Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
>
> On 21 Aug 2008 at 23:31, synergeezer wrote:
> 
> > I'm certainly not claiming a deeper knowledge of psychoacoustics! Many
> > members of the group are much, much more knowledgeable than I.
> > 
> > But the two questions I'm trying to answer in my work, are:
> > 1. What are the minimum parameters required to re-synthesize an
> > analyzed instrument sound and have it sound right?  (My first-cut
> > analysis always yields a "distinction without a difference" for many
> > parameters - which ones can I omit?) 2. Which parameters can be varied
> > in a (more-or-less) random way in order to re-synthesize the kind of
> > natural variation produced by "natural" instruments?
> > 
> > I think #1 addresses your comment.  
> 
> No, since resnynthesis is already some kind of a brute force method, 
> analysing the atomic particles of a sound, but having all the data 
> isn't the same as conceiving the true nature/essence of the sound.
> To me a synthesizer that mimicrys a real instrument is boring as 
> h*ll,
Thanks!  You demonstrate that you have understood point # 2!  The
mimicry of natural instruments is merely the proof of concept!  The
original question I wanted to answer was "Why did my $35 Sears guitar
sound good to me, always"?  I sold it to my cousin, then borrowed it
back for a few months.  I found WONDERFUL synthesizer sounds on the
EML 101/200/400 I was able to borrow from Auburn University in 1974!
The WONDERFUL sounds I found began to suck just a few weeks later.
The question was "Why did a $35 guitar have a more pleasing sound than
 a synthesizer that cost 50 times more?
> unless it enables me to access/change certain basic parameters 
> of the sound, like formants (especially their movement) 
> texture/roughness and timbre. But timbre (pure waveform) is the least 
> important part of regognising a sound, since human ear/brain can only 
You are defining timbre in a novel way.  I am more comfortable with
the definition provided by the dictionary I can reach from where I sit
- The Random House College Dictionary: "the characteristic quality of
a sound" - or from Wikpedia: the quality of a musical note or sound
that distinguishes different types of sound

> distinguish about 50 waveforms, this parameter doesn't have to be 
> very accurate, what might already answers your question...
> It's rather that I think/experienced that all this synthesis methods 
> all that math can be fold down to ways to manipulate those basic 
> parameters I just mentioned...
I look forward to you providing these parameters without math!
> You only get different results since they're providing another point 
> of view and other tools to manipulate, but in general it's the same 
> picture and when understanding this it's getting "easy" (still can be 
> cumbersome) to get very similar results from different synthesis 
> methods...
> 
> Regards!
>         Summa
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > - synergeezer
> > 
> > --- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I wonder if any of you guys having a deeper knowledge about 
> > > psychoacoustics. It might be less costly to create algorithms that
> > > fits to our limited perception than trying to recreate physical
> > > models or exact waveform copies...
> > >   
> > > Just my 2 cents!
> > > 
> > > ...Summa
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> CZ/VZ 		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CZsynth
> FMHeaven	mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fmheaven/
> FS1R 		mailing list	: http://www.ampfea.org/mailman/listinfo/fss-list
> Vokator		mailing list	: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/vokator
> FM-Synthesis    mailing list         : 
> http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/fm-synthesis/
> 
> http://www.summasounds.de/
>