Dave Smith Instruments SYNTHESIZERS

I give up! But I am sorry I can't agree with much of what you say. 
But I think we have to leave it at that.

--- In DSI_Evolver@yahoogroups.com, Miles Bader <miles@g...> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 04:22:40PM -0000, Ravi Ivan Sharma 
<noision1@h...> wrote:
> > Well I can't really do your homework for you. But I will hold 
your 
> > hand a little: 
> 
> Please don't be such so obnoxious.
> 
> > http://www.sospubs.co.uk/sos/jul98/articles/synthschool9.html 
Just 
> > read and learn. Its a completely different method for creating 
sound. 
> 
> That article is very vague (in the same way that you're being), it 
never
> quite comes out and specifies anything.
> 
> It's certainly _possible_ for a synth to, say, emulate the electron 
flow in a
> bunch of transistors, and e.g., in the Q, Waldorf has claimed to do 
something
> similar (well, not on such a low-level, but they claim to do more 
than just
> use bog-standard software-synth techniques).
> 
> But to the best of the my knowledge (I haven't seen the source 
code!), most
> synths that are tagged with the term VA don't do anything nearly so
> sophisticated -- they're simply straightforward combinations of 
typical
> techniques that get used on all sorts of synths these days, `VA' or 
not.
> 
> Sure, they tweak, and tweak, and tweak, their filters to sound like 
their
> favorite analogue synth; in this sense, they're `modelling' where a 
rompler
> manufacturer might take less care (though these days, rompler 
filters sound
> pretty damn good to me!).  But I don't think they're `modelling' in 
the sense
> of really attempting to emulate the low-level working of analogue 
components.
> 
> > And again I never saw Roland or Waldorf come out and try to say 
that 
> > their digital synths (i.e. XV or MW) were VA's.
> 
> They haven't, as far as I know (the only manufacturer I've seen use 
the term
> is clavia).  However the term VA has been clearly adopted by users 
to refer
> to any synth that attempts to work like an analogue synth, and it's 
also
> clear the manufacturers are rather narrowly targeting this market.
> 
> Note that I'm not saying it's a _useless_ term; it isn't, it's just 
vague,
> and doesn't have any specific _technical_ meaning.
> 
> It's more a reference to _intent_, and emphasis -- I'd say that a 
VA synth is
> one that (roughly):
> 
>    (1) Doesn't depend on complex sampled waveforms for good sounds 
(as many
>        romplers do, though I must say I'm in awe of some of the 
samples you
>        find in romplers!)
> 
>    (2) Has high-quality filters that can add character in the same 
manner as
>        in an analogue synth
> 
>    (3) Allows more complex interaction between different parts of 
the voice
>        oscillators than just mixing, e.g., ring-modulation or FM
> 
>    (4) Emphasizes dynamic control over whatever audio-mangling is 
happening
>        within the voice (which is important since you can't depend 
on complex
>        source waveforms for animation)
> 
> [anything more?]
> 
> I apologize for the length of this, and it's certainly off-topic 
(especially
> since the evolver is sort of an `anti-VA' -- it uses digital only 
for things
> that digital is particularly good at, and leaves all the analogue 
techniques
> to real analogue!), but I actually find this a rather interesting 
topic...
> 
> But if people are bothered, I'll shut up!
> 
> -Miles
> -- 
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.