where next with software instruments?

[pdxindy]

There are many innovative interfaces you can currently buy. They are for the brave and take time to master.

What would you consider truly innovative interfaces? The only one I can think of off hand is Metasynth.

As for new *types* of synthesis, I don't think we need those nearly as much as we need ways to get more out of the familiar ones.

I was going to mention metasynth as well...

String Studio is not a truly new sort of interface, but I mention it because it does have new parameters based on stringed instruments. Damper, Termination etc which have complex and non linear interactions that are more intuitive to work with.

I agree that new types of synthesis are not needed as much as new ways to make use of the existing methods. However, there is also much room for physical modeling improvements. Physical modeling kinda goes hand in hand with new interface approaches because it does create higher level parameters like the damper and termination in String Studio

[aciddose]

the thing about that is, physical modeling synthesizers are actually just the same synthesis methods used in new ways. with strings you have simply delay lines and filters of various types combined with wave shapers and samples. (input = sample like a pluck shape, output = through a waveshaper and into partial feedback)

the whole "fm" thing was a little bit of a new way to synthesize sounds in that we realized we can use large amounts of audio rate modulation to get changing timbres rather than starting with harmonic content and then filtering it away.

physical modeling is only a realization that you can model many physical elements using common synthesizer modules if you connect them in the right way. in that way it's sort of a new strategy for applying existing methods, but it doesn't really invent anything entirely new.

it's equally as interesting to provide parameters on a complex synthesizer like "modulation", "brightness", "resonance", "dynamics" which control groups of parameters, which parameters and in what way being selected by a "smart"/"auto" modulation matrix/router.

these performance controls have seen little success though since we should all know most of the users of synthesizers are what you'd label "patch kiddies", and the others tend to be "tweakers", with very little middle ground type individuals who would take advantage of these types of meta-parameters for performance.

i've had hopes once in a while about exciting new control ideas, and new synthesis techniques but it always comes down to one thing: "by pressing down a special key, it plays a little melody". this is what people like.

[pdxindy]

the thing about that is, physical modeling synthesizers are actually just the same synthesis methods used in new ways. with strings you have simply delay lines and filters of various types combined with wave shapers and samples. (input = sample like a pluck shape, output = through a waveshaper and into partial feedback)

.............

it's equally as interesting to provide parameters on a complex synthesizer like "modulation", "brightness", "resonance", "dynamics" which control groups of parameters, which parameters and in what way being selected by a "smart"/"auto" modulation matrix/router.

I understand that physical modeling synthesizers are using common synthesis methods. What is most interesting for me, is that they are making these meta parameters that have some relationship to organic or natural sounds/interactions. That means there is a certain chaos, or non-linear result that is happening.

The example of the meta parameter called brightness, is that it is too simple and obvious what it does. It does not mimic nature in that sense.

Any guitar player knows what damping the string can sound like, and the range of results, from buzziness, to muted, to percussive. I think there is a lot of room for developing the sort of meta parameters that mimic natural systems.

String Studio is the most enjoyable expressive synth I've played. It is the closest to a real instrument in feel. So of course I want to see more such efforts!

[aciddose]

of course "brightness" is the most obvious and would include wave shape, filter cutoff and resonance, modulation related to wave shape and cutoff, modulator shape, noise level and so on.

"resonance" isn't so simple though, it might influence feedback levels, saturation, dissonance/harmony in oscillators and filters, amplitude balance between wave shapes and more.

you could include even more complex meta-parameters that are less subtractive-synth-like such as "timbre" which might influence wave shapes, balance of frequencies, filter mode, cutoff, resonance, saturation, modulation, modulation wave shape, noise levels, noise type, envelopes etc etc.

you could also start to mimic physical instruments using meta parameters like "stress" (saturation, levels, modes, modulation), "damping" (shapes, cutoff, envelopes, wave shaping) "bend" (modulation, dissonance/harmony, envelopes) and others.

these ultimately are just different combinations of the same existing parameters in the same modules, though, just as with physical modeling synthesizers targeted toward pad strings, solo strings, reeds of flutes, brass or whatever else.

in fact, utilizing a modulation routing system like the one to be included in xhip you can create these mappings yourself while creating or editing patches so such things require only a change in the way users apply their tools, not the tools themselves.

(assuming the have such a modulation routing system in the first place, most don't i admit)

[Audio Gnostic]

I think all of these things would be good in the short term but I'd like to see some more radical approaches.

If you think of a synth's sound world as a multidimensional space, with each parameter as an axis, and points in that space representing sweet spots, or interesting sounds, there are a lot of ways you can imagine exploring that space that don't involve manually manipulating each parameter one at a time. Current randomizers are a very crude way of jumping to random points in that space but you can imagine lots of other ways to move around in there.

hey there is something very much like this right now check out a program called audiomulch. right now it is still 1.0 and very primitive, but it has a special thing called the "metasurface".

http://www.sausageaudio.com/pictures/mulch5.jpg

here, you can actually create presets in multiple instruments, not just one, and then blend between them, so yorue blending between the presets of the whole ensemble itself.

you can set up different atmospheres and scenes and then blend between them by dragging your mouse around the surface.

[pdxindy]

you could include even more complex meta-parameters that are less subtractive-synth-like such as "timbre" which might influence wave shapes, balance of frequencies, filter mode, cutoff, resonance, saturation, modulation, modulation wave shape, noise levels, noise type, envelopes etc etc.

you could also start to mimic physical instruments using meta parameters like "stress" (saturation, levels, modes, modulation), "damping" (shapes, cutoff, envelopes, wave shaping) "bend" (modulation, dissonance/harmony, envelopes) and others.

such higher level meta parameters sound excellent. I would rather not have to make them myself as meaningful structures are not easy (as we can see with physical modeled instruments). However, a system where a synth can have such parameters and the ability for the user to 'unfold' the parameter and edit it would be fascinating.

1 thing though... Tassman cannot duplicate String Studio and if it could, the CPU use would be too high. AAS says that combining various functions into the meta parameter is more CPU efficient than the fully modular system like Tassman which makes String Studio passable CPU wise.

[BONES]

However, the interfaces still mostly mimic traditional synths and samplers and are fairly slow and tedious means of exploring the sound universes of these tools. Isn't the next step completely rethinking the UI of these tools? Why not try something radical and put all that CPU under our hoods to better creative use?

You mean like Esperanto? There is nothing wrong with the language we use now so why change it? I think it is oversimplifying to suggest that softsynths mimic hardware. Sure, some do and when you see how popular they are, it might give you a clue as to why. But there are plenty that only take it as far as they need to and are happy to move away from it where its appropriate. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a hardware instrument with a UI like Rapture, for example, or Absynth.

If you think of a synth's sound world as a multidimensional space, with each parameter as an axis, and points in that space representing sweet spots, or interesting sounds, there are a lot of ways you can imagine exploring that space that don't involve manually manipulating each parameter one at a time.

But that doesn't mean anything to me and I don't want to wander aimlessly like an idiot. What I want to do is take something and hone it to a fine edge so that it can cut through my mix. I need to understand intimately what each control contributes to the sound and how to manipulate it to get exactly the result I require. Maybe over time I could learn to get that kind fo precision from something like you suggest but I cannot imagine finding the time to make the effort to get to that stage, when I can pick up any one of hundreds of other instruments and work as precisely as I like from the get-go.

In many respects synth interfaces haven't really changed since the original Moogs. I'm still dealing directly with fundamental parameters like filter cutoff or oscillator pitch when I program synths today.

Just as you are still dealing with words, phrases, sentences and paragraphs when you communicate here or in the real world. Why? because its something we all understand. Who would take the time to learn French, German, Spanish and whatever other languages we'd need to if everyone suddenly decided to post only in their native language? We'd be f**ked and start looking for another forum where everyone communicated in a language we understand. Same with instrument UIs - there needs to be a connection or I will go and find something else. I already do it - if I find an instrument that is not properly labelled with parameters I can understand, I don't bother with it. Olga is a good example as well as some hideous SE creations.

As for new *types* of synthesis, I don't think we need those nearly as much as we need ways to get more out of the familiar ones.

Are you seriously telling me you have wrung every, last drop out of the VSTi you currently use? I reckon I will still be finding good sound in mine 25 years from now [if I'm not dead].

1) Track freeze is a technology that fixes this.

No it doesn't. All it does is either lock you in to a particular sound or make your workflow hideously complex. Freeze is the dumbest way I can think of to solve any problem. You would be better advised to work within your limitations, at least you will maintain your flexibility and quality-control. Nobody needed freeze when we were all working on Pentium II 450MHz PCs, I don't see why we would need it now.

If you honestly need to edit multiple midi tracks at the same time, I'd suggest better hardware or using a proxy instrument with much lower requirements in the draft stages.

This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the process. If I could only work on one aspect of a mix at a time, I would never get anything done. I need to be able to flip all over the place to tweak various parameters that work together. e.g. If I am using distortion on a part, I might decide I need to increase the amount for any one of a dozen reasons, but doing so will almost always flatten out the dynamics, so I would also need to tweak the envelopes on the synth. If that track had been frozen, I would have to unfreeze it, tweak, freeze it again, check how it sounds in the mix, tweak the distortion some more, unfreeze it, tweak the envelope a bit more, refreeze it, listen to it in context again, etc, etc, ad nauseum. Realistically, what I would end up doing is not bothering, so that my mix would suffer.

That misses the point completely. The hardware is exponentially more powerful every year, yet is still being taxed by the new software....

Only because we, as consumers, allow ourselves to be held to ransom by the developers. If we all said no to CPU-hungry VSTi, developers might put more effort into optimising their code. Its one thing for a freebie to be a CPU-hog but you pay good money it is not unreasonable to expect to get good value all-round.

If you really want to explore new avenues, try SynthEdit, SynthMaker or Reaktor. For my money, this is the new frontier, kind of like a kit-car for electronic musicians. And car are an excellent analogy. They have been around for more than 100 years but since Cadillac decided that pushing the accelerator or brake pedal with one foot and actuating the clutch with the other in around 1925, not much has happened to the way we control cars. Except that it has really. Automatic transmissions revolutionised things half a century ago and now electronically controlled, dual clutch sequential manuals are becoming common. But we all still clutch a steering wheel at 10 and 2, even though it is now power-assisted, and use stalks to actuate turn signals and wipers. If you hadn't driven for 50 years, you would still be able to get into any modern car and drive it. Where cars have really evolved is under the hood [literally]. power outputs for family cars has more than doubled in the last 20 years, roadholding is better than anyone would have thought possible 30 years ago and your chances of surviving a crash are an order of magnitude better than they were in the 70s.

[Audio Gnostic]

-------------"you could also start to mimic physical instruments using meta parameters like "stress" (saturation, levels, modes, modulation), "damping" (shapes, cutoff, envelopes, wave shaping) "bend" (modulation, dissonance/harmony, envelopes) and others."----------------

a lot of this stuff is already possible if you assign multiple parameters to 1 knob, which i think is a major thing missing in most synths today. to be able to assign many different things to 1 controller in varying degrees of strength/direction.

reason thor can do this, but its pretty sad that there are only 2 knobs, and some things arent able to be assinged.

for example, i think we could emulate different synths and stuff by creating modulations that act like: "scale filter resonance to cutoff 30%, begin at filter level 50, transition exponentialy"

that way you could say like, all the time when the filter is low, the resonance will be higher and vice versa, so then you could modulate the filter how ever and the resonacne woudl automatically follow.

or you could even say, "scale filter cutoff to osc mix by -35%, starting at mix 70, transition lineraly"

even do crazy shit like moulate different things by the amount a particular oscillator is detuned

that way when one oscillator gets mreo pronounced or waver based on the "osc mix" then the filter or watever else could correspond accordingly.

it would be very itneresting to assign several parameters to something liek this, and than modulate the source with standard envelopes/lfos/performance or whatever, and this would create very complicated sound dynamics and stuff.

[aciddose]

i know what it's capable of, i designed it

"event routing". there is a reason it's taking so damn long - it's a little bit complicated. it's funny when morons show up and complain about "i want to use my modwheel on vibrato", like they expect implementing a single mapping is so terribly complicated and deserves great praise, being the most wonderful and useful thing in the world and relinquishing all other needs in it's provision. total f**king bullshit. routing one cc to one destination with one mapping is the lamest thing i've ever heard suggested in my life. i point out every time that you can already do that if you just use the map-cc button and use half a brain to shape the cc's range to your desire with the required tool.

most synthesizers available today only have this really lame implementation and it isn't at all my style to do things that way. modwheel my ass.

(not to mention in a synthesizer with nine lfos for example, how do you know which one needs to respond to the modwheel, or by exactly how much, or in what direction and what curvature? it's nonsense to think that you can apply such a controller in a generic format to every patch possible with a REAL synthesizer. the REAL synthesizer needs some method to allow a patch programmer to set up this controller routing as it's most effective for the particular patch. a generic routing available as a default might simply apply itself to the depth of every pitch or cutoff modulating input, but that would be useful only in the most simple of patches.)

[Audio Gnostic]

yea i agree with waht you said but i think you bitch too much

[Krakatau]

There are many innovative interfaces you can currently buy. They are for the brave and take time to master.

What would you consider truly innovative interfaces? The only one I can think of off hand is Metasynth.

I was going to mention metasynth as well...

I absolutely agree about metasynth's interface ( "image synth/image filter" more precisely )

Maybe it can be more accurate in this cenesthetic concept, but what has already been released is really amazing

I'm wondering in the future if a similar concept can technically be achieved to visually represent a surround environment as well...


wait and see...

[stk]

Physical modeling that doesn't sound like crap.

That is all.

[kuniklo]

hey there is something very much like this right now check out a program called audiomulch. right now it is still 1.0 and very primitive, but it has a special thing called the "metasurface".

http://www.sausageaudio.com/pictures/mulch5.jpg

Looks interesting. Thanks. I messed around with AM a bit a while ago but this is new to me.

[kuniklo]

You mean like Esperanto? There is nothing wrong with the language we use now so why change it?

Spoken language is a bad analogy. A slightly better one would be programming languages. Over the last decade it's become very clear that for a lot of programming tasks it's a huge win to sacrifice some low level control for a more expressive language working at higher levels of abstraction. I predict the same thing will happen to sound design eventually. Things like Kore and the FM8 morph pad are tiny steps in this direction.

Of course, there are still old dog programmers out there that insist everything should be written in C. They're getting their asses kicked by kids coding in Python and Ruby.

[kuniklo]

it's equally as interesting to provide parameters on a complex synthesizer like "modulation", "brightness", "resonance", "dynamics" which control groups of parameters, which parameters and in what way being selected by a "smart"/"auto" modulation matrix/router.

How about something like this - take a synth with a fairly large library of good patches like Discovery or impOSCar. Then, pre-compute the statistical relationships between the various parameters in those "good" patches and provide some kind of guided randomization interface that uses these weights to cut down on the number of dead ends. Ideally this randomization interface could also be the performance interface.