My point exactly, the use of discrete operators is the way to go, nice soundingsuch too. What I'm talking about is the analysis stage. How to extract thoseovertones and their envelopes, with some sort of averaging function thatmakes musical sense. A more simplified, pure way. Like you say, not necessarilyto reproduce a natural sound, but a sound that sounds good.
Even if you play back an FFT analysis through discrete oscillators , youstill get flutter etc.
FFT is probably the way to go in the end, but with a couple of smart timbralaveraging additions. Then you also need a way to get smooth envelope curveswith only a few points (few compared to unlimited..). Smooth but withoutloosing information in the attack.
I've played with the Axcel many times, and I always come to the same result,nothing....
It's got the coolest user interface on the planet, but the worst soundingengine ever. Great show piece but nothing more.
T
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.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.