PPG wave 2.2 vs 2.3 are there any differences?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2023
- I used to have a PPG wave 2.3 and I also got a 2.2 later on. Then I had to decide, which to keep and I compered them to each other. I prefered the 2.2. In this video you can hear some dfferences. The 2.3 sounds in many patches weaker and the panorama settings of the voices behaves sometimes strange. I suppose that the unit has some slightly issues, althought it got a full service and overhaul. The 2.2 didn't get any service at all. Also the envelopes seem to behave slowlier on the 2.3. When regariding the specs, the transient sounds in the PPG Wave 2.3 played with 12 bit or with non-linearly scaled 8 bit. The 2.2 played with 8 bit. Both PPGs used the same DA converters. Both used the same filter SSM 2044. In both PPG i had the latest OS 8.3 developed by Hermann Seibt. So I wonder why there are sound differences. My thesis is, that the 2.2 should not sound different from the 2.3. In this video it does. Now I only have the 2.2 in my studio, I sold both, the 2.3 and also the EVU, which you can see in this video.
At 2:27: This is wavetable #13. This one was corrupted with the introduction of MIDI on the PPG waves 2.2/3. Versions without (factory) MIDI and the post PPG firmware 8.x got this right. So the difference here is only due to a bug in the code. I had a PPG wave 2.2 V4.5 without MIDI. And a PPG wave 2.3 V6 with MIDI. So I had this difference too. And the wavetable #31 sounds different, due the special sample mode used on the PPG wave 2.2 for this ROMpler like sounds (sax and piano). Another difference is the upperwavetable that is positioned above waveposition 63 in the PPG waves 2.2/3. This one is only played on the PPG wave 2.3 on Bank 0 of the combimode. Or in the PPG 2.2 mode of the PPG wave 2.3.
And many PPG waves got the filters not calibrated alike (cutoff offset and resonance). There are two trimmers for each of the voices to get this right. There was a special factory sound (forgot the number, but maybe #67?) that was used to adjust the resonance just below self oscillation. But as this sound did not use full resonance, the final result was a self oszillating resonance. I had three waves over the years (1x 2.2; 2x 2.3). And only one had a self oscillating filter.
The D/As are different. The 2.3 got 12 bit ones. But the wavetables and the included waveshapes were played as 8 bit waveshapes (and stored only the first unipolar half of the waveshape cycle as 7 bit). The PPG wave 2.3 uses most like simple bit shifting to use just the most significant 8 of the 12 bits for wavetables. Playing samples via a waveterm (typ A for the 2.2; typ B for the 2.3) showed the real difference of 8 vs. 12 bit.
For most wavetable sounds, my 2.2 and 2.2 sounded very much alike. But don‘t nail me down on the envelopes, I think there was a difference on short attacks used for wavetable scanning. I sold my 2.2 & 2.3 combination with a Waveterm B in spring 1995 to by myself a Waldorf WAVE. Very different sound. But this is another story. I bought a wave 2.3 again while the betatest of the Waldorf PPG 3.V VST instrument was happening. I sold it a couple of years ago. Again I was unlucky and das a major hardware problem. Just like I used to have in the old wave 2.2 below wave 2.3 times here.
Thanks for the great comment, it is very helpful for everyone who’s interested in the differences or the revisions
but LFO, which is generated, suffers with OS 8 and up.
Listening blind I liked the 2.3 better even taking into account volume differences etc. For years I had a 2.2 as my only synth and thought that’s what I was choosing😂!! Nice comparison video! Thx for doing it.
Two Waves and an EVU? Heaven! 👍
Since the video is already a year old, I assume the problems have already been fixed. Since I don't know, I'll add my two cents anyway. If the lower one is the 2.2, the 2.3 sounds a bit broken, distorted. There further might be an issue with at least one voice, as well as the filter tracking, because for some sounds the bass range is always identic, but the 2.2 sounds louder with high tones. Overall a nice video! Listening to wavescanning never gets boring.
I also think there is an issue. But didn’t found out what it is.
@@vintagesynths OS from Hermann seib, Austrian like myself what a small world...
Have you sold any PPG gear, besides understandable frustrating tech. reasons, because you maybe might've already heard the upcoming hw clone or perhaps bought Groove Electronics' 3rd Wave?
i praise the lucky rich one that bought them
Techs can service gear with modern industrial parts that take away the character. An electrical engineer will say it "measures well" but it wont sound right. Working on vintage gear requires sourcing a lot of new old stock components. Not to mention techs use sound-destroying cheap solder, when the old gear had leaded solder, etc. I've seen a lot of UA-camrs who say "I got a new power supply installed!" and it sucked out all the character.
If you are playing Factory presets, would you please identify them? Thank you!
Only difference are DA converters, different ICs 8 vs /12 bit (in 2,2 are same 8 bit dacs as in my synclavier ss5 FM cards)... no other differences in sound parh. I love my pair of 2,3
Almost indistinguishable. The 2.3 has got some audio problems in some patches, e.g. 3:07
Yes it seems that it has a problem with the audio patch and Till wrote a great comment why they are often different.
I have a 2.3……..my obx, and obxa blow the ppg away as far as strings and brass go. I use the ppg as a bell synth, and to drift through wavetables.
What’s that rack thing?
EVU Expansion Voice unit- a 2.3 in a rack to enhance the voices to 16.
Completely different, probably converters or velocity settings, 2.2 sounds great and 2.3 some keys doesnt sound like it was pressed enough, to me it is lile puting a vst against the original beast