Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

well, maybe its worth noting that when i talk about "physical
modelling" synthesis i'm not necessarily talking about trying to
duplicate existing sounds or waveforms or whatever.

take the karplus-strong algortihm. this is a numerical model of a
system of masses and springs that can be set into oscillation. it is
quite computationally efficient. it sounds a little like a guitar
string or other kinds of strings, but based on the parameters and the
excitation methods, they can soundlike weird new stuff (you can't, for
example, sing into a string in the real world, or wrap the string in a
circle...)

where this gets interesting to me is with the addition of nonlinear
terms and other sources of chaos to the equations. now you have a
situation where it is very difficult to analytically predict what
orbits (read: waveforms) will be produced, and the best way to observe
the system is to compute it. this exact problem (or very near) was the
subject of the historical work by fermi, pasta, and ulam at los alamos
in the 1950's, which formed the basis for modern chaos theory and
numerical analysis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Pasta%E2%80%93Ulam_problem
http://www.physics.utah.edu/~detar/phycs6720/handouts/fpu/FermiCollectedPapers1965.pdf

point is (for me) that physics and math problems can suggest novel
ways of producing sound.on coputers, often with great efficiency, and
suggest control prameters that interact with the output waveforms in
complex ways that would be difficult to approach with other methods
(like table
lookup...)

there are people who want to use powerful dsp's to emulate vacuum
tubes or something. that's not so innteresting to me. what is
interesting is virtual toroidal gongs and pianos made out of rubbery
non-wood that you can bend into a horseshoe....

i really would check out perry cook's work and his "synthesis toolkit"
c/c++ library if you'e even the slightest bit interested in realtime
(not lookup) synthesis informed by physics.

-eb

On 8/23/08, 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...
>
> 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/
>
>