soon-ish!

[@percussionboy4357]

@@OscillatorSink Great. Looking forward to it. Good things take time, I know ....

[@Elizabeth-vh6il]

I have a complicated question. Sorry for the long post, but if you have the patience to entertain my naivety then please consider the similarities and differences between the following three scenarios. 1) If we have Operator 1 modulating Operator 2 and Operator 2 modulating Operator 3 and they're all set up to perform ringmod then (as I think I understand it) Oscillator 1 will pass through Operator 1's envelope and the result will used to modulate the amplitude of Oscillator 2, and then that result will pass through Operator 2's envelope and then that result will modulate Operator 3's amplitude. 2) Consider Operator 1 and Operator 2 both directly connected to Operator 3 in a system that only supports frequency (or phase) modulation. For convenience I'll talk in terms of frequency. Oscillator 1 and Oscillator 2 pass through their respective envelopes and the two results are summed and it's that sum which determines the overall frequency (or phase) movements of Oscillator 3. 3) Now consider the same algorithm shape as Scenario 2 but in a synth that supports both FM and AM/RM. Is it possible that each operator now has *two* different inputs to consider when designing or understanding algorithms? For example, Oscillator 1 might pass through Envelope 1 and be used to modulate Oscillator 3's frequency, while simultaneously Oscillator 2 passes through Envelope 2 and then gets ringmoded with the signal coming out of Oscillator 3, and then finally that ringmoded signal passes through Operator 3's envelope? In Scenario 3 one oscillator is 'receiving' two different types modulation. In the converse situation, could one operator potentially 'give' two different types of modulation, changing the frequency of one oscillator while simultaneously ringmoding another? When I say "could", such questions have two parts in my mind. Firstly, do these ideas sound like sensible designs in general / the sort of things you'd likely want to be able to do / things that aren't going to get 'too' out of control or 'crazy'? I'm still relatively new to synthesis in general but I'm currently having a go at creating my own softsynth that supports mixed FM and AM algorithms. And secondly, which options can the opsix do? Many thanks to Oscillator Sink for such a chilled out, informative and creative tutorial series!

[@OscillatorSink]

In the opsix the operators "receive" modulation and then do the thing they are meant to do - an FM operator can only be FM modulated. So the opsix can't do option 3, only 1 and 2. As to whether it's a sensible arrangement? Sure, you'd probably want to think of it in a modular way where an "operator" has multiple inputs for different kinds of modulation rather than each operator providing types of outputs though, that's ultimately the more flexible arrangement as one operator could be used to modulate multiple operators in different ways. If you look at the design of a Buchla style "West Coast" (don't like the term, but you probably know what I mean) system, that's kind of what you have.

[@Elizabeth-vh6il]

Thanks! The design I seem to be gravitating towards with my little software programming experiment (still missing a few envelopes but...) is to have 8 oscillators but they come in pairs and within each pair there's ringmod stuff going on and then in terms of algorithm layouts those look like a standard 4 op FM synth and both operators within a pair always get frequency modulated in the same way, so it's both much simpler than the opsix but it does support Scenario 3. Kind of like an 8 operator synth, but also kind of just a 4 op synth with some fancy wave shapes added, although those wave shapes will also soon possess the ability to morph over time once I get those extra RM envelopes added.

[@chperrone]

Very nice. Your series of videos here have helped get a much better grip on my opsix. I was able to make a realllly accurate patch of the "Structures From Silence" sound by Steve Roach and that got my pretty hyped. One thing I'm struggling with in general is getting analog-y, fat, minimoog style bass patches and pads. Wondering if you have any plans to do a video on something like that in the near future. Thanks a bunch.

[@OscillatorSink]

Really happy to play a small part in helping you to understand the opsix in more depth. I've not got a plan to do a full video on a classic bass BUT I did tackle one from scratch in this live stream: kzbin.infoREjZNvhRP-8?feature=share Jump to about 23 minutes for when I start (or watch the whole thing - I make 5 new patches so there might be other tips to pick up!)

[@chperrone]

@@OscillatorSink This is perfect. You're a star!

[@verstaerker]

Thanks for that video - very interesting ! Cant wait to get hands on the Opsix I just ordered

[@OscillatorSink]

Thanks and enjoy your new synth! It's a fantastic instrument!

[@smicha1466]

These are really solid and helpful videos! I have a question for you. Maybe you addressed this in the video or the comments, but if you did, I missed it...during the "Ring Mod Parameters" section it looks like you have Operator 3 set to Ring Mod but kept Operator 4 on FM mode...is this correct? I'm curious about how it affects the wave when the two (or more) opereators are and aren't set to the same modes. Thanks! (PS, I've been enjoying the Opsix so much I'm getting really tempted by the Wavestate. Any thoughts? )

[@OscillatorSink]

The short answer is: it kinda doesn't. In this case I'm just using operator 4 as a basic oscillator - it isn't being modulated by anything above it so unless I introduce feedback or change its width, it's just being an oscillator with the shape it's set at. Of course, on the opsix, a single operator can get a lot done on its own in terms of creating complex shapes and movements, but in this case a more complex shape into the ring modulator isn't desirable for the purposes of demonstrating things, so I've picked the FM mode out of convenience (it's the easiest to get the unaffected basic shape and also it's the default anyway).

[@jeffspc88mx]

What happens when you modulate a filter op with another filter op? Or a filter op with a ring mod op? Or {1,2,3,4,5} x {1,2,3,4,5} - know what I mean? I'm trying it out at home but can't quite grasp what it's doing.

[@OscillatorSink]

In either case (assuming by 'filter op' you mean 'filter mod op'), you're creating a more complex waveform. The wave shape of the modulator will have an impact on the harmonics generated in the carrier, with more complex waveforms generating more complex harmonics. So it doesn't really matter what mode the incoming operator is, rather what the shape of its wave form is. Of course, it's possible to modulate a modulator so that wave shape could change over time, which can create very complex movements in the sound. Hope that helps!

[@sidefish8362]

Nerd fact of the day. Technically speaking, what you are referring to as ring modulation is amplitude modulation. In this case you can still hear the carrier. True ring modulation is the sum and difference frequencies of the carrier and modulator with the carrier and modulator frequencies removed. In a true ring modulator you wont hear anything until the carrier and modulator are combined. Vocoders use a similar principle.

[@OscillatorSink]

That is actually the case when the depth is set to 100 percent on that operator mode, so you get both.

[@eyeball226]

Yeah, on a ring modulator there's no such thing as depth really so I think the depth here must be cross-fading between the pure carrier and the output of the ring mod. As far as I can tell, a 50/50 mix of the two is equivalent to unipolar AM (as opposed to bipolar like a ring mod).

[@OscillatorSink]

I don't think it's blending the carrier. As you push the depth control past 50 percent the amplitude modulation occurring begins to additionally invert the signal, i.e it's becoming bipolar (although not symmetrical to begin with) You can hear (and see on an oscilloscope) this clearly at LFO rate modulation as an apparent doubling of the 'tremolo' (I do show this in the video). I assume what's happening is actually an offset is being applied to the modulator signal (and possibly an amplification) so that by the time you get to 100 percent depth you have a symmetrical, bipolar modulator (and a ring modulator).

[@eyeball226]

@@OscillatorSink When I watched it on a scope, that's exactly the effect blending had. As far as I can tell they are equivalent, but I don't have the brain power to check if they're mathematically equivalent. This was a few years ago so I might be misremembering I guess.

[@OscillatorSink]

@@eyeball226 hmm, interesting, I also can't do that chunk of maths in my head, although, actually, I could check that on the opsix by having the depth set full and bringing up the level on another operator that matches the carrier in the ring mod. I'll try that later. I do know that one way to achieve ring modulation (other than the traditional ring of diodes) is by using an inverting VCA (and a polarizer, depending on the modulator signal), which is kinda what I was thinking was happening here.

[@rayderrich]

I watched every second of the video and love the programmability of the Opsix but I fail to see or feel the musicality of FM in general. Great to play with, but no so great for my music I guess. Thanks for your long video though!

[@KooriGraywolf]

Granted I have no idea what your genre is and perhaps it really doesn't fit, but for starters maybe consider that most of what was shown in this video actually wasn't FM, but rather ringmod (so kinda like AM) and filter cutoff modulation. You could watch Oscillator Sink's video specifically on the FM mode or on building a "broken" EP. And for specific examples of musically usable FM stuff, you could either look through the presets in the Opsix and look at which ones use FM, or you could search KZbin/Spotify for playlists of popular songs that used the DX7 (such playlists exist), the original and far simpler FM synth. FM does sound rough and clunky when you're _only_ doing the modulation, but it really shines when you put in EGs, velocity, and effects

[@rayderrich]

@@KooriGraywolf 11 months ago I was not in the know yet, since then I learned (and listened to) a lot and even made my own FM patches. Thanks for commenting after all that time, really appreciate it!