The Fight for FM

[TristezaOrange]

"hear no significant difference" is the very subjective take on it, "they are different" the objective.

I didn't claim any different. It is my subjective evaluation - my way of saying that if I wanted to replicate the first patch to use in a mix, I would be really happy with TTC's replication. If the difference in sound between those two patches prevents you from composing a lovely track, well: seek professional help.

[tony tony chopper]

You make the plugins, you look into it!

Except that I'm not hearing what you're hearing. So far what I've heard was pretty standard FM. Didn't hear special tones, nor transient smearing.

Just a sinewave with minimal attack sounded way more punchy with the TG77.

Did you check that the sines started at the same phase? Maybe your 'punch' is the discontinuity click. With modern synths you can usually control the starting phase.

[living sounds]

Did you check that the sines started at the same phase? Maybe your 'punch' is the discontinuity click. With modern synths you can usually control the starting phase.

It's not the click. But again, if you don't hear it there's really no point in discussing it further.

[tony tony chopper]

It's not the click.

How do you know?

[living sounds]

It's not the click.

How do you know?

Because I know how that sounds. I've played around with waveforms a lot (editing, truncating them on the sample level) etc. to try and get the punch of analog compressors applied to a sample (like bass or kick drum) in the digital domain.

[DrWashington]

And it's the objective, for all the pious claims otherwise, which is what you clowns are actually trying to avoid with all this "everything is subjective" astrology shit, if I may be blunt. Otherwise I wouldn't be the only one commenting on the audible and measurable difference in envelope shapes in that example- for example.

I nominate this for paragraph of the year.

[tony tony chopper]

In the China bell example for example you can hear that the tones have different attacks and different kinds of decay envelopes

They do, so help me and do a simple raising sine with that synth, and then I'll try to replicate it in another.

It's just (humanly) impossible to accurately replicate a complex patch, that's why it has to start by comparing the basic building blocks.

When a synth offers you multipoint envelopes, if you claim that there are still envelope shapes that it can't achieve, you have to prove it.

[vurt]

"blurred but harsh.." certainly makes sense to me, and I've heard the same description and close variations for many years, about sounds for which I have similar feelings. And it can be explained without voodoo, although for a musician even when it can't be explained scientifically, so what.

No it's not all subjective fuzz. Especially because you are a developer I think you should not let yourself be mislead by internet fog-faeries prancing about jeering at everyone who is merely using completely normal musical terms in normal musical ways.

Normal musical terms used in normal musical ways are filled with subjective fuzz.

And the idea that 'blurred but harsh' means the same to you that it does to everyone else is a matter of faith.

Please stop making these straw men- "everyone else"? how could I possibly know what "everyone else" thinks, even in the highly unlikely case that there is anything on earth "everyone" agrees about. ( other than the undeniable universal truths like "the Powerpuff Girls rule")

Interesting fact: color blindness (the vision problem) was noticed for the first time by John Dalton in the late eighteenth century.

Just think, before then, everyone just assumed that when they said something was 'red' that everyone else saw the same color they did.

hmm...

Aside from wild and baseless assumption contained in the above... er, let's see what would be a classic bit of instruction here, hmmmm.... yes, the Shakespeare sonnet to his less-than-lovely-love would do fine....

Anyway, are you saying: "a word doesn't mean the same to everyone, therefore it means nothing to anyone."

See what I mean about "fog-faeries?"

Okay, knock yourself out. I have to work with other musicians, engineers and artists and in my world, when someone says "make the bright silvery sound louder", and one tone is a sine at 100Hz, and the other tone a trianglish tone with slightly inharmonic partials and a percussive envelope at 900Hz... um, let's see which one they're refering to...

anyway, carry on, it's quite amusing watching all the dancing around the issues and a maximal avoidance of discussing real measurable issues, or even subjective ones that don't fit the cliches.

In the China bell example for example you can hear that the tones have different attacks and different kinds of decay envelopes, there's almost a soft-clip kind of sound on the attack transient of the second one... "hear no significant difference" is the very subjective take on it, "they are different" the objective.

And it's the objective, for all the pious claims otherwise, which is what you clowns are actually trying to avoid with all this "everything is subjective" astrology shit, if I may be blunt. Otherwise I wouldn't be the only one commenting on the audible and measurable difference in envelope shapes in that example- for example.

was prof unwin your english teacher?

[living sounds]

In the China bell example for example you can hear that the tones have different attacks and different kinds of decay envelopes

They do, so help me and do a simple raising sine with that synth, and then I'll try to replicate it in another.

It's just (humanly) impossible to accurately replicate a complex patch, that's why it has to start by comparing the basic building blocks.

When a synth offers you multipoint envelopes, if you claim that there are still envelope shapes that it can't achieve, you have to prove it.

Have you tried to do a simple 2-operator patch the same way in both FM7 and VOPM? Maybe don't use fast envelopes to get this out of the picture? Do the basic waveforms even sound the same? Because I already doubt that.

[donkey tugger]

Sinthesiser eh?

I like the look of this Jar Jar lad.

A bit of pious indignation goes a f**k of a long way on the winternet. This lad seems to have loads.

Marvellous.

Frequency modulation? f**king Malarky?

Super.

[tony tony chopper]

Have you tried to do a simple 2-operator patch the same way in both FM7 and VOPM?

no because I don't understand VOPM, but you do (or you wouldn't say it can do what others can't), so.. it's you to try

[projectdan]

Cant you guys argue about something more worthy, like supersaws?

[tony tony chopper]

supersaws?

There's no arguing, the sect of Analogology is already too big to fight against.
Let's just kill the sect of Frequencymodulogy before it grows.

[living sounds]

Have you tried to do a simple 2-operator patch the same way in both FM7 and VOPM?

no because I don't understand VOPM, but you do (or you wouldn't say it can do what others can't), so.. it's you to try

Hey, if you don't want to improve the plugins and don't care for input from musicians, well that's your right. I'll just go on using the tools I've got to get the job done.

[tony tony chopper]

Hey, if you don't want to improve the plugins

I don't have anything to improve, and considering that the debate is about a pretty simple algorithm, you're in the minority with your claims, so it's not others who have to prove their point, but you.

So far I got nothing, I didn't hear anything special, nor any valid argument.
I've read a lot of subjective terms from you, and bullcrap from a couple of weirdo's.

and don't care for input from musicians

I don't because I'm not doing marketing. If I was, I'd listen to you and make a standard FM synth bundled with the presets you want to hear, and claim that it 'captured the details & uniqueness of the DX7 like no other managed to', add 64bit here & there, and sell it to you.