MOTM

Having been greatly impressed by Ken Elhardt's imitative synthesis
efforts, I set out to try some myself. Combining a few sawtooths from
VCO's and a pair of Zeroscillators doing their FM thing, a low-pass
filter and a Moog 907 fixed filter bank, a couple of VCA's and a few
EG's, I created some samples, comparing them all along to reference
samples of, in this case, brass instruments - mostly a trumpet ensemble
sound from Kontakt. I used Blue Cat's free spectrum analyzer - highly
recommended for the price!

In any case, I discovered that my samples needed massive EQ work to get
close. In addition to the fixed filter bank, I used two sets of
parametric eq's within Cubase - the native EQ and a UAD plug-in (the
new Helios Type 69 - very nice!). I found the results quite pleasing.

So, why is it that (performance) synthesizers have traditionally only
had one measly filter? Why essentially no eq at all? Why even within
the modular realm has there been only limited eq capability? Honestly,
traditional fixed filter banks were quite limited in scope. I think
there's a real opportunity here for a clever new module that allows
severe (big boost/cut) and detailed (many frequencies) EQ capability.
How about with frequencies under voltage control to shift the whole
shebang up/down the keyboard? Thoughts for a digital implementation in
MOTM 2.0? With memory for storage of different "instrument" settings?

>I think
>there's a real opportunity here for a clever new module that allows
>severe (big boost/cut) and detailed (many frequencies) EQ capability.
>How about with frequencies under voltage control to shift the whole
>shebang up/down the keyboard? Thoughts for a digital implementation in
>MOTM 2.0? With memory for storage of different "instrument" settings?

I fully agree with you on this one. I suggested such a module as a
replacement for the (shelved) 450 fixed filter bank. I think this
would make good use of the "audio engine" that Paul S. talked about
last year.

> So, why is it that (performance) synthesizers have traditionally only
> had one measly filter?

Because it isn't needed for the vast majority of applications of
(performance) synthesizers--applications which are not imitative
synthesis. Since it was/is quite difficult to do imitative synthesis
with the analog instruments affordable by most keyboard players (i.e.,
the minimoog and its close relatives) most people didn't use them for
imitative synthesis. Then digital sampling came along and for the vast
majority of applications that did/do require imitation of acoustic
instruments, digital technology proved to be far more cost-effective
and easier to use.

> Why essentially no eq at all?

More or less the same reason. Also, if you really need(ed) an EQ on
your synth, there were/are any number of outboard EQs available.

>
> So, why is it that (performance) synthesizers have traditionally only=20
> had one measly filter? Why essentially no eq at all? Why even within=20
> the modular realm has there been only limited eq capability? Honestly,=20
> traditional fixed filter banks were quite limited in scope. I think=20
> there's a real opportunity here for a clever new module that allows=20
> severe (big boost/cut) and detailed (many frequencies) EQ capability.=20=20
> How about with frequencies under voltage control to shift the whole=20
> shebang up/down the keyboard? Thoughts for a digital implementation in=20
> MOTM 2.0? With memory for storage of different "instrument" settings?
>

http://music.hyperreal.org/artists/brian_eno/interviews/keyb81.html

Your music seems to rely pretty heavily on echo.

It really does. The important thing about using effects in connection with synthesizers is that they mess the sound
up a little bit. My problem with synthesizers has always been that the sound is done inorganic of itself that it
sticks out too much. It's far too obvious and high-definition in a track. So one of the main points of the echo unit
is not just for the sake of echo, but also to knock off a few of the high frequencies of the synthesizer, and
introduce some distortion as well. It's actually being used rather like a graphic equalizer. I do have two graphics
as well, which I use. Those I should have mentioned first, because they are really the most important. I can't
understand why nobody has built a synthesizer with a graphic built into it.


----------------------- Tear Along Dotted Line -----------------------
John Neilson jneil@...

this message brought to you by 'e-mail' -- safe, clean, Modern!

I ordered one. Guess I should have ordered two! ;)

-George

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, jneilyahoo@... wrote:

Well, I'm not sure what Brian Eno has to do with this. I have dozens
of his records, and I've never heard him do anything vaguely similar
to imitative synthesis. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Anyway, while I know that some people are into imitative synthesis,
and I can see how it's interesting and challenging, it simply isn't
practical. As someone already pointed out, using sampling or
physical modeling is easier and less expensive.

A far as EQ is concerned, there are several issues:

EQ cannot produced inharmonics, it can only change the amplitude of
frequencies that are already present.

The resonance or frequency response produced by the body of an
acoustic instrument, as well as the room it is in, while often very
complex, does not vary with the pitch of the note played.

While I do not now of any "1v/Oct" EQ's there are numerous digital
EQ's on the market that can save and recall settings. There are also
EQ's that can respond to the dynamics of a signal.


On 4/20/07, rogerpellegrini put forth:

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@...> wrote:

>
> Well, I'm not sure what Brian Eno has to do with this. I have

dozens

> of his records, and I've never heard him do anything vaguely similar
> to imitative synthesis. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Perhaps. His point, and mine, is that EQ can dramatically shape
sound into what you might like. That could be an imitation of an
existing instrument, or something else. In Brian Eno's case, much
the latter.

> EQ cannot produced inharmonics, it can only change the amplitude of
> frequencies that are already present.

Yes, this is a premise of subtractive synthesis. We start with
almost all the frequencies (a sawtooth) and snip away wearing oven
mitts. I'd like to be able to use a more sophisticated surgical
approach.

>
>
>
> Well, I'm not sure what Brian Eno has to do with this. I have dozens
> of his records, and I've never heard him do anything vaguely similar
> to imitative synthesis. Perhaps I'm missing something.
>

I think you are. He's done tons of imitative synthesis, not imitating
instruments, but imitating sounds -- sounds of nature, insects, and
what have you. Listen to some of the ambient albums, On Land for
instance.


----------------------- Tear Along Dotted Line -----------------------
John Neilson jneil@...

this message brought to you by 'e-mail' -- safe, clean, Modern!

On 2007-04-20 11:52 -0400, Mark wrote:

> Well, I'm not sure what Brian Eno has to do with this. I have dozens
> of his records, and I've never heard him do anything vaguely similar
> to imitative synthesis. Perhaps I'm missing something.

_Ambient 4 on land_ has some. Not imitations of *instruments* mind
you.

> The resonance or frequency response produced by the body of an
> acoustic instrument, as well as the room it is in, while often very
> complex, does not vary with the pitch of the note played.

An electric bass or electric guitar has different formants on each
string. I know you said "acoustic" but imitative synthesis is not
limited to that, is it ?

--
André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
Do not use this account for regular correspondence.
See the URL above for contact information.

Using my analog synth to imitate other instruments seems
counter-intuitive. E.G.-if I wanted a clarinet part (not that I can
imagine that happening in Chubland!) I'd find a clarinet player.

Mind you, the synth experience will be different for everyone and
imitation is probably an interesting hobby. I just don't get it.

Chub - Mr. "I don't get much"

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Osthelder" <charlesosthelder@...> wrote:

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Osthelder" <charlesosthelder@...> wrote:

>
> Using my analog synth to imitate other instruments seems
> counter-intuitive. E.G.-if I wanted a clarinet part (not that I can
> imagine that happening in Chubland!) I'd find a clarinet player.=20=20
>
> Mind you, the synth experience will be different for everyone and
> imitation is probably an interesting hobby. I just don't get it.
>
> Chub - Mr. "I don't get much"=20=20
>

Mostly I'd agree.

On the other hand, I was always a bit surprised at how many people
want their synth sound to be instantly recognizable . I always figured
one of the strengths of synths was their chameleon-like nature, and that
a synth was most interesting when you couldn't tell "what the hell
instrument made that sound".

I found it odd that people would get excited by -- and this is just an
example, don't take it all out of context -- an MS-20 not because of
the range of sounds it could make, but rather because it had "that MS-20
Sound".

So, back to topic, having EQ on board makes perfect sense to me -- the
more filters the better!

----------------------- Tear Along Dotted Line -----------------------
John Neilson jneil@...

this message brought to you by 'e-mail' -- safe, clean, Modern!

On 4/20/07, rogerpellegrini put forth:

>--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, Mark <yahoogroups@...> wrote:
> > EQ cannot produced inharmonics, it can only change the amplitude of
> > frequencies that are already present.
>
>Yes, this is a premise of subtractive synthesis. We start with
>almost all the frequencies (a sawtooth) and snip away wearing oven
>mitts. I'd like to be able to use a more sophisticated surgical
>approach.

Not entirely, which is why techniques -- which can be realized using
a hardware modular -- such as FM, additive, etc. are valid and useful.

>If the whole filter set was properly resonant, I think we get into
>physical modeling territory pretty quickly. For example, one type of
>physical modeling just requires an impulse fed into a delay with
>feedback. As the delay changes, you get different pitches. This is
>accomplished, basically, by a flanger which has a comb filter
>response tracking at 1v/oct. The proposed tracking resonant EQ
>should be able to emulate this nearly self oscillating "comb filter
>response" as well.

Afaik, Modcan offers a a flanger with voltage control.

On 4/20/07, jneilyahoo@... put forth:

I'ts a bit too much to cut and paste a bunch of responses, so I'll just
point some things out.

I of course have to use a bunch of filtering in a lot of stuff I do. But
the ironic problem you get into is the more powerful, flexible, and more
bands a filter has, the harder it is to acheive what you want. It's like
additive synthesis. If you have 128 harmonics to play with, then changing
the level of one of them may barely even be audible. Then you have to
adjust more, but that takes more time. And if you are trying to acheive a
certain imitative sound, say a violin, there is no way you can just listen
to a violin with your ears and then know you need to set band #38 to -21dB
for example. In my case with my latest Nord violin sounds, I needed to make
adjustments to my 42 band filter bank, then digitize some notes from the
Nord, take a fourier transform to visually see the levels of the harmonics,
compare them to the levels of a real violin, see where the differences are,
then go back make more adjustments and so on back and forth. It's like
tedious manual resynthesis. And then you want voltage controled freq, level
and bandwidth ontop of that? You'll need to spend days or weeks on one
sound. And if you're NOT trying to imitate some complex acoustic
instrument, then trying to shape your non-imitative sound with such detail
doesn't make sense because there isn't really any detailed specific target
in your mind in the first place.

As a result, in a lot of my sounds I've tried to come up with clever tricks,
which is probably why even on something like a $600 Alesis Ion some people
were suspicious I might be using samples somehow in my demos. You start to
learn how to use phase shifters and flangers for complex filtering, and what
kinds of regular LP/BP/HP configurations to use in addition to EQ ontop of
that stuff.

Somebody mentioned Teisco having a filter bank. So did the Polymoog,
Spectralis, and a number of modular synths had EQ and formant filter
modules. But if you listen to the history of synth recordings, the synth
has been so underutilized except by two or three people, that it doesn't
seem like people want to spend the time and effort in learning and doing
anything groundbreaking or difficult. And as pointed out, damn sampling
killed off a lot of people's motivation to do their own sounds. It's easier
for them to work with a known entity.

But as a synthesist, you basically need to rely on outboard gear anyway, and
if that's the case, then there currently isn't anything that can't be done.
In fact SOS magazine just ran an article describing what's available in
Spectral Multi-band plug-ins. I have Spectral Delay myself. If you want a
1000 band filter bank where each band is capable of 0dB to full level to
give you virtually any shape you want, then that's available. Or even
vitural analog synths like the Nord or Reaktor will allow you to build up
huge filter banks for processing your modular. Or just use multiple pieces
of gear and effects to fake the sound you want the best you can.

Note that I just noticed that Samson has reduced the price of their D-3500
to a great price of $200. It's a dual 15 band digital parametric EQ with
patch storage, and capable of +16 to -48 dB of boost/cut (plus you can
overlap bands for more cut/boost). Just another example of a potentially
sophisticated tone shaping piece of gear.

As for the attitude that if you want a clarinet sound just hire a clarinet
player, besides samples, this is another reason synthesis is dead. The
synthesizer was supposed to be a device to create any sound you want, but
nobody uses it that way.

And about allowing the freqs of a filterbank to track the keyboard. When it
comes to doing human vocal sounds that usually works best. Anytime I've
tried to keep filters fixed and create separate patches for male and females
voices, the fact that all the different note pitches have the same filtering
leads to an annoying strong boxy or vocoder type sound. I seem to have to
go with a single patch that morphs from male to female as I play up the
keyboard to get a more natural sound. In real life a choir of singles have
different resonances which combine and smooth each other out anyway.

-Elhardt

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Elhardt" <elhardt@...> wrote:

>
> I'ts a bit too much to cut and paste a bunch of responses, so I'll

just

> point some things out.
>
> I of course have to use a bunch of filtering in a lot of stuff I

do. But

> the ironic problem you get into is the more powerful, flexible, and

more

> bands a filter has, the harder it is to acheive what you want.

Agreed! I did the same sort of spectral analysis thing and it took a
long time! On the other hand, I was so pleased with my quasi-
imitative sound, not just as a good brass sound, but as a great
synthesizer sound. And this is really my point. There is a lot of
untapped potential in the modular analog synth. I think the module
I'm talking about could be very useful.

> Somebody mentioned Teisco having a filter bank. So did the

Polymoog,

> Spectralis, and a number of modular synths had EQ and formant filter
> modules. But if you listen to the history of synth recordings, the

synth

> has been so underutilized except by two or three people, that it

doesn't

> seem like people want to spend the time and effort in learning and

doing

> anything groundbreaking or difficult.

True, so let's make it easier.

> As for the attitude that if you want a clarinet sound just hire a

clarinet

> player, besides samples, this is another reason synthesis is dead.

The

> synthesizer was supposed to be a device to create any sound you

want, but

> nobody uses it that way.

Right. There's nothing wrong with the "standard" analog synth sound
of low-pass filter swept sawtooths. But if you want to create some
other sounds . . .

> And about allowing the freqs of a filterbank to track the

keyboard. When it

> comes to doing human vocal sounds that usually works best. Anytime

I've

> tried to keep filters fixed and create separate patches for male

and females

> voices, the fact that all the different note pitches have the same

filtering

>>Agreed! I did the same sort of spectral analysis thing and it took a

long time! On the other hand, I was so pleased with my quasi-
imitative sound, not just as a good brass sound, but as a great
synthesizer sound. And this is really my point. There is a lot of
untapped potential in the modular analog synth. I think the module
I'm talking about could be very useful.<<

Yeah, there's plenty of untapped potential in a modular synth even beyond
filtering. Unfortunately today's synth climate isn't one where people want
to put in the time or to learn to tap into that potential. The pioneering
spirit died out decades ago. Having gotten part of the way into a string
synth I am writing, I've learned how to do some things I didn't know before,
like program a multi-band filter bank with the bands shaped anyway I want.
I thought about a product that would be the be-all and end-all of filter
banks, with something like a 56 bands and all kinds of advanced features. I
don't want to list them all to give others ideas, but one would be to
analyze incoming sounds for formant info and set the filterbank to a good
match. That would greatly help with a starting point. It could also pop
into EQ mode or into narrow bandpass comb filter mode in addition to other
modes of operation.

>>How about sweeping it with an EG?<<

The 128 band formant filter in the K5000 additive synth can sweep around
like a phaser. So there are special effects uses like that.

>>Or maybe some

interpid folks could come up with settings to share with the user
community that would be also useful for imitative sounds, based on
their hours of spectral analysis? Or maybe a setting that imitates
the MoogCE String Filter?<<

Actually below is a demo I did where you can hear the difference between
different generic string filter imitations (similar to the Moog) done by
placing bandpass filters in various spacings and patterns followed by a
couple of demos where I started to modifiy one of them to match a real
violin. I'm still not finished with the violin ones, but the confined boxy
sound is gone when you start to randomonize the freqs and amplitudes of the
bands to more closely match a real instrument.

Note I have never posted this following demo before as it was slated for the
trash bin, but it's kind of intesting hearing some subtlely different
timbres using different filterbank configurations on the Nord modular. It
starts off with no filter bank at the beginning. All demos below are played
in realtime with no multitracking and just me improvising random music.

http://home.att.net/~elhardt3/String_Filter_Experiments.mp3

Here are a couple Nord synthesized violin demos which I've posted before,
but I can't remember if I posted to this list so they may be new to you.
The second one is Nord violin over Roland rompler strings.

http://home.att.net/~elhardt4/Nord_Violin_Maneuvers.mp3

http://home.att.net/~elhardt4/Nord_Violin_Romantic.mp3


-Elhardt

Dear all -

I've been holding my tongue on this issue because I'm not sure what
the value of my contribution would be.

So now I'm going to ramble a bit, OK?

I guess I've come to this - whereas I'm a relative newbie where
Synthesis (with a capital synthesis), MOTM, and DIY stuff is
concerned, I'm an old hand at composing, arranging, producing, etc. -
and it seems to me that Kenneth Elhardt hit the nail on the head when
he said "The synthesizer was supposed to be a device to create any
sound you want, but nobody uses it that way." And upon reflection,
that's the way I see it too.

See - I'm essentially just a folk musician. My roots - my bringing up
- was in folk and blues and gospel. And I've always known that my
true talent was my voice and my ability to write songs.

And so - so far as instrumentation, I'm an opportunist - and a
self-proclaimed idiot - certainly not a synth aficionado. In the
recordings I've done and records I've produced over the years, I've
used synthesizers both ways... for the recognizably synthesizer-like
and electronic sounds (back in the late seventies and early eighties)
and also for imitative sounds (more recently). When I needed a
synthesizer, I hired a synthesizer guy (synthesizer gals have always
seemed in particularly short supply) - for sure when I wanted a
clarinet I hired a clarinet player 'cause I can't play clarinet.
Truth is, I can't do anything better than someone else... I'm not
smarter, I'm not stronger, I'm certainly not as good a guitar player
or piano player or anything player (not that it stops me from playing)
- except, again, I can write a song probably as good as anybody -
'cause that's my talent - and I also have a knack for knowing what I
want to hear - and for being able to hear how things will sound before
they're played - in my head.

When I pick up an instrument, I noodle around with it until I get
something I like - then I use it. That's the opportunist piece.
And there's a long tradition of this, of course. It starts in the
way-back sitting around the fire - you find out that banging some
bones together makes a cool sound - you do it while you sing.
Eventually you stretch some old skin over a frame and you bang on that
while you whoop it up at midnight to the stars - this is is the root
of music - and poetry. You blow through a shell or a hollow reed and
you make a cool sound and you're on your way. Soon you're tempering
the clavichord. And soon you're discovering how to build electronic
gadgets and boom! Being human, you figure out cool stuff to do with
it. The way I see it - it's inherent in the human being. We're
hard-wired for it.

Like that, when I inherited that old Synthi-A from Froggy via (my
high-school friend) Dennis K - well - I sat and fiddled and fiddled
until I got cool sounds and very cool treatments of sounds. I could
have used something else to do it, I guess, but because I'm nothing
more than a folk musician, I just messed around 'till I got a sound I
like and then worked it into my next recording.

One of the most inspiring compositions I've ever heard was by Dennis
K. It was just sounds he made with Froggy's Synthi-As (he had two).
It was nothing but machine noise. It was raw oscillators and filters
and sequences put together in such an undeniably musical way that it
transcended everything I'd ever heard. A fantastic little example of
sounds that could only be made with a synth, put together into a form
that was undeniably music.

That said - some years ago, I spent around 20 or so hours with Dennis
creating a montage of imitative sounds that conveyed the ocean...
except that the swells and waves, the wind, the birds, the distant
clang of a buoy, the sound of rope creaking - they were timed to the
music. We used some samples - we could have done it all with samples
probably faster and much, much cheaper. But what we were able to do -
because we didn't over-use samples - was control the nuances of the
sounds so that they were recognizable yet just off center... surreal,
I suppose. We used a midi controller synced to a smpt stripe on the
analog recording machine - you know - it was old-fashioned... and my
point is we went to great lengths to get the sounds from an analog
synth. (Jeeze - I should bake that tape and listen to it <g>)

So look - all this is a long way of saying... I'm not a great
visionary or tech guy - I'm not a great guitar player or music
theorist - but I have a deep, passionate love for sound. And there's
just nothing like analog sound - nothing. There's nothing like a real
clarinet. And there's nothing like an analog synth imitating a
clarinet. And there's nothing like an analog synth doing anything at
all - like chirping and burping and grinding out the nastiest - and
the most sublime sounds. Like the noise of the universe - which is
what we were singing to those years ago when we were banging those
bones together - we're still doing it - just the gadgets are a little
different.

And if I'm allowed to futher wax philosophic: Isn't that what we
humans do? Don't we listen to the noise of the universe and interpret
it through our frail and divine human-ness? Any gadget that helps us
along the way seems like a good idea to me - from some drum for us to
bang on - to some clarinet for us to blow through - to some piece of a
gadget that allows us to synthesize just about anything we want to
hear? And isn't that the ultimate cool-ness of it all?

You guys all know synths far better than I probably ever will. I
don't even aspire to be as good as you guys - I just want to be able
to noodle around - and get some sound s I like. From my experience, I
know that the more possibilities I have, the better - within reason.
So - I also know the trap of having too much flexibility - too much
granularity... you can get caught and bogged-down in the details of it
all.

But then, again some people get into that. Like Roger Pelligrini just
said "I did the same sort of spectral analysis thing and it took a
long time! On the other hand, I was so pleased with my quasi-imitative
sound, not just as a good brass sound, but as a great synthesizer
sound." Hey - I mean - I'm fanatic about mixing. I drive everybody
crazy going over and over and over my mixes - but when I'm done - well
- most often people tell me that they're the most perfect mixes
they've ever heard. I just spent the better part of two weeks
figuring out the best way to tune and mike my piano according to its
peculiar inhamonicities, etc. <shrug> So it makes sense to me that
Roger and others might go to great lengths to find a sound.

But so far as I see it, it's not about having ultimate control -
ultimate granularity... it's about having just enough. Paul's design
of the 450 has intrigued me from the first. Maybe something like that
- or something like the Moog filter you guys were mentioning. You
guys are the experts - you'd know best what such a module should be like.

The folk-musician/producer/musical-opportunnist in me tells me I'd
find very cool things to do with such a gadget. I always seem to.

Bill (Will read this and rolled his eyes - I've explained I'm just
doing my parental job: finding the most efficiant way of embarrasing him)

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Kenneth Elhardt" <elhardt@...> wrote:

>>
> Actually below is a demo I did where you can hear the difference

between

> different generic string filter imitations (similar to the Moog) done

by

> placing bandpass filters in various spacings and patterns followed by

a

> couple of demos where I started to modifiy one of them to match a real
> violin. I'm still not finished with the violin ones, but the

confined boxy

> sound is gone when you start to randomonize the freqs and amplitudes

of the

On 4/25/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

>
>Yeah, there's plenty of untapped potential in a modular synth even beyond
>filtering. Unfortunately today's synth climate isn't one where people want
>to put in the time or to learn to tap into that potential. The pioneering
>spirit died out decades ago.

I don't think that's true. I doubt anyone would build a modular
unless they were into using it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other
ways to get standard synth sounds -- such as all of the software
plugins that are now available -- that have presets, are easily
controlled by a DAW, and cost much less space, time, and money.

> Now, I'm not saying that there is no way a digital filter could make
> a good module, but it would need an interface as intuitive and be as
> conducive to voltage control as the other MOTM filters.
>
> Just to throw things out there, I think these would make good

digital modules:

>Unfortunately today's synth climate isn't one where people want
> to put in the time or to learn to tap into that potential. The

pioneering

elle_webb wrote:

> That's why the most creative synthesists aren't trying to imitate
> traditional orchestral instruments. They're creating original sounds
> and using these sounds in expressive ways.

I concur.

Roger writes:

>>Fantastic! This demo illustrates wonderfully the usefulness of the

sort of filtering I had suggested. The first sound is immediately
identifiable as an analog synth-type sound. The others sound great. I
think they sound a lot like real strings, but they could just as easily
have sounded like something else, I imagine. I'd think that a tool
that makes this easier would be useful.<<

The other sounds in that first demo sound somewhat string-like but are more
or less tests to see how different filter configurations sound.

>>Obviously, you can tell the difference between the imitation and the

real sound, but of course that's not the point. The point is that a
carefully filtered can sound good in and of itself (to some people) and
is less recognizable as just another analog synth sound. <<

Yes, it gives another level of obscuring the synthetic quality of the
original sound. Not bad. Before I read your notes I thought all of the
sounds were yours and thought, boy, I'm going to have to get back to my
incompleted Nord brass project using high band count filter banks.

Mark writes:

>>I don't think that's true. I doubt anyone would build a modular

unless they were into using it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other
ways to get standard synth sounds -- such as all of the software
plugins that are now available -- that have presets, are easily
controlled by a DAW, and cost much less space, time, and money.<<

People build modulars and buy synths all the time and use them in relatively
basic ways. Most who are buying modulars are only hobbiests, many can't
even play an instrument. There is no better evidence for this than what
I've been through with the latest synths I've bought. Within days, I'm
finding all kinds of bugs and limits that thousands of other owners never
noticed. That right there points to the limited use these synths are
getting. In addition to that, often some of my demos will appear on a board
somewhere, where people finally convince themselves that my demos must have
been faked or I'm manipulating samples, etc. This shows that people aren't
even aware of the capability of synths in the first place. And as pointed
out by people on this list and others, as soon as it comes to doing
something difficult, then pull out a sampler, a physical modelling synth or
maybe a digital workstation synth and do it there.

>>While I think that the ability to share files, and having a massive

number of bands, and the ability to analyze sounds, and all these
other features, are great for a filter plugin, I do not see how they
would translate well into a hardware synth module. If you have to
page through all these menus, or use editor/librarian software in
order to use it, then what's the point in making it hardware??<<

It depends how it's done. In hardware it would look something like a
graphic EQ with other buttons to engage various features. No menus or piles
of parameters to sift through. It's just anytime I think about a product
like that I think, it's something that I would use but I don't know how many
other people would. Sure a few other people would buy one just because
there are people who collect rooms full of gear, but admittedly it would be
a small market.

elle_webb writes:

>>This attitude seems pretty dismissive of today's synth pioneers. There's

as much creative work being done in electronic music as ever, imitative or
not. If you don't think there's pioneering synth work being done today, you
should consider asking list members for suggestions. You might find some
great synth music that you're missing.<<

I've been on many lists and listened to people's recommendations and I read
magazines. Believe me, if the next Tomita or Carlos popped up somewhere,
I'd have heard about it. Sure, every now an then I'll hear a nice sound
done here or there, but these are not necessarily difficult sounds that
require dozens of modules and hours/days to program nor are covering new
ground and new programming concepts. In fact, it usually seems to be
digital synths where people are getting more impressive sounds. In the
music field things don't get better, they get worse as standards continue to
slip and as people won't even listen to the past virtuosos of synths.

>>In terms of imitative synthesis, some of the most innovative work is

being done by Eric Lindemann at Synful. His work shows how the
synthesis of phrase articulation is at least as important as the
sounds themselves in creating realistic and expressive imitative
synthesis.<<

He doesn't synthesize sounds. It's resynthesis. It's also additive
synthesis. In fact he was going back to re-record (real instruments) some
of his sounds for resynthesis again because of some criticisms by people.
Yes, expression is also important which is why I have plenty of that in many
of my sounds such as those violin demos I posted. Some people on another
list thought I had to be running all kinds of midi data from a sequencer to
acheive that result, but I had to correct them that it was just done with
velocity and a pedal. It's just that many parameters are controled by those
two performance controls. Synful on the other hand has to add some
expression after the fact so it can look ahead at future notes and calculate
what to do. That's not really a good real-time instrument.

>>Imitating traditional instruments, though, seems to be a bit of a

Sisyphean task - the more realistic you make your imitation, the more
acutely you realize that it's an imitation.<<

There is something of the law of diminishing returns in how much time spent
per amount of improvement. But it's possible to get to the point of
creating imitations that can fit right in with real instruments and you
can't tell the difference in many cases depending on the sound. I've
already demonstrated some of that in the past, and those weren't even super
complex patches either.

>>Even if you could create a perfect imitation of an instrument, it

would be of limited musical interest, because it doesn't offer
composers or performers anything new.<<

I like to create some imitations to give me the real-time expression and
potential realism of physical modeling, but doing instruments that physical
modeling isn't good at. As for limited interest, based on the market for
sample libraries and imitations of real instruments (such as synful) and the
lack of interest in new sounds by much of the market, people seem to like to
work with sounds they are familiar with and know how to use.

First sentence in the last paragraph in my last post should have read:

"Unfortunately they're not getting anywhere close TO the almost unlimited
rainbow of colors OF Carlos, nor the complexity and attention to detail."

Being a fast typest, I tend to make a lot of mistakes.

-Elhardt

> Unfortunately they're not getting anywhere close the almost unlimited
> rainbow of colors or Carlos, nor the complexity and attention to

detail.

> It's hard to get people off the butts to do so much as buy a filter

bank to

> get some different sounds, or to convince them to layer different

sounds for

> more complex new sounds. And those who claim they want to use a

synth for

> only new sounds then end up mixing in samples, real sounds,

mellotrons, drum

> machines, digital pianos, etc., so we're right back to square one, not
> utilizing the synth to its fullest. That's the problem, when people

want to

On 4/26/07, rogerpellegrini put forth:

>Interesting and perfectly valid point of view. You appear to
>approach the problem as someone primarily interested in using the
>modular synth as a self contained compositional tool - i.e. a system
>that allows for interesting automated sequences, with events and
>modulation determined by the processes defined by the patch. Hence
>your primary interest in quantizers, pulse dividers, sequencers, CV
>recorders, clock-synced LFO's as well as voltage controlled FX
>devices.

Actually, I don't use my modular as a self-contained unit. I use it
with other gear all the time. Which is one reason why I chose a
format that uses 1/4" jacks.

The sole reason I listed those things is because they require
digital circuitry. Well, pulse dividers and pitch-to-voltage
converters have been made without digital, but considering how
inexpensive converters have become, imho, it would be better to use
digital.

I'm more for practical modules than esoteric modules or modules that
do things that are readily available elsewhere. I'm thinking if
Synthesis Technology combined a simple pre-amp, pitch-to-CV
converter, quantizer, and envelope follower in a "front end" module,
it would fit nicely in 2U with room to spare, and would be very
popular. A dual CV pulse divider with pulse input, CV input, pulse
output, LFO output, knobs for divide and CV, and a range switch and
numerical display for each channel would fit nicely in 2U (which
makes more sense, imho, than adding a bunch of fixed dividers) would
have a wealth of practical uses.

>Consistent with that perfectly valid point of view, you
>make no comment on the beauty of Ken's sounds.

It wouldn't have been relevant to my points, except to point out that
he did a fine job -- making them all without using this proposed
module.

>My interest is not at all in the degree to which my modular can be
>configured as a free-standing generator, but instead I'm interested
>in using it to produce some nice sounds. I think both approaches to
>the modular are
>perfectly valid. The machine can be configured to suit different
>situations. I suggest that the module we've been discussing would be
>very useful for those among us interested in creating nice sounds
>that may or may not be reminiscent of traditional instruments.

My question is not why you would want something that can do that, but
why would you want it in a module??

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??

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.

>Certainly, if I were to be able to create a string sound, simply and
>with just a few modules that sounds anything like Ken's, I'd be very
>happy! I'd imagine Paul might have quite a few other customers who
>would be quite happy as well.

Possibly, although I am curious what sort of UI you have in mind. If
you could come up with a way to control it with something like seven
knobs, eight jacks, and couple of switches, then you might have
something.


On 4/27/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

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.

On 5/13/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

>Sorry for the long delay in getting back to this.

It's OK. I just got this message. Apparently, yahoogroups dropped the ball.

>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.

The lack of esoteric modules is the result of two things, function
and economics. There are only so many things that can be done to
process or generate a signal, and hardware costs money to reproduce.
Although what you find "interesting" is purely subjective, I do not
believe this limitation leads to less interesting sounds. That is up
to the creativity of the producer. Apparently, Carlos, Eno, Rich,
and all these other bums have somehow managed to scrape by without this
advanced filter bank module.

> >>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)

I remembered you said you used velocity, which means you used MIDI.
If you used MIDI, then whatever you were controlling could be
implemented in a computer.

> >>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.

So then please explain this interface that accomplishes what you want
with a reasonable amount of knobs. If your controller is MIDI, and
this imagined module is CV, then that would make it less "patchable",
imho.

So far in this thread, I've heard about a filter bank, with a large
number of bands, with several controls for each band, as well as a
number of global settings, resulting in a massive number of
parameters. Imho, certain types of synthesis, including Chowning FM,
convolution, additive, etc., are best done with a computer interface.
In my experience, programming a DX-7 is much easier with editing
software than a fader box. You can make an any kind of synth with
"real knobs", but I would not want a K5000 the size of a refrigerator.

Take a look at the most popular MOTM module. It's an envelope
generator with four knobs and four jacks. It is very limited. It
only does one thing. Yet it it does this one thing very well. I
don't have to scroll through a tiny LCD window to find "Attack", then
hit another button to change its value, then hit another button to
save my changes. A module, almost by definition, is limited to a few
basic functions. That's why it is a module, not a complete synth.

You don't seem to have a design for a module, so much as a wish list
without any idea how to implement it.

> >>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.

How am I contradicting myself?? I can play a few instruments, and I
can make "musical instrument type sounds" with my modular, but I'm
yet to put my mouth on it or hit it with sticks. However, I can
program a sequencer to control synths to produce sounds similar to
instruments I couldn't play myself. Given the example you posted,
how well can you play a real violin??

> >>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.

No it doesn't. Just like Shakespeare or Verdi used a pen and paper,
I can write directly into a sequencer. I don't have to play anything.

>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.

While you seem to have a limited scope or lack of appreciation of
what has been accomplished using computers and sequencers, you are
still missing my point. Regardless of genre, how well someone can
write music has very little with how well they can play music.

Mark writes:

>>Although what you find "interesting" is purely subjective, I do not

believe this limitation leads to less interesting sounds. That is up
to the creativity of the producer. Apparently, Carlos, Eno, Rich,
and all these other bums have somehow managed to scrape by without this
advanced filter bank module.<<

They weren't doing things that required advanced filtering. When Carlos
needed complex harmonic structures and realism in timbres he/she went to
digital additive synthesis. And I'm saying that all the basic modules
already exist dozens of times over from every modular manufacturer,
releasing yet another VCO isn't going to add anything new to what people can
do. A one of a kind filter bank would. Also subtractive synthesis requires
filtering, and yet in 40 years nobody has created a filter bank to do that
with any precision.

>>I remembered you said you used velocity, which means you used MIDI.

If you used MIDI, then whatever you were controlling could be
implemented in a computer.<<

Yes, but remember all that stuff about user interface, patchability, not
having to use up another computer to use as a module. You know, all the
things people hate about using computers in place of real hardware.

>>So then please explain this interface that accomplishes what you want

with a reasonable amount of knobs. If your controller is MIDI, and
this imagined module is CV, then that would make it less "patchable",
imho.<<

The module is a filter bank, it has nothing to do with MIDI. How did MIDI
get involved? It's primarily audio in/out like any other filter bank. It
however could have a CV into it to shift or sweep the filter bank.

>>So far in this thread, I've heard about a filter bank, with a large

number of bands, with several controls for each band, as well as a
number of global settings, resulting in a massive number of
parameters.<<

So far you're making up the "several controls for each band". Each band
would have just a level slider like a graphic EQ. There would be some other
global controls like band width, shift, capture formant, store patch, etc.
There are currently more controls to set on a standard 31 band stereo EQ
that are available from 100 different companies. I don't see the problem.

>>Take a look at the most popular MOTM module. It's an envelope

generator with four knobs and four jacks. It is very limited. It
only does one thing. Yet it it does this one thing very well. I
don't have to scroll through a tiny LCD window to find "Attack", then
hit another button to change its value, then hit another button to
save my changes.<<

You're a very hard person to talk to. Every paragraph you keep redefining
this imaginary filter bank into something different. Remember, the reason
for it is to have one control per function and ease of use like all analog
modules. Now your talking about scrolling through menus. One of the points
of a dedicated hardware filter bank is to avoid scrolling through menus like
on the K5000. Trying to program its formant filter bank is a time consuming
tedious exercise.

>>You don't seem to have a design for a module, so much as a wish list

without any idea how to implement it.<<

Actually I've figured out how many bands are needed, the space it could fit
into and most of the functions. I've been stating some of these but you're
not listening.

>>How am I contradicting myself?? I can play a few instruments, and I

can make "musical instrument type sounds" with my modular, but I'm
yet to put my mouth on it or hit it with sticks. However, I can
program a sequencer to control synths to produce sounds similar to
instruments I couldn't play myself. Given the example you posted,
how well can you play a real violin??<<

It's not how well a person can play another instrument, it's whether they
are using their synths for musical / melodic applications. I don't expect
Mr. techno to want an advanced filter bank.

>>No it doesn't. Just like Shakespeare or Verdi used a pen and paper,

I can write directly into a sequencer. I don't have to play anything.<<

UHG. Of course you don't have to, but if you're into expressive instrument
performances, then you'll get it into the sequencer by actually playing.
People didn't hear Shakespeare of Verdi perform, others did that. Boy, is
this conversation getting ridiculous.

>>While you seem to have a limited scope or lack of appreciation of

what has been accomplished using computers and sequencers, you are
still missing my point. Regardless of genre, how well someone can
write music has very little with how well they can play music.<<

You're introducing new points I'm not talking about. Now you're talking
about how well people write music. Again, where is that now coming from?
I'm talking about what people are using their synths for and whether it's
gonig to be the instrument that's actually being heard, played or performed
on.

>>It simply does not follow, if people are arguing with you that something

isn't needed, then people are not using modulars to make music.<<

Boy you twist everything I say into something completely different. I'm
saying if people aren't using their synths for music they probably won't be
interested in a filter bank that's primarily used for melodic instrument
type sounds. Not that if a person doesn't need the filter bank they aren't
making music. Geez. "All cars are vehicles but not all vehicles are cars".

>>Nor is your finding bugs in the synths you bought any sort evidence-- much

less proof -- of how people use modulars.<<

It's very good evidence as to how they're using them. They're not going
much beyond rather basic patching. If they were, they'd start encountering
all the problems. If people aren't using their current filters or filter
banks in any sophisticated way, there is no reason to beleive they'll all of
a sudden want something that requires even from them.

>>Nevermind that real hardware modulars rarely have anything that could be

described as a "bug".<<

The same kinds of people are buying real hardware as software. And I
encountered a problem in the ADSR the first day I used my motm. The fact
that it didn't cause problems for other people and went unnoticed told me at
the time a lot about how people were or weren't using their modulars. And
we're talking just basic playing on the keyboard for this one.

>>One of the great things about a hardware modular, like

MOTM, is its reliability in the face of extreme creativity. It can
be patched up in all sorts of ways its designers never anticipated
and it will never freeze, crash, or malfunction in any way.<<

That's right, and yet you earlier said a filter bank could just be done on
the computer, the very thing I'm trying to avoid.

>>That a product does not yet exist does not mean that it does not have a

potential market.<<

Based on the failure of past filter bank products, the lack of people even
using alternate current sources to get the job done, and even you're arguing
against such a thing I think shows the market to be almost non existant.
Like I said before, even if some were sold, they'd probably not be used to
much potential.

>>If you look at the modules produced by Synthesis Technology, Modcan, etc.

you will notice that there are more audio filters than any other type of
module. People like filters.<<

People like or are obsessed with lowpass filters, but that has nothing to do
with a filter bank, which as you know even the motm filter bank was
canceled.

>>I have an Emu Ultra Proteus. It has the "Z-Plane" filters of the

Morpheus. I have an Emu Ultra Proteus. I bought it new in 1995, and I've
barely used it since. Why?? While it is very powerful on the inside, its
programming interface is atrocious. <<

And my Emu sampler also has the Z-Plane filters and I too never use it.
Same reason. And yet you argue against a dedicated hardware module with all
the controls right infront of you.

On 6/18/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

> >>So then please explain this interface that accomplishes what you want
>with a reasonable amount of knobs. If your controller is MIDI, and
>this imagined module is CV, then that would make it less "patchable",
>imho.<<
>
>The module is a filter bank, it has nothing to do with MIDI. How did MIDI
>get involved?

That's what you said you used, and as you continue to argue for
"actually playing" that would further imply the use of MIDI since
there are few CV controllers that produce more than trigger/gate and
a single voltage.

> >>So far in this thread, I've heard about a filter bank, with a large
>number of bands, with several controls for each band, as well as a
>number of global settings, resulting in a massive number of
>parameters.<<
>
>So far you're making up the "several controls for each band".

No, others said variable frequency, variable bandwidth, and variable
gain for each band.

>Each band would have just a level slider like a graphic EQ. There
>would be some other global controls like band width, shift, capture
>formant, store patch, etc. There are currently more controls to set
>on a standard 31 band stereo EQ that are available from 100
>different companies. I don't see the problem.

The problem is that a 31-band graphic EQ would be something like 7U
in MOTM format (and would likely cost more than twice as much as a
Klark-Teknic). Even ignoring the global parameters, you still have
one knob per band. How many bands does this thing have?? Even if it
somehow managed to use sliders instead of knobs, it would still be
huge and expensive.

> >>You don't seem to have a design for a module, so much as a wish list
>without any idea how to implement it.<<
>
>Actually I've figured out how many bands are needed, the space it could fit
>into and most of the functions. I've been stating some of these but you're
>not listening.

Oh, I'm listening, but you haven't said anything about it until now, and
you are still being rather vague.

>It's not how well a person can play another instrument, it's whether they
>are using their synths for musical / melodic applications. I don't expect
>Mr. techno to want an advanced filter bank.

Perhaps he wouldn't, but I don't see how techno isn't musical or
melodic. You seem to be equating music with sounding like an
acoustic instrument, which seems like an awfully odd position for an
electronic musician :)

> >>No it doesn't. Just like Shakespeare or Verdi used a pen and paper,
>I can write directly into a sequencer. I don't have to play anything.<<
>
>UHG. Of course you don't have to, but if you're into expressive instrument
>performances, then you'll get it into the sequencer by actually playing.
>People didn't hear Shakespeare of Verdi perform, others did that. Boy, is
>this conversation getting ridiculous.

If it is getting ridiculous, it is because you are insisting on your
own homespun definitions of words like "expressive", "instrument",
and "melodic".

> >>It simply does not follow, if people are arguing with you that something
>isn't needed, then people are not using modulars to make music.<<
>
>Boy you twist everything I say into something completely different.

Perhaps you should go back and read what you wrote.

> >>Nor is your finding bugs in the synths you bought any sort evidence-- much
>less proof -- of how people use modulars.<<
>
>It's very good evidence as to how they're using them. They're not going
>much beyond rather basic patching. If they were, they'd start encountering
>all the problems.

So you are saying if people went beyond basic patching with their
modulars they would discover problems in other synths they might not
even use??

Mark writes:

>>That's what you said you used, and as you continue to argue for

"actually playing" that would further imply the use of MIDI since
there are few CV controllers that produce more than trigger/gate and
a single voltage.<<

What I've used? This filter bank doesn't exist so I haven't used it. And
even if I used something with other midi non-modular synths, that has little
to do with a module for an analog modular synth which would have a CV input
for shifting the bank.

>>No, others said variable frequency, variable bandwidth, and variable gain

for each band.<<

You'll have to take that up with them. But as in parametric EQ vs graphic
EQ, parametrics have fewer bands because you have more control, while
graphics just give you a bunch of bands so if you want variable bandwidth,
just pull up more sliders, or for the freq you want, you'll already have a
band at or near it.

>>The problem is that a 31-band graphic EQ would be something like 7U

in MOTM format (and would likely cost more than twice as much as a
Klark-Teknic). Even ignoring the global parameters, you still have
one knob per band. How many bands does this thing have?? Even if it
somehow managed to use sliders instead of knobs, it would still be
huge and expensive.<<

Since I was thinking of programming a virtual version or short of that
wiring up something similar in Reaktor I've calculated some of this out.
IIRC it would be about 52 to 56 bands. It has to use sliders for giving you
a representation of the shape of the filtering like a graphic EQ. It would
need about a 12U width. Global parameters go below the sliders. Huge
doesn't mean expensive. I'm looking at my Alesis Ion which I bought new for
$540. It has a panel much larger than this filter bank hypothetically would
and it's a complete synth. You're basing things on motm product pricing.
Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do
fine.

>>Oh, I'm listening, but you haven't said anything about it until now, and

you are still being rather vague.<<

That's because this whole thing was brought up by somebody else, I had
mentioned that I had already milled the idea over but because of the current
lethargic attitude toward synthesis it probably wouldn't sell well. I
mentioned some things it could do, but it didn't seem like getting into
details like how much space it would take up, how the panel would be laid
out, or band count was applicable yet. Either there is a need for a complex
filter bank or not.

>>Perhaps he wouldn't, but I don't see how techno isn't musical or

melodic. You seem to be equating music with sounding like an
acoustic instrument, which seems like an awfully odd position for an
electronic musician :)<<

Techno isn't musical or melodic. You need musical elements for something to
be musical and melody to be melodic. That's also a group that gets off on
the most simplistic sounds imaginable. Does a simpler synth than the TB-303
even exist? Maybe a turntable. SH-101, Juno-60, boring 1 osc synths,
simple filter sweeps, chirpy sounds, farty sounds. When they want something
more complex they just sample somebody elses work. That's not the group
that's going to spend hours/days crafting some acoustically realistic
acoustic-like instrument sound nor has the knowledge or expertise to even do
so in the first place. And as an electronic musician I'm interested in
electronic music, not bleeps and bloops or ghetto noises.

>>So you are saying if people went beyond basic patching with their

modulars they would discover problems in other synths they might not
even use??<<

Here we go again. I'm saying that synths are being released either full of
bugs or limitations and nobody is noticing. Why? Because of the simplistic
use of synths. That's everywhere. It's a global problem. It's not like
analog modular synth owners are exempt from that. They're doing the same
kinds of sounds and music as other synth users are doing, and most of them
are the same people, since most people have more than one synth.

>>So we agree that the interface is important.<<

Yes, that was the very point of even suggesting doing it in hardware instead
of in a computer in the first place.

On 6/22/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

>Mark writes:
> >>That's what you said you used, and as you continue to argue for
>"actually playing" that would further imply the use of MIDI since
>there are few CV controllers that produce more than trigger/gate and
>a single voltage.<<
>
>What I've used? This filter bank doesn't exist so I haven't used it. And
>even if I used something with other midi non-modular synths, that has little
>to do with a module for an analog modular synth which would have a CV input
>for shifting the bank.

It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative
synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.

> >>The problem is that a 31-band graphic EQ would be something like 7U
>in MOTM format (and would likely cost more than twice as much as a
>Klark-Teknic). Even ignoring the global parameters, you still have
>one knob per band. How many bands does this thing have?? Even if it
>somehow managed to use sliders instead of knobs, it would still be
>huge and expensive.<<
>
>Since I was thinking of programming a virtual version or short of that
>wiring up something similar in Reaktor I've calculated some of this out.
>IIRC it would be about 52 to 56 bands.

Excuse me, did you just say that this thing has at least 52 sliders??

>It has to use sliders for giving you a representation of the shape
>of the filtering like a graphic EQ.

That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
or automation is not WYSIWYG.

>It would need about a 12U width. Global parameters go below the
>sliders. Huge doesn't mean expensive. I'm looking at my Alesis Ion
>which I bought new for $540. It has a panel much larger than this
>filter bank hypothetically wouldand it's a complete synth.

It might have a larger panel, but it doesn't have 52 sliders...

>You're basing things on motm product pricing.

I thought we were talking about an idea for an MOTM module.

>Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do fine.

Well, lets see, a Doepfer MAQ 16/3, which is crap, costs around $1K.
A Modcan 54B costs around $1900 if you include the power supply.
They both have at least 48 pots and fit in a 19" rack. A DN360,
arguably the most popular graphic EQ ever made, has 62 bands and
costs around $1600. The key word being popular. There are thousands
of companies doing installations and live sound who have kept buying
them over the last 20 years.

>Techno isn't musical or melodic. You need musical elements for something to
>be musical and melody to be melodic. That's also a group that gets off on
>the most simplistic sounds imaginable.

Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
"melodic". You also seem to have an ridiculously limited idea of
techno. It can be quite complex in its use of sounds. Regardless,
structured music such as techno which is based on notes, rhythm, and
a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic
music. This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on
texture or less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in
its use of synthesizers.

> >>So you are saying if people went beyond basic patching with their
>modulars they would discover problems in other synths they might not
>even use??<<
>
>Here we go again. I'm saying that synths are being released either full of
>bugs or limitations and nobody is noticing. Why? Because of the simplistic
>use of synths.

I think certain people do notice, and one of the reasons people choose
modulars is to avoid these bugs and limitations -- because they are
going beyond "the simplistic use of synths".

For some unknown reason, I receive a free subscription to Keyboard
magazine. Each issue is filled with advertisements for synthesizers
that are very limited in their ability to create new sounds.
Ironically, it's because the people who buy them are primarily
interested in "imitative synthesis" -- they want presets that serve
the function of traditional instruments -- bass, strings, horns, etc.

> >>What I'm arguing is that I still don't see how such an interface could be
>implemented without it being prohibitively huge and expensive...If you are
>saying it would be something like 5U, cost $2K, and be of little interest to
>anyone besides those who are doing imitative synthesis, then I agree its
>market is "almost non-existent".<<
>
>Why would a little extra metal cost so much? I'm talking a few inches wider
>than a standard 19" piece of rack gear.

It's an economy of scale -- having a thousand 21" enclosures custom
made is way more expensive than buying a thousand 19" enclosures off
the shelf.

I'm way behind and trying to catch up.

Arran Day writes:

>>What exactly are "ghetto noises"?<<

Anything from scratching sounds, twitchy, tweaky, squelchy, fart sounds, and
that endless thumping bassdrum. If it has that distasteful rap / hip-hop
flavor, then we're talking ghetto sounds.

Mark writes:

>>It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative

synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.<<

This has gone on so long and it's just going arond in circles. I just use a
keyboard with velocity and a pedal for most of my stuff. Nothing unsual.
The point is those who can't play a musical instrument like a keyboard
wouldn't be a market for this.

>>That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.

Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
or automation is not WYSIWYG.<<

Well the same could be said for a modular synth. I can't even store patches
on my MOTM. CV inputs work a lot better on a stand alone device since there
are none into a computer. And I still think moving sliders by hand, where I
can use both hands and move several sliders at once work better than using a
mouse for each one. You just keep flip-flopping. Before it was the
computer that you didn't want, now that's what you want. I can't keep track
of what's going on anymore

>>It might have a larger panel, but it doesn't have 52 sliders...<<

A stereo 1/3 octave EQ has 62 sliders. I'm still not seeing the problem.

>You're basing things on motm product pricing.<
>>I thought we were talking about an idea for an MOTM module.<<

An MOTM compatible module doesn't mean MOTM parts and pricing.

>Other companies put out sequencers that are nearly as large, and they do

fine.

>>Well, lets see, a Doepfer MAQ 16/3, which is crap, costs around $1K.

A Modcan 54B costs around $1900 if you include the power supply.
They both have at least 48 pots and fit in a 19" rack. A DN360,
arguably the most popular graphic EQ ever made, has 62 bands and
costs around $1600...<<

Not seeing the point to your response. There are expensive things in this
world and not so expensive. Perhaps look at Synthesizers.com's sequencer,
or a dbx or lower EQ.

>>Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and

"melodic".<<

No I'm not. I've already posted the definition once for music. Might as
well get it all out there. Music: "an art of sound in time that expresses
ideas and emotions in significant forms through the organized elements of
rhythm, melody, harmony, and dynamics.". Melodic: "of, having, or producing
melody. pleasant-sounding."

>>You also seem to have an ridiculously limited idea of techno. It can be

quite complex in its use of sounds.<<

My idea of techno is based on having to hear 9 years of it, including stuff
that people told me was "good techno". None of it is complex in its use of
sounds, unless you think stealing / sampling somebody elses work and pasting
it can be creditted to techno.

>>Regardless, structured music such as techno which is based on notes,

rhythm, and a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic music.<<

Melody is not an element of techno. Therefore it's not melodic. It's not
based on notes either, in fact most techno creators don't know how to play a
keyboard and some don't even own one, unless you consider a sound at a
different pitch being triggered at some point. Techno lacks all in the
definition of music above except rhythm. And those rhythms are simplistic,
repetitive and unoriginal/predictable. The point was that this is not the
market for a complex filter bank.

>>This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on texture or

less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in its use of
synthesizers.<<

Maybe, but most synth use is rather simplistic. That's the problem. There
aren't many people with the attention spans to put towards using a 52 band
filter bank for it's main purpose of creating complex resonant instrument
bodies.

On 8/3/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:

>Mark writes:
> >>It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative
>synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
>unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.<<
>
>This has gone on so long and it's just going arond in circles. I just use a
>keyboard with velocity and a pedal for most of my stuff. Nothing unsual.
>The point is those who can't play a musical instrument like a keyboard
>wouldn't be a market for this.

It's going around in circles because you are being too obstinate to
concede the simplest of points. You used MIDI (which is nothing
unusual) and almost anyone else playing a musical instrument like a
keyboard to imitate other instruments would be using MIDI.

> >>That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
>Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
>CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
>sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
>much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
>easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
>Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
>or automation is not WYSIWYG.<<
>
>Well the same could be said for a modular synth.

Perhaps it could be said for an entire modular -- which is the main
idea behind the recent Buchla 200e -- but it cannot be said for
individual modules. Individual modules are rather simple and easy to
control without a computer.

>You just keep flip-flopping. Before it was the
>computer that you didn't want, now that's what you want. I can't keep track
>of what's going on anymore

No, I'm not flip flopping at all. What I have been saying all along
is that there are certain types of synthesis that are much better
using a computer interface, and that using a filter with 52
parameters would be another example.

>A stereo 1/3 octave EQ has 62 sliders. I'm still not seeing the problem.

Graphic equalizers are extremely familiar, easy to use, have a wealth
of practical uses, and a huge market. And it's because whoever
invented the graphic equalizer had a very good idea -- a
cost-effective tool with an intuitive user interface that could solve
common problems.

> >>Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
>"melodic".<<
>
>No I'm not. I've already posted the definition once for music. Might as
>well get it all out there. Music: "an art of sound in time that expresses
>ideas and emotions in significant forms through the organized elements of
>rhythm, melody, harmony, and dynamics.". Melodic: "of, having, or producing
>melody. pleasant-sounding."

Yet, somehow, in your mind that doesn't apply to techno even though
it clearly fits every aspect of that definition.

>My idea of techno is based on having to hear 9 years of it, including stuff
>that people told me was "good techno". None of it is complex in its use of
>sounds, unless you think stealing / sampling somebody elses work and pasting
>it can be creditted to techno.

No doubt that's also based on your own homespun definition of
"complex". Also, besides vocals and sub-genres that use drum loops,
there is very little "stealing / sampling somebody elses work" in
techno.

> >>Regardless, structured music such as techno which is based on notes,
>rhythm, and a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical and
>melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic music.<<
>
>Melody is not an element of techno. Therefore it's not melodic.

Tautology.

>It's not based on notes either,

Since you claim you've been hearing techno for nine years, and I
would presume that you know what notes are, I have no idea why
you would make such a blatantly false and absurd statement.

>in fact most techno creators don't know how to play a
>keyboard and some don't even own one, unless you consider a sound at a
>different pitch being triggered at some point. Techno lacks all in the
>definition of music above except rhythm. And those rhythms are simplistic,
>repetitive and unoriginal/predictable.

Well, it's obvious at this point that you simply have no idea what
you are talking about.

>The point was that this is not them market for a complex filter bank.

While I agree with that, it's not because techno isn't melodic,
musical, or less complex in it's use of sounds. Techno producers are
always looking for ways to make new sounds -- some notable examples
have gone so far as to design and build their own hardware or write
their own software. It's that your idea for a complex filter bank
sucks.

> >>This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on texture or
>less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in its use of
>synthesizers.<<
>
>Maybe, but most synth use is rather simplistic. That's the problem. There
>aren't many people with the attention spans to put towards using a 52 band
>filter bank for it's main purpose of creating complex resonant instrument
>bodies.

No, that's not the problem. The problem is not everyone else. The
problem is that your idea for a module is horribly ill-conceived.
It's impractical, poorly implemented, and economically unfeasible.
It has nothing to do with anyone else's attention span. There are
plenty of music producers out there intensively programming
incredibly sophisticated and complex things with SuperCollider,
MAX/MSP, Kyma X, etc.

While, imho, the imitative synthesis of musical instruments doesn't
have much commercial application (considering all the sample
libraries and session players out there), imitative synthesis of
non-instrument sounds is an important part of designing foley and
sound effects for television and film, where sound designers will
often spend days on a single sound. While they do not have to move a
filter up and down a musical scale, it often involves extremely
sophisticated use of synths to imitate sounds.

I must say, this 4-month-and-running thread has been most entertaining.

George

Mark wrote:

Yeah - it's like watching a boxing match in slow motion.

I can just visualize a close-up of the contorted face with the
sweat spray hanging suspended in mid air while in the back,
out of focus you can see the other guy's mouth guard smiling
from one cheek to the other.

Next week we get to find out if it's a knock out or just another
jab to the jaw.

Where's Howard Cosell?

Greg

-----Original Message-----
From: motm@yahoogroups.com [mailto:motm@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
groovyshaman
Sent: Monday, August 06, 2007 11:23 PM
To: motm group
Subject: Re: [motm] Re: Imitative Synthesis and Implications for
Hardware


I must say, this 4-month-and-running thread has been most entertaining.

George

Mark wrote:

> On 8/3/07, Kenneth Elhardt put forth:
>> Mark writes:
>> >>It's what you used for your demos. The point being that imitative
>> synthesis requires imitative playing. Which means without an
>> unusually sophisticated CV controller such playing would require MIDI.<<
>>
>> This has gone on so long and it's just going arond in circles. I just

use a

>> keyboard with velocity and a pedal for most of my stuff. Nothing unsual.
>> The point is those who can't play a musical instrument like a keyboard
>> wouldn't be a market for this.
>
> It's going around in circles because you are being too obstinate to
> concede the simplest of points. You used MIDI (which is nothing
> unusual) and almost anyone else playing a musical instrument like a
> keyboard to imitate other instruments would be using MIDI.
>
>> >>That would be so much less cumbersome using a computer interface.
>> Even if the DSP was done in separate hardware, and that hardware had
>> CV inputs and other interface features, it still would make much more
>> sense to program it with a computer. Not only would that result in a
>> much more mechanically reliable product, but it would make it much
>> easier to add analysis features, store patches, program changes, etc.
>> Unless it has motorized controls, any device that has patch storage
>> or automation is not WYSIWYG.<<
>>
>> Well the same could be said for a modular synth.
>
> Perhaps it could be said for an entire modular -- which is the main
> idea behind the recent Buchla 200e -- but it cannot be said for
> individual modules. Individual modules are rather simple and easy to
> control without a computer.
>
>> You just keep flip-flopping. Before it was the
>> computer that you didn't want, now that's what you want. I can't keep

track

>> of what's going on anymore
>
> No, I'm not flip flopping at all. What I have been saying all along
> is that there are certain types of synthesis that are much better
> using a computer interface, and that using a filter with 52
> parameters would be another example.
>
>> A stereo 1/3 octave EQ has 62 sliders. I'm still not seeing the problem.
>
> Graphic equalizers are extremely familiar, easy to use, have a wealth
> of practical uses, and a huge market. And it's because whoever
> invented the graphic equalizer had a very good idea -- a
> cost-effective tool with an intuitive user interface that could solve
> common problems.
>
>> >>Again, you are using your own made-up definitions of "musical" and
>> "melodic".<<
>>
>> No I'm not. I've already posted the definition once for music. Might as
>> well get it all out there. Music: "an art of sound in time that

expresses

>> ideas and emotions in significant forms through the organized elements of
>> rhythm, melody, harmony, and dynamics.". Melodic: "of, having, or

producing

>> melody. pleasant-sounding."
>
> Yet, somehow, in your mind that doesn't apply to techno even though
> it clearly fits every aspect of that definition.
>
>> My idea of techno is based on having to hear 9 years of it, including

stuff

>> that people told me was "good techno". None of it is complex in its use

of

>> sounds, unless you think stealing / sampling somebody elses work and

pasting

>> it can be creditted to techno.
>
> No doubt that's also based on your own homespun definition of
> "complex". Also, besides vocals and sub-genres that use drum loops,
> there is very little "stealing / sampling somebody elses work" in
> techno.
>
>> >>Regardless, structured music such as techno which is based on notes,
>> rhythm, and a discernable arrangement of instruments is way more musical

and

>> melodic than beatless ambient and various forms of electro-acoustic

music.<<

>>
>> Melody is not an element of techno. Therefore it's not melodic.
>
> Tautology.
>
>> It's not based on notes either,
>
> Since you claim you've been hearing techno for nine years, and I
> would presume that you know what notes are, I have no idea why
> you would make such a blatantly false and absurd statement.
>
>> in fact most techno creators don't know how to play a
>> keyboard and some don't even own one, unless you consider a sound at a
>> different pitch being triggered at some point. Techno lacks all in the
>> definition of music above except rhythm. And those rhythms are

simplistic,

>> repetitive and unoriginal/predictable.
>
> Well, it's obvious at this point that you simply have no idea what
> you are talking about.
>
>> The point was that this is not them market for a complex filter bank.
>
> While I agree with that, it's not because techno isn't melodic,
> musical, or less complex in it's use of sounds. Techno producers are
> always looking for ways to make new sounds -- some notable examples
> have gone so far as to design and build their own hardware or write
> their own software. It's that your idea for a complex filter bank
> sucks.
>
>> >>This does not mean that electronic music that relies more on texture

or

>> less on traditional musical elements is more simplistic in its use of
>> synthesizers.<<
>>
>> Maybe, but most synth use is rather simplistic. That's the problem.

There

>> aren't many people with the attention spans to put towards using a 52

band

>> filter bank for it's main purpose of creating complex resonant instrument
>> bodies.
>
> No, that's not the problem. The problem is not everyone else. The
> problem is that your idea for a module is horribly ill-conceived.
> It's impractical, poorly implemented, and economically unfeasible.
> It has nothing to do with anyone else's attention span. There are
> plenty of music producers out there intensively programming
> incredibly sophisticated and complex things with SuperCollider,
> MAX/MSP, Kyma X, etc.
>
> While, imho, the imitative synthesis of musical instruments doesn't
> have much commercial application (considering all the sample
> libraries and session players out there), imitative synthesis of
> non-instrument sounds is an important part of designing foley and
> sound effects for television and film, where sound designers will
> often spend days on a single sound. While they do not have to move a
> filter up and down a musical scale, it often involves extremely
> sophisticated use of synths to imitate sounds.
>
>> >>It's not obvious to me. Some rack gear is dirt cheap, but most of it
>> is not reliable, sounds terrible, or has a very minimal interface.
>> It also has a much larger market. An Alesis MEQ 230 has 31 sliders,
>> but it's crap -- it's noisy, distorted, and is almost guaranteed to
>> break. What you are suggesting is a cheaply-built product that needs
>> to be mass-manufactured for a small quality-conscious market. That's
>> not going to work.<<
>>
>> I'm not talking cheaply built, but I'm not talking overkill with sealed

pots

>> or $5 slider caps either. There is a middle ground. The point is

whether

>> there was a market in the first place which I said no, not much of one.
>> Then you've argued back and forth for whatever reason.
>
> I'm arguing because you say things like "obviously it would be in the
> hundreds of dollars range, not the thousands" which isn't true, and
> that it wouldn't sell well even at that impossible price "because of
> the current lethargic attitude toward synthesis". It's not because
> of anyone else's attitude. It's not because others don't have the
> "knowledge or expertise". It's not because everyone else is a bum.
> It's not because producers aren't willing to spend thousands of
> dollars on single piece of kit. It's because your idea is crap.
>
> In contrast, rather than some ridiculously long narrow box with 52
> sliders, a standard 1U rackspace -- that could be mounted almost
> anywhere -- containing a two-channel filter with USB, MIDI and a
> CV/pedal inputs; and a software editor/librarian to control it --
> allowing the user to store presets, generate filter curves based on
> analysis, draw curves with a mouse or tablet, change the number and
> type of filter bands, support microtunings, etc. -- would not only be
> better for imitative synthesis, it would have many other uses. If it
> was done right, it might be very successful.

Yahoo! Groups Links