MOTM

Sorry for the long delay in getting back to this.

Adam Schabtach writes:
>>OTOH, Carlos herself abandoned analog synths and switched to digital
machines to do her most accurate imitative synthesis work, "Digital
Moonscapes", and her most exploratory, "Beauty in the Beast".<<

Then Carlos abandoned digital and went with samples.  Carlos' additive synth
percussive sounds are really good, but most of the pitched instruments
aren't very good, that's because there is no fixed formant filter bank on
the Crumar (the very thing we're talking about).  Compare my Nord violin
with Wendy's and there is no comparison.  We basically haven't really heard
what a synth can do which is part of my point.

>>Frankly I find it kind of amazing how much effort people will put into
talking about what other people do with their synths. I mean, really,
wouldn't you rather spend the time playing your synth?<<

I play my synths.  But when somebody mentioned an advanced fixed filter bank
and how much of a market there would be for it, that involves how people use
their synths.  If they're not up to doing sophisticated filtering, then a
product like that isn't going to fly.

Mark writes:
>>I'm more for practical modules than esoteric modules or modules that do
things that are readily available elsewhere.<<

And thus the lack of esoteric modules, which then leads to less interesting
synth sounds.  Practical modules already exist everywhere.  There isn't a
single advanced filter bank for synthesis unless you get into using Soft
synths on a computer, and then you lose the immediacy of the modular synth
interface.

>>Imho, imitative synthesis requires imitative playing.  Even if you
could create a violin patch that was indistinguishable from the sound
of a real violin, you would need an awfully sophisticated controller
to get it to sound anything like a person playing a violin.  I
severely doubt anyone could accomplish it with a CV/gate sequencer
without a massive amount of steps and channels.  So if you are
already using MIDI to control it, and you are using an
editor/librarian to edit the parameters on this proposed module, then
why not just do the whole thing in a computer??<<

It seems like so much of what I had said in my last post wasn't remembered.
I had mentioned that I apparently got enough expression out of my Nord
violin playing in real-time (just using velocity and a pedal) to make some
people doubt I was playing it in real-time and that I must be using a midi
sequencer somehow (or playing a real violin through the Nord), and I still
have a hand, another foot my mouth free for even more expression.  The
Garriton Stratavari violin sounds like the real thing in real-time just
using keyboard and modwheel.  That's what I'm trying to accomplish.
Acoustic musicians use similar phrasing and expression in many different
instruments. The Yamaha physical modeling synth uses a keyboard/breath
controller or a wind controller for all of it's sounds.  That kind of
control works just as well for brass as for woodwind, so it would work just
as well for the imaginary new synthesized acoustic instrument.

>>That's my point, if something is DSP, then it should have reasons to
justify being in a separate piece of hardware -- interface, stability,
copy-protection, portability, etc.<<

Interface, patchability and elimination of processing delay and of computer.
Real knobs, rather than mouse and screen.  Some of the same reasons people
use real modulars over soft synths in the first place.

>>While I agree that there are people who buy synths, and perhaps even
modulars, who use them in limited ways, I doubt that most people who buy
modulars don't produce music.   How well someone can play an instrument
doesn't have much to do with it.<<

Judging by what I've heard, many if not must don't use them to produce
music.  Many aren't musicians which is one reason why.  And you're
contradicting yourself.  How well someone can play an instrument DOES have
to do with it.  If somebody can't play a synth like a musical instrument,
they probably aren't going to be interested in a product that's primarily
for synthesizing complex musical instrument type sounds.

>>By all accounts, Verdi could barely sing and Shakespeare was a lousy
actor.<<

And thus Verdi didn't sing and Shakespeare didn't act, they got other people
to do that.  Unfortunately those who can barely play an instrument or
compose music don't follow these same rules.

>>Most of of today's electronic music uses sequencers -- either hardware or
data in a DAW.<<

And how does that music get into those sequencers?  Usually it has to be
played into them in the first place, then editting can be done where needed.
I'm well aware of the flood of simple, robotic and repetitive stuff out
there.  An advanced filter bank isn't for the that latter group, since a
melody or chordal structure needs to be there for filtering in the first
place.

>>Regardless, I find your argument  -- that you found all kinds of bugs in
the latest synths you bought is evidence of how people use modulars -- 
rather non-sequitur.<<

It's completely relevant.  Simplistic or limited use of the features and
filters that currently exist in a modular means people aren't in the market
for something that's way beyond what's already there.  Just the arguing
people are doing with me that an advanced filter bank isn't needed proves my
point.  And that's why there is no such thing and probably never will be.
So the few of us who want to experiment in that area have to use less than
optimal alternatives.

-Elhardt