u-he rePro in the works

[penguinfromdeep]

it's a matter of five days to create an algorithm thats suspiciously similar sounding.

Maybe take 10 days, and make it sound identical?

That was gold

[fmr]

Emulations were born in a time when real analog synths were rare and expensive, unobtanium for most people, and those who had them cursed at the decades old tech. Those days are long gone.

Interesting. I thought emulations were born out of the fact that you have many advantageous when making stuff digital, so that unstable oscillators, monophony, unreliable technics, being able to only use one instance and all that could be ruled out, and combined with the ability to add lots of stuff which would cost a fortune if you would put it in the real thing. And those days are long gone? Interesting too, because over the years, i felt like the amount of soft synths actually increased, not decreased.

Totally agree. And not only the amount of soft synths have increased, also their quality have raised exponentially. We now have free softsynths that rival or even overpass the vast majority of commercial softsynths available five or six years ago. And the power of desktop computers double every five years, so, what was the most demanding synth when it appeared (DIVA) can run comfortably in any current good desktop unit, and will a light feather in terms of CPU consumption in 10 years.

[EvilDragon]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

[.jon]

Emulations were born in a time when real analog synths were rare and expensive, unobtanium for most people, and those who had them cursed at the decades old tech. Those days are long gone.

Interesting. I thought emulations were born out of the fact that you have many advantageous when making stuff digital, so that unstable oscillators, monophony, unreliable technics, being able to only use one instance and all that could be ruled out, and combined with the ability to add lots of stuff which would cost a fortune if you would put it in the real thing. And those days are long gone? Interesting too, because over the years, i felt like the amount of soft synths actually increased, not decreased.

Just like I said, "cursed the decades old tech". Those days are gone.

[nevernamed]

What makes a convincing emulation is precisely the thing to focus on.

Emulations were born in a time when real analog synths were rare and expensive, unobtanium for most people, and those who had them cursed at the decades old tech. Those days are long gone. I can walk into a mainstream consumer electronic retail store and buy a new Moog, Arp or Prophet. Or I can order modules to build a custom synth with parts from Roland, Moog, Waldorf and DSI plus a ton of more innovative designs. These cost more than a plugin, but aren't worthless in 10 years, and are way more inspiring on top of sounding better.

Now what if all those man-years of trying to create passable approximations of how old circuits sound would have been spent on researching PM? UX and UI design to better access additive synthesis? Exploring granular synthesis? What else is out there? Will we ever get to know, if all the effort is spent on reselling the same old "realistic vintage analog emulation!!111" over and over again?

What I mean is that if we accept that subtractive is the shit and bees knees of all synthesis, then it was already done well 50 years ago, and doing a passable emulation of it on the PC isn't going forwards, it's going backwards while never reaching the goal.

You've completely missed the context of that post mate.

That said you're wrong too. It isn't for you or anyone else to say what is a worthwhile investment of time/effort when it comes to research. It's impossible to predict how the output of any research could apply elsewhere. That kind of mandate is nothing more than Stalinist arrogance.

As for being able to walk into a shop and buy this or that or some other thing and have that thing be more, oh I don't know authentic/better sounding et al, again that's not a reason to limit research or direct it somehow towards this/that. All these arguments you make are flirting with or are masquerading authoritarianism. The Moogs/Arps/DSIs are more inspiring "to you" (you forgot to add that at the end).

But again you completely missed the context and spirit of these posts. Maybe you didn't read the preceding stuff in the thread.

[fmr]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

How so?

[nevernamed]

One need to be complete idiot to believe that Bricasti reverb and processing inside (as much as good it is and no doubt it is good) is 30 times more powerful then Intel i7.

That is like complete nonsense. Yeah i know someone will jump with "under special case" stupidity and all that...

That is complete bu****** reserved for (i guess) their users.

If anything is even remotely true about that, even it is 5% true then i can safely know that if he need power of 30 i7 to generate reverb sound then he is very bad DSP developer...that's for sure.

Here let me help you:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/High-Performanc ... erbauwhede

Give that a spin.

There is a really good excerpt on page 341 that talks about general purpose computing in the context of brute forcing crypto. If you want a less esoteric example have a look at the ethernet frame switching. You could use your i7 to do that but a Cisco 6509 is much more suited to the task you'll find (for reasons that you'll discover eventually as you ramp up your knowledge on the subject).

As for the "very bad DSP developer..." etc etc well that's one possibility certainly. Another might be that reverb is a complex physical phenomenon that is computationally expensive?

Have you used a Bricasti by the way?

[antithesist]

Diva?:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[EvilDragon]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

How so?

Well going just purely by numbers, we aren't doubling GHz since 5 years ago. We cannot expect 10 GHz CPUs in 5 years time. What we can expect is more cores, but not more GHz, and smaller TDP - but that doesn't really impact performance much, since applications need to be coded to take advantage of multiple cores, however the majority of applications still don't know what multiple cores even mean...

[valhallasound]

One need to be complete idiot to believe that Bricasti reverb and processing inside (as much as good it is and no doubt it is good) is 30 times more powerful then Intel i7.

Where is the "30 times more powerful than Intel i7" coming from?

From my "back of the envelope" calculations, I'd say that the Bricasti is somewhere >1 core of the i7. Which makes it impossible to run as a plugin, IF the algorithm can't be split to run on separate cores with a more reasonable CPU load per core. In any case, being in the region of 1 core would make it a really hefty plugin.

Also: just because something takes X amount of cycles, it doesn't necessarily follow that the ONLY way to get that sound is to use X amount of cycles. For all I know, the Bricasti is using 30 seconds of time varying direct convolution (i.e. dense "velvet noise" that is frequency + amplitude shaped and constantly randomizing), and therefore requires computing several thousand delay taps per output sample. Which would make for an amazing reverb, but there might be WAY CHEAPER ways of getting a similar sound.

Sean Costello

[fluffy_little_something]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

How so?

Well going just purely by numbers, we aren't doubling GHz since 5 years ago. We cannot expect 10 GHz CPUs in 5 years time. What we can expect is more cores, but not more GHz, and smaller TDP - but that doesn't really impact performance much, since applications need to be coded to take advantage of multiple cores, however the majority of applications still don't know what multiple cores even mean...

5 years from now we might already have the first quantum computers

[fmr]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

How so?

Well going just purely by numbers, we aren't doubling GHz since 5 years ago. We cannot expect 10 GHz CPUs in 5 years time. What we can expect is more cores, but not more GHz, and smaller TDP - but that doesn't really impact performance much, since applications need to be coded to take advantage of multiple cores, however the majority of applications still don't know what multiple cores even mean...

Yes, we are now following a different path, with more cores, instead of faster clocks, but judging in terms of benchmarks, we are there. Raw power exists, it's just a matter of coders adapting to the new reality.

[EvilDragon]

5 years from now we might already have the first quantum computers

I don't think so. We'll need longer for that, that area is still in its fetal segment IMHO. Perhaps 20 years...

[chk071]

And the power of desktop computers double every five years.

Not anymore. Moore's law capped out on us.

How so?

Well going just purely by numbers, we aren't doubling GHz since 5 years ago. We cannot expect 10 GHz CPUs in 5 years time. What we can expect is more cores, but not more GHz, and smaller TDP - but that doesn't really impact performance much, since applications need to be coded to take advantage of multiple cores, however the majority of applications still don't know what multiple cores even mean...

5 years from now we might already have the first quantum computers

It's funny, because i already heard/read the same 15 years ago.

[fluffy_little_something]

It's funny, because i already heard/read the same 15 years ago.

But not from me And now with all the military and secret service fascists so keen on it, progress might speed up a lot...