Frequency Block Synthesis

[whyterabbyt]

So you are saying that an AI can make false statements?

Anyone can make a false statement, moreover a software can too.

Yes, I already knew that. Have you forgotten that you said ai wouldnt make false statements?
Do you need reminded of that link as well?

Anyway, now we know that ChatGPT has made false statement about wavestack synthesis, that you repeated them as though they were true, and insisted that they could not be false because an ai made them.
So, with your completely undermined argument, we're back to where we were a few days ago; you with no proof that FBS is a new synthesis method, and us with plenty of proof that it isnt.

[Innovative synthesis]

Have you forgotten that you said ai wouldnt make false statements?

The word Wavestacking is not only appears in Curtis's book. There are other appearances too with different meaning in audio technics like at Hydrasynth Wavestack and some others.

[Innovative synthesis]

with plenty of proof that it isnt.

You have no a proof, sorry, but i have a working synthesis.

[whyterabbyt]

Have you forgotten that you said ai wouldnt make false statements?

The word Wavestacking is not only appears in Curtis's book.

It doesnt appear in the Curtis book that your AI said it did, nor does it have the definition your AI said it did in the Curtis book it did appear in.
Do you disagree?

Your AI made provably false statements, and your arguments here have been fallacious arguments based on those false statements.

There are other appearances too with different meaning in audio technics like at Hydrasynth Wavestack and some others.

Are you claiming that because Hydrasynth uses the term Wavestack for one of its oscillator Modifiers, then somehow that proves that FBS is not just a rebadged version of a method Roads described 25 years ago?
Because that would be a fallacious claim.

[BertKoor]

with plenty of proof that it isnt.

You have no a proof

Oh yes he has. He gave it multiple times. Issue is, you won't accept that.
But you do take the word of a stochastic parrot as if it were the gospel.

but i have a working synthesis.

Sure, no surprise because that's nothing new. Good luck with it.
Bye!

[whyterabbyt]

with plenty of proof that it isnt.

You have no a proof, sorry, but i have a working synthesis.

You have no proof of any new synthesis method, all you have is a crude reimplementation of wavestack synthesis.

On the other hand, I have proof that in 2001 Curtis Roads described the method you are using, and that your attempts at rebuttal of that have been repeatedly and consistently based on invalid evidence, including AI hallucinations and unsubstantiated claims made entirely by you.

Do you deny claiming that your opinion was correct because of a false definition for wavestacking that your AI claimed existed in Microsounds, a book that does not mention wavestacking?

[Innovative synthesis]

You have no proof of any new synthesis method, all you have is a crude reimplementation of wavestack synthesis

Wavestack synthesis has nothing to do with FBS. I will write to Mr. Roads now to clarify it. I think, it's the simplest way to get a reply to this question.

[whyterabbyt]

You have no proof of any new synthesis method, all you have is a crude reimplementation of wavestack synthesis

Wavestack synthesis has nothing to do with FBS.

You have no proof of this, and FBS is a crude reimplementation of wavestack synthesis

I will write to Mr. Roads now to clarify it.

Dont forget to tell him that they are different because of the definition of wavestack synthesis that he never wrote and isnt in his book Microsounds. And all that other made-up evidence you have. Dont forget to tell him its a soundfont, and that you have copyrights.

[Innovative synthesis]

Dont forget to tell him that they are different because of the definition of wavestack synthesis that he never wrote and isnt in his book Microsounds. And all that other made-up evidence you have. Dont forget to tell him its a soundfont, and that you have copyrights.

Your style is too agressive, scepticism shouldn't go together with agressivity and anger that smells in all of your words you have. I will mention you to him personally I can promise it since I'm one of your greatest follower. I drink all your words. It is so academic. Of course I will copy all your text to him to know your style and deep knowledge.

I will mention him that it is a synth-in-a-soundfont concept. I'm proud of it man! Can you do this with wavestacking? I let you figure it how to, without FBS. Good work! Moreover, there were a lot "synthin-a-pack" out in Planet available since his book edition, just noone realized they are there, aren't they? FBS is a really special synthesis method without any deep math/physics, it's just working the way it is constructed. It's simplicity is excellent. It will be difficult to accept for those, who are lookng for some hocus-pocus everywhere, but there is no other known synthesis method like FBS. And now I leave you, cause I ask Mr. Roads. I ll be back with his letter, if he answers at all...until then...don't be a naughty boy here!

[Gamma-UT]

I will mention him that it is a synth-in-a-soundfont concept. I'm proud of it man! Can you do this with wavestacking?

Yes. Unless you've misled everyone, the only additional constraint is that the individual samples are bandlimited in some way to constrain which parts of the spectrum they influence. This seems relatively straightforward to implement* on any sample-based synth with multiple generators operating in parallel (and which reads sf2 if you want to get picky about that). Index into the Soundfont for each sub-voice. Job done.

* if tedious because of the need to artificially bandlimit every sample according to whatever granularity you've decided on – I'd assume sub-bass, mid-bass, midrange and treble at C4 or A4 as the split regions.

[Innovative synthesis]

Ok, email sent to Mr. Curtis Roads.
From now I'll be off, but if I received any feedback from him, I'll be back with it, if any.

[Innovative synthesis]

You won't believe it, I know, but Mr. Roads answered me and suggested to patent FBS.
I'm the happiest man in the Universe right now.

Dear all, thank you for your scepticism and 24 hours of help in thinking, what FBS is or might be.

We will meet @ www.denmusic.hu.