RayBlaster Impulse Modeling Synthesizer

Tone2 has introduced RayBlaster – a new software synth, for Mac & Windows, that uses an unusual approach to synthetic sound generation, Impulse Modeling Synthesis (IMS):

Here’s what they have to say about Impulse Modeling Synthesis:

Conventional synthesizers use a looped waveform as the oscillator source, which is then filtered to create your sound, this is known as substractive synthesis.

RayBlaster employs a completely new approach to sound generation, creating its characterful sound from many short bursts of energy, combined to form a more complex sound.This innovative and unique approach to synthesis is very close to what happens within the human inner ear, sounds more authentic and gives you access to a wide range of sounds.



  • ‘Revolutionary’ new synthesis method
  • Access completely new sonic territory
  • High-end sound quality to let your music stand out from the crowd!
  • Create professional sounds filled with character and not possible with other synths
  • Professional sound quality; never muddy and ‘cuts through’ to fit well in the mix
  • IMS synthesis provides independent control over pitch, timing and timbre
  • Filter impulse import: mimic the filters of other synthesizers or create your own experimental / fantasy filters.
  • Resynthesis allows for import & manipulation of your own sounds
  • Huge sonic range
  • Easy to use & fun to play
  • Flexible
  • 500+ ready-to-use sounds patched by professional designers
  • Psychoacoustic processing
  • Expandability
  • Low CPU
  • Fair price

See the Tone2 site for details. Pricing and availability are TBA.

37 thoughts on “RayBlaster Impulse Modeling Synthesizer

  1. Looks like they made another Saurus but with oscillator waves now ring-modulated by default and charged price of an entirely new plug-in for it, all while calling what they did a revolution.

    This is just… genius.

  2. Sounds in their demo video (@ their website) features pretty unimaginative sounds… Sounds like basic Sync patch. Also, they seem to have no money to hire a human being to do the speaking.

  3. I’m cautiously impressed. Yeah, the demo bites, but the basic engine is interesting. Someone was bitching about there being nothing new in synthesis lately. This is rather “new” as the Roland V-Synth was new. It brings a couple of different known element together in a new way. People yowl about filters all the time, so I’d think being able to import or build one to suit would be considered desirable. Being able to import WAVs and do resynthesis is no small thing, either and in fact, very modular, labor-wise. I’ll want to learn more, but a good start would be a better demo with some stylistic range. Three wubs and a glitch squeal don’t tell us much. I’m going to stick up for this synth for a bit. The company needs a few more contributing sound programmers, but this design piques my interest.

    1. So much negativity!? Well, I love Saurus, and will be sure to check out this one aswell. <the filter section (though lacking in description) seems very itneresting. And again, the filters on Saurus is awsome so I dont think these will be any less 🙂

  4. Modeling what the ear does – (if in fact that is true – which, having studied psychoacoustics some, what they are claiming doesn’t make a *whole* lot of sense since; for example, the Helmholtz model suggests the ear behaves at least in one fashion as a set of *overlapping* bandpass selectivity filters) – isn’t really the issue in terms of this design.

    The acoustics that the ear is *working* with (i.e. hearing) are not impulse generations by and large but the overlapping and continuous frequencies with all sorts of envelopes superimposed on them, whether generated at source from sinusoidally based sounds, or imposed by the acoustics of transmission. Try and construct a perfect impulse… There are energy considerations in play that prevent this from happening. Dr. Bob knew this 😉

    The fact that we can distinguish partials or transients in complex sounds doesn’t mean the ear is processing them uniquely as such.

    So, kind of a muddy explanation I think.


  5. On one hand, the synth is kind of intriguing– and if all this empty-sounding hype actually has some substance to it– then it might be worth exploring.

    On the other hand, the descriptions and marketing are hard to see through. It’s like they are dumbing it down so much, they almost make themselves sound dumb.

    “Impulse” makes me think it has some convolution element, but that’s not really described. There are elements that make it seem like an additive (like Morphine)– or some kind of hard-sync hybrid. But they don’t tell me enough to be able to wrap my head around it.

    Looks like there’s a demo. Might be worth downloading and learning directly. Maybe the manual is better than the marketing.

  6. I imagine there’s a team of developers watching marketing’s video for their new product and shaking their heads.

    I have a question, how can any synth be guaranteed to fit well in the mix? doesn’t it depend what frequencies are in the mix already? what frequencies the synth patch outputs?

    1. That’s a great point about that “fitting into the mix” business. It is possible it might produce some pleasing sounds, but not every sound fits in every mix. Sheeesh.

      “Members of the gender you are most attracted to will hear these synth sounds and develop an interest in you. You will get gigs because of this software. You will feel satisfied with your life.”

    2. I’ll field that one. Just as a Moog has a certain aroma, so do a few other synths. I find that Camel Audio’s Alchemy fits a certain sonic slot that’s great for prominent solo material, but also as an enhancement for layers. We each have a somewhat different collection of ear-hair endowments, so it’ll always be subjective. Its not exactly honest to “guarantee” such things, but remember, its the collective ears and efforts of several-to-many people on test, stacked against each of OUR personal receptions of the goods. I’ll regroup after I’ve seen a few user comments on it.
      I also get the subtle feeling that the GUI has been thought out well. It seems nice & orderly for the job. No, they haven’t offered me a free one. 😛 I’ve simply played so many crap instruments over the years that I like to root for any little bright spot. Remember, you COULD have only an early Yamaha CP e-piano, whose best use turned out to be “cutting board.” Great for bread and cheese, lousy for music. Yeah, synths are better.

    1. I agree that 3D renders of softsynths are dumb. But Tone2 are hardly the only people in this market who does them. I think it’s kind’ve the music-nerd equivalent of hot chicks in bikinis in beer ads.

      They really *do* need a better demo, though: I listened to the sample sounds and it was like “I’ve heard all of these before / there’s nothing new here”.

Leave a Reply