Sorry. Please disregard my statement about low-pass filters. "KD" <kd@home> wrote in message news:<3f95b24b$1$9554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...> "Radium" <glucegen@excite.com> wrote in message > news:464c821f.0310201733.e1544c8@posting.google.com... > > Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:<ADZkb.6720$Uz6.297@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>... > > > > > > > > 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. > > again, no. The filter was to sculpt the sound, hence 'subtractive > synthesis'. The clasic waveforms of an analogue synth, namely sawtooth and > square, have harmonics that extend way up past 20kHz. For most sounds, they > are too 'bright'. > > > To be pedantic the DX series and the OLP3 didn't perform FM, they were > actually Phase Modulation. But since the oscillators were sinusiod, the > difference is moot.
Sick of sample-based "synthesis"!
Started by ●October 16, 2003
Reply by ●October 22, 20032003-10-22
Reply by ●October 22, 20032003-10-22
"KD" <kd@home> wrote in message news:<3f95b24b$1$9554$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...> "Radium" <glucegen@excite.com> wrote in message > news:464c821f.0310201733.e1544c8@posting.google.com... > > Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message > news:<ADZkb.6720$Uz6.297@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>... > > > Most analog systems have poor SNRs, are bulky, and need > > physical precision to play decently. > > > > bulky - mostly,yes > > poor SNR - early FM synths like the DX7 had truely horrible output stages > and generated as much, if not more, noise as most analogue synths of that > era. Most soundcards with OP3s didn't fair much better; remember, the DACs > at that time weren't that hot and the cards were in a computer filled with > nasty RFI...My SB16's OPL3 works fine.> > need physical precision to play decently - as do all real istruments...Got to admit digital is more forgiving of imperfections than analog.> > > > > Samplers are different from FM synths even though both groups are > > digital. Samplers have a stale cut-off at high frequencies. > > Both have exactly the same physical problem, they cannot produce frequencies > above the nyquist cutoff.FM synths are less noisier than samplers, though.> The only saving grace of the DX series was their > relatively high sample frequency; >60kHz if I remember correctlyWhat about SB16 FM?> > > > 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. > > err, no.... Some sounds may have been sampled from FM synths, but the > majority have come from other sourcesWhere is the synth pad from? It would have to be from some live digital synthesizer (other than a sampler, of course!). It is probably not limited to FM, though.
Reply by ●October 22, 20032003-10-22
glucegen@excite.com (Radium) wrote in message news:<464c821f.0310151928.2eb08895@posting.google.com>...> Sample-based synths are stale and rigid. Any sound effect in action > will noticeably quantize and alias the music. They are a hell an > earsore for life-wanting instruments such as synth pads and synth fx. > The tone of synth pads are generated on FM synths! No wonder pads > sound so crappy in samplers. > > 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. > >Well, yes, I agree. Your dream machine exists, btw. It's called the Yamaha FS1R. It has 64 operators, each with its own independent amplitude envelope. 32 of these operators can do sine, square or sawtooth waveforms (and formant shape them, either statically or dynamically). The other 32 can do pitched or unpitched noise (you can go from a sinewave right out to white noise, depending on bandwidth settings). (compare with the original DX7, which had only 6 operators - so this is 10 DX7's in a box!) It is four-part multi-timbral with three independent effects units and a comprehensive range of filters. It can do formant synthesis. It produces utterly beautiful sounds which respond to every nuance of your playing. Faced with such a beautiful piece of hardware, Yamaha marketing then did their best to screw up, first with an inadequate manual, then, panicking, they took it off the market after only a year or so, when, understandably, buyers balked at the complexity of programming it themselves. (it did not, originally, come with a PC-based programmer, which didn't help). At which point they became collector's items. I drove 300 miles to buy mine second-hand. I will never ever sell it. It is, undoubtedly, the deepest, most powerful hardware synth ever made. And not a single sample anywhere in it (except, I guess, a sine wave). I don't understand why Yammy don't bring them back now that FM is back in vogue. With a better manual and more sample patches they really are something else. Anyway, see if you can get hold of one. I think it will answer your prayers, but be warned; it is deep and complex. (another, software-based, alternative is NI's FM7 but this lacks the raw power of the FS1R, though in theory you could run multiple instances on a sufficiently powerful PC).
Reply by ●October 22, 20032003-10-22
Radium wrote:> FM synthesis is a digital method. Anyone who thinks different need to > read more about FM synthesis.FM synthesis is FM synthesis, you can do in the digital or analog domain. It just happens to be more convenient in the digital domain... (more tunable).> I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are > better than FM synths. How so??This depends.> All "synth" type of instruments (e.g. pads) sound horrible when > sampled. The tone of synth pads was generated on a FM synth. Sampling > this type of sound only makes it less realistic.The problem is tha FM synthesis is everything but realistic, it's just nice, it sounds good, but for sure it's not realistic. bye, -- Piergiorgio Sartor
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<5Wllb.10312$W16.1582@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...> Radium wrote: > > [...] > > I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are > > better than FM synths. How so?? > > I think that when you say "sample synths," what you really mean is > "wavetable synthesis." > > They're just more realistic. The timbres produced by FM sound "nice" > (i.e., clear, good high-frequency content, etc.), but just aren't as > realistic as wavetable synthesis. At least in my opinion.Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying aliasing.
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<5Wllb.10312$W16.1582@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...> it's > much easier to spend all your time and effort getting the wavetable > synthesis working rather than having to build both a wavetable synthesis > and FM synthesis engine (so that FM sounds could be generated instead > of reproduced through the wavetable).Then why not build the FM synth engine without a wavetable synth? In "real" FM synthesis no wavetable should be needed. Right?
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<F97lb.7744$Uz6.3688@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...> Les Cargill wrote: > > "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 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. > > > > > > So this process was purely in the digital domain? > > Yes. Digital oscillators with numerically-controlled frequencies > are used. The outputs of the digital oscillators are PCM streams > that are summed into a composite PCM stream, which can then be > converted to analog in the usual fashion.What type of synthesis is this?
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Radium wrote:> > Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying > aliasing.It is possible to design a sampler that does not suffer from aliasing. Erik -- +-----------------------------------------------------------+ Erik de Castro Lopo nospam@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid) +-----------------------------------------------------------+ The Earth is around 70% water. Fish rule the seas. Humans are over 90% water. It's only a matter of time.
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Radium wrote:> Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<5Wllb.10312$W16.1582@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>... > >>Radium wrote: >> >>>[...] >>>I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are >>>better than FM synths. How so?? >> >>I think that when you say "sample synths," what you really mean is >>"wavetable synthesis." >> >>They're just more realistic. The timbres produced by FM sound "nice" >>(i.e., clear, good high-frequency content, etc.), but just aren't as >>realistic as wavetable synthesis. At least in my opinion. > > > Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying aliasing.Usually it's not aliasing that occurs but psychoacoustic entropy loss. PEL results in less harmonic convergence and at the same time causes your energy bill's balance to decrease. -- % Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul %% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side %%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall." %%%% <yates@ieee.org> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr
Reply by ●October 23, 20032003-10-23
Radium wrote:> Randy Yates <yates@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<5Wllb.10312$W16.1582@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>... > >>it's >>much easier to spend all your time and effort getting the wavetable >>synthesis working rather than having to build both a wavetable synthesis >>and FM synthesis engine (so that FM sounds could be generated instead >>of reproduced through the wavetable). > > > Then why not build the FM synth engine without a wavetable synth? > > In "real" FM synthesis no wavetable should be needed. Right?You miss the point. It's assumed that you need wavetables no matter what. Your "real FM synth" is extra. Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can. I missed that the first time around. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
