Diva Vs. Real Analog

[AdmiralQuality]

I think felt would probably be a more appropriate material here than either the original foam, or leather

Felt is wool... wool is static electricity-o-rama. Might not be the best choice for electronics?

Works in pianos.

I don't think it can accumulate a charge if it's pressed right up against the grounded metal chassis. And the shafts of the knobs and sliders are metal, not rubber. (Indeed, doesn't the felt donate electrons to the rubber rod?)

That said, I haven't tried it. I just remember thinking, what I need now is a big sheet of felt.

[Gamma-UT]

Actually, that was the point I was making: that the application came out of the maths rather than someone using maths to work out whether some real-world approach was plausible.

ah, sorry. too much multitasking on my part, losing track.

I think I answered the wrong point to begin with and so used a bad example. Digital encryption was probably a better example of maths as a tool for invention in that there was a problem to solve: develop a way to transmit keys publicly. So they looked for mathematical techniques and properties that would make it possible.

Another one, perhaps, is the 'invisibility cloak' stuff and other metamaterials work.

[Gamma-UT]

But if I'm allowed to be a bit pedantic here, the algorithms in question serve a bigger system. No one ever built a quadrature amplitude modulator for the sole purpose of modulating quadrature amplitudes. Again, its processing serves a bigger system and a more complex problem.

Do you know what quadrature amplitude modulation is? Because the way you're writing it makes me think of Matt Smith saying "reverse the polarity" or "invert the time matrix". The guts of a digital TV transmitter is pretty much a QAM circuit. It's signal in->QAM->upmix->modulated RF out. Er, that's it. Ok, there's a ruddy great big amplifier in there too but the smart stuff in those days was the QAM circuit itself. WIthout QAM, TV didn't work unless everyone watched just one channel.

Whereas someone here tried to imply that sound synthesis was entirely based on maths conceived with the sole purpose of synthesising sound.

I'm not clear on why that specific point being incorrect leads to maths not being the means to invention in other cases.

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts. I think the early history of electroacoustic music does have examples of that: they just didn't go anywhere. However, IIRC the guts of most analogue EQs lie in the theory of the Butterworth filter. And I've got a plugin from Airwindows that does interesting (and not always pleasant) things courtesy of Chebychevs.

EDIT; meant digital, wrote analogue. D'oh.

[spaceman]

Do you know what quadrature amplitude modulation is?

Absolutely no idea apart from what I read earlier on wiki

Whereas someone here tried to imply that sound synthesis was entirely based on maths conceived with the sole purpose of synthesising sound.

I'm not clear on why that specific point being incorrect leads to maths not being the means to invention in other cases.

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts.

To be honest, I lost track of who said what exactly, including erm myself. But I think you're right.

I think the early history of electroacoustic music does have examples of that: they just didn't go anywhere. However, IIRC the guts of most analogue EQs lie in the theory of the Butterworth filter. And I've got a plugin from Airwindows that does interesting (and not always pleasant) things courtesy of Chebychevs.

I think the point to be made was that it wasn't the source of ALL synthesis at all. That's why whyter gave the example of wavetable synthesis.

An important point was that mathematics is usually a means to solve something, not the final entity in itself. It can form the inspiration to create something but it's rarely the sole driver of a new creation. Creativity in the mind of a human to solve a certain problem comes first before the maths is applied (and in my opinion, that even applies to purely mathematical problems)

[ghettosynth]

Which is why I said, "at some level", I am not implying that they are a circuit level "emulation" of any sort. If the output of a digital oscillator is a sawtooth over an audio range then that is "at some level" an emulation of an analog sawtooth oscillator.

It would be more accurate to say that both analog and digital are "emulations", embodiments really, of abstract math formulas. They are equally "authentic", or you could say equally "simulated": the "real" synthesizer exists in the abstract.

Christ dude, nobody gives a shit. This is a fairly high level conversation about hardware and soft synths. As a practical matter, softsynths emulate hardware simply because hardware, as a product, came first. Moreover, software is a discrete computational approximation of a physical circuit.

You are wrong in categorically saying the software is a discrete computational approximation of a physical circuit. This is simply not a fact.

Pafnuty Chebyshev died in 1894.

Not software.

The Butterworth filter was built on paper in 1930.

Not software.

A DDS oscillator is all about the waveforms and is utterly different from
analog oscillators.

Not software.

Joseph Fourier died in 1830!

Not software.

Synthesis is the work of math. Analog and digital synthesizers are both imperfect "emulations" of abstract mathematical synthesis. You're quite wrong that "nobody gives a shit" about this.

I guess you couldn't come up with any software that would prove my "catogorical incorrectness."

We're talking about PRODUCTS! This isn't an academic paper, it's a casual discussion between people with a wide variety of backgrounds. We all, well except you apparently, understand that we're talking about software that's largely been available for about ten years or so and that runs on modern computers developed in about the same time frame, as well as hardware that's been available for about 50 years or so.

Nobody ever said that there wasn't theoretical work that dates back much further. Many of us here have good libraries and are familiar with the history.

Nobody said that there aren't VSTs that emulate other kinds of instruments or attempt to emulate no instruments known, but again, talking in broad strokes as we have been doing all along, many, if not most, VSTs are emulating some form of a basic subtractive synthesizer first developed using analog electronics.

[spaceman]

This thread is a soso emulation of a thread about analogue synthesis emulation in software.

[ghettosynth]

An important point was that mathematics is usually a means to solve something, not the final entity in itself.

Elaborating on this important distinction. No mathematics known to man can create sound without technology. Even if we were to assume the extreme and accept that EVERY idea known to synthesis was first conceived in the mind of a mathematician, without technology, those sounds would never be heard.

[ghettosynth]

This thread is a soso emulation of a thread about analogue synthesis emulation in software.

No doubt.

[ghettosynth]

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts. I think the early history of electroacoustic music does have examples of that: they just didn't go anywhere. However, IIRC the guts of most analogue EQs lie in the theory of the Butterworth filter. And I've got a plugin from Airwindows that does interesting (and not always pleasant) things courtesy of Chebychevs.

The point of "intent" raised earlier was spot on. I'm sure that you'll agree that of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have released some kind of n Osc SE plugin tarted up to look something like some KorgORolandyMoog synth available in the last few decades that you'd be lucky to find even a handful of devs that have any significant applicable knowledge of the specific history that your talking about.

Their intent isn't to emulate Chebychev's paper (One of my math professors started a class once by stating that there are uncountably many ways to spell Chebychev), but rather, to emulate popular analog products. The hope is that some aspect of the look, feel, or sound differentiates their product from the other available products. The emulations of synths, and more sophisticated variants (PEDANT DISCLAIMER: obviously not developed in SE), such as DIVA, range from miserable to excellent, but the intent in so many cases, is indeed, emulation, at some level.

[Gamma-UT]

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts. I think the early history of electroacoustic music does have examples of that: they just didn't go anywhere. However, IIRC the guts of most analogue EQs lie in the theory of the Butterworth filter. And I've got a plugin from Airwindows that does interesting (and not always pleasant) things courtesy of Chebychevs.

The point of "intent" raised earlier was spot on. I'm sure that you'll agree that of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have released some kind of n Osc SE plugin tarted up to look something like some KorgORolandyMoog synth available in the last few decades that you'd be lucky to find even a handful of devs that have any significant applicable knowledge of the specific history that your talking about.

Their intent isn't to emulate Chebychev's paper (One of my math professors started a class once by stating that there are uncountably many ways to spell Chebychev), but rather, to emulate popular analog products. The hope is that some aspect of the look, feel, or sound differentiates their product from the other available products. The emulations of synths, and more sophisticated variants (PEDANT DISCLAIMER: obviously not developed in SE), such as DIVA, range from miserable to excellent, but the intent in so many cases, is indeed, emulation, at some level.

I'm wondering whether you ever read anyone else's posts or just pick up on a few keywords on blunder in. I pointed to one or two examples that do have some background in mathematical treatments (and didn't even get into resynthesis synths that use DFTs or FFTs). If you think that means I think all synths are designed to realise the ideas of 19C maths, we must be reading different things.

However, as you mentioned Chebychev, this is Chris at Airwindows on Pafnuty, one of his plugins: "This is none other than an elaborate Chebyshev harmonic generator- rather than directly distorting the signal, it uses Chebyshev equations to synthesize and apply harmonics."

[ghettosynth]

I also don't think that was the point being made, more that synths were developed based primarily on mathematical concepts. I think the early history of electroacoustic music does have examples of that: they just didn't go anywhere. However, IIRC the guts of most analogue EQs lie in the theory of the Butterworth filter. And I've got a plugin from Airwindows that does interesting (and not always pleasant) things courtesy of Chebychevs.

The point of "intent" raised earlier was spot on. I'm sure that you'll agree that of the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have released some kind of n Osc SE plugin tarted up to look something like some KorgORolandyMoog synth available in the last few decades that you'd be lucky to find even a handful of devs that have any significant applicable knowledge of the specific history that your talking about.

Their intent isn't to emulate Chebychev's paper (One of my math professors started a class once by stating that there are uncountably many ways to spell Chebychev), but rather, to emulate popular analog products. The hope is that some aspect of the look, feel, or sound differentiates their product from the other available products. The emulations of synths, and more sophisticated variants (PEDANT DISCLAIMER: obviously not developed in SE), such as DIVA, range from miserable to excellent, but the intent in so many cases, is indeed, emulation, at some level.

I'm wondering whether you ever read anyone else's posts or just pick up on a few keywords on blunder in.

If you actually read my posts, you'd realize that I do.

I pointed to one or two examples that do have some background in mathematical treatments (and didn't even get into resynthesis synths that use DFTs or FFTs). If you think that means I think all synths are designed to realise the ideas of 19C maths, we must be reading different things.

I never made any such statement. Again, perhaps you should read my posts more carefully before criticizing me of not reading the posts of others.

However, as you mentioned Chebychev, this is Chris at Airwindows on Pafnuty, one of his plugins: "This is none other than an elaborate Chebyshev harmonic generator- rather than directly distorting the signal, it uses Chebyshev equations to synthesize and apply harmonics."

I'm sure that many synth developers use math, I'm equally sure that there are interesting examples of relationships between mathematical concepts and synth ideas triggered first by mathematics, in fact, I know of a few myself but I'm too lazy right now to link for you, but none of that refutes the much more general point that I've been discussing, which is that there is a large body of plugins, arguably, most plugins, that emulate at some level subtractive analog products.

Moreover, the degree of success that they experience, is a function of, among other things, the availability of CPU power. Consequently, this limitation induces a limitation of success in emulation quality. This is absolutely clear in even really good examples like DIVA and ACE which, when place on their highest settings, consume significant amounts of CPU.

This also makes it quite clear, that quality will continue to improve over time as CPU power increases, an inevitability. This speaks to what I was getting at which spiked this pedantic wankathon in the first place, namely, that softsynths will continue to chase the quality of analog and there will continue to be a potentially measurable difference for some time. Certainly, this difference may soon become inaudible to a sufficient number of customers that it is immaterial. Some may argue that we're there already, I do not.

Pointing to a few quaint examples does not negate the thrust of my point. There are HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of VSTS, certainly the overwhelming majority that are not samplers, that are subtractive synths designed to mimic at some level the analog synths of the past.

[Gamma-UT]

I'm wondering whether you ever read anyone else's posts or just pick up on a few keywords on blunder in.

If you actually read my posts, you'd realize that I do.

Which bit are you agreeing to here?

[ghettosynth]

I'm wondering whether you ever read anyone else's posts or just pick up on a few keywords on blunder in.

If you actually read my posts, you'd realize that I do.

Which bit are you agreeing to here?

Which part do you think? Seriously, had you read the rest of my post you would have been able to answer your own question, the answer is obvious from context. In fact, it appears, from this post that you are precisely guilty of the behavior that you accuse me of.

[Gamma-UT]

Which part do you think? Seriously, had you read the rest of my post you would have been able to answer your own question, the answer is obvious from context.

Yes, but I'm not sure it was the answer you were trying to provide.

[ghettosynth]

Which part do you think? Seriously, had you read the rest of my post you would have been able to answer your own question, the answer is obvious from context.

Yes, but I'm not sure it was the answer you were trying to provide.

What sort of meaningless nonsense is that? Do you think that you're being funny? I'm having a difficult time taking you seriously. Seriously, do you think that you're adding to the conversation here? What are you trying to prove?