Modern forms of synthesis - is there one?
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2321 posts since 23 Mar, 2004 from Two lower than LS6
just give him BONES' face!!
Phil
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise" - William Blake
*No more band for me* | **My Host**
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise" - William Blake
*No more band for me* | **My Host**
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2321 posts since 23 Mar, 2004 from Two lower than LS6
Wow!
Well apart from the prerequiste argument, all that stuff is very interesting.
I wonder if, although not really a new form of synthesis, modern mathematical theories can be programmed into CSound to create new sounds or ways of producing sounds.
Seems like a lot of fun can be had
Well apart from the prerequiste argument, all that stuff is very interesting.
I wonder if, although not really a new form of synthesis, modern mathematical theories can be programmed into CSound to create new sounds or ways of producing sounds.
Seems like a lot of fun can be had
Phil
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise" - William Blake
*No more band for me* | **My Host**
"The fool who persists in his folly will become wise" - William Blake
*No more band for me* | **My Host**
-
- Banned
- 6127 posts since 1 Apr, 2004 from Et in Arcadia Ego
So be it..stefancrs wrote:giff it!
-
- KVRAF
- 4641 posts since 20 Feb, 2004 from Gothenburg, Sweden
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33307 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
[quote="moppel quoth
Since the terms "mathematical basis" and "kind of math" are so vague that your statement doesn't mean anything special, I guess you can safely state so.
No, they're not particularly vague. You might be trying to avoid the most obvious interpretations in order to continue avoiding having to back up your claims, but I think that for most reasonable people its quite clear what was being said. Whch didn't actually need to be 'special', under any circumstances.
Of course your own claim that 'the maths beind that wont change', was a pinnacle of vagueness itself, but please, dont ever limit yourself to actually proving that claim at all by showing us how the 'math behind that' really wont ever, ever ever 'change'.
Alas, neither convolution nor wavetables automatically create sounds distinguishable from noise.
Nor do they automatically create noise, which was actually your claim.
If you want to use them as means for sound synthesis, you'll find out that the math required for that isn't all that "completely different".
Really? So you think wavetable readouts are similar to Fast Fourier Transforms and inverse transforms, are they? You might be the only person to think so.
Guess how fast you'll have to deal with convolution when trying to keep your wavetable synthesis from aliasing...
Normal upsampling doesnt require convolution. So not that fast, I'd guess.
The same as above. These are not synthesis techniques per se.
Of course not. Because you say so.
To use them for sound synthesis, you'll once again need the same math
'Same math'? Thats a bit vague isnt it?
And no, all you need is the facility to read out from a wavetable and interpolate. Which isnt quite the same as convolution, for example.
BTW FM and PD only really require the ability to read out from a wavetable as well, but somehow to you they count as 'synthesis'. Why is that?
since sampling theory, the laws of harmonic sound etc. stubbornly resist to change.
So what? Those things are completely irrelevant to your claims.
Since the terms "mathematical basis" and "kind of math" are so vague that your statement doesn't mean anything special, I guess you can safely state so.
No, they're not particularly vague. You might be trying to avoid the most obvious interpretations in order to continue avoiding having to back up your claims, but I think that for most reasonable people its quite clear what was being said. Whch didn't actually need to be 'special', under any circumstances.
Of course your own claim that 'the maths beind that wont change', was a pinnacle of vagueness itself, but please, dont ever limit yourself to actually proving that claim at all by showing us how the 'math behind that' really wont ever, ever ever 'change'.
Alas, neither convolution nor wavetables automatically create sounds distinguishable from noise.
Nor do they automatically create noise, which was actually your claim.
If you want to use them as means for sound synthesis, you'll find out that the math required for that isn't all that "completely different".
Really? So you think wavetable readouts are similar to Fast Fourier Transforms and inverse transforms, are they? You might be the only person to think so.
Guess how fast you'll have to deal with convolution when trying to keep your wavetable synthesis from aliasing...
Normal upsampling doesnt require convolution. So not that fast, I'd guess.
The same as above. These are not synthesis techniques per se.
Of course not. Because you say so.
To use them for sound synthesis, you'll once again need the same math
'Same math'? Thats a bit vague isnt it?
And no, all you need is the facility to read out from a wavetable and interpolate. Which isnt quite the same as convolution, for example.
BTW FM and PD only really require the ability to read out from a wavetable as well, but somehow to you they count as 'synthesis'. Why is that?
since sampling theory, the laws of harmonic sound etc. stubbornly resist to change.
So what? Those things are completely irrelevant to your claims.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
