Hi Ezra, On 2 Sep 2008 at 15:47, ezra buchla wrote: > On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Summa <flotorian@...> wrote: > > >> 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. > > > > I played around with the tassman that includes some physical > > modelling elements. I wasn't exactly satisfied with the results and the > > predictability of the results, one might getter results if he's into > > building real world instruments and having profound knowledge about > > their resonance bodies... > > i don't know what that is but it seems smart for people making > physical modelling synths to have some experience with real objects. i > guess. I rather meant that it might looks like a good idea using on first sight less abstract looking real world objects and parameters like size but still a typical user, that has no knowledge about building instruments, can't anticipate how those parameters change the sound. He could as well using Operators, Frequencies, delays and filters... > >> 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...) > > > > I always thought it's a tunable comb filter (that basicly is a > > delay) with some feedback that needs a short impulse burst to > > oscillate. > > you're right, the term "Karplus-Strong" usually describes that very CS > implementation of the string model from physics (which itself has been > around for hundreds of years). the relevant sonic characteristic is > the way the various harmonics decay... with a direct implementation > of the connected-mass system, you can change the spacing of the > harmonics with a stiffness coefficient, and their decay times with a > damping coefficient... this corresponds to delay time and feedback in > the comb filter implementation. (i did, after all, carefully read the > Karplus-Strong patent application that i posted earlier...) > > but in the direct implementation, you can also change the order or > topology of the force equation, which produces enharmonic as well as > harmonic components. you can't get this from a comb filter (but you Can't find a proper translation for enharmonic, but as far as my experience with Comp filter goes, you can create harmonic as well as nonharmonic overtones, what is depending on the spectre of the input impulse. > could get them, i suppose, from some kind of really really weird > complicated APF phaser implementation... hm) > > at least get some marvelous plucked string sounds using formants in > > conjunction with comb filters.... > > sure... BTW, already when you say "formant" in this context you are > invoking a physical modeling concept (the sets of frequencies produced > by the vocal tract when forming different vowels...) The term formant isn't limited to vowels, it's also describes the prominent frequencies of instruments, mostly generated by the resonance body. Still, a set of bandpassfilters or a few static harmonics (for instance oscillators at a static frequency) can do the thing as well. Here a list with the formants of some orchestral instruments... http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Music/orchins.html > > Here some Comb-Filter examples I did with the microQ some years ago. > > > http://www.summasounds.de/files/mQcomb.mp3 > > very nice... sounds like there's an awful lot of stuff on there... > delays... multiband compression... already by introducing formant > filtering (by any numerical or analog means you care to choose), this > becomes a whole new ballgame (compared to the humble comb filter), and > indeed a very chaotic one if you're filtering or waveshaping the > feedback path (as it sounds like you are...)... you're going to end up > hearing a lot of artifacts resulting from "limitations" or "flaws" in > the actual hardware or software... totally "chaotic" stuff. Well, it's completely Waldorf microQ (3 Oscillators + Noise, 2 multimode Filters (including Comb+/-)) based, no additional effects has been used, no additional EQ or multiband compression. Since the built in FX is rather crappy, I used them rather sparse. The microQ has the abilitity to manipultate voice groups separately, even so this is limited by the amount of mod-matrix and modifier slots, it can add quite some sonic diversity to the sound... When it comes to the formants, I added oscillators at a static frequency to the impulse (created by short pitchmodulation) to create them... > >> 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... > > > > Even so chaos theory is pretty fascinating, especially when it come > > to weather or big bang prediction, when it comes to sounds I'm > > rather interested in results than in theory. It simply doesn't need > > that much chaos to trick the ear/brain combination, it can trace a > > very limited amount of parameters at once only. I must admit that > > I'm more interested in practical, emotional playable, in multiple > > aspect changeable sounds, than in unpredictable coincidental > > generated stuff. > > i guess i wouldn't argue with that. i spend part of my time building > modular synthesizers that employ a relatively "traditional" sound > design paradigm, but even in the guts of an analog waveshaper there is > much beautiful folded strangeness to be found. hard to understand > anything in circuit design without some nonlinear analysis tools. Analog circuits tend to behave nonlinear when driven into saturation... > i happen to enjoy designing synthesis algorithms in my "spare time," > and i happen to have a numerical modelling background, so it makes > sense to use that paradigm when it's useful. most things having to do > with sound are "chaotic," including (for example) the spectra > resulting from the cz-series phase-reset synthesis algorithm that i > was talking about earlier. I haven't followed your complete discussion with Synergeezer briefly, so I'm not aware of any phase reset synthesis algorithm within the CZ. At least the term is unkown to me, the creator of the VAZ Modular probably used other terms to describe the principles of his Cosmo Oscillators. > (interested in the chaotic dynamics of coupled oscillators? no? how > bout cross-modulated FM oscillators? how bout that Crossmodulated FM or PM? With or without the DC-Offset those coupled FM oscillators tend to create? I'm allready be able to create my formants, even shifting ones, using synced waveshaper/Oscillator combinations... > formant-combfilter-feedback patch? these can all be studied with > "chaos theory," and indeed coupled-oscillator problems form one of the > most fruitful areas of recent research...) As you may have recognised, I'm already able to create formants with a simple Comb-Filter and without the help of the chaos theory. > anyway... here's a single "pluck" from a KS synth i made a few years > ago, with nonlinear force terms and arbitrary correlation between > masses; it sounds more like a gong than a string: > > http://music.calarts.edu/~ebuchla/mp3/losalamos.mp3 Reminds a bit on some old tape loop experiments and it unfortunately doesn't contain any frequencies above 2khz so it sounds a bit "muffled" (hope this is the right expression for it). It's rather clean, without texture... > as you say, that's not a playable instrument, its the raw output of a > numerical system, an array of 8 floats and some very very simple DE's. > as i mentioned before, ableton's "tensor" is a playable, commercial > implementation of a similar algorithm (or so i surmise.)... i like it > ok... anyway, it's easy to get the demo and play with it, and decide > for yourself... > > anyways, i wouldn't know how to make that sliding enharmonic decay > stuff without some very intricate programming of sinusoids... or a > super, SUPER weird phaser (that does not yet exist)... anyway it would > take a lot more "effort" than 8 floats and two DE's... Hmmm, don't get me wrong it might be academicly challenging project, but seems to be quite some effort for a nice little drone... > > I still think our perception is to limited, so it's like throwing > > pearls before the swine and at the end (to us/our minds) it might do > > nothing more than adding a nice texture to the sound ;) I'm not sure > > if this would be worth all the effort, at least when it comes to > > sound generation... > > ok. i guess i don't agree. our ears and minds are fucking amazing, > capable of incredible feats of acoustic analysis: pitch > discrimintation, rhythmic discrimination, spectral feature extraction, > masking... Never mind but I don't understand a word of what you're talking about, could be the language, you might remember that english isn't my native language. But before telling marvels about our perception have you read a single article about psychoacoustics, how easy it is to trick our perception? I unfortunately have mostly german papers, otherwise I may would have been able to provide some links... > i grew up on a diet of experimental electronic music and close > listening. i think "texture" is very deep. you're a sound designer so > you probably do too, i'd imagine... I have a pretty wide scope of music/sounds I'm listening too... > in any case, i don't understand your distaste for researching novel > synthesis architectures. they don't have to be more complicated or > chaotic. they could be more flexible and computationally efficient, > like wave terrain synthesis, or the original KS algorithm in its > day... in my observations, it really looks like most useful audio > technologies being life as unplayable academic toys... I simply don't think that we get any appreciable progress if we built instruments that are rather based on physical or mathematical experiments and completely ignoring psychoacoustics... > i guess i keep thinking about if my father and bob moog hadn't thought > to apply FM (a telecom engineering method) to musical synthesis in the > 1960's, on the grounds that the resultant sounds were too I'd guess this is a foorseeable step when using an oscillator (and an LFO is nothing else) for vibrato and increasing it to audio speed to see what happens... ;) I guess the result at least soundwise somewhat reminded him to radio noise but except that FM-Radio is also modulating the frequency of the carrier wave with the audio signal I think their is not that much analogy between radio waves and Oscillator FM ;) > "unpredictable," and unnecessary for the ingenious patchmaker (hey, > you got sines, saws, squares and AM, what more do you need?)... > chowning formulated the "musical" characteristics of FM in the late > '70's... Using physical models, trying to simulate real instrument isn't really new to the world of audio algorithms. While psychoacoustics is a relatively new science... > >> 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 simply want good sounding (high audio bandwidth) tools that are > > powerfull enough to make my sonic fantasies come true, giving me the > > most easy and direct access to certain sonic parameters... > > sure... fortunately you have that in abundance, these days. might as > well move forward. Well, not really, at least not realtime... > in a lot of ways i totally agree with your exhortation to use simpler > tools with more imagination. if i understood that right. but i also > like making tools, and it seems stupid to make the same ones over and > over again (software is cheap), and i can still think of some stuff > that i want that doesn't exist yet. > > but, you know, i don't care much. > > i just realized that i've never read anything i needed to read on this > list. i subscribed cause i wanted a cz-101 service manual. > > now unsubscribing. > > take care, Couldn't you say that at the beginning of your mail, this would spare me a lot of writing... ;) Take care too! ...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/
Message
Re: [CZsynth] Re: waldorf microwave vs CZ & po
2008-09-03 by Summa