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

[jbv]

Rainer,

> >
> > I think the DX7 made it because it matched all these features.
>
> Especially #3 and #4, hm? :)
>
> Using the DX7 as an instrument is easy. Just like a piano is easy. But I
> would say the learning curve for the synthesis and the user "friendly"
> interface kept most people away from programming it.

yes, the user interface was a problem, but more important : you could
still tweak the existing patches and slightly change pre-programed parameters

to try to get new sounds. That's what I did before studying the manual for
more serious programation.
How could you tweak existing patches in a big modular ?
The only possibility would be to take some drawing of a patch in the manual
and reproduce by hand all cords patching and knobs / switches settings...
IOW : re-build the whole patch from scratch, which is WAY different from
playing with an existing (hard-wired or pre-programmed) one.

>
>
> Ah, but there's a difference. 3D image synthesis does not focus on
> recreating digital artwork of existing pictures, sceneries, landscapes
> etc.
>
> Photo realism here means that you can't tell that this actually was no
> photo but a completely artificial rendering.

Sorry, but you're totally wrong on this issue : yes photo realism means
that you can't make the difference between the photo of a real object and
a completely artificial rendering. And that's exactly what 3D image synthesis

(at least R&D in rendering techniques : ray-tracing, radiosity) is still at.

And the approach is the same for sound synthesis.
Decades ago, the synthesizer has been introduced to the mainstream audience
as "the electronic instrument that can emulate any other sound / instrument".

BTW why do you think it's been called a "synthesizer" ?
Take the vol. 1 of the Formant book from 1978 : there's a whole chapter
dedicated to the emulation of acoustic instruments... It also came with a
cassette tape full of examples of emulations of woodwinds, brass...
Remember the sound of the waves and seagulls in Jarre's "Oxygen" in 1976 ?
And the various emulations of classical music by Walter Carlos or Tomita ?
And the sounds of cars zooming on the highway in Kraftwerk's "Autobahn"
in 1974 ? Actually, the whole Kraftwerk discography is an attempt to
emulate reality...
And vocoders have been mostly used to emulate choirs & backing vocals,
drum boxes to emulate real drummers, etc etc.
I agree that all kind of electronic sounds & weirdness were also made, but
by opposition it used to make all attempts to emulate real instruments even
more challenging & exciting...

Of course, years after years, the ear of the audience has been educated :
30 years ago they used to say "wow Jarre can even reproduce the sound of
the sea with his gear", but a few years later they were able to make the
difference.
And then came the DX7, with sounds of slapped bass & electric piano which
(back then) sounded far more realistic than what could be done with a Moog...

And nowadays, what is the main purpose of physical modeling or analysis /
resynthesis via FFT & additive synthesis ? Simply to go even further in the
realistic reproduction of existing instruments.
The funny part of the story is when DSPs are used to emulate a Moog, as if
the sound of vintage analogue gear was a reference that new synthesis
techniques
had to reproduce to prove right...

Best,
JB