Yahoo Groups archive

MOTM

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:35 UTC

Thread

[motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

[motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-14 by elhardt@att.net

OK, so I'm a little backlogged at responding to some old messages. This in in 
regards to all the talk about additive synthesis and whatnot over a month ago. 
Since a lot of this stuff is right up my alley (and I just uploaded a related 
MP3), here it goes.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>>I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for a piece of software capable 
of doing analysis of a single note played by a particular instrument, for 
example a wav file of a sax.  I am looking for something that can give me a 
time varying spectra so that I can see the individual envelopes of each 
harmonic as well as determine the individual harmonic amplitudes.<<

Some standard sound editting programs like Sound Forge and Wavelab can give you 
3D time varying spectra plots, although sloppy and hard to derive useful info 
from a lot of the time. Otherwise, follow Pauls advice and search the net.  
CoolEdit Pro can give you a realtime animated harmonic plot of instruments as 
they play or you can manually slide the pointer along a waveform and see the 
changes in harmonic amplitudes. Their FFT filter is great for filtering out 
individual harmonics and listenting to them by themselves (a technique I use).


>>Also helpful would be if anyone knows of a source (book or website) for this 
sort of information in a quantitative form, not just some general looking 
graphs.<<

I've found almost nothing myself. There is supposedly a well known set of 
harmonic graphs for most instruments, but those are only averages, and you need 
a different one for every note, and all the links to them are dead. For strings 
I've been analysing samples. Of course you either need to store different 
harmonics for every note to preserve the formants of the instrument, or come up 
with a multi-band formant filter. If you go the formant filter route you start 
to defeat the need for additive synthesis in the first place.


>>It would be equally interesting if an analysis tool could easily show you the 
frequency response of an instrument body, if it could be done without sticking 
transducers all over the place and then applying a variety of excitation 
sources.<<

Unfortunately the acoustic world is far more complex than it should be. 
Resonances and dips in the frequency spectrum can move or disappear depending 
on the note being played. It's a mess that only my future synth engine will 
handle correctly. However you can pick a range of notes and try to nail them 
down and hope the rest still sound pretty good. Looking at the harmonics of a 
violin note sliding up a couple of octaves up a string can help you see 
harmonics get sucked into dips and pop up at major resonances.

Roger Rossen writes:
>>Additive synthesis has existed for quite awhile now- especially in the  
academic sector  - 'modulars' or software based ones for that matter have been 
around for quite awhile.Its a LOT of wanking around with minimal effect - my 
general proof: no major synth manuf. are pursuing it anymore.<<

It's all about user interface. Fairlight had it right. Just draw the time 
varying envelope of each harmonic with a lightpen. Simple and Fast!  20 years 
ago a wrote a program on the Apple ][ that did it that way (trackball instead 
of lightpen). It worked great. On the K5000, dialing in one harmonic at a time, 
and doing that four times, then connecting those to different points on a multi-
segment envelope to morph between them, all from a little LCD window is the 
most miserable hell a person can go through, and not very flexible either.  
Additive is coming back because of the computer. There are two knew softsynths 
that are coming out just for additive.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>To achieve that goal, it would be musically useful to be able to generate a 
Fourier Series with complete control over the amplitude of each harmonic over 
time, which you certainly cannot do at present with the MOTM.<<

If you have a K5000, why duplicate that effort. You can just use your K5000 as 
an additive oscillator to feed into your MOTM. 

Ken Tkacs writes:
>>For certain tasks, such as Additive Synthesis, digital is pretty necessary. 
To do anything interesting, you need something like 128 oscillators, 128 
amplifiers, and 128 envelope generators... then you need a way to control it 
all, and about three weeks to turn knobs<<

128 oscillators? The K5000 can only do 64 at a time, and I think the fairlight 
was 32. My MP3 demo only uses 18 for test purposes, and it's only a little bit 
less bright than the real sound. Interesting thing is I can filter some sound 
files so that instruments are down to between 1 and 4 harmonics and you can 
still tell what instrument it is. For non-natural harmonic stuff, like kettle 
drums for instance, you're better off forgetting additive altogether.

Tobias Enhus writes:
>>Additive synthesis is a very valid technique to investigate.<<

Exactly.  It's the only way to mimic some acoustic instruments almost exactly.

>>There's an additive technique in particular, that I've used a lot in both 
Csound and Kyma (with great results) and hope to recreate with MOTM modules, 
additive harmonic filtering (Paul Lansky). You feed a sound to 
a bank of filters with high resonance tuned and enveloped to your specs. This 
technique captures more noise and enharmonic material which is very important 
ingredients of a natural sound.<<

One of those new additive softsynths claims to have a 128 band noise 
filterbank. Sounds similar. For most acoustic instruments, that's not 
necessary. But I've found with the human voice, there is a lot of breath noise 
going on between the harmonics. I've pieced together a file without that noise 
and the voice sounds synthetic. With the noise, it comes to life.


The following file is uploaded into the motm yahoogroups file section:

StringSynthesisElhardt.mp3

Some of you have heard the violin tone before, but this MP3 gives you a Wendy 
Carlos - Secrets of Synthesis (voice and all) style explaination as to how it 
was done. Plus you get a corny advertisement (I was just amusing myself) for my 
synthesis technique showing the awful results of current technology for doing 
string sounds, and the latest Nord modular samples using multiple delay lines 
(comb filtering), phaser, parametric EQs, wavewrappers, etc, to get pretty good 
strings sounds now, since "Microdetailed" synthesis won't be available until I 
write a synth engine to handle all aspects of it.  Thanks to the Boss VT-1 
Voice Transformer for helping me out with the voice overs.

-Elhardt

RE: [motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-14 by Les Mizzell

>  StringSynthesisElhardt.mp3

Damn, you got the hair on my arms to stand up with that last little Grieg
bit, assuming you didn't cheat!

You've obviously put an amazing amount of work and research into what you've
managed to accomplish here. Bravo!


Les

Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-15 by coyoteous

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, elhardt@a... wrote:
> Some standard sound editting programs like Sound Forge and Wavelab 
can give you 
> 3D time varying spectra plots, although sloppy and hard to derive useful info 
> from a lot of the time. Otherwise, follow Pauls advice and search the net.  

also:

http://www.ircam.fr - Audiosculpt (great graphic FFT - ability to isolate and play 
individual harmonics)

http://www.cerlsoundgroup.org/Lemur/ (as mentioned in thread)

> >>Also helpful would be if anyone knows of a source (book or website) for 
this 
> sort of information in a quantitative form, not just some general looking 
> graphs.<<
> 
> I've found almost nothing myself. There is supposedly a well known set of 
> harmonic graphs for most instruments, but those are only averages, and you 
need 
> a different one for every note, and all the links to them are dead.

http://www.parmly.luc.edu/parmly/sharc.html - SHARC Timbre Database? 
(seems to be offline, interesting concept, nonetheless)

http://www.ircam.fr - The Sound Palette (browse a vast library of instrument 
sounds for $)

Barry

RE: [motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-15 by Paul Haneberg

Thanks for all the info.  I have not done very well at finding what I am 
looking for so far.  The only decent Fourier analysis program I have found 
is too expensive to be of use for me.  $1K.  I would agree that one doesn't 
need to many harmonics to do a decent job, the Fourier series generator 
idea I am playing around with is probably going to have 16.  I'm hoping to 
make up for the lack of higher harmonics by using either a HP filtered 
sawtooth or a noise source to add brightness.

I would also agree that physical modeling is a better means of simulating 
traditional instruments if you can get the algorithms  close enough.

I am thinking of writing my own FFT analysis program for analyzing wave 
files.  If I do I will post a link to the group.  I intend to share it for 
free.

BTW you are the master of synthesizing instruments.  I wish I had your ear. 
 (I am not worthy!)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From:	elhardt@... [SMTP:elhardt@...]
Sent:	Saturday, June 14, 2003 7:22 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	[motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

OK, so I'm a little backlogged at responding to some old messages. This in 
in
regards to all the talk about additive synthesis and whatnot over a month 
ago.
Since a lot of this stuff is right up my alley (and I just uploaded a 
related
MP3), here it goes.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>>I am wondering if anyone has any suggestions for a piece of software 
capable
of doing analysis of a single note played by a particular instrument, for
example a wav file of a sax.  I am looking for something that can give me a 
time varying spectra so that I can see the individual envelopes of each
harmonic as well as determine the individual harmonic amplitudes.<<

Some standard sound editting programs like Sound Forge and Wavelab can give 
you
3D time varying spectra plots, although sloppy and hard to derive useful 
info
from a lot of the time. Otherwise, follow Pauls advice and search the net. 
CoolEdit Pro can give you a realtime animated harmonic plot of instruments 
as
they play or you can manually slide the pointer along a waveform and see 
the
changes in harmonic amplitudes. Their FFT filter is great for filtering out 
individual harmonics and listenting to them by themselves (a technique I 
use).


>>Also helpful would be if anyone knows of a source (book or website) for 
this
sort of information in a quantitative form, not just some general looking
graphs.<<

I've found almost nothing myself. There is supposedly a well known set of
harmonic graphs for most instruments, but those are only averages, and you 
need
a different one for every note, and all the links to them are dead. For 
strings
I've been analysing samples. Of course you either need to store different
harmonics for every note to preserve the formants of the instrument, or 
come up
with a multi-band formant filter. If you go the formant filter route you 
start
to defeat the need for additive synthesis in the first place.


>>It would be equally interesting if an analysis tool could easily show you 
the
frequency response of an instrument body, if it could be done without 
sticking
transducers all over the place and then applying a variety of excitation
sources.<<

Unfortunately the acoustic world is far more complex than it should be.
Resonances and dips in the frequency spectrum can move or disappear 
depending
on the note being played. It's a mess that only my future synth engine will 
handle correctly. However you can pick a range of notes and try to nail 
them
down and hope the rest still sound pretty good. Looking at the harmonics of 
a
violin note sliding up a couple of octaves up a string can help you see
harmonics get sucked into dips and pop up at major resonances.

Roger Rossen writes:
>>Additive synthesis has existed for quite awhile now- especially in the
academic sector  - 'modulars' or software based ones for that matter have 
been
around for quite awhile.Its a LOT of wanking around with minimal effect - 
my
general proof: no major synth manuf. are pursuing it anymore.<<

It's all about user interface. Fairlight had it right. Just draw the time
varying envelope of each harmonic with a lightpen. Simple and Fast!  20 
years
ago a wrote a program on the Apple ][ that did it that way (trackball 
instead
of lightpen). It worked great. On the K5000, dialing in one harmonic at a 
time,
and doing that four times, then connecting those to different points on a 
multi-
segment envelope to morph between them, all from a little LCD window is the 
most miserable hell a person can go through, and not very flexible either. 
Additive is coming back because of the computer. There are two knew 
softsynths
that are coming out just for additive.

Paul Haneberg writes:
>To achieve that goal, it would be musically useful to be able to generate 
a
Fourier Series with complete control over the amplitude of each harmonic 
over
time, which you certainly cannot do at present with the MOTM.<<

If you have a K5000, why duplicate that effort. You can just use your K5000 
as
an additive oscillator to feed into your MOTM.

Ken Tkacs writes:
>>For certain tasks, such as Additive Synthesis, digital is pretty 
necessary.
To do anything interesting, you need something like 128 oscillators, 128
amplifiers, and 128 envelope generators... then you need a way to control 
it
all, and about three weeks to turn knobs<<

128 oscillators? The K5000 can only do 64 at a time, and I think the 
fairlight
was 32. My MP3 demo only uses 18 for test purposes, and it's only a little 
bit
less bright than the real sound. Interesting thing is I can filter some 
sound
files so that instruments are down to between 1 and 4 harmonics and you can 
still tell what instrument it is. For non-natural harmonic stuff, like 
kettle
drums for instance, you're better off forgetting additive altogether.

Tobias Enhus writes:
>>Additive synthesis is a very valid technique to investigate.<<

Exactly.  It's the only way to mimic some acoustic instruments almost 
exactly.

>>There's an additive technique in particular, that I've used a lot in both 
Csound and Kyma (with great results) and hope to recreate with MOTM 
modules,
additive harmonic filtering (Paul Lansky). You feed a sound to
a bank of filters with high resonance tuned and enveloped to your specs. 
This
technique captures more noise and enharmonic material which is very 
important
ingredients of a natural sound.<<

One of those new additive softsynths claims to have a 128 band noise
filterbank. Sounds similar. For most acoustic instruments, that's not
necessary. But I've found with the human voice, there is a lot of breath 
noise
going on between the harmonics. I've pieced together a file without that 
noise
and the voice sounds synthetic. With the noise, it comes to life.


The following file is uploaded into the motm yahoogroups file section:

StringSynthesisElhardt.mp3

Some of you have heard the violin tone before, but this MP3 gives you a 
Wendy
Carlos - Secrets of Synthesis (voice and all) style explaination as to how 
it
was done. Plus you get a corny advertisement (I was just amusing myself) 
for my
synthesis technique showing the awful results of current technology for 
doing
string sounds, and the latest Nord modular samples using multiple delay 
lines
(comb filtering), phaser, parametric EQs, wavewrappers, etc, to get pretty 
good
strings sounds now, since "Microdetailed" synthesis won't be available 
until I
write a synth engine to handle all aspects of it.  Thanks to the Boss VT-1
Voice Transformer for helping me out with the voice overs.

-Elhardt




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-15 by tontaub

Hi Paul,

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:

> I am thinking of writing my own FFT analysis program for analyzing 
> wave files.  If I do I will post a link to the group.  I intend to 
> share it for free.

if you do so, how are you going to deal with for instance f-modulation
of the fundamental? I'm asking because IIRC all those programs cut the
sampled signal into chunks of 2^n samples regardless of its frequency. 
Due to the applied windowing techniques (Hamming, Hanning, Bartlett
etc.) the results are mathematically (more or less) correct but the
displayed spectras are IMHO not very useful in a musical sense.
Granted, many things are detectable by the ear but in my case I'm
still seeking automated help to get even closer to the desired results.

   ;-) Michael.

Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-15 by tontaub

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Tobias Enhus <tobias@m...> wrote:
> It would be very interesting to create a program that analyzes sound 
> files in some other way than FFT.

IMHO the synthesis method is not the weak point.
Nowadays a descrete harmonic synthesis by adding shaped harmonics is
not the problem (cpu-wise for instance).
The point is firstly the vast mass of parameters one has to deal with
and (in case of resynthesis) the efficient and effective translation
to availiable parameters.
How to decide what's important to the desired sound and what's not,
that's point. IMHO that's the case for _any_ synthesis system -
regardless if analog or digital.

> The Synclavier II uses 96 operator additive synthesis, where you load 
> spectral sets from floppy's. Quasi sampling almost. However the
sound is 
> fantastic! Much more pure than any FFT software of today. Now Synclav 
> might have used FFT to analyze the samples, but somehow they managed to 
> keep the time domain free from wavering and flutter.

IIRC those artefacts mostly come from windowing and their inherent
shifting and overlaping. Which is not the case when descrete
oscillators (operators) are in play (wether they are in software or
hardware) but OTOH 

How about the Technos Axcel? AFAIK it uses 64 harmonics.
But IMO it still sounds rather artificial.
(http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml)

> How about a more un orthodox way of creating additive spectra's.
What if 
> you would use a vocoder approach and record the rms for each band.
> This requires a lot of filters, but it wouldn't have to be real time. 

IMHO not efficient enough and maybe (or even for sure) much more
artifacts than with common FFT methods.
Probably nice to get "new sounds" (can't hear that term anymore) but
IMHO not worthwhile the effort.

My point in this discussion is how to obtain more detailed information
on sounds to bring me closer to desired results. And I'm not
necessarely after natural sounds as the final result.

    Michael.

Re: [motm] Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-15 by Tobias Enhus

It would be very interesting to create a program that analyzes sound 
files in some other way than FFT.
I have all the FFT tools I could ask for (Kyma, Csound, Lemur, audio 
sculpt), but I'm still searching for a more pure way of creating 
additive synthesis. FFT has a way of coloring the sound (not necessarily 
in a bad way, but still..).
The Synclavier II uses 96 operator additive synthesis, where you load 
spectral sets from floppy's. Quasi sampling almost. However the sound is 
fantastic! Much more pure than any FFT software of today. Now Synclav 
might have used FFT to analyze the samples, but somehow they managed to 
keep the time domain free from wavering and flutter. A software that 
could generate tables like that would be amazing!

How about a more un orthodox way of creating additive spectra's. What if 
you would use a vocoder approach and record the rms for each band.
This requires a lot of filters, but it wouldn't have to be real time. In 
fact it's almost to prefer if it wasn't in real time, because then you 
could use better sounding filters.

Tobias




tontaub wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Hi Paul,
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:
>
> > I am thinking of writing my own FFT analysis program for analyzing
> > wave files.  If I do I will post a link to the group.  I intend to
> > share it for free.
>
> if you do so, how are you going to deal with for instance f-modulation
> of the fundamental? I'm asking because IIRC all those programs cut the
> sampled signal into chunks of 2^n samples regardless of its frequency.
> Due to the applied windowing techniques (Hamming, Hanning, Bartlett
> etc.) the results are mathematically (more or less) correct but the
> displayed spectras are IMHO not very useful in a musical sense.
> Granted, many things are detectable by the ear but in my case I'm
> still seeking automated help to get even closer to the desired results.
>
>    ;-) Michael.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12ongbbsq/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

Re: [motm] Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-16 by Tobias Enhus

My point exactly, the use of discrete operators is the way to go, nice 
sounding such too. What I'm talking about is the analysis stage. How to 
extract those overtones and their envelopes, with some sort of averaging 
function that makes musical sense. A more simplified, pure way. Like you 
say, not necessarily to reproduce a natural sound, but a sound that 
sounds good.
Even if you play back an FFT analysis through discrete oscillators , you 
still get flutter etc.

FFT is probably the way to go in the end, but with a couple of smart 
timbral averaging additions.  Then you also need a way to get smooth 
envelope curves with only a few points (few compared to unlimited..). 
Smooth but without loosing information in the attack.

I've played with the Axcel many times, and I always come to the same 
result, nothing....
It's got the coolest user interface on the planet, but the worst 
sounding engine ever. Great show piece but nothing more.

T
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> IIRC those artefacts mostly come from windowing and their inherent
> shifting and overlaping. Which is not the case when descrete
> oscillators (operators) are in play (wether they are in software or
> hardware) but OTOH
>
> How about the Technos Axcel? AFAIK it uses 64 harmonics.
> But IMO it still sounds rather artificial.
> (http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml) 
> <http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml%29>
>
> > How about a more un orthodox way of creating additive spectra's.
> What if
> > you would use a vocoder approach and record the rms for each band.
> > This requires a lot of filters, but it wouldn't have to be real time.
>
> IMHO not efficient enough and maybe (or even for sure) much more
> artifacts than with common FFT methods.
> Probably nice to get "new sounds" (can't hear that term anymore) but
> IMHO not worthwhile the effort.
>
> My point in this discussion is how to obtain more detailed information
> on sounds to bring me closer to desired results. And I'm not
> necessarely after natural sounds as the final result.
>
>     Michael.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705032277:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12ongbbsq/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/autoredir?camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM> 
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

RE: [motm] Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-16 by Paul Haneberg

I'm well aware of the windowing problem.  The greater the number of samples 
the more accurate the FFT in terms of determining frequencies but only if 
the frequencies are constant which is not always the case.  With fewer 
samples and a smaller window the time varying amplitude of the harmonics 
could possibly be determined more accurately, but at the expense of 
frequency accuracy.  It may be possible to use a combination of large and 
small windows to get the best accuracy, but there will still be errors.

I read a paper online where someone was proposing improving FFT analysis 
accuracy by first performing an FFT on a sample, then using the inverse FFT 
to resynthesize the original signal (both frequency and phase information) 
then adding the inverted resynthesis waveform to the original to cancel out 
everything but the error.  Then you could conceivably analyze the error. 
 Possibly the error signal could be synthesized using a different method 
than Fourier.

It is possible that the amount of data is simply overwhelming.  I do not 
know for instance how many data points are required for each harmonic 
envelope, whether or not phase accuracy must be maintained, or how 
complicated the algorithm has to be defining the behavior of the harmonics 
(and their envelopes) over the range of a given instrument.

The problem with using filters is that (if I remember my Math and EE 
correctly) the narrower the filter the more it tends to ring, thus 
impairing analysis.  Phase response is not maintained when passing a signal 
through most filters, except the digital FIR (fixed impulse response) 
variety.  Most filters of the type we commonly think of tend to smear the 
sound due to differing phase shifts for different harmonics.  It may be 
possible to overcome this problem by using some sort of swept heterodyning 
method.

Other ideas for possible analysis would probably include using the Walsh 
transform, but generating and analyzing sounds using this method is not 
intuitive.  It also might be possible to use some sort of inverse Bessel 
function and determine synthesis parameters using FM as was done on the 
DX7, but this would require VCOs or DCOs which can be frequency modulated 
through zero.

The whole point (at least as far as I'm concerned) is to try to become 
better educated as to why things sound as they do.  If it using FFT 
analysis leads to better synthesis so much the better.  The ear/brain uses 
a sort of FFT, and interestingly enough it appears now that the ear is 
actually digital, not analog, but that's another issue.  Since we hear by 
sort of a Fourier analysis, that makes the most sense when trying to do an 
analysis.  In theory you can synthesize any periodic waveform with a series 
of sine waves, given enough control over frequency, phase and amplitude.

-----Original Message-----
From:	Tobias Enhus [SMTP:tobias@...]
Sent:	Sunday, June 15, 2003 10:04 PM
To:	motm@yahoogroups.com
Subject:	Re: [motm] Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, 
Fourier, etc

 << File: ATT00068.htm >> My point exactly, the use of discrete operators 
is the way to go, nice
sounding such too. What I'm talking about is the analysis stage. How to
extract those overtones and their envelopes, with some sort of averaging
function that makes musical sense. A more simplified, pure way. Like you
say, not necessarily to reproduce a natural sound, but a sound that
sounds good.
Even if you play back an FFT analysis through discrete oscillators , you
still get flutter etc.

FFT is probably the way to go in the end, but with a couple of smart
timbral averaging additions.  Then you also need a way to get smooth
envelope curves with only a few points (few compared to unlimited..).
Smooth but without loosing information in the attack.

I've played with the Axcel many times, and I always come to the same
result, nothing....
It's got the coolest user interface on the planet, but the worst
sounding engine ever. Great show piece but nothing more.

T

>
> IIRC those artefacts mostly come from windowing and their inherent
> shifting and overlaping. Which is not the case when descrete
> oscillators (operators) are in play (wether they are in software or
> hardware) but OTOH
>
> How about the Technos Axcel? AFAIK it uses 64 harmonics.
> But IMO it still sounds rather artificial.
> (http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml)
> 
<http://archive.keyboardonline.com/features/vintagegear/vgear0101.shtml%29>
>
> > How about a more un orthodox way of creating additive spectra's.
> What if
> > you would use a vocoder approach and record the rms for each band.
> > This requires a lot of filters, but it wouldn't have to be real time.
>
> IMHO not efficient enough and maybe (or even for sure) much more
> artifacts than with common FFT methods.
> Probably nice to get "new sounds" (can't hear that term anymore) but
> IMHO not worthwhile the effort.
>
> My point in this discussion is how to obtain more detailed information
> on sounds to bring me closer to desired results. And I'm not
> necessarely after natural sounds as the final result.
>
>     Michael.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> 
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=249982.3179269.4495679.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705  
032277:HM/A=1524963/R=0/SIG=12ongbbsq/*http://hits.411web.com/cgi-bin/au  
toredir?camp=556&lineid=3179269&prop=egroupweb&pos=HM>
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.

Re: file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-16 by tontaub

Paul,

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Paul Haneberg <phaneber@o...> wrote:
> The whole point (at least as far as I'm concerned) is to try to become 
> better educated as to why things sound as they do.  

I'm absolutely with you!

IMHO the main thing is how to get trained and how to retrieve the
proper information to be able to use your set of tools (in our case:
synthesiser modules) to achieve your grade of authenticity you want.

Two things come in my mind when talking about this:

a) Take current 3D-animations. E.g. watch how the human face and human
motion is depicted. In fact the folks who are doing this allready have
the technology to do so. But why do many things just look wrong? Why
is somebody able to tell that it's not real? 
It's just about the correct use of certain parameters. 

b) Physical Modelling: there we've got lot's of sounds which are
pretty good and have nothing to do with natural occurences. 
But they may have some detail which make them interesting
("ear-catching") as if they were from some natural exotic source.

IMHO it's about not to get drowned in (unimportant) information when
analysing an original source.

   just my 2c, Michael.

Re: [motm] file uploaded, Additive Synthesis, Strings, Fourier, etc

2003-06-18 by Kenneth Elhardt

From: Les Mizzell
> Damn, you got the hair on my arms to stand up with that last little Grieg
> bit, assuming you didn't cheat!

It's all Nord modular + SE-70 effects unit.  But as per my comments, that
part is not additive synthesis.  It's 8 tracks of nord celli and 6 tracks of
nord violins, each track placed in a different stereo position and placed a
different distance from the listener.  Vibrato depth and rate is controlled
by breath, and swell by pedel, so each track has it's own articulation and
stereo placement.  The result is quite human sounding.

> You've obviously put an amazing amount of work and research into what
you've managed to accomplish here. Bravo!<

I'm still working on getting even closer to the real thing.  It never seems
to end.

>You wouldn't be going to see Robert Rich in Asheville this week, would
you?<

No, it's too far away.

------------

Apparently a number of people don't have access to the yahoo files section.
Hopefully soon I'll figure out how to ftp files into my personal att space
(as I used to do on AOL) to avoid the yahoo files section altogether.

-Elhardt

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.