Quilcom SIM-GTR

[Spogg]

Hello!

This is my attempt to create a generic electric guitar simulation, as always using no samples of course.

It’s a project I started nearly 3 years ago in February 2021. I had a lot of useful advice and help from tulamide in the early stages, then later on from Matthijs Hebly from the Free VST Facebook group.
I held off sharing it for ages because I wasn’t satisfied with the sound. Having gained more experience in the time that followed, I revisited the synth and re-worked most of the “engine”. I’m not going to claim it’s now brilliant but, at this point in time, it’s the best I can achieve.

Download:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vc332t4a ... cjhzt&dl=0

Video:

https://youtu.be/efUglOvrOOA

[R&R]

Very nice!

Handing out early christmas gift I see...

[tulamide]

At one point it had to come out. From what I heard in the video, I can understand why you're not fully pleased. But in comparison to Strum GS-2 by AAS (physical modeling E- and A- guitar) it is not so far off!

In some areas it even sounds fuller, more satisfying, even if it may not be fully athentic.

Strum GS-2 tutorial (for more insights)
https://youtu.be/RAADTmrlziY?si=E8YOzcYyRoLZyKXK

[martinvicanek]

Impressive! I admire your attention to detail, like vibrato acting only to sharpen the note (as opposed to being symmetric around the base pitch), because the player's bending the string can only increase its tension. Although thinking again, you could do the opposite with a whammy. May be an option to include?
Anyways, congradulations to another great synth!

[billv]

As always..great job....thanks Spogg..

[Spogg]

Impressive! I admire your attention to detail, like vibrato acting only to sharpen the note (as opposed to being symmetric around the base pitch), because the player's bending the string can only increase its tension. Although thinking again, you could do the opposite with a whammy. May be an option to include?
Anyways, congradulations to another great synth!

Thank you Martin!

In fact, after I uploaded the video, I realised I’d forgotten at least 2 things. The bend down system can be changed from fretted to whammy and the relative tuning goes off as you bend down with the whammy simulation. That’s because the reduction in tension affects all strings, but the higher pitched ones more so than the lower ones. The other thing I forgot is the octave harmonics key switch. Both are mentioned in the User Guide though.

[Spogg]

At one point it had to come out. From what I heard in the video, I can understand why you're not fully pleased. But in comparison to Strum GS-2 by AAS (physical modeling E- and A- guitar) it is not so far off!

In some areas it even sounds fuller, more satisfying, even if it may not be fully athentic.

Strum GS-2 tutorial (for more insights)
https://youtu.be/RAADTmrlziY?si=E8YOzcYyRoLZyKXK

In fact I’m never fully satisfied with any of my SIMS! Some I think are more authentic than others, but none sound exactly like the real thing. I feel that what I got to is at least a bit better than what you and I worked with ages ago, and I’m truly grateful for your help and advice early on.

The Strum GS-2 video was interesting and I hadn’t looked at that thing before. AAS bought out more engine settings for the user, whereas I made some decisions which are baked in. My approach was to try to make the GTR, which is already a complex thing, less daunting to use, possibly at the expense of fine trimming for someone who’d like to dig deeper.

[Tepeix]

Good and thanks for the share !

Not sure, but trying it, i feel like a compressor could help, most time the amp or a pedal do this for the player.
(just think i might try it with sensible keyboard also)

[tulamide]

At one point it had to come out. From what I heard in the video, I can understand why you're not fully pleased. But in comparison to Strum GS-2 by AAS (physical modeling E- and A- guitar) it is not so far off!

In some areas it even sounds fuller, more satisfying, even if it may not be fully athentic.

Strum GS-2 tutorial (for more insights)
https://youtu.be/RAADTmrlziY?si=E8YOzcYyRoLZyKXK

In fact I’m never fully satisfied with any of my SIMS! Some I think are more authentic than others, but none sound exactly like the real thing. I feel that what I got to is at least a bit better than what you and I worked with ages ago, and I’m truly grateful for your help and advice early on.

The Strum GS-2 video was interesting and I hadn’t looked at that thing before. AAS bought out more engine settings for the user, whereas I made some decisions which are baked in. My approach was to try to make the GTR, which is already a complex thing, less daunting to use, possibly at the expense of fine trimming for someone who’d like to dig deeper.

There might be more engine settings for the user, but that was not, why I linked that video. Because of the many explanantions, you get to hear a lot of smaller bits and pieces, which allows for a comparison. That was the reason. And I really think, there isn't much of a difference!

And on the topic of emulations: I know you make a distinction between you "using synth methods" and "physical modeling". And I understand that. A true physical modelling would recreate each physical detail of each string, of the metal clamps of them, of the wood used for the body, the humbucker, etc. But the point is "recreate".

Your Sims also recreate an instrument. And you use the same options of DSP, that "physical modeling" uses. The only difference is, that you don't call it as such. Your Sims are as physically modelled as all the physical modelled synths out there. Wether you start from a bunch of mathematical formulas derived from physics or from listening and watching a spectral image.

[Spogg]

And on the topic of emulations: I know you make a distinction between you "using synth methods" and "physical modeling". And I understand that. A true physical modelling would recreate each physical detail of each string, of the metal clamps of them, of the wood used for the body, the humbucker, etc. But the point is "recreate".

Your Sims also recreate an instrument. And you use the same options of DSP, that "physical modeling" uses. The only difference is, that you don't call it as such. Your Sims are as physically modelled as all the physical modelled synths out there. Wether you start from a bunch of mathematical formulas derived from physics or from listening and watching a spectral image.

I’ve actually given quite a bit of thought to this. The reason I’m reluctant to name my process as “physical modelling” (though others don’t seem to be so reluctant) is that I don’t want to raise expectations. I say this because companies like Pianoteq produce amazing and authentic results using physical modelling far in advance of my capabilities (and maybe FlowStone’s).
If I claim I used physical modelling for any of my SIMs, I fear I’m stoking potential disappointment, but if I say “synthesiser techniques” I hope people will be more tolerant of any shortcomings in authenticity.

Another benefit is people may be more inclined to see FlowStone as a powerful synth-building app for sound creation, whereas the term physical modelling implies a black art involving heavy duty maths.

But I totally agree that what I’m actually doing is trying to imitate the processes in real instruments by whatever means I can, so it does count as being physical modelling.