Does anyone know if there is a table in KiloHearts' ShaperTable that is similar to Inflator's wave shaping functions?

Check out Korneff Audio’s Puff Puff MixPass

Inflator for 30 bucks again:

https://www.pluginboutique.com/produ...xford-Inflator

how does it compare to this free version?
https://github.com/Kiriki-liszt/JS_Inflator/releases

demo and walkthrough here:
https://github.com/Kiriki-liszt/JS_Inflator/releases

Almost 20 years later, a very helpful answer! Thanks!

The term I’ve heard it and other similar plugins called, is a waveshaper.

I don't know, happily using Inflator for over a decade now, neither time nor interest to worry about how it compares to a rip-off.

Try the clone; the waveshaping function and constants were reverse engineered from the original.

How's another Waveshaper a rip-off? Waveshaping is unique now, is it? If you feel there's more to Inflator, please share.

Indeed, there’s nothing magical in a math or physics, and just as we have a lot of HW clones of some vintage devices (and some of them are really good), why we just can’t have plugin clones?

On the other side, i think it could be OK only if an original product has been discontinued, or if clone has advanced features that original missed. If it was like “oh, a sine waveshaper it seems!”, and then just making your own sine waveshaper with original code and that looks original… but making it looks 1:1 to original which still sells for fair price (i mean, 30$) - so-so…

My question was about ShaperTable. I want to have the option in the KiloHearts ecosystem.

This is pretty much what I wanted to say. Rip-off may have sounded a little harsh. But he even renamed it to JS-Inflator.

Just calling it a waveshaper kind of misses the point IMO. There are, what, millions? of possible waveshaping functions, many or most of which sound quite bad. The one in Inflator is one specific function that was obviously intentionally designed with great care and experience to do a specific thing that people still like decades later. Just because it is easy to reverse engineer doesn't mean the original idea wasn't unique.

So I agree that making a free exact clone when the original is still available and sells for $30 feels a bit unessecary.

Paul Frindle is a genius and a super nice guy. Anything he’s involved with is worth it…..

Inflator was released over 20 years ago as Sony Inflator for Powercore & ProTools, at that time there was no waveshaping, either in hardware or software, hence it is not called a waveshaper. Waveshaping was made up by a plugin maker just like maximizer and other meaningless marketing terms, at the end of the day, all processing is wave shaping really.

Emulating hardware is different to copying software, as its not a breach of intellectual property unlike directly copying software. Its no different to music really, you would not get away with directly copying a song and claiming it as your own, I"m confident no one here would accept that. If everything keeps getting copied, eventually no one will make original products.

I was talking about cloning hardware, not emulating it in software.

As i've said earlier — if anyone makes his own take on building "something like that, but different" without actualy cloning — why not.

Copying or reverse engineering is OK only for education, research, not for releasing products that copy the original code/schematics.

On the last point: unfortunately, we are screwd — most of the products released are copying some original products, alas. You go to have the guts for real R&D, and some budgets.
And i'm not even talking about original music...

What are you talking about? 20 years ago was 2004.

I was waveshaping in software in 1990 thereabouts with Digidesigns Turbosynth....

And I can look at my Kurzweil K2000 from 91 or 92, and both my memory and it's manual (not to mention the records I released using this previously unknown concept apparently) clearly recall waveshaping ....

Ah, that's really funny - thought the exact same thing about waveshaping in software with Turbosynth- what a gnarly beast.

The concept of waveshaping has been around since the 70's. Implementation - Buchla comes to mind.

Buchla waveshape editor circa 1982. Not their first implementation. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

We're not talking about instruments, I personally have no interest in electronic instruments, you might be in the wrong section. We're talking about plugins in this case that you pass audio through for a desired effect, I haven't heard of anyone using a synth to do that, with a full mix or a bus etc, we're talking about a dedicated process and AFAIK there were none back in 2003, it wasn't a thing back then.

I'm not in the wrong section timmy.

Turbosynth was not an instrument or a synth. It was a standalone piece of software that you would process audio in. Many different ways. Waveshaping was one of the modules within you could use to process audio. Given the constraints of technology at the time, it could not function in real time, and depending on the cpu power you had, it could be right quick, or right slow... but you would open up am audio file or port one over, (like I did all the time), of anything from guitar parts, vocals, drums, full mix, what have you... and "waveshape".

Then you would pull back in your daw, whether it be StudioVision or whatnot at the time, and good to go.

Listen to nine inch nails "Wish" sometime if you wanna get the idea of some of it's use in extreme....

(Released 1992)

And yes, there were other wave shaping plugins that came with the introduction of TDM and the nascent VST standard back in the mid-late 90's absolutely, I'm spacing on their names right now, as it's been a long time since I booted those systems up.... but I was doing it well well before 2003, and was releasing albums with said "waveshaping" as it is known and recognized now, and historically, in the vernacular of audio and music production, in the early 90's....

so it was definitely a "thing", and even before that, you could run audio through different waveshaping modules in modular synths etc like a guitar pedal in real time.

It's not a marketing word that " was made up by a plugin maker just like maximizer and other meaningless marketing terms, at the end of the day,..."

I never was and still aren't interested in synthetic music, sounds like you have fond memories of those forgotten days.
Waveshaper isn't in any official dictionary, must be madeup by someone sometime.

.

Nowhere did anyone say it had to be employed as, or in "synthetic music".... far from it.

These things were and are tools, like any other plugin would be utilized today.

and re:

?

Ok, I'm not sure what you mean, however I don't think they are 'forgotten', or adjudicated irrelevant, as I personally utilized the technology (with it's corresponding recognized nomenclature) to great extent on a Grammy award winning song well before 2003.

And it wasn't in the category for "synth music/forgotten/halcyon days/or things that "timmy doesn't like or is interested in": it was for "Best Metal Performance".

Just because "waveshaper" isn't in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, neither is a lot else in terms or explanation of what we utilize, and have for a long time. There is an accepted and recognized definition of the term with others. Whether it's "mathematical", as in the operation is defined by an equation like:

y = f(a(t)x(t)) or whatnot,

or common verbiage amongst musicians of different ilk across different tools and with different end desires etc.

Simply because 'you' aren't familiar with the term historically, does not mean others are not.

Waveshaping is credited to Classical composer Jean-Claude Risset. Bell Labs in the 60's.

Let's give credit to the people on whose shoulders we ride.

Your personal tastes and opinions, not to mention your lack of being able to conceptualize the existence of a historical timeline for tools like waveshaping, mean absolutely nothing. This is math and science.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Going to throw this out there, I had never associated the term waveshaping with synths until y’all mentioned that. But I appreciate the other association.

I’ve always heard the term with plugins and hardware devices like Oxford, maximizer, mixhead, puff puff etc, called “waveshapers.”

Where they are turning a dynamic porcupine waveform, into a fat-worm waveform.

I tried loading the preset in but it doesn't seem to work, the curve looks different to your video and the results is just distortion. Any clue what I'm doing wrong maybe the updated Waveshaper isn't loading it properly. Appreciate if anyone has a alt preset I can try & load.

It's not illegal to mimic the results of any plug-in. What's illegal (in most jurisdictions) is extracting actual code constructs or using copyright protected algorithms.

I've spoken to Melda about this and they said "Follow the instructions!" and they didn't have any issues getting to load. Go figure.
I haven't looked at this since, as I have other saturation tools and haven't needed this specific style for anything.

I'm really enjoying the upward compression of ADPTR Sculpt and will use that for most applications I'd consider using the Inflator for.

Red Rock Sound Inspirer is doing the inflator thing very very well for me

https://redrocksound.pro/en/inspirer/