Sampling vs Synthesis - do i need synths?!

[rounser]

There are many sample-based synths whose oscillators come from samples,

Romplers. They're not synths.

and most samplers use synthesis techniques (e.g. filters, modulation, etc) to achieve (synthesize) new sounds from existing samples.

Generating the initial waveform is the synthesis, which is the oscillator's job. I don't think what you're describing constitutes synthesis (nothing is being synthesized, only effected).

[tony tony chopper]

Why do people want to draw a line between the two?

because the goals are different. A synth that does sampling isn't the best sampler.

[René]

My sampler can apply ringmod, therefore it's a synth???

It's all just playing with words.

Synthesis
n. combining of separate elements into a complete whole; formation of a compound through the combination of simpler components.

That's kinda vague, isn't it? Therefore, there's the 'uses and customs, tradition, convention' of the language.

In this latter, if your sampler has ring modulation, then it's a synth. But I agree with what Tony stated previously: if NI would add ringmod or FM to Kontakt, it'd still be a sampler. We gotta think in what's a substancial part of its essence. Just like a Volvo isn't an mp3 player cuz it can play mp3s.


-René

[fac]

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about either. Filters, LFOs and effects are all core sampler features, and don't make them synths.

Yes, they do.

With a sampler you can take a recording of a trombone and, using the filters, envelopes, and LFO's, turn it into a pad, or a bass, or a percussive sound. THAT is called sound synthesis.

Samplers are, for all practical purposes, a subset of synths.

[fac]

There are many sample-based synths whose oscillators come from samples,

Romplers. They're not synths.

OMG. What have we been doing? Calling every rompler since the D50 a synth! Heresy!

[shamann]

OMG. What have we been doing? Calling every rompler since the D50 a synth! Heresy!

Not heresy, marketing.

[René]

D50 a rompler? Come on.

I mean, I could almost accept it when the supposed-to-be-a-synth barely plays a wav file in the 'polyphonic-winamp' fashion. Yes, there're many of those.

But not the D50, no. That's a synth from every corner you look at it. Unless the 'rompler' word doesn't mean to diss it.

But again. Let's take any of those 293829 VA synths. The oscillators come from a precalculated table. Are those not synths because of that?

What's the outcome difference between playing a precalculated table to calculate it realtime? none, it's just a matter of where you place the resources usage.

Now, let's say that we store those precalculated tables in wav files. Are they romplers now?

It's all playing with words


-René

[fac]

OMG. What have we been doing? Calling every rompler since the D50 a synth! Heresy!

Not heresy, marketing.

Nonsense.

Are you saying that things like the Roland D50 and JD800, Korg Wavestations and Trinities, Ensoniq ESQ-1 and SQ-80, Waldorf Microwaves, Wusikstation, Dimension Pro, etc. are not synths? Throw in the DX family in that class as well, since their oscillators are wavetable based.

Just because their oscillators are pre-recorded samples?

Are you saying that the one and only element that defines a synth is the oscillator?

[aciddose]

there is a difference between the classic subtractive (using single cycle waveforms with high harmonic content) and the hybrid (using samples of multiple cycles), but they're both subtractives. xhip doesnt use samples for the waveforms, although it can. that does not classify it as a "synth" or "sampler".. it is simply a subtractive with the ability to use both types of source waveforms. can you even classify it as hybrid? "synth" vs. "sampler" is a rediculously limiting ideal. the two have become indistinguishable, both have evolved to become additive/subtractive hybrids. even the recent phase modulation synthesizers have additive and subtractive elements. things have evolved from very simple origins toward one optimal point.

that optimal point is the point where all feature sets are available in any combination. the only part missing in xhip is the ability to do phase modulation.. i'm not sure, but i think others have implemented this. the modular version of my software will certainly allow for phase modulation of both the single cycle and multicycle waveforms.

so, a discussion about "do i need a sampler" or "what is the difference between a synth and a sampler" is rediculous. sample playback is a tool or component of an instrument. sample recording and editing is also a tool, not usually part of the instrument. all components can be used in combination for greater effect when used in the right combination. what you should do is find the right combination to suit you, there is no single combination for all.

Code: Select all

 if (p)
 {
  if (p->previous)
  {
   if (p->next)
   {
    p->previous->next = p->next;
    p->next->previous = p->previous;
    delete p;
   } else
   {
    p->previous->next = 0;
    delete p;
   }
  } else
  {
   list = p->next;
   list->previous = 0;
   delete p;
  }
 }

now please. that is just the unlink function. the sorted link function is to be much more complicated and the whining going on in this thread makes it hard for me to think. make yourself useful and use a subtractive to make some music or code my map<index, element> sorted link function sorting based upon the index for me or something. stl is just too bloaty and i dont want to copy the code from it either since it has too much abstraction and far too many interdependancies for my purpose.

just make some music and be glad you're not a coder, ok?

[rounser]

now please. that is just the unlink function. the sorted link function is to be much more complicated and the whining going on in this thread makes it hard for me to think. make yourself useful and use a subtractive to make some music or code my map<index, element> sorted link function sorting based upon the index for me or something. stl is just too bloaty and i dont want to copy the code from it either since it has too much abstraction and far too many interdependancies for my purpose.

just make some music and be glad you're not a coder, ok?

Serves you right for using C++, no sympathy at all. Stupid pointers making everything unreadable....you chose that snippet on purpose, didn't you?

[fac]

now please. that is just the unlink function. the sorted link function is to be much more complicated and the whining going on in this thread makes it hard for me to think.

Does this one suit you?

Code: Select all

int SortedInsert(int data) {
	Node *p = new Node();	// I assume your constructor 
							// sets all links to NULL
	if (!p) return 0;
	if (!list) { list = p; return 1; }
	Node *prev = NULL, *temp = list;
	while (temp != NULL) {
		if (data < temp->data) {
			p->previous = temp->previous;
			temp->previous = p;
			if (temp->previous) p->previous->next = p;
			else list = p;
			p->next = temp;
			temp = NULL;
			prev = NULL;
		}
		else {
			prev = temp;
			temp = temp->next;
		}
	}
	if (prev) {
		prev->next = p;
		p->previous = prev;
	}
	return 1;
}

Ok, it's fully debugged now (I think)

[aciddose]

ah, but i'm working with a

struct mapstruct
{
char type;
void *data;
}

map<cstring, mapstruct>

so, each list is sorted according to the cstring. i'm using both previous and next pointers to simplify the indexing operations while i'm writing the code but i'll remove those later since i'm only moving forward through the list.

data can be a pointer or actual data based upon the type.

the idea is to have css style stuff, like

default
{
background = true
background.color = rgb(1.0,0.0,0.0)
fun = 100
}

then the list contains
list<root = 0, background, fun = 100>
where root and fun point to actual data
background -> list<root = true, color = rgb(1,0,0)>

so i can do

map<cstring, mapstruct> default;
default = 0;
map<cstring, mapstruct> background;
default.add("background", 1);
rgb rgbs(1.0, 0.0, 0.0);
(default[background]).add("color", &rgbs);
default.add("fun", 100);

map<cstring, mapstruct> alternative;

etc with other defines

pointer = new someclass(default + alternative);

where the properities of the class are defined using the map. the idea here is skinning.

of course, i have not yet worked out the entire design. i posted this just to say there are more complicated and important things in life than the difference between a "synth" and "sampler" :)

i want to avoid some abstraction to gain a bit of speed, so i'm adding the character compares and pointer stuff directly into the insert/locate functions. if the list is sorted, i can just move forward through the list until finding an element with a label that has the first character greater than the first character i'm looking for and i'll know the rest of the list cannot contain the element i'm searching for.

having a sorted list isnt all that bad too since as your code shows you just move through the list until finding an element which is greater, then insert before it.

my main design concern is keeping the code clean looking, i'll overload the points-to operator i guess so i can do mycolor = list->background->color, or etc.

[aciddose]

anyway, fun

[shamann]

Are you saying that the one and only element that defines a synth is the oscillator?

I'm saying what aciddose said:

"synth" vs. "sampler" is a rediculously limiting ideal. the two have become indistinguishable, both have evolved to become additive/subtractive hybrids. even the recent phase modulation synthesizers have additive and subtractive elements. things have evolved from very simple origins toward one optimal point.

The rest of the argument is nonsensical. When (as someone stated above) the only difference is how the user parses out the essence of the instrument's reason for being, then the argument and distinctions cease to make any sense outside of ad copy. Many samplers can be turned into a PCM-based wavetable synth, but by reading the tea leaves or singing to some crystals, only then will I know which it is. Silly business.

[fac]

of course, i have not yet worked out the entire design. i posted this just to say there are more complicated and important things in life than the difference between a "synth" and "sampler"

Of course there are....


... we just don't care about them as much.