Hi Ezra, sorry for the late reply, was pretty busy last week... On 25 Aug 2008 at 17:33, ezra.buchla@... wrote: > well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical > modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to > duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever. I played around with the tassman that includes some physical modelling elements. I wasn't exactly satisfied with the results and the predictability of the results, one might getter results if he's into building real world instruments and having profound knowledge about their resonance bodies... > take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a > system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it is > quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a guitar > string or other kinds of strings, but based on the parameters and the > excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new stuff (you can't, for > example, sing into a string in the real world, or wrap the string in a > circle...) I always thought it's a tunable comb filter (that basicly is a delay) with some feedback that needs a short impulse burst to oscillate. I at least get some marvelous plucked string sounds using formants in conjunction with comb filters.... Here some Comb-Filter examples I did with the microQ some years ago. http://www.summasounds.de/files/mQcomb.mp3 > where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear > terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a > situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what > orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to observe > the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very near) was the > subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and ulam at los alamos > in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern chaos theory and > numerical analysis... Even so chaos theory is pretty fascinating, especially when it come to weather or big bang prediction, when it comes to sounds I'm rather interested in results than in theory. It simply doesn't need that much chaos to trick the ear/brain combination, it can trace a very limited amount of parameters at once only. I must admit that I'm more interested in practical, emotional playable, in multiple aspect changeable sounds, than in unpredictable coincidental generated stuff. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Pasta%E2%80%93Ulam_problem > http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phycs6720/handouts/fpu/FermiCollect > edPapers1965.pdf > > point is (for me) that physics and math problems can suggest novel > ways of producing sound.on coputers, often with great efficiency, and > suggest control prameters that interact with the output waveforms in > complex ways that would be difficult to approach with other methods > (like table lookup...) I still think our perception is to limited, so it's like throwing pearls before the swine and at the end (to us/our minds) it might do nothing more than adding a nice texture to the sound ;) I'm not sure if this would be worth all the effort, at least when it comes to sound generation... > there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum > tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is > interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of rubbery > non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe.... I simply want good sounding (high audio bandwidth) tools that are powerfull enough to make my sonic fantasies come true, giving me the most easy and direct access to certain sonic parameters... > i really would check out perry cook's work and his "synthesis toolkit" > c/c++ library if you'e even the slightest bit interested in realtime (not > lookup) synthesis informed by physics. I'm pretty sure that simulation isn't the way I want to go, even so it might be a shorcut for ppl. that aren't really into deep synthesis stuff or don't have a feeling for sound, to simply giving them a tool to reach something complex/pleasing sounding... Best regards! ...Summa > On 8/23/08, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote: > > On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote: > > > >> --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote: > >> > > >> > On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote: > >> > > >> > > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of > >> > > psychoacoustics! Many members of the group are much, much more > >> > > knowledgeable than I. > >> > > > >> > > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are: 1. > >> > > What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an > >> > > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right? (My > >> > > first-cut analysis always yields a "distinction without a > >> > > difference" for many parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. > >> > > Which parameters can be varied in a (more-or-less) random way > >> > > in order to re-synthesize the kind of natural variation > >> > > produced by "natural" instruments? > >> > > > >> > > I think #1 addresses your comment. > >> > > >> > No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force > >> > method, analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all > >> > the data isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of > >> > the sound. To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is > >> > boring as h*ll, > >> Thanks! You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2! The > >> mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept! The > >> original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears > >> guitar sound good to me, always"? I sold it to my cousin, then > >> borrowed it back for a few months. I found WONDERFUL synthesizer > >> sounds on the EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn > >> University in 1974! The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just > >> a few weeks later. The question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a > >> more pleasing sound than > >> a synthesizer that cost 50 times more? > > > > Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only > > guess... > > > > a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the > > timbre... b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them > > sound, you may had problems to get really good sounds out of the > > synth. c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a > > guitar. d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with > > formant movements. > > > > It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital > > synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in > > sound... > > > > > >> > unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters of > >> > the sound, like formants (especially their movement) > >> > texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the > >> > least important part of regognising a sound, since human > >> > ear/brain can only > >> You are defining timbre in a novel way. I am more comfortable with > >> the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I > >> sit - The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic > >> quality of a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical > >> note or sound that distinguishes different types of sound > > > > This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's > > just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really > > wanted to say, since english it's not my native language. From my > > point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your reaction > > wasn't exactly appropriate. > > > >> > distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be > >> > very accurate, what might already answers your question... It's > >> > rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods > >> > all that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic > >> > parameters I just mentioned... > > > >> I look forward to you providing these parameters without math! > > > > This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard > > to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics. > > I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I > > don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and > > deadlines... I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of > > my experience as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it... > > > >> > You only get different results since they're providing another > >> > point of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's > >> > the same picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" > >> > (still can be cumbersome) to get very similar results from > >> > different synthesis methods... > >> > > >> > Regards! > >> > Summa > > > > Regards! > > Summa > > > > -- > > > > CZ/VZ mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth > > FMHeaven mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/ FS1R > > mailing list : http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list > > Vokator mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator > > FM-Synthesis mailing list : > > http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/ > > > > http://www.summasounds.de/ > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > -- CZ/VZ mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth FMHeaven mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/ FS1R mailing list : http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list Vokator mailing list : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator FM-Synthesis mailing list : http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/ http://www.summasounds.de/
Message
Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & po
2008-09-02 by Summa