[sdiy] Additive Synthesis Doesn't Work?

[Harry Bissell Jr]

Hey I agree...

fourier (or walsh) synthesis is too much for mere
mortals to control.  Its OK if someone wants to
program
for months to get a sound, which we could all use
as a preset (and thus sound alike :^)

Limiting the number of choices by introducing global
controls or limits is the way to go.

For subtractive synthesis we have some well defined
limits. This VCF rolls off harmonics above xxx and
introduces a peak at the response of yyy.  Thats all
folks, one simple function.. three million analog
sounds.

Introduce a similar function in additive synthesis
(we could just adjust amplitudes, right)... and we'll
go *yawn* becuase we've all heard it before.

So we need a NEW global function, like "phat"

It makes all the girls DESIRE you !!!    ;^P

H^) harry



--- nN AAt     e     e <timexheater at comcast.net>
wrote:
> my cents for a simple additive synth... whether DSP
> or FPGA, in a
> minimal-musical setup, three oscillators with let's
> say about 10 harmonics
> max.  we already know this is incredibly simple...
> but the interface would
> be where it gets complicated. show how about it's
> kept simple?
> 
> each osc channel can have two sets of knobs - one
> for the ratio of each
> harmonic [encoders can display the ratio on an LCD],
> and then one for the
> volume. it can have a few tools worked in, to say -
> interpolate volume
> scales for the harmonics. each set can have the knob
> for the base and then
> however many knobs for each harmonic... yeah you
> guys get the idea.
> 
> most of you guys seem to be talking about crazy
> unlimited additive fourier
> synthesis... we need to set _some_ limits :P
> 
> my idea is a little more based on additive osc, than
> full additive synthesis
> without any filters... but yeah, additive is always
> pretty anyway :P
> 
> - nate
> 
>