Modern forms of synthesis - is there one?

[funkadil]

oh yeah, this thread also reminds me of a synth I made in synthedit where the midi note controlled the LP cutoff frequency. the ocillator was just noise but the filter resonence was up so high that it produced a nice tone. it was like a wierd fuzzy sinewave was the new ocillator. not a new form of synthesis but clever use of subtractive synthesis. Im sure this is nothing new though and has been tried before.

[droolmaster0]

Thirdly, any comments made about mathematics changing are totally ridiculous, mathematics itself does not change, it is the application of mathematics that does - and believe me, I can claim to know something about mathematics.

Well, if I were to talk about mathematics changing, I could mean one of 2 things (among others, possibly). One would be that the underlying structure of math itself (whatever that may be) is changing - and that, indeed, is ridiculous.

However, one might also talk about mathematics as changing, say, since the days of ancient Greece, and what one would mean, presumeably, is that the techniques of mathematics have evolved I think that this is obviously what most people would mean by talking about mathematics changing, and this is not, quite obviously, a ridiculous statement. Note that this is more than just saying that only the application of mathematics changes, which is the only permissable version of this that you seem to accept.

So, it would seem to me that you are obviously full of it, however arrogant you may be about your knowledge of mathematics.

Techniques - I assume you mean the way in which maths is used to solve problems - hang on a second, wouldn't solving problems using mathematics be the application of mathematics. I don't need for you to start some kind of senseless debate with me nor do I need to continue in a senseless debate with whyterabbit..

There have been branches of pure mathematics that have been discovered, or created, or however you want to view it. Sometimes they have practical applications, and sometimes they don't. But there is more math available for practical application than there used to be, because mathematics has changed. It has evolved. It is not just its application that has evolved.

[whyterabbyt]

saulc12 quoth

Okay, first of all I actually answered a question I read on the thread and my answer began with 'as far as I am aware' or words to that effect,

And then got pissy when better your amswer got corrected...

so you can bet that, unlike you, I am not claiming to be the fount of all knowledge.

Strange bet when Im not doing that myself, but then neither am I throwing a hissy fit because someone has corrected any mistakes I might have made.

As it happens the methods I mentioned may have been mentioned earlier in the thread, but I just missed them as I was only skimming through.

Maybe you should learn to pay more attention then, instead of sulking.

Secondly comparing granular synthesis, which is a computationally expensive digital technique to tape looping and splicing is not really a fair comparison.

Fair on what terms? Fair to you (awww diddums), or fair as in 'reasonable' . I disagree, as does Xenakis. Who invented it. With tape.

I would certainly agree that tape looping and splice is the forerunner to digital sampling and that granular synthesis is an offshoot of this, but that doesn't make them the same thing.

Maybe you want to try doing some research then. As I say, start with Xenakis.

Current methods used for physical modelling are also dependent on current technology to be viable, even in research institutions so are alsoe fairly new.

So? How does that make them 'new'? Many of them were implemented using offline rendering, which has been around longer than rock'n'roll. M

Thirdly, any comments made about mathematics changing are totally ridiculous, mathematics itself does not change, it is the application of mathematics that does - and believe me, I can claim to know something about mathematics.

So, you're saying there has never been any new mathematics ever, and that calculus et.c. was always in existence?

So what is i tmathematicians actually do? Sit with The Big Book of All Maths Ever, and pick stuff to apply it to?

Finally, I have had arguments with you in other threads as have a number of other people, you just conveniently forget,

Oh I see, it really is a personal grudge. Childish.

and strangely I don't ever remember seeing anybody thanking you for anything.

Yeah, it would probably upset your worldview too much to remember. But then, no need to let facts get in your way, huh?

[whyterabbyt]

saulc12 quoth oh and I just took a look at the only reference I could find to scanner synthesis and the document I read described a physical modelling technique which uses a table of modes of vibration taken from a vibrating body or string that has been scanned - so this is a form of physical modelling

Scanned synthesis involves a slow dynamic system whose frequencies of vibration are below about 15 hz. The system is directly manipulated by motions of the performer. The vibrations of the system are a function of the initial conditions, the forces applied by the performer, and the dynamics of the system. Examples include slowly vibrating strings, two dimensional surfaces obeying the wave equation, and a waterbed.

I guess you dont get the difference between a method which uses examples of physical models, and something being a physical model itself.

[Meffy]

There have been branches of pure mathematics that have been discovered, or created, or however you want to view it. Sometimes they have practical applications, and sometimes they don't.

Which makes me wonder: Are any synths or other audio programs making use of René Thom's catastrophe theory?



We can all probably think of a few soft synths we thought were catastrophes, but that's not what I meant. ;-)

[edit] Yes, I know catastrophe theory turns out not to have added anything really new to mathematics, just a different way of looking at things. But who knows? Maybe it could be a useful tool for some clev dev to explore musically.

[whyterabbyt]

saulc12 quoth hang on a second, wouldn't solving problems using mathematics be the application of mathematics. I don't need for you to start some kind of senseless debate with me nor do I need to continue in a senseless debate with whyterabbit.

Translation : Hey, I must be right. But if Im not, what you're saying is senseless, and so is anything anyone else says which doesnt concur with what I claim.

I just tend to find it annoying when somebody on here starts a message thread with a question, then a few people give reasonable answers, then somebody else comes along and instead of focussing on the question from the thread, uses it as an excuse to tear into other people.

Then dont f**king do it. Because there was no 'abuse' or 'tearing into' until your own sad little self turned up and dredged up your personal slights from some other thread only you remember.
Especially since you hadnt read the f**king thread properly, and I'd already given quite a few more 'reasonable' answers than you've come up with.

So I shall not say anything more on this thread myself, because I said my piece and I gave my own answer to the original question some time ago.

Oh goodie. Peace and quiet from the asshole front. Now, can we talk about the cool stuff without you being a jerkoff? Thanks everso.

[whyterabbyt]

Actually, Meffy, I think I accidently developed an effect which bordered on catastrophe theory; it was basically a modulated delay, modulated by its own output (and some other stuff). Result of an accidental miswiring a flangersih thing in QuantumFX.
Anyways, it basically (and incredibly accurately, IMO) emulates the sound of an inflated balloon being let go, and flying around a room making that high-ptiched farty noise until it runs out of air. The output is never the same twice, and its prone to the same sort of fits and starts as a real balloon sometimes does... its quite fun...

[peabreu2001]

Hartmann Neuron ? Looks like and sounds like it...IMO
The adventure started in prosonic SonicWorkx offline algos and Mr. Stephan Sprenger/Bernsee is a very young guy with lots of potential ahead...if only he stays in the music business. Also, Mr.Chidlaw??? the man behing Kurzweil VAST. Also this crazy guy from Jomox with its neural synth...resonating osc all over...

[peabreu2001]

Jurgen Michaelis its his name...

[JerGoertz]

http://staff.washington.edu/bradleyb/sp ... piral.html

There you go, you silly losers..



I don't know much about it, but in the Reaktor forums clist made an oscillator based on it that I built an quirky instrument around & that *single* oscillator kicked out some seriously raunchy f**king tones, man..

Wow, you mean that clist low-level coded a new oscillator module??? Or that he constructed one out of pre-existing Reaktor modules?

In any event this sounds very interesting, would you be able to let us DL your instrument?

----

As for the most modern form of synthesis, I read about one that tried to be very "computer-like" in that it didn't even think in terms of frequencies, partials, etc., but pure 1's and 0's for the osc's. I understand that it was dropped pretty quick as sounding like, well, computer gibberish.

[whyterabbyt]

Ah, the Jomox thing; I remember that. That actually is based on an analogue model of a neural net, isnt it. Now that's different. I actually think the Hartmann thing is more marketing/brandnames than any kind of actual real neural network (although I could be wrong), but the Resonator Neuronium looks much cooler, anyways, IMO.

(See http://www.sonicstate.com/news/shownews.cfm?newsid=1579 )

There's some nice stuff come from circuit bending as well, whcih although not really 'new' electronically, is, sort of, conceptually, eg crackle synths et.c.

[Sicklecell666]

but in the Reaktor forums clist made an oscillator based on it that I built an quirky instrument around & that *single* oscillator kicked out some seriously raunchy f**king tones, man..

Wow, you mean that clist low-level coded a new oscillator module??? Or that he constructed one out of pre-existing Reaktor modules?

In any event this sounds very interesting, would you be able to let us DL your instrument?[/quote]

You can find the Spiral Synthesis thread in the Reaktor forum on like page 4 I think..

eh..I *would* share what I did with it, but it's not very presentable at this time..



If the chance presents itself, I'll see what I can do with it, btu no guanrantees; there's things goingon with that thing I just don't understand & it's not setup at all for conventional playing; ie: it's use is currently limited to aleatoric sound generation.

edit: sorry, it was pre-existing modules. He downplayed it pretty hard as well, but you know these (normally) modest gearhead guys..

[Meffy]

Anyways, it basically (and incredibly accurately, IMO) emulates the sound of an inflated balloon being let go, and flying around a room making that high-ptiched farty noise until it runs out of air. The output is never the same twice, and its prone to the same sort of fits and starts as a real balloon sometimes does... its quite fun...

I can imagine it would be! That never-the-same-twice something I enjoy with the less stable Tassman lashups, or Steampipe in Reaktor.

I was thinking that the transfer function of the simple cusp catastrophe in the pic I posted might be the basis of a modulatable... erm, mutable? ... waveshaper. Fancier catastrophes might wreak musically worthy sea-changes upon their inputs too.

But I don't have much more than half a clue how to begin coding any of this.

[whyterabbyt]

Start with precalcuated tables of transfer functions in CSound?

[Meffy]

Sounds reasonable. I'll schedule some experimenting time for... um... January 2007? Eeep. :-O