WHY? (was Re: [sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog)

[Scott Stites]

I certainly agree.  In fact, you can replace the word 'cello' with any instrument of your choosing.  

However, I never said that a VCO/VCF/VCA synthesizer could be a cello or had the conrol mechanisms of a cello, no more than I said that a cello could be a synthesizer, and could be controlled like a synthesizer.  A cello has it's capabilities and limitations and a given synthesizer has its capabilities and limitations as well.  They are only similiar in the fact that they are both musical instruments, and you refine the use of any instrument within its capabilites and limitations, whether it's a flute, piano, French Horn, a cello or a synthesizer.  

Cheers,
Scott


-----Original Message-----
From: Ingo Debus <debus at cityweb.de>
Sent: May 7, 2004 11:15 AM
To: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: WHY? (was Re: [sdiy] ... Simulating a Moog)


Am Freitag, 07.05.04 um 16:10 Uhr schrieb Scott Stites:

> If one views the synthesizer as a whiz-bang box that must produce a 
> uniquely different sound for every musical part it's ever destined to 
> play, then the VCO->VCF->VCA combo would wear thin pretty quick (not 
> as quick as it should in most cases, but that's another subject).
>
> If one views the synthesizer as a musical instrument, then it is quite 
> satisfactory.  After all, I doubt there are many cello players out 
> there wondering why the cello development process is so damned 
> stagnant.....
>

Not a fair comparison IMHO. On the VCO-VCF-VCA combo only a few 
parameters can be changed: pitch, waveform, eventually pulse width, 
Cutoff frequency, Q, volume. On a cello there's much much more.

Ingo



PeoplePC Online
A better way to Internet
http://www.peoplepc.com