The Logic Off Topic list

GA Moore wrote:

>In the old IBM PC's and Macs, you used to be able to write a little
>program that would make the computer generate tones. You could make the
>pitch change or whatever. I think this is the simple beginnings of the
>digital analog creation.
OK.

>Isn't a square save essentiall 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,?
>(scaled)
"Essentially", yes.
So ... "all" you have to do now is navigate those sharp corners. Shouldn't 
be much of a challenge. Except that ... a lot of Field- and/or near-Field- 
and Nobel- and/or near-Nobel-prize winning types have written lots of 
papers on exactly how one is supposed to navigate those corners. Apart from 
that, it's pretty easy!!!

>A saw wave would be something like 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9,
>1, 0, .1, .2, ....
No.

>That matheamtics can be represented by a graph if sent to a plotting
>device and interpretted properly. In the same, it can be represented by a
>sound by sending to a digital to analog converter and interpreting and
>processing it.
No.

"All" you have to do is find some way of, for example, representing pi 
accurately in a digital filter ... which by its very definition is going to 
be somewhat limited in its capabilities given that the synthesizer with the 
ability to represent pi accurately has yet to be created (far as I know 
none of them have the infinite memory required to represent pi with the 
required degree of accuracy).

>Real analog devices are pretty noisy actually.
So are digital ones. Lots of squealing and stuff. Then you've got all that 
Nyquist palaver. Etc etc etc. No Shangri-La there, sadly. Pretty good though.

>Theoretically, AFAIK, the digital models should be essentially noise
>free. I'm certainly happy with my Nova in that regard.
"Theoretically", yes.
"Should be", yes.
The Nova is a good machine.

>Regarding, Kool's assertion that Peter Gabriel's time stretched pieces
>had never seen the light of day, I disagree.
OK.

>If you record any thing that
>occurs as sound - whether it comes from a human voice or analog
>oscillator - it has existed as a sound before.
Depends what you mean by 'record'. You seem to mean one thing. Me another. 
That's OK, though.

>The digital analog synths sound source was
>purely mathematical.
And ... so was the sample purely mathematical. A sample is not a real 
recording, it is merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
represent a wave form. But ... so also is 'a sine wave', within the same 
digital domain, merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
represent a waveform. Both are thrown at converters in order to produce a 
sound. Can't see the difference myself. But I accept that you do.

>The first time these ever occur as sound (or
>electrical signals which would represent sound if played through a
>stereo) is when they are output.
The bit inside the brackets is I agree with. The bit outside the brackets I 
still consider dubious in the extreme.
But ... that's just me.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com