--- In
motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:
> It would be very interesting to create a program that analyzes sound
> files in some other way than FFT.
IMHO the synthesis method is not the weak point.
Nowadays a descrete harmonic synthesis by adding shaped harmonics is
not the problem (cpu-wise for instance).
The point is firstly the vast mass of parameters one has to deal with
and (in case of resynthesis) the efficient and effective translation
to availiable parameters.
How to decide what's important to the desired sound and what's not,
that's point. IMHO that's the case for _any_ synthesis system -
regardless if analog or digital.
> The Synclavier II uses 96 operator additive synthesis, where you load
> spectral sets from floppy's. Quasi sampling almost. However the
sound is
> fantastic! Much more pure than any FFT software of today. Now Synclav
> might have used FFT to analyze the samples, but somehow they managed to
> keep the time domain free from wavering and flutter.
IIRC those artefacts mostly come from windowing and their inherent
shifting and overlaping. Which is not the case when descrete
oscillators (operators) are in play (wether they are in software or
hardware) but OTOH
How about the Technos Axcel? AFAIK it uses 64 harmonics.
But IMO it still sounds rather artificial.
(
http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml) > How about a more un orthodox way of creating additive spectra's.
What if
> you would use a vocoder approach and record the rms for each band.
> This requires a lot of filters, but it wouldn't have to be real time.
IMHO not efficient enough and maybe (or even for sure) much more
artifacts than with common FFT methods.
Probably nice to get "new sounds" (can't hear that term anymore) but
IMHO not worthwhile the effort.
My point in this discussion is how to obtain more detailed information
on sounds to bring me closer to desired results. And I'm not
necessarely after natural sounds as the final result.
Michael.