Additive Noise sounds online (was: Re: Re: Re: [sdiy] Akai S612 filter/schematics)

[Theo]

Some pp asked for sound examples of the noisy additive sounds.
This one is a good generic example:
http://members.home.nl/t.hogers/stone-2.wav

Cheers,
Theo



From: Theo <t.hogers at home.nl>
To: Andre Majorel <amajorel at teaser.fr>; <synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl>

> I did the "additive noise sounds" at request for a friend who is producing
a
> sample cd. The sounds are on his system not on mine, but I'll ask for a
copy
> next time I go to his studio. Like to have them my self too.
>
> The method used is quick and dirty, never cared about the actual density
and
> other issues that would need some thought if this had to be a soft synth
of
> some sort.
> What I did was just limiting single cycle random sines to a small
> frequency range, write to a long array (about 60 seconds) and over-dub
> until it sounded "right". After making some samples for different
> "partials",
> the samples where mixed to form a static basis sound.
>
> My friend was most interested in sound with some low-end noise and
> louder "noise" harmonics in the 1-2 kHz range, so that is what was made.
> All the "motion" in the sound was done afterwards with effects.
> The "additive noise sounds" them self sounded static,
> like a noisy "pieieiep", not very interesting at all.
>
> We also got similar results sending noise thru a software filter that has
> the option to draw any frequency response you want, including brickwall
> slopes.
> This was done in a sample editor, think it was Cool Edit, not sure though.
> This method proved less easy to control, but no programming is required :)
>
> Cheers,
> Theo
>
>
>
> From: Andre Majorel <amajorel at teaser.fr>
>
> > On 2002-04-18 13:36 +0200, Theo wrote:
> >
> > > > The frequencies of the partials were set by raising a number to
> > > > a random power. I think this is a pink distribution (i.e.
> > > > statistically, each octave contains as many partials as any
> > > > other octave).
> > >
> > > Ok I see what you mean now.
> > > Your energy distribution is right but I think your frequency
> > > distribution is different from pink noise.
> > > For better sonic result you might try having the partials distributed
> > > "linear" and use 1/f for the amplitude.
> > > Also the higher the octave the more partials, but keep the energy
> > > distribution.
> >
> > Interesting, I've got to try it. However, without thinking it
> > out, I'm afraid it would mean more partials to compute for the
> > same subjective noise density, especially in the higher octaves.
> >
> > Mmm, suppose for instance that you want to generate pink noise
> > between 100 Hz and 12.8 kHz (7 octaves), with 1000 partials in
> > the band between 1.6 kHz and 3.2 kHz (because that's more or
> > less where the frequency resolution of the ear is highest).
> >
> > With a logarithmic distribution, you need
> >
> >   7 * 1000 = 7000
> >
> > partials. With a linear distribution, you need
> >
> >   (12800-100)/(3200-1600) * 1000 = 7938
> >
> > partials. OK, just 13% more, but the gap would widen if we
> > compared against a weighted logarithmic distribution (where the
> > density follows the ear's frequency resolution).
> >
> > > I've been using similar code to for "additive" synthesis where each
> > > "partial" is a small noise band instead of a sine.
> > > So far I only can generate static sounds, but sending them thru some
> > > effects makes nice atmospheres.
> > > Sonically they sit in the spooky category.
> >
> > I'd like to hear what it sounds like. What band width did you
> > use ?
> >
> > --
> > André Majorel <URL:http://www.teaser.fr/~amajorel/>
> > std::disclaimer ("Not speaking for my employer");
> >
>
>
>