Simulation Vs Real Things

[David Halliday (Volt Computer)]

I too spend much more of my time working with analog synthesizers than
digital ones ( 4 ASM-1's, Oberheim 2-voice and XPander ( and yes, I have
two samplers, an Alesis SR-16 and K1000 too...)).  The idea of digital
modeling is intellectually interesting and sexy but I prefer patch cords
and knobs.  Lots and lots of them...  <g>

The thing that gets me thinking is that by staying with the common
vocabulary of synthesis, we may be overlooking additional signal
processing functions that simply cannot be done (easily) by analog
circuitry but yet may yield interesting and valid sounds themselves...
Are we willing to limit our palate to just those sounds which can be
produced from analog synthesis or are we willing to expand into other
realms.

It is interesting to think about.  

On one hand, we have analog purity which is fine - it offers control and
ease of use.  It's downside is that to reproduce a patch is difficult,
adding capabilities to the system require that these modules be
physically there, even if they are only used a few times/month.

We can have a hybrid of analog and digital sound production.  Using
traditional analog synthesizers as well as digital signal production and
processing.  This offers much of the control that analog does plus it
expands the range of raw sounds and effects processing available to us.
On the digital side, since the effects are calculated algorithms, an
effect can be called up from a library and used even if it is never used
again.  The downside is that the expense of the digital signal
processing equipment is initially great and anything with decent
fidelity will be special purpose and therefore expensive.

We can then go to digital sample and stored algorithm playback. ( DX-7
to present )  These machines are very easy for the piano and organ
player to start working with.  The fact that patches can be stored and
recalled means that you can maintain libraries of preset sounds.  The
downside is that 99% of the people playing these instruments never go
beyond the initial factory sounds. Additionally, to save on
manufacturing costs, these instruments come with a minimal programming
interface ( since 99% of their buyers won't ever use it anyway...)

Finally, we come around to a "modern" version of the beginning with the
Nord Modular - a digital modeling of analog synthesis.  I would suspect
that as the first product of it's kind, it will be somewhat limited but
it will serve as the bellwether of it's kind - kind of like the Makie
8-BUSS mixing consoles or the ADAT recorders.  It is the first of it's
kind and if there is a market for it, it will get competition and the
designs will improve.

Should be interesting to watch anyway...  Fun times!  <grin>




> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Benjamin Robbins [SMTP:BenjaminR at MIDISOFT.COM]
> Sent:	Thursday, July 24, 1997 11:24 AM
> To:	svetengr at earthlink.net
> Cc:	synth-diy at horus.sara.nl
> Subject:	RE: Simulation Vs Real Things
> 
> >Honestly, why in heaven would somebody want a $4000 computer package
> >that provides a simulated modular? Especially when the REAL THING is
> >probably more flexible, and possibly less expensive as well?
> 
>   This seems to be pretty common attitude of all you elitest analog
> enthusiest and I agree with you. Everyone wants the real thing, why
> recreate it when you can have the REAL thing. The question I pose to
> all
> of you out there is how many of you own some sort of surround sound
> system. Or how many of you are interested in ambisonic or other forms
> of
> 3-D sound. Those systems too are nothing more than attempts to
> recreate
> an acoutical environment. I would hope that we are not hypocrites
> here!
> 
> benjamin