Andrew Mayo wrote:> 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.Consider the Waldorf Q, here FM can be applied to all waveforms, including wavetables. FM Sources are selectable, any OSC, noise or external input. FM can also be applied to filters. Stefan
Sick of sample-based "synthesis"!
Started by ●October 16, 2003
Reply by ●October 26, 20032003-10-26
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Radium wrote:> Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bn8sm3$hv0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > >>Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of >>an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can. > > > The point is not to reproduce an FM synth's sound but to listen to it > while producing it. That is, listen to an FM synth actually generate > its musical tones, rather than recording those tones from the FM synth > to another medium and then playing them back.If there's no audible difference, why should I care? Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Ben Bradley wrote: ...> A slight frequency or phase change between the 'modulator' > oscillator and the modulated oscillator makes a substantial, even > dramatic, change in timbre. One analog oscillator FM-ing another will > have this 'phasing' effect because their frequencies cannot be > controlled exactly. > With phase-accumulator-controlled digital oscillators, the > oscillators are in sync and thus the phase doesn't change (unless one > oscillator is intentionally detuned). > Timbre is often changed in FM synthesis by changing (using an ADSR > signa) the amplitude of the modulating signal. You could do this with > analog oscillators, but it would sound different each time because of > the phase drift. Actually, depending on what effect you want, this > could be a good thing... > >Analog oscillators allow one to tune signals 5 KHz apart at 220 MHz with ease. I had no trouble getting stable voice on SSSC signals in the 6-meter band using the BFO. I think you sell analog stability short. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jerry Avins wrote:> Radium wrote: > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bn8sm3$hv0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > >>Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of > >>an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can. > > > > The point is not to reproduce an FM synth's sound but to listen to it > > while producing it. That is, listen to an FM synth actually generate > > its musical tones, rather than recording those tones from the FM synth > > to another medium and then playing them back. > > If there's no audible difference, why should I care?I think Radium's main point that is not quite getting through, is the following (perhaps somewhat softened by me): From the point of view of the author of the music, if you use a sampler, your choice of the synthesizer sound is limited by your sample library, to an extent defined by your ability to modify these samples, inside or outside the sampler. If you instead generate the synthesizer sound in real-time, using FM or any other technique which allows you to change the sound drastically using just a few parameters, you can adjust the sound until it is exactly what you want. Moreover, repeatedly hearing the same "good" samples can be boring - be the cause a lack of imagination or not. -olli
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Jerry Avins wrote:> Analog oscillators allow one to tune signals 5 KHz apart at 220 MHz with > ease. I had no trouble getting stable voice on SSSC signals in the > 6-meter band using the BFO. I think you sell analog stability short.The problem with FM music sythesis is that small changes can cause big (perceived) effects. So, for convenience, people tend to use digital techniques. bye, -- Piergiorgio Sartor
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Olli Niemitalo wrote:> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jerry Avins wrote: >...>> >>If there's no audible difference, why should I care? > > > I think Radium's main point that is not quite getting through, is the > following (perhaps somewhat softened by me): > > From the point of view of the author of the music, if you use a sampler, > your choice of the synthesizer sound is limited by your sample library, to > an extent defined by your ability to modify these samples, inside or > outside the sampler. If you instead generate the synthesizer sound in > real-time, using FM or any other technique which allows you to change the > sound drastically using just a few parameters, you can adjust the sound > until it is exactly what you want. Moreover, repeatedly hearing the same > "good" samples can be boring - be the cause a lack of imagination or not. > > -olliThank you. Now I get it. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Piergiorgio Sartor wrote:> Jerry Avins wrote: > >> Analog oscillators allow one to tune signals 5 KHz apart at 220 MHz with >> ease. I had no trouble getting stable voice on SSSC signals in the >> 6-meter band using the BFO. I think you sell analog stability short. > > > The problem with FM music sythesis is that small changes > can cause big (perceived) effects.But isn't that one of it's main attractions, assuming that things are stable enough to stay where the composer wants them?> So, for convenience, people tend to use digital techniques.I think good analog is harder than good digital; that's why this is fast becoming a digital world. The first FIR I worked with was pure analog. I'm glad I didn't need to tinker with the quarter-square multipliers. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
Exactly Olli. Olli Niemitalo <o@iki.fi> wrote in message news:<Pine.GSO.4.58.0310270950370.10441@paju.oulu.fi>...> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Jerry Avins wrote: > > > Radium wrote: > > > Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote in message news:<bn8sm3$hv0$1@bob.news.rcn.net>... > > > > > >>Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of > > >>an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can. > > > > > > The point is not to reproduce an FM synth's sound but to listen to it > > > while producing it. That is, listen to an FM synth actually generate > > > its musical tones, rather than recording those tones from the FM synth > > > to another medium and then playing them back. > > > > If there's no audible difference, why should I care? > > I think Radium's main point that is not quite getting through, is the > following (perhaps somewhat softened by me): > > From the point of view of the author of the music, if you use a sampler, > your choice of the synthesizer sound is limited by your sample library, to > an extent defined by your ability to modify these samples, inside or > outside the sampler. If you instead generate the synthesizer sound in > real-time, using FM or any other technique which allows you to change the > sound drastically using just a few parameters, you can adjust the sound > until it is exactly what you want. Moreover, repeatedly hearing the same > "good" samples can be boring - be the cause a lack of imagination or not. > > -olli
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
FM synthesis *is* digital. Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.REMOVE.THIS.de> wrote in message news:<3f9ce403$0$280$4d4ebb8e@read.news.de.uu.net>...> So, for convenience, people tend to use digital techniques.
Reply by ●October 27, 20032003-10-27
FM synthesis *is* digital Piergiorgio Sartor <piergiorgio.sartor@nexgo.REMOVE.THIS.de> wrote in message news:<3f9ce403$0$280$4d4ebb8e@read.news.de.uu.net>...> The problem with FM music sythesis is that small changes > can cause big (perceived) effects. > > So, for convenience, people tend to use digital techniques.
