But is it a synth?

[emdot_ambient]

I have a good little doggy.

[fabi]

ianweb123
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:57 pm
Why not treat each instruments as... 'an instrument', why do we feel the need to pigeon-hole everything.. Who cares what the technology is if we like the end result?

Improv
PostPosted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:46 pm
Old Crab wrote:

But I think it doesn't hurt to have a more precise understanding of the technology.


Putting everything into little self-limiting boxes does NOT help to gain a more precise understanding of the technology.

Putting everything into little self-limiting categories only lets you dismiss the entity in question. 'Oh that's x, I know all about x! I can dismiss it now.' That's what is implied, whether you realize it or not.

What does help to gain a better understanding of the technology is to study it's behaviour and know the results if you increase A and add Q (or whatever).

Music is all about sound and sound is listened to-use your ears and let them be the judge!

This thread is so over... Rolling Eyes

well, thing is that instruments are not all the instruments there are. there are effects that can be played as an instrument. in fact for the most part the y are the only instruments i do play.

if you don't want to put things into categories, why don't you go ahead and poke out your eyes. who cares what you are running into, right? i mean, why make the distinction between air and water, right? or red lights and green lights...

improv, that's absolutely black-and-white logic you are applying. and that's irrational, which is understandable, but....

cheers

[dover666]

meh. interesting thread. So, how many of you have made an analog synth device (hardwired - physical entity) and then again how many have made a soft synth. (se or otherwise.) it would be interesting to match up opinions with actual experience. meh.

[Improv]

improv, that's absolutely black-and-white logic you are applying. and that's irrational, which is understandable, but....
cheers

Of course basic categories are necessary to organize thought! (DUH!)

Spending an obsessive amount of time worrying about which box to put something in is being obsessive compulsive to the point of being counter productive. Talk about terminal navel gazing-just get on with the music!

[jkotz]

its clearly not what anyone would reasonably consider to be "sampling"

I was being a smart-ass and refering to the fact that all digital audio is processed through a sample buffer (even if it's only a single sample long). I realise that this is in no way what the original post was refering to as "samples". Personally my view is similar to Ian of Krakli Software's. Why do we need to categorize virtual instruments? So long as I know how to use them to create the sound I want, why should I care what category they fall into? All that matters is the sound.

[Mr. Tunes]

why dont we look at the hardware "synth" market. there are tons of keyboards that you buy in the stores that are simply called synth when in reality they're neatly packaged ROMplers, or some sort of hybrid. I think that view should hold true in virtual instruments like say Atmosphere.

[The Chase]

If I wanted to be really pedantic, I'd point out that all computer based audio is sample based.
But only if I wanted to be pedantic.

In what way? Doesn't Albino (for example) generate the sound from the ground up as opposed to playing back a sample?
OC

Yes but when it comes to 1's and 0's, playing a wave file is synthesis, too.

So is playing a CD synthesis?

Technically, all pulse code modulation is synthesis.

[Old Crab]

An instrument not being a synth will not stop me from using it (as evidenced by me always gushing over Atmosphere (and by the way, I’m still waiting for Atmo-2!)).

It’s not like I’m about to launch Atmosphere and suddenly realize it’s a rompler and say “Whoa there! Good thing I realized that this wasn’t a synth! I could have made a terrible mistake! Let me reach for an actual synth right away!

Nevertheless, if we’re going to toss the term around like it means something, then I think that we could at least benefit from a general consensus (like that’s really going to happen here… ) of what it really means, if for nothing less than to avoid confusion.
OC

[rounser]

The amount of attention synths get must be for electronic music cultural reasons, because they're not nearly as capable as the recent crop of romplers, samplers and hybrids. It's paying homage to the cultural cringe that using a sample is somehow fake and cheating, where an oscillator is somehow real and legitimate....nevermind if they sound identical.

But then, since when did the opinions of dance music hacks make sense in any way except the emotional when it comes to ideas about purism? Most of them are convinced that a VST sounds meaningfully different depending on what sequencer it comes out of, or that sound quality is tied inextricably to price tag and popularity.

[ianweb123]

Interestingly some of the earliest synthesizers available to the general public were organ top affairs and some of these had real instrument names for the various 'tabs'.. Uniformly they sounded nothing like the trumpet/oboe/piano that they were named after, ergo, anything thats supposed to sound like something but comes up woefully short is a synthesizer.. Samplers nearly sound like what they are supposed to so by definition they are not synthesizers..
Mind you I'm a bit worried by some of vurts patch naming, vurtbox's skull shit immediatly springs to mind.. Does that sound like what its supposed to??

[dover666]

The amount of attention synths get must be for electronic music cultural reasons, because they're not nearly as capable as the recent crop of romplers, samplers and hybrids.

But then, since when did the opinions of dance music hacks make sense, in any way except the emotional? Most of them are convinced that a VST sounds meaningfully different depending on what sequencer it comes out of, or that sound quality is tied inextricably to price tag and popularity.

mehgd mit mehhhumph - urk - you sound like that guy from roland. and oscillator is the core of a synth. period. i don't care how you freak or squash a recorded sound. it is a recorded sound and therefore - it is dated to the tech at which it was recorded - and ALSO COMPLETELY UN-FRESH. GAWD a sound bite is a sound byte - a synth is a synth. and people start using samples right. remember a vocoder was born way before most of you, except for gramps. wait a minute - gramps ain't breathin! no gramps! wake up!

[dover666]

[whyterabbyt]

Mind you I'm a bit worried by some of vurts patch naming, vurtbox's skull shit immediatly springs to mind.. Does that sound like what its supposed to??

Umm, yeah, knowing the book very well, yes it does.

[mandolarian]

To rudely bring this back on topic...
Answer the question: Is it or isn't it?

[Meffy]

To rudely bring this back on topic...
Answer the question: Is it or isn't it?

*ahem*

Mu.

(Some of y'all will know what this means.)