[sdiy] Moog Waveform Variation

[Magnus Danielson]

From: Mike Peake <peake at pacificnet.net>
Subject: [sdiy] Moog Waveform Variation
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 11:13:46 -0800
Message-ID: <f05100304bc18c5581632@[65.138.117.232]>

> At 3:06 AM -0800 12/31/03, Kenneth Elhardt wrote:
> >Here is data that shoots down the last of the VCO timbre arguments.
> 
> Pitch, actually, but that's for another topic.

Well, yes... but it ticles our timbre perception. This is really what it is
all about, this sensation we get from some synths and not from others, or for
that matters from some patches but not from others, how do we quantify them
into some measure by which we can benchmark gear and know what it means.
This is exactly the task of a scientist, investigating fenomenas in order to
figure out their inner workings in a objective way by which everyone can agree.
Some of these phenomenas can be quite hard to analyse and the psychoacoustics
is indeed a field where it is quite complex to make the full analysis.

I've personally spent some effort on this topic and recommend a trip to the
Synth-DIY archive in order find out more. I think I've got some good theory
(which is not facts, just a theory which may or may not hold) which seems to
work in many cases.

The kind of tool which is best suited for measuring and quantifying existing
instruments and synthesized responces is not in wide use in the music related
engineering. Short snippets of the waveform may not be sufficient for a good
analysis and is not the recommended method. If jitter and wander (really
phase-deviations of various frequencies) is indeed the factor here, then we
should use the wealth of theoretical modeling, measurement and analysis methods
being at hand.

I would be happy to measure and analyse various instruments, but lacking stuff
like a MiniMoog, Moog Modular or whatever it is not as straightforward. From my
point of view sampled waveforms is useless, I need access to the real thing.

> Not that any of this matters on AH ;;-)

I agree.

> And I believe that you're correct. Analogue Heaven is
> hardly the place for the discussion of science. It's
> for the ownership and use of analog gear, and why each
> piece sounds a certain way, and especially, what this
> means in terms of what music it may be good for, or not.
> 
> Let's leave the tedious numbers to the scientists,
> and discuss making music and sound design on AH.
> 
> I've CC'd synthDIY so that any interested in discussing
> the cycle to cycle differences may do so.

Let's just agree that Synth-DIY is the place to discuss the inner workings of
the gear, and AH is the place to dicuss the musical use for the gear.
Some of the questions asked on AH should sometimes be better to have asked on
Synth-DIY.

But recall, it's discuss and not argue.

> Happy New Year!

Yeap! Happy New Year to you all!

Cheers,
Magnus