AW: Harmonix content formula

[Scott Gravenhorst]

Scott Gravenhorst <chordman at flash.net> wrote:
>"P.M. van Nugteren" <PMvanNugteren at gmx.net> wrote:
>>Ethan Duni wrote:
>>> -hmm, couldn't we even argue that numerical solutions are always, one some
>>> level, "wrong", because they necessarily involve approximations and, being
>>> done in computers, finite-resolution numbers? i wonder how much progress has
>>> been made in getting computers to perform symbolic (and hence truly
>>> "correct") operations on the level of fourier transforms.. be interesting..
>>
>>Analogue computers anyone?
>>
>>Paul
>
>Correct if wrong, but I believe the DIY charter supports discussions
>of DSP synthesis as well as other digital synthesis methods.  The
>restriction is "do it yourself".  Analogue Heaven is a different list.

AH! Analogue _computers_...  Pardon me.  (It's very very early for me.) 
Actually, many circuits that analogue synthesizers employ are or can 
be used in analogue computers.  Integrators, summers...  I believe, 
however, that within the context of this thread, this would mean 
additive synthesis with many sine (or whatever) signals and many 
have mentioned in earlier threads that this is far less interesting 
than one might expect.  An oscillator that produces a complex harmonic 
structure coupled with filters and ways to control them seems to 
generate more interestingly changing sounds.

-- Scott Gravenhorst
-- FatMan: www.teklab.com/~chordman     | Linux Rex, Linux Vobiscum
-- NonFatMan: members.xoom.com/chordman | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- Al Gore: I'm the father of the internet.