Raw Sound of DDS 2 vs DDS 1

I just received my Super 6 last week and am completely smitten. It does indeed take you on a journey as I have heard it does.

I’m trying to get to grips with the tonal offerings and I can’t help but notice that the raw analog shape generated by DDS 2 does not offer quite the level of rich harmonics as DDS 1. I understand that
they are generated by different means, but I have to say I am hoping that either I’m doing something wrong, or that this is a feature request to make DDS 2 sound as buzzy and rich as DDS 1, especially since it is the foundation of so much modulation.

When I make a patch with two oscillators, the decision to place DDS 1 or 2 in the higher octave definitely makes a difference in how viscerally analog the patch sounds. And when I compare the filter-wide-open sound of DDS 1 to my Prophet, I literally cannot tell which one is analog and which is the FPGA. But DDS 2 sticks out a little bit like a sore thumb.

Is this just my experience? I’ve seen reviewers demonstrate that the Super 6 is not as buzzy as, say a Jupiter 6. I believe they were probably using the Init patch, which I think uses DDS 2. When I start with an Init patch, it seems dull in comparison to when I just turn my mixer to favor DDS 1 with the same shape and octave with no other modulations happening, which to me sounds glorious and a real showcase for what FPGAs and this synth is capable of as far as raw tone.

Is this anyone else’s experience? I’ve seen no other mention of this in the forum, I’m wondering if there could be a problem with my unit? Or is this something that is known and might hopefully be evolved by Udo? Considering all the headroom of these FPGAs, I can’t imagine this is a restriction of the technology.

That said, this is one the most engaging and sonically interesting keyboard instruments I have ever owned. Thanks all.

2 Likes

I think I read somewhere that DDS1 is sample based (hence the ability for loading other waveforms) whereas DDS2 is algorithmic, which may account for the difference.

I personally like the fact that they both sound a little different when set, for example, to Saw, as it makes things a little more interesting/organic etc.

3 Likes

Hi! DDS1 and DDS2 are very different approaches to oscillators. DDS2 is essentially a modelled triangle core oscillator with waveshaping. DDS1 is a single cycle sample played back at different speeds. DDS1 is “richer” especially in Super mode, DDS2 is punchier, can be hard synced and is “simpler” in harmonic content. There is no bandlimiting on DDS2, DDS1 has around 500 harmonics so at 20HZ the highest component is 10khz. DDS2 resets its phase to zero on keypress (if vca is nearly off to avoid click) DDS1 is free running. These differences allow you to go to different places with each oscillator, and help to broaden the overall sound character when using both. For example set dds2 to lfo range, enable SUB OSc and mix to dds2 only and then filter this for a lovely fat simple square, something that dds1 can’t do that well, but then DDS1 can do Rich wide detuned complex shapes …

7 Likes

Thank you, that is super helpful and interesting to boot. It’s good to know my unit is behaving as it should.

Wow I tried the sub osc trick you just suggested and it is very nice. So fascinating. I love that this keyboard has so much personality and how the design choices are a part of the sound rather than just a big box of functionality. I’m really impressed with it.

2 Likes

Same here. Tried to recreate a patch from the Korg MonoPoly and couldn’t get it quite right with the saw from DDS1 and DDS2 as a sub. But when I switched both oscillators the sound completely changed and was very close to the MonoPoly. Please never change the saw of DDS2!

2 Likes

I’ve only had mine a week, but I’ve completely fallen in love with this thing and really continuing to grow appreciation for its oscillator design choices. It wasn’t obvious as first because I was doing the typical, trying to get this to sound like that. But not even exercising the entire range of the instrument before drawing some hasty conclusions.

Something about that tip - using the sub as a beefy bass tone - opened my mind and made me realize how much thought has gone into these choices. I do not get that with other synth. I am starting to really enjoy bending this in ways I cannot with my analogs. At one point this week I had a patch going with 4 modulators, 1 using the Batt mod. The way every function of this synth has a couple of secret identities is brilliant. Using Env 1 as an LFO or an oscillator, The LFO as an oscillator or taking on the digital waves using the Batt mod. Doubling up the Envelopes to get more complex shapes or transients, it goes on.

I tried to do a couple of patches recreated Jupiter sound effects and I wasn’t really able to, but then I stopped trying to copy settings and just did a sound design session and got something much better than what I was trying to emulate. I think once you really get how this thing thinks, the possibilities will be pretty limitless, especially being able to load in your own waveforms, which I haven’t even done yet.

Also I can’t get it to sound harsh or bad - I am guessing due to the FGPAs. It just always sounds good even when I’m making a cacophonous mess. In a mix, it just always sounds like a record. I haven’t once had to fix unpleasant harmonics, because it’s so damn smooth. But I’ve gotten some gnarly things out of it, it is definitely not polite when you want it to be.

5 Likes

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, best synth I’ve ever owned, and I’ve been owning synths for over thirty years. Had the Super 6 since July 2020, never fails to impress!

6 Likes