Acrobat wrote:thx AngS , now it leaves up to the question about single cycle waveforms...but they fall in the "regardless of length", I guess.
yes, But I think that you may get away with it quite easily (!) depending on circumstance. EG:
It would be a sharp ear indeed who could tell a roland sine wave from an Arp sinewave from a sinewave you cooked up yourself. I doubt very much there would be a court battle over an anonymous triangle wave.
Even with those more complex waves such as those on the Casio CZ range, it would be tricky and pointless for Casio to pursue in court. I very much doubt that would happen.
But, when you start looking at things like PPG wavetables it might become a little more obvious ... and finally if you market your synth as the " V-PPG wavetableizer featuring PPG waveforms" then it's probably tempting fate if your synth ever begins to make money.
So I think it's actually worth making your own.
I think that PPG (and Dave Smith) only used 256 length tables for their oscillators, so we can actually make much better ones in SM than they had access to. There are a wealth of tools on this forum to make interesting waves via green maths or additive harmonic tweaking, and then write them to the wavetable oscillator.
I think it's probably worth spending a couple of days cooking up an OSM to generate some spectacular tables yourself rather than relying on some 20 year old implementation of a wavetable and hoping that some of the old magic will rub off.
Just my opinion