Cherry Audio Releases Dreamsynth - Now Available!

[ghettosynth]

This looks quite interesting, however:

Dreamsynth also includes a beautiful-sounding classic string synthesizer that, unlike traditional paraphonic string synths, is fully polyphonic

TBH I can't really make any sense of that. If it isn't paraphonic divide-down, then it isn't a "classic string synthesizer" - and this highly idiosyntratic restriction aside (which makes them what they are), they are fully polyphonic, i.e. I can press all keys at once and each of them will indeed yield their note.

So this sentence puzzles me - big time.

I never got an answer to this question - so there's that...

I'm not sure if you're saying that e.g. Solina isn't a classic string synth, as it's not paraphonic, but polyphonic, and that you can "press all keys" on a paraphonic synth and all notes will play at the same time?

No, it's paraphonic. There definitely seems to some weird language in there, but, paraphonic refers to the fact that some aspects of the voicing are shared, hence not polyphonic.

The vast majority of string synths were paraphonic in that they had some form of envelope triggered filter, even though they were fully polyphonic with respect to the oscillators as they used divide down circuits.

Synths like the RS505 had a simpler string synth section with a more involved poly synth voice that was still monophonic post oscillators. The additional control means that the paraphonic nature of the sound is more obvious than with the string voice, enter the phrase paraphonic.

Later it was used more commonly with budget synths like the Poly800 that had limited polyphony but also used a single filter. However, a keyboard doesn't need to have limited polyphony to be paraphonic, it simply needs to incorporate shared, but practically monophonic, elements to the voicing with polyphonic elements, of any polyphony.

There might be some string synths with limited polyphony, I don't recall any. Jens is right in that regard, string synths used divide down circuitry and so most, if not all, of them had full polyphony driving a simple monophonic output filter. I would perhaps refer to them as "fully paraphonic" to distinguish them from "n voice paraphonic" as one should describe a Poly 800 or a Siel DK70, or "fully polyphonic" as one would describe a piano.

Paraphonic is a strange term and was probably pushed into use by some marketing department somewhere in time. Gordon Reid suggests that "Quasi-Polyphonic" might be more appropriate.

http://web.archive.org/web/201504301415 ... nthsec.asp

[jens]

This looks quite interesting, however:

Dreamsynth also includes a beautiful-sounding classic string synthesizer that, unlike traditional paraphonic string synths, is fully polyphonic

TBH I can't really make any sense of that. If it isn't paraphonic divide-down, then it isn't a "classic string synthesizer" - and this highly idiosyntratic restriction aside (which makes them what they are), they are fully polyphonic, i.e. I can press all keys at once and each of them will indeed yield their note.

So this sentence puzzles me - big time.

I never got an answer to this question - so there's that...

I'm not sure if you're saying that e.g. Solina isn't a classic string synth, as it's not paraphonic, but polyphonic, and that you can "press all keys" on a paraphonic synth and all notes will play at the same time?

No, I was saying something completely different.

I was saying that

- I can't really make any sense of that. // i.e. I don't understand what they want to say with the bit that I quoted, as:

- If it isn't paraphonic divide-down, then it isn't a "classic string synthesizer" // i.e. as all the classic string-synthesizers (at least the ones I know about) are "paraphonic divide-down"

- and this highly idiosyntratic restriction aside (which makes them what they are) // i.e. they sound like classic string-synthesizers exactly because they are paraphonic divide-down and apart from this not fully polyphonic part of the architecture of classic string-synthesizers

- they are fully polyphonic, i.e. I can press all keys at once and each of them will indeed yield their note. // I really don't know how to paraphrase that

at best have a look here, as it explain that quite well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARP_String_Ensemble

The main oscillator consists of twelve discrete tone generators with octave divide-down to provide full polyphony (however all notes come from the same envelope and filter, so it is actually a paraphonic string machine); and the built-in triple chorus effect utilizes bucket-brigade devices (BBDs) controlled by two LFOs to create the characteristic vibrato.

[jens]

Paraphonic is a strange term and was probably pushed into use by some marketing department somewhere in time. Gordon Reid suggests that "Quasi-Polyphonic" might be more appropriate.

I disagree. Paraphony refers to a specific architecture, just as divide-down does. Both could be called "quasi-polyphonic" but both are not the same at all. A synth could be divide-down without being paraphonic (not sure there are any though) and it can also be paraphonic without being divide-down (of which there are several). The latter uses an independent oscillator for each note of its limited polyphony.

[ghettosynth]

Paraphonic is a strange term and was probably pushed into use by some marketing department somewhere in time. Gordon Reid suggests that "Quasi-Polyphonic" might be more appropriate.

I disagree. Paraphony refers to a specific specific architecture, just as divide-down does. Both could be called "quasi-polyphonic" but both are not the same at all. A synth could be divide-down without being paraphonic (not sure there are any though) and it can also be paraphonic without being divide-down (of which there are several). The latter uses an independent oscillator for each note of its limited polyphony.

I never said that both were the same. Paraphonic is specific, as I said, it means that some aspect of the voice chain is shared, or has lower polyphony than other aspects. Practically, it means a mixing of a polyphonic source with key triggered monophonic processing.

But divide down, or more appropriately, top octave circuits without paraphonic elements are in no way "quasi-polyphonic." It is entirely the addition of a monophonic element that makes them paraphonic, or quasi-polyphonic if you will. So here, either you misunderstand what Gordan Reid is saying, or you misunderstand paraphony.

Top octave circuits work by providing oscillators that work at the highest octave and then using flip flops to divide them down. They are intrinsically polyphonic. In simplest terms this then will give you 12 * keyboard octaves outputs that you can wire through the switches of your keyboard. You can then passively mix the outputs and voila, full polyphony. You only get quasi-polyphony/paraphony when you add a note controlled monophonic output circuit.

Dividing a source to get a lower octave is used in many polyphonic synths, but we don't refer to these as "divide down" circuits. That term when used to describe string synths means top-octave tone generators followed by flip-flops.

Combo organs from the 60s all use simple top octave circuits and are not considered paraphonic. Similarly, most early Casio keyboards used a similar structure. These are fully polyphonic instruments.

[jens]

But divide down, or more appropriately, top octave circuits without paraphonic elements are in no way "quasi-polyphonic."

I disagree - but that is certainly a matter of definition.

However if you play a C' and a C'' both at the same time on a piano, two more or less entirely independent tone-generators each produce a note. This will cause them to be ever so slightly out of tune with each other. If two violin players play each one of these notes at once it is the same. And if you play them with a conventional polyphonic synthesizer it again is the same effect. There is a certain organic thickness that is very much an intrinsical part of conventional polyphony, regardless of whether it is an acoustic, electro-acoustic or electronic instrument,

That is not the case with divide-down synthesizers however. As soon as you play different octaves of the same note, you will notice a typical "sterility" or call it "blandness" you won't get with anything else. It won't sound very nice on its own most probably - but then send that through a modulation effect and you get a certain kind of richness you would not with a real polyphonic synthesizer because there would be a systematic kind of muddyness that is caused by the "organic thickness" I mentioned earlier.

[ghettosynth]

But divide down, or more appropriately, top octave circuits without paraphonic elements are in no way "quasi-polyphonic."

I disagree - but that is certainly a matter of definition.

Yes, the definition of polyphony.

"Polyphony is a property of musical instruments that means that they can play multiple independent melody lines simultaneously. Instruments featuring polyphony are said to be polyphonic. Instruments that are not capable of polyphony are monophonic or paraphonic."

If you want to split hairs to avoid being wrong, knock yourself out, but that's not what people mean by polyphony and not what Gordan Reid meant by his term quasi-polyphony.

Top octave circuits are polyphonic, just like "polyphonic" synthesizers with DCOs which can be thought of as a bank of programmable divider based oscillators with, most often, a common single, and very stable, master clock. There are few instances where the master clock isn't shared. Nobody claims that a Juno 60 or a Matrix 1000 is "quasi-polyphonic."

[jens]

If you want to split hairs to avoid being wrong, knock yourself out, but that's not what people mean by polyphony and not what Gordan Reid meant by his term quasi-polyphony.

Why do you say that? This does not make the slightest logical sense.

It was me who noted right from the start (i.e. it is part of my post that initiated this discussion) that classic string synthesizers are practically fully polyphonic (in the sense of that you are able to play all keys at once and they will each yield a note at once) despite being both divide down paraphonic. (I know that from years of experience with the real thing (of which I own a few)).

So what new fact do you seek to claim that you brought into this thread that I did not know myself already?

It's not about being wrong or right. It is a matter of perspective and relevance. I already said that it depends on your own definition, but that is obviously not contentious enough for you.
It's you who shows a need to "be right" by all means.

And that you use that definition in an attept to drive your point home is absurd. The original term polyphony predates synthesizers by several centuries. So the one you quoted (which mentions paraphony) is not nearly original by any means of the word. And hence it is quite arbitrary. And the original defintion would of course not be able to consider synthesis at all because it did not exist back then. So you may keep that random quote to yourself. It is fully pointless to bring it up here. It proves nothing besides your desire to be right (while ironically enough accusing me of it).

[ghettosynth]

It's you who shows a need to "be right" by all means.

I am right.

[jens]

In the context of this discussion I don't care what Gordon Reid (or anyone) wrote (years ago). It is irrelevant as he didn't answer/discuss the point I made here. And again, it is therefor absurd to bring him up as if he was kind of talking for you / supporting your view.

Besides I have more respect for people who can make their own points and do their own thinking and arguing, rather than trying to bring up semi-related quotes in order to (vain- and pointlessly) seek to validate their own position. That is weak-minded in my opinion.

Be that as it may be, you either fail to see my argument here or ignore it on purpose. In neither case it makes much sense to discuss this with you and in either case it means my point flies past your head way up in the sky.

Edit: ah, you edited your post just in time.

[Examigan]

How many computer installs are allowed? I thought I read it was 2 or 3 machines but now I can't find that info anywhere. Also, how long will the intro price last?

EDIT: I discovered it has up to 4 machine installs and the intro price will probably last for quite a long time.