Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

--- In CZsynth@yahoogroups.com, "Summa" <flotorian@...> wrote:
>
> 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...

Any older, good analogue synthesizer is a fair substitute.

> 
> a) Since you're grown up with guitar sound, you might be used to the 
> timbre...

Actually, guitar was my third instrument, after trombone and
euphonium, but before flute, cello and drum set.

> 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.

The main point is this: even after you find a good sound in a synth,
it always sounds exactly the same, every time, unless you find a way
to add variations; velocity, after touch, breath pressure, etc.
I'm trying to find still more appropriate ways to vary the sound in
subtle ways.

> c) The synth misses the user interface and playability of a guitar.

My Godin xtSA, Akai EWI and EVI help with this problem.

> d) The attack phase of plucked intruments if filled with formant 
> movements.

Shifting formants is not a useful way of describing the complexity of
the attack phase of a plucked instrument.  It probably could be done,
but it is too broad a stroke to describe the very fine details of a
plucked-string attack.  

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

The word "randomness" _is_ inadequate.  What I intend to describe is
the subtle, uncontrollable, yet describable (modelable, I hope!)
variations in the timbre of "natural" instruments.  A good musician
either singing or playing an instrument, and trying to repeat a
performed note, cannot do it.  I can prove it, using a sampler and
computer.  They can come close, and sometimes I might not hear the
difference.  There may be some who can always hear the difference. 
Those differences are important, I think.  I believe I can identify
and mathematically describe these variations, and use this info to
improve the quality of synthesized 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.
> 

Maybe we should use the French word then - "timbre".

> > > 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...
> 

Thanks!


> > > 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
> 

You certainly have a modest user id!

- synergeezer

> -- 
> 
> 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/
>