> > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>...> > Digital isn't FM and vice versa.Why?
Sick of sample-based "synthesis"!
Started by ●October 16, 2003
Reply by ●October 18, 20032003-10-18
Reply by ●October 18, 20032003-10-18
Radium wrote:> > > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > Digital isn't FM and vice versa. > > Why?That was me, not Jerry Avins. Digital ROMplers play back samples. FM synthesis is, well, FM synthesis. Two totally different technologies. -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 18, 20032003-10-18
Radium wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>... > >>Radium wrote: >> >> ... >> >>>A *real* digital (not analog) FM/modelling synth is a dream! It should >>>be hard-coded and able to do its own processing and memory. >>> >> >> ... >> >>Clue me in, Bub. How do you hard code an analog synth? > > > Notice I mentioned that a *digital* hardware synth would be my cup of > tea. Never would I recommend analog synths - they are highly > vulnerable to RFI, EMI, and other electronic disruptions.My remark to you was only one of the stupid misreadings I did that night. Forget it. I hope everybody else does, too. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 18, 20032003-10-18
Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F90E136.28718CB2@worldnet.att.net>...> Radium wrote: > > > > > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > > > Digital isn't FM and vice versa. > > > > Why? > > That was me, not Jerry Avins. > > Digital ROMplers play back samples. FM synthesis is, well, > FM synthesis. Two totally different technologies.FM synthesis in OPL3 is digital. It is important to note that digital does not necessarily mean samples just like analog does not necessarily mean cassettes.
Reply by ●October 18, 20032003-10-18
Radium wrote:> > Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F90E136.28718CB2@worldnet.att.net>... > > Radium wrote: > > > > > > > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > > > > > > Digital isn't FM and vice versa. > > > > > > Why? > > > > That was me, not Jerry Avins. > > > > Digital ROMplers play back samples. FM synthesis is, well, > > FM synthesis. Two totally different technologies. > > FM synthesis in OPL3 is digital.By which you mean it's PCM? Or is it what I'd understood; digital control of analog signals?> It is important to note that digital > does not necessarily mean samples just like analog does not > necessarily mean cassettes.Bad time to bring up DCC, then? :) -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 19, 20032003-10-19
Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F91F265.4ED74E28@worldnet.att.net>...> Radium wrote: > > > > Les Cargill <lcargill@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<3F90E136.28718CB2@worldnet.att.net>... > > > Radium wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bmmec7$ei1$2@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > > > > > > > Digital isn't FM and vice versa. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > That was me, not Jerry Avins. > > > > > > Digital ROMplers play back samples. FM synthesis is, well, > > > FM synthesis. Two totally different technologies. > > > > FM synthesis in OPL3 is digital. > > By which you mean it's PCM? Or is it what I'd understood; > digital control of analog signals?PCM is used by samplers. OPL3 uses digital FM signals - totally different. Prior to 1980 FM synths were analog. However, this method was impractical and expensive. In an analog FM synth the signals smoothly vary by their frequency. In a digital FM synth the signals vary by their frequency in discete steps.> > It is important to note that digital > > does not necessarily mean samples just like analog does not > > necessarily mean cassettes. > > Bad time to bring up DCC, then? :)???
Reply by ●October 20, 20032003-10-20
Les Cargill wrote:> Digital isn't FM and vice versa. DX-7s and later revisions of > DX-7s are not hard to find.Beg yer pardon, but FM and digital are not mutually exclusive at all. I impelemented FM sythesis on an LSI-11 micro in assembler back in 1983 or so, and it worked as well as any single-operator FM synthesizer could.
Reply by ●October 20, 20032003-10-20
Radium wrote: > [...]> In an analog FM synth the signals > smoothly vary by their frequency. In a digital FM synth the signals > vary by their frequency in discete steps.An "analog FM" synth? Never heard of such a thing. The old popular analog synths like the Minimoog and Arp Odyssey used plain old "subtractive" synthesis, i.e., they'd generate a waveform (sawtooth, square wave, sin-ish, etc.), then remove part of it with a lowpass filter (a VCF). Of course you could modulate the filter cutoff with the ADSR generator and/or the LFO. Same with the VCA. And yes, they were horrid. Especially when you get them up on stage in front of hot lights where the temperature was changing. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by ●October 20, 20032003-10-20
"Eric C. Weaver" wrote:> > Les Cargill wrote: > > > Digital isn't FM and vice versa. DX-7s and later revisions of > > DX-7s are not hard to find. > > Beg yer pardon, but FM and digital are not mutually exclusive at all. >I wouldn't be at all surprosed. I was speaking from the point of view of an MI consumer, which is where I was guessing the guy was coming from.> I impelemented FM sythesis on an LSI-11 micro in assembler back in 1983 or so, > and it worked as well as any single-operator FM synthesizer could.Was there a D/A involved? -- Les Cargill
Reply by ●October 20, 20032003-10-20
Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<ADZkb.6720$Uz6.297@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...> Radium wrote: > > [...] > > In an analog FM synth the signals > > smoothly vary by their frequency. In a digital FM synth the signals > > vary by their frequency in discete steps. > > An "analog FM" synth? Never heard of such a thing.Exactly. Neither have I. I have no idea what Les Cargill means about FM being differen from digital. FM synths are digital, like it or not. I don't see why they shouldn't be. Most analog systems have poor SNRs, are bulky, and need physical precision to play decently. Samplers are different from FM synths even though both groups are digital. Samplers have a stale cut-off at high frequencies. Samplers are suckers for synth sounds. Synth pads, synth FX, synth lead, synth bass are a torture to listen to when played through sample-based synths. After all, these "synth" sounds were generated on an FM synth to begin with. Record them into samples and of course they will rot.> The old > popular analog synths like the Minimoog and Arp Odyssey used > plain old "subtractive" synthesis, i.e., they'd generate a > waveform (sawtooth, square wave, sin-ish, etc.), then remove > part of it with a lowpass filter (a VCF). Of course you could > modulate the filter cutoff with the ADSR generator and/or the > LFO. Same with the VCA.Low-pass filter was necessary to cut-off the unpleasant hiss. This is definitely not a problem in FM synths.
