MOTM

>How about granular synthesis? Harmonic resynthesis? Morphing? All
>*possible* theoretically in analog (I think) but wonderful in the
?digital realm. Go here: http://www.symbolicsound.com/.
>
>Right tool for the right job, and it ain't always analog.
>
>Mike

Oh, I agree absolutely!  Digital is fantastic for that kind of stuff.
 And mixing analog and digital into hybrids is wonderful too, whether
that's a MiniWave, PPG Wave, Prophet VS or taking the output from a
soft-synth and plugging it into your 440...

My previous post was about the shortcomings of digital emulating
analog, not about digital being inherently evil.

I'd also throw in physical modelling in there, though I tend to prefer
modelling instruments that DON'T exist rather than ones that do.  (If
I want a lead violin part, I'll go find a violinist - they can
articulate that sound far better than I ever will; they've spend 20
years learning how to do it).

And w.r.t 'Zipper noise': that's not a limitation of digital.  It's a
limitation of the implementation.  Future systems will through enough
resolution at it that you won't be able to hear it.  (Most current
systems get this right too now, though not everywhere).

Harry

Right! I love mixing 'em...and I even like pseudo-granular in the 
analog realm.  Anyway, point made, now I can crawl back under my 
rock... :)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "cormallen" <motm@c...> wrote:
> >How about granular synthesis? Harmonic resynthesis? Morphing? All
> >*possible* theoretically in analog (I think) but wonderful in the
> ?digital realm. Go here: http://www.symbolicsound.com/.
> >
> >Right tool for the right job, and it ain't always analog.
> >
> >Mike
> 
> Oh, I agree absolutely!  Digital is fantastic for that kind of 
stuff.
>  And mixing analog and digital into hybrids is wonderful too, 
whether
> that's a MiniWave, PPG Wave, Prophet VS or taking the output from a
> soft-synth and plugging it into your 440...
> 
> My previous post was about the shortcomings of digital emulating
> analog, not about digital being inherently evil.
> 
> I'd also throw in physical modelling in there, though I tend to 
prefer
> modelling instruments that DON'T exist rather than ones that do.  
(If
> I want a lead violin part, I'll go find a violinist - they can
> articulate that sound far better than I ever will; they've spend 20
> years learning how to do it).
> 
> And w.r.t 'Zipper noise': that's not a limitation of digital.  It's 
a
> limitation of the implementation.  Future systems will through 
enough

> resolution at it that you won't be able to hear it.  (Most current
> systems get this right too now, though not everywhere).
> 
> Harry

This has been a very interesting topic.  Good points made.  Analog and
"digital" technologies each have advantages and disadvantages.  Combining
them is great.  Claiming that either is "superior" or complete in itself is
probably short-sighted.

Continuing off topic.  Ever hear of Mark Tilden?  Here is one of many
articles you can find on the Internet:

http://www.exhibitresearch.com/tilden/

Tilden studies behavior that seems "intelligent" by building analog robots.
For years he was dismissed as a kook by the AI nazis at MIT, who think only
a computer can simulate intelligence.  (Don't get me going on AI.)  I think
his work is getting more attention now, as the
"analog-is-out-of-fashion-everything-has-to-be-digital" craze abates.

Let's take the best of both worlds.

-Richard Brewster

----- Original Message -----

From: "Mike Marsh" <mmarsh@...>
To: <motm@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 3:37 PM
Subject: [motm] Re: OT: This just isn't right...


> Right! I love mixing 'em...and I even like pseudo-granular in the
> analog realm.  Anyway, point made, now I can crawl back under my
> rock... :)
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "cormallen" <motm@c...> wrote:
> > >How about granular synthesis? Harmonic resynthesis? Morphing? All
> > >*possible* theoretically in analog (I think) but wonderful in the
> > ?digital realm. Go here: http://www.symbolicsound.com/.
> > >
> > >Right tool for the right job, and it ain't always analog.
> > >
> > >Mike
> >
> > Oh, I agree absolutely!  Digital is fantastic for that kind of
> stuff.
> >  And mixing analog and digital into hybrids is wonderful too,
> whether
> > that's a MiniWave, PPG Wave, Prophet VS or taking the output from a
> > soft-synth and plugging it into your 440...
> >
> > My previous post was about the shortcomings of digital emulating
> > analog, not about digital being inherently evil.
> >
> > I'd also throw in physical modelling in there, though I tend to
> prefer
> > modelling instruments that DON'T exist rather than ones that do.
> (If
> > I want a lead violin part, I'll go find a violinist - they can
> > articulate that sound far better than I ever will; they've spend 20
> > years learning how to do it).
> >
> > And w.r.t 'Zipper noise': that's not a limitation of digital.  It's
> a
> > limitation of the implementation.  Future systems will through
> enough
> > resolution at it that you won't be able to hear it.  (Most current
> > systems get this right too now, though not everywhere).
> >
> > Harry
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>