[sdiy] composing with c++

[Paul Maddox]

Richard,

> When asked by a synth geek journo what kind of desks he liked, he said
> 'Brown ones.'

<ROFLMAO>

> The point I was trying to make was that a lot of people (designers
> included) are very confused about what synths are actually for. People
> absolutely did believe you could make any kind of noise with them, and
that
> making any kind of noise was what synths were for.

Agreed, for me I make a synth that sounds nice to me, I like digital
waveforms and big brash metallic sounds, so it has them in..

> This all sounds hugely quaint but it's still going on today. From a sonic
> point of view a lot of (say) Csound is a steaming pile of hippo dung
> because many of the opcodes are based on very poor, oversimplified models
> of what happens in real sounds and processes. It's true you can create a
> shelving EQ with a few lines of DSP code copied out of a book written in
> the 1960s. What that won't give you is a *really sweet* EQ. Once you start
> looking into what it is that makes one EQ sound really sweet and another
> sound like a bad transistor radio having a depressive episode, it's easy
to
> see that a decent model needs an order of magnitude or two of extra
> complexity beyond the detail a text-book example will give you.

yep, something I've found, The DSP code for the filter I have from SoundArt
sounded nice,
I've 'tweaked it' and it now sounsd better to my ears.
The thing is , the sound of something, be it effect/synth/music or dustbin,
is very very subjective...
one mans sweet EQ is another mans door jam..

> I suppose what I'm really saying is that everyone in the business seems to
> underestimate the complexity involved in creating and playing acoustic
> sounds. They were doing it then and I think it's still going on today. One
> of the reasons people like analogue is because a lot of that complexity is
> designed in as part of the technology, and if you're half-way sensible
> about your designs it will just happen.

one of the reasons I like synths is because they *dont* sound like real
instruments. I can do things on a synth a guitarist cant do.. and
vica-versa, to me I like the control and flexaibility to create my own
sound, its also part of the reason I'm more into building synths rather than
playing them..

> I suspect it's actual possible to quantify and measure the amount of
> information and interest contained in a musical sound. It would be an
> interesting exercise to try this...

hehe, you mean like in word the 'readability' values.. im not sure how
usefull it would be, because it depends on your deffinition of 'musical'

Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------
Modulus Synth page ;-
   Http://www.Modulus.synth.net/
PPG webpages
   Http://www.PPG.synth.net/