Well I can't really do your homework for you. But I will hold your hand a little: http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul98/articles/synthschool9.html Just read and learn. Its a completely different method for creating sound. Like digital circuits are different from analog circuits are different from additive synthesis are different from yodelling. Sure the marketing people loved the concept of something new as they always do, but that doesn't mean VA is not different just because you think it doesn't matter. It's saying bicycles are the same as slow cars because they both get you to point b. And again I never saw Roland or Waldorf come out and try to say that their digital synths (i.e. XV or MW) were VA's. You say fast and loose, what examples do you have? The SH-32 is a different story, so don't bother throwing it up until you learn what you are arguing about. --- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Miles Bader <miles@g...> wrote: > "Ravi Ivan Sharma" <noision1@h...> writes: > > VA is virtual analog synthesis, not just something that kind of sounds > > pretty close to Analog. > > Care to define `virtual analog synthesis', or `VA coding'? > > I can't think of anything except rather trivial things like `doesn't use > sampled oscillators' -- and that seems mindlessly pedantic; surely the > virus would still be a `VA' if they decided to only use sampled > oscillators, but changed nothing else. > > Indeed I think it's accurate to say that there's precious little > qualitative difference between a particularly well-speced rompler and a > VA (certainly Roland's recent synths have been playing fast and loose > with this confusion). > > > Finally what's the big push to call the MW something it isn't? It > > doesn't change its sound, which is all that matters. Or am I missing > > something? > > There's no push. However, it is a bit annoying to see the term `VA' > tossed around like it has some deep meaning. It doesn't, it's a > marketing term. > > -Miles > -- > Yo mama's so fat when she gets on an elevator it HAS to go down.
Message
Re: Evolver as an FX Processor // MWXT
2003-02-21 by Ravi Ivan Sharma <noision1@hotmail.com>
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.