Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

On 23 Aug 2008 at 9:15, synergeezer wrote:

> --- 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?

Could have several reasons, never played an EML so I can only 
guess...

a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the 
timbre...
b) Synths don't sound instantly you have to make them sound, you may 
had problems to get really good sounds out of the synth.
c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a guitar.
d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with formant 
movements.

It's for sure not the randomness, since other than todays digital 
synths old fat analog boxes do have quite some fluctuations in 
sound...


> > 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

This wasn't an attempt to find another definition for timbre, it's 
just my lack of finding a better english word for what I really 
wanted to say, since english it's not my native language. 
From my point of view you, since the meaning was obvious, your 
reaction wasn't exactly appropriate.

> > 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!

This is basic psychoacoustic knowledge, as usual preception is hard 
to prove. Math isn't exactly helpfull here, except maybe statistics. 
I might be able to find some free english documents online, but I 
don't have the time for this, since I have soundjobs and deadlines...
I'm not here convince you, just want to share some of my experience 
as sounddesigner. Take it or leave it...

> > 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

Regards!
      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/