Any company/store/department that makes customized audio systems?

glucegen@excite.com (Radium) wrote in message news:<464c821f.0312261144.14f10c4d@posting.google.com>...
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:<3FEBC0C1.F1825768@arcanemethods.com>...
> > Asking for 600 dB
> > dynamic range, among other things, has a certain manic feel
> > about it.  
> 
> I never asked for 600 dB. In that post, I was wondering if a 100-bit
> digital audio device could handle - at the digital level - 600 dB
> without/clipping.
> 
> 1-bit gives a dynamic range of 6 dB.
> 
> However, all that is OT for this thread.

No, it's quite germaine. You have made rather, well, extraordinary
claims and statements in recent history, suggesting that, at best,
you have either little appreciation or understanding of the basic
principles at hand. That's okay, we all have to start someplace. 
But recall that you DID insist quite vociferously about the ability
to utilize 1/88200 of a bit, ignoring not only the fact that a single
bit, by its very definition, can only represent two states at the most
and not 88,200, but ignoring also the entreaties of a number of people
that were trying ernestly just exactly that.

Now, combine that with your equally vociferous and, frankly uninformed
rantings and declarations about what kind of synthesis is "best"
without ever once stopping to consider what "best" means, and you
have succeeded in laying the firm groundwork that prevents anyone
of reasonable expertise in the topic from taking ANYTHING you say
seriously.

So, Radium, let's define "best." You've declared that, for example,
sampling synthesizers are, as I recall your use of the technical
jargon, "worse than human excrement."

So, if I want a synthesis of, say, an instrument specifically like
a 1740 Pascal Taskin double harpsichord or a late 1600's Arp Schitger
Principal chorus or any other specific example of a specific extant
instrument, are you going to insist, emphasizing with lots of
exclamation points, that your beloved FM-based synthesizer is "best?"
If so, then, at best, you're a naive, uninformed neophyte who has very
little experience in the subject. At worst, you're an arrogant,
uninformed blowhard who has very little experience in the subject.
In either case, there's a hell of a lot more about the subject that
you need to learn about before anyone is going to take your statements
at all seriously.

Another example:

   "What will happen if the electrical equivalent of a 10^500 
   gigaBel, 10^500 gigahertz, pure sine-wave is forced through 
   the electric parts"

You bandy about these marvelous and impressive sounbding phrases like
"10^500" gigaBel" and "10^500 gigahertz" without having the slightest
clue of what they mean. Even the slightest clue would have immediately
warned you about the very absurdity of these phrases. Did it ever
occur to you to aks the question, "what does 10^500 gigaBel mean?"
How about asking the question "what's a decibel?"

No, the comment is NOT off-topic: it's entirely relevant to the
underlying tone and trend of your threads. People, even the numerous
real experts in these groups, don't mind helping the naive, uninformed
neophyte who genuinely wants to learn. But these people are contributing
their expertise for free. And you seem bent, if not to enjoy then to at
least persist, on wasting that time. That honeymoon ain't got long to
live.

Radium wrote:
> 
> Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:<3FEBC0C1.F1825768@arcanemethods.com>...
> > Creative's sound cards are not programable unless you work
> > for them.
> 
> Any company that makes customized sound cards from scratch?

Not that I'm aware of.  What you asked for would require a
serious team of programmers, HDW designers and DSP engineers
and a considerable amount of time.  There are probably
consulting groups capable of it given a large contract but
I'm not personally aware of them.  When that kind of effort
is expended it is usually by a company which intends to
market the result as a product or by the military where cost
is a secondary objective.  You could start such a company,
staff it, and purchase the necessasary support hardware and
software but the startup costs are nothing to sneeze at. 
What kind of budget could you support and for how long?


Bob
-- 

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

                                             A. Einstein

Bob Cain <arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote in message news:<3FECEA62.1874982@arcanemethods.com>... 
> Not that I'm aware of.  What you asked for would require a
> serious team of programmers, HDW designers and DSP engineers
> and a considerable amount of time.  There are probably
> consulting groups capable of it given a large contract but
> I'm not personally aware of them.  When that kind of effort
> is expended it is usually by a company which intends to
> market the result as a product or by the military where cost
> is a secondary objective.  You could start such a company,
> staff it, and purchase the necessasary support hardware and
> software but the startup costs are nothing to sneeze at. 
> What kind of budget could you support and for how long?
> 
> 
> Bob

From the above words of wisdom I guess it is safer if I understand the
design of the Creative Music Synth driver, its patches, and the SB16's
FM synth it accesses. Is there any book which has info on CMS and its
patches? If not, anything close? I am particularly interested in CMS's
polysynth pads patch and how its design differs the central channel
audio from the peripheral left/right channels.

"Radium" <glucegen@excite.com> wrote in message
news:464c821f.0312251334.22aff92b@posting.google.com...
> "Walter Harley" <walterh@cafewalterNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:<bsduic$9fd$0@216.39.172.65>...
> > What kind of customizations are you looking for?
>
> SB16's FM synth w/ Creative Music Synth driver.
>
> The central channels of the Creative Music Synth's patches should be
> removed. Left channel should be phase-inverted, then combined with
> right channel. This would make a mono Creative Music Synth w/out what
> *was* in the center. I like the sound of CMS's polysynth pads w/out
> the central channel. The end product is of course in mono.

Why not just create this yourself with a simple analog mixer?

"Jon Harris" <goldentully@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bsq4bh$9gle$1@ID-210375.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Why not just create this yourself with a simple analog mixer?

As I've repeatedly stated (no offense), analog introduces hiss. More
importantly, my analog vocal eliminator does not make the end product
mono. I've tried converting the output from the vocal eliminator
myself, to mono. Scary thing is that the central channel returned! I
was shocked.

FYI, I bought this from Radio Shack. It is the Optimus Karaoke Voice
Cancellor, and the last vocal eliminator available in my closest Radio
Shack.
Its Catalog # 32-1168.

I thought that the vocal elimator would invert, in in any stereo
audio, one channel and combine it w/ the other - resulting in a mono
end product. I was totally wrong! The end product is stereo just as
the beginning is. Convert the audio of the end product to mono and the
vocals, drum kicks, and bass (or whatever is in the center) will
return!