Circuit modeled filter, how to?

[whyterabbyt]

i think we can all accept that you're of the opinion that it isnt possible to judge something based upon a glance, many would share your opinion.

now you're trying to put words in my mouth. thats not what i said, nor does it reflect any opinion ive stated.

im of the opinion it isnt possible to judge the capabilities of something without any glance. which is what you've actually done.

i hear absolutely nothing from the demos of spore which would convince me to look further at this point.

of course not. you had your mind made up before you started.

at this point i'm assisted in my judgment by the opinions of a number of other highly skilled and experienced individuals.

of course you are. im sure everyone who agrees with you is highly skilled and experienced; you would be able to tell how skilled and experienced they are just by their agreement.

No hint of a fallacy by dint of a nebulous appeal to authority there. Im sold.

[aciddose]

no appeal to authority here.

here is my suggestion for you:

1) take a sh-101, use it.

2) come back and listen to the spore demos.

3) tell me based upon the demos, you cant tell if spore is accurate or not
(please listen to all the demos, including the others linked with the page containing the spectrograph)'

without having done this, you're merely speculating about what is or is not possible based upon listening to demos. i havent taken a glance? the demos are a glance.

[whyterabbyt]

no appeal to authority here.

of course not. commenting that some unseen group of, erm, authorities, agree with you, is

i wonder how those, erm, authorities, happen to have gotten into a debate on Spore so conveniently. Is it some sort of habit of yours to 'put the word out' when you're in disagreement with another developer or something? Or maybe you've just got a little forum or mailing list for a coterie of cronies. Maybe that would explain non-developers like Shy and boimb turning up in this thread to do nothing more that make ad hominem attacks on Andy which pretty much repeated the same script as your own.

Nah. Couldnt be.

here is my suggestion for you:

1) take a sh-101, use it.

2) come back and listen to the spore demos.

3) tell me based upon the demos, you cant tell if spore is accurate or not
(please listen to all the demos, including the others linked with the page containing the spectrograph)'

Why? Spore isnt an emulation of the SH101, as you've already been told.

But if you want to send me the money to buy a synth I dont need or want, so I can do this, then feel free, and I will.

Do you actually have an SH101 then? You always say otherwise. I thought you kept saying that you had a heavily modified SH09.

without having done this, you're merely speculating about what is or is not possible based upon listening to demos. i havent taken a glance? the demos are a glance.

Thats exactly the same fallacy as claiming that seeing a couple of photographs taken by a digital camera can tell you what kind of flash it has; it just isnt true.

[aciddose]

no, it isnt. in the case of the images you mention there are many factors which influence the output. with these demos what we can, or rather, can not hear is what makes the difference, or rather, does not make the difference. follow?

"Thats exactly the same fallacy as claiming that seeing a couple of photographs taken by a digital camera can tell you if a cat was in the photo or not; it just isnt true."

there, fixed that for you.

[whyterabbyt]

no, it isnt. in the case of the images you mention there are many factors which influence the output. with these demos what we can, or rather, can not hear is what makes the difference, or rather, does not make the difference. follow?

fallacy. you can maybe determine the factors which contribute to the output, but you can't comment on the existence of those which dont. you're basically saying that if you don't hear ring-modulation, then the synth has no ring-modulator.

but thanks for trying.

"Thats exactly the same fallacy as claiming that seeing a couple of photographs taken by a digital camera can tell you if a cat was in the photo or not; it just isnt true."

there, fixed that for you.

thats changing it, rather badly, to suit your argument, not logic. unless you wish to claim that the presence of a cat is the result of the functionality of the camera, of course.

here, let me fix it for you properly

"Thats exactly the same fallacy as claiming that not seeing an in-focus cat in a couple of photographs taken by a digital camera means that the camera has no autofocus capability; it just isnt true."

[aciddose]

you're the best troller ever, dude.

[Urs]

It's not even called Spore, it's called Strobe.

[nollock]

no appeal to authority here.

Are you sure?

at this point i'm assisted in my judgment by the opinions of a number of other highly skilled and experienced individuals.

Btw.. who specificaly do you mean?

[whyterabbyt]

you're the best troller ever, dude.

Amazing how you treat 'trolling' and 'asking questions aciddose want to avoid answering at any cost' as synomyms. That tells me a lot. You really cant deal well with people who have different opinions from you, can you?

[mystran]

It's not even called Spore, it's called Strobe.

Hmmh. Now that I managed to Google up some sound samples of the thing, I have to say it seems to sound better than it's been given credit for in this thread. In fact what I found are the first software sounds that sound good enough to make me slightly scared.

The filter at least has that strange air to it (most analog filters seem to have that interesting "smoky" quality to resonance at high-cutoff) that I've been trying to figure out for a long time now (and still can't replicate deterministically ). The oscillators on the other hand seem somewhat boring to me, though it's hard to say just from some random samples.

[aciddose]

"Btw.. who specificaly do you mean?"

i talk to a lot of musicians and coders via various means, IRC, MSN, in person and so on. nobody you would know. i was not referring to shy, i do not talk to him outside kvr.

yes the filter does sound nice, i think it's a step in the right direction. andy was just saying that he has paid special attention to envelopes and other components and so when hearing the demos that aspect disappointed me most. the filter also doesnt sound anything like the real-deal, and i suspect this is maybe due to what i mentioned about spice and other simulations not covering every possible effect. you might get a false sense of accuracy running spice-in-a-vst or something similar, but i can demonstrate lots of circuits where spice's (or whatever other simulation's) ideal models fail to accurately model very important real world behaviours.

when i said i do not think it was worth the effort, i meant that in my opinion it doesnt seem to be that much of an improvement compared to say, poly-ana's filter to justify the effort andy has spent and the cpu time all of the users out there will be spending. of course, i'm not andy and i'm not one of those users, so i cant say how either of them will feel. andy seems to think users do not care about cpu use, perhaps not.

(specifically, he said cpu use was not the 'top priority' for most users by disagreeing with a statement i made to that effect..)

[whyterabbyt]

(specifically, he said cpu use was not the 'top priority' for most users by disagreeing with a statement i made to that effect..)

no, i dont think he said that. in fact i think you're trying to misrepresnt what he said - again. you've been doing that a lot in this thread, i believe.

[aciddose]

"MEMBER MUTED. Click to view..."

[whyterabbyt]

oooh, thats novel. cant answer a direct question, cant argue a point without ignoring what the point was. now burying your head in the sand. how surprising.

s'funny. real programmers with real points to make manage to do so with real logic and real facts. you cant manage to do any of that, you just throw a strop instead.

wonder why? hmmmm.

[boimb]

no appeal to authority here.

of course not. commenting that some unseen group of, erm, authorities, agree with you, is

i wonder how those, erm, authorities, happen to have gotten into a debate on Spore so conveniently. Is it some sort of habit of yours to 'put the word out' when you're in disagreement with another developer or something? Or maybe you've just got a little forum or mailing list for a coterie of cronies. Maybe that would explain non-developers like Shy and boimb turning up in this thread to do nothing more that make ad hominem attacks on Andy which pretty much repeated the same script as your own.

Nah. Couldnt be.

here is my suggestion for you:

1) take a sh-101, use it.

2) come back and listen to the spore demos.

3) tell me based upon the demos, you cant tell if spore is accurate or not
(please listen to all the demos, including the others linked with the page containing the spectrograph)'

Why? Spore isnt an emulation of the SH101, as you've already been told.

But if you want to send me the money to buy a synth I dont need or want, so I can do this, then feel free, and I will.

Do you actually have an SH101 then? You always say otherwise. I thought you kept saying that you had a heavily modified SH09.

without having done this, you're merely speculating about what is or is not possible based upon listening to demos. i havent taken a glance? the demos are a glance.

Thats exactly the same fallacy as claiming that seeing a couple of photographs taken by a digital camera can tell you what kind of flash it has; it just isnt true.

ah crap, aciddose just ignore this guy. he clearly likes the art of semantic battles... with no value/inhalt AT ALL. your 'discussion' with andy at least had some informative value most of the time.

btw: "Do you actually have an SH101 then? You always say otherwise. I thought you kept saying that you had a heavily modified SH09. " go reread the whole thread, the answer is in there. surprises me of all people YOU missed this info.