In response to Argitoth,
>>Hey Elhardt, I think I understand your frustration now. This is my guess. Paul wanted you to create acoustic-sounding patch examples using MOTM modules so that Paul could advertise MOTM as being able to do such a thing, which would amaze people and increase MOTM sales. I'm guessing this idea had nothing to do with you. I think it's a bad idea. No one needs MOTM modules to do what you do, but I see Paul's logic.<<
I'm not sure it was all about sales. It might also have been something to provide to people to learn more about programming their MOTM synths. But that was the other problem. On a fixed architecture synth like a Minimoog, you can provide a patch and everybody can dial it in. But with a modular synth where everybody has different modules, so it's not so easy. I tend to use other pieces of gear along with my MOTM too. Anybody who is serious about synthesis should have graphic and parametric EQ's, digital multi effects, phaseshifters, flangers, chorus units, filter banks, etc., but not everybody does. And when I'd try to light a fire under their asses to get some decent and sophisticated external gear, the conversation would degenerate into the usual obsession with some imaginary magical tonal quality of the gear rather than what it actually does.
>>For those people who talk like that, all this synth stuff is a hobby and they'll never contribute to the betterment analog synths. By creating this MOTM patch book you are targeting the "spoon feed me!" audience. That's the wrong audience. For the few who actually care and could benefit, such as myself, I would never ask for a patch diagram nor ask what company's product you used. I wish you could create a book that speaks of theory and synthesis techniques, tips, tricks, and insight.<<
Doing a book like that for such a small audience in a field that's dead just doesn't seem like a good use of time. With all these synth forums though, you'd think they'd be a place to disgust such things, but there is very little interest. I've put out some audio files and also mentioned some new and powerful techniques and tricks in the past, but they're soon forgotten and none of it ever leads to anybody using those techniques to do something worth listening to. It's the same thing for hardware too. There are so many synth companies pumping out modules of all kinds and none of it has had any effect.
>>How is sync useful for a violin emulation?
What frequencies must be removed or added to create the correct formants for an oboe?
What waveshapes are best for clarinet?
How do you analyze something you want to synthesize and start attempting to do it?<<
(1) I sync one osc to another and then hit one of the oscs with enveloped noise to cause the sync'd osc to sync to a randomly changing osc which gives a scraping bow sound.
(2) Oboe has two predominant formants, which I can't remember right now, but can be looked up on the web. Use two filters in parallel with quite a bit of resonance.
(3) Clarinet can be a squarewave with a bit of highpass filtered sawtooth an octave higher to fill in some even harmonics, and then look up clarinet formant(s) on the web and boost that freq up.
(4) Most synthesis is done by ear, but for some things you can run an FFT to see it's harmonic content and formants.
>>I hope you find a way to spread your knowledge in a way that keeps you going (makes you $$$), keeps you inspired, and provides knowledge to those who can benefit.<<
Well what will make me some money is completing some pieces of gear that nobody else can do. That's what I'm working on now. Also in theory the synth world needs a decent filter bank, and not the lame Moog-style fixed filter banks every company keeps beating to death. I say in theory, because even if I can get one put out on the market, it too will not improve the depressing synth situation and will not create the next Tomita. But at least I'll have one to use and some people will buy one to put in their rack to be ignored and collect dust.
-Elhardt