[sdiy] Timbral musings

[Scott Gravenhorst]

My cent and a half...

I went to the site and listened to these again as well.  I'm thinking that such
sweeps don't really do justice to what the shaper can actually do in a usable
patch.

I'm wondering what the effect of using an ADSR to drive the shaper would be,
I'm guessing one could get some nice "natural" sounds that are different from
using a VCF.

And what about using a random voltage (noise -> S&H, clocked at regular
intervals, several times per second) to drive the shaper?  I think that the
stepped changes would be rather profound???

I'm personally still agonizing over several other aspects of using a VC
waveshaper.  I really want to play with your NIC based one.  My first issue is
that neither of my FatMan synths are modularized.  This needs to be done soon,
as in first.  I also need to build a few EGs to use with it.


Ian Fritz <ijfritz at earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hi folks --
>
>I've been thinking some about a dilemma I've noticed with regard to 
>waveshapers. Let's try out some ideas here.
>
>The dilemma is this:  On the one hand, if you listen to a waveshaper as it 
>is tuned (or modulated) through a range of timbres, the tuning often seems 
>to have a "weak" effect. Similarily if you take a multistep waveshaper and 
>shove the sliders around you get the impression that all the sounds are 
>more or less similar.
>
>On the other hand, if you put the waveshaper in a patch and try to get a 
>certain sound you may have in mind, you notice that small differences in 
>waveshape make a significant change in the sound. In fact it can take very 
>careful adjustment to get the sound you are after.
>
>So how do we reconcile these effects?  I think the answer has to do with 
>the physics and psychoacoustic of how we hear and analyze sound.
>
>When you consider listening to a sound in a room, you might naively expect 
>to get very confused because of all the reflections, phase cancellations, 
>etc.  The reason you don't, as I have read, is that the ear/brain actually 
>averages spectra over different positions of your head as you move around 
>slightly.
>
>Thus it ends up taking quite a bit of time to analyze a sound you are 
>hearing. I think I notice this effect when my alarm radio comes on in the 
>morning. Even if I am awake, I cannot immediately tell what instruments are 
>playing -- it takes a couple of seconds to lock onto the sound.
>
> From these ideas, I think that when you sweep a waveshaper your 
>head/ear/brain simply can't work fast enough to keep up with the 
>changes.  There are big differences in sound, but they just don't register. 
>That is why my demo clips for the "Wavolver" waveshaper emphasize 
>steady-state tones (with quick sweeps in between).  I was just listening to 
>those again, and it really does seem like it takes several seconds to 
>adjust to the changes.
>
>The counter-argument here is that filter sweeps give a "strong" 
>effect.  Perhaps this is because the filter is so drastic in subtracting 
>high frequencies, whereas a raw shaper waveform always has lots of harmonics.
>
>I would really be interested in hearing what you good people think about 
>these ideas.
>
>Regards,
>
>   Ian
>
>   (Wavolver clips are here: http://home.earthlink.net/~ijfritz/sy_cir6.htm  )
>

=========================================================  
- A smoking gun is one that's already been fired.
- That which gets rewarded, gets done.
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- Government: The other religion.
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/FatMan/
-- NonFatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/electronics/