Modern forms of synthesis - is there one?

[Sicklecell666]

I'd be interested in seeing the oscillator design done in something like SE where more people could potentially get involved in developing the technique..clist's structure was admittedly complex & sloppy as he was more after the math than actual sonicwise applicability. Ah, those tonedeaf math junkies..

[whyterabbyt]

saulc12 quoth

Whyterabbit quoth f**k all worth listening too as the point of every comment made appeared to be to knock other members replies...

Grow the f**k up you petulant little dipshit. If you wanna repeat all the misinformation you've got without someone responding with something more accurate, go play somewhere else. Until then, in a discussion, if its wrong, I'll stick to pointing out that its wrong, and if you cant deal with that, thats your ego problem. But if your precious ego doesnt help the original poster find out anything accurate, tough shit.

[moppel]

Thats like saying 'in the end every synthesis technqiue is about changing timbre'. We knew that.

I'm glad to hear that.

And onyl additive synthesis tends to deal directly with partials.

No shit. Really?

The math behind that won't change

Of course it changes. There are dozens of different methods of synthesis, with differing maths.

Like so very different methods like frequency modulation and phase distortion.

so trying something entirely new usually just results in noise.

Bollocks.

I see. Then it just so happens by accident that most attempts at trying something new end up as "distortion effect" or "industrial noise synth".

[Sicklecell666]

Well, that was fun for a whole 5 seconds..

[whyterabbyt]

moppel quoth I'm glad to hear that.

Good.

No shit. Really?

Yup. 'Mazing isnt it.

Like so very different methods like frequency modulation and phase distortion.

Oh I see. The fact that the maths for two similar methods might be similar somehow implies that the maths for all methods is similar. Right.

Even if your maths was fine, your logic needs work.

Now explain how the maths for a system based on convolution is similar to the maths for a wavetable synthesiser. That'll really help prove your point.

I see. Then it just so happens by accident that most attempts at trying something new end up as "distortion effect" or "industrial noise synth".

Can you provide some proof of that assertion please?

[saulc12]

moppel quoth I'm glad to hear that.

Good.

No shit. Really?

Yup. 'Mazing isnt it.

Like so very different methods like frequency modulation and phase distortion.

Oh I see. The fact that the maths for two similar methods might be similar somehow implies that the maths for all methods is similar. Right.

Even if your maths was fine, your logic needs work.

Now explain how the maths for a system based on convolution is similar to the maths for a wavetable synthesiser. That'll really help prove your point.

I see. Then it just so happens by accident that most attempts at trying something new end up as "distortion effect" or "industrial noise synth".

Can you provide some proof of that assertion please?

Everytime I see a message thread with comments by you in it 'whyterabbyt', your comments always seem to be a string of abuse about the other people in the thread and you trying to tell everybody how clever you are. My point was simple, you made some abusive comments about the things people said, but didn't really add anything and I think, that just as you would like to say that 'if you see something is wrong you will say so', well guess what, so do I.

from the dipshit...

[stefancrs]

The math behind that won't change

Of course it changes. There are dozens of different methods of synthesis, with differing maths.

Like so very different methods like frequency modulation and phase distortion.

Uhm. First of all, the maths are different. Second, so are the results. Otherwise we wouldn't usually choose phase modulation / distortion above frequency modulation.

[xoxos]

hey, don't cuss mister

moppeltron = "Then it just so happens by accident that most attempts at trying something new end up as "distortion effect" or "industrial noise synth"."

you're like some god-appointed expert on everyhtnig that ever happened. bless your cotton socks.

[moppel]

Now explain how the maths for a system based on convolution is similar to the maths for a wavetable synthesiser. That'll really help prove your point.

I'd rather like to see your explanation how these examples are supposed to prove your point about the ever changing math behind sound synthesis.

Wavetable synthesis was created in the 1960s. Convolution methods were first used in the 1960s. Oh, FM synthesis was discovered in the 1960s. Etcetera. See the pattern?

[whyterabbyt]

saulc12 quoth
Everytime I see a message thread with comments by you in it 'whyterabbyt', your comments always seem to be a string of abuse about the other people in the thread and you trying to tell everybody how clever you are.

Im not responsible for how things 'seem' to you, but its interesting that its far from novel for someone who I've told 'no, that's not correct' to start whining about how terrible I am to everybody else.

But I get PM's of thanks all the time for helping people out all the same. Funny that. Can't seem to attach your name to any threads, let alone one's where you're trying in any way to be helpful. Funny that.

Nor did you list that many particularly new methods of synthesis, or make any attempt at engaging with the topic at all, really. Both physical modelling and granular had already been mentioned.

My point was simple, you made some abusive comments about the things people said, but didn't really add anything

Like these?

Scanning synthesis is more recent than most of these.

And its a reiteration of tape-based techniques, as already said earlier....

Or the response you picked up on to JonnyX?

I dont necessarily think that agglomerating different methods counts as a 'new' method, though...

Yeah; how 'abusive' can you get.

and I think, that just as you would like to say that 'if you see something is wrong you will say so', well guess what, so do I.

Ummm, I was talking about bringing in factual information, not your pathetic little ad hominem on account of being corrected. But hey, whatever make you feel superior.

from the dipshit...

You said it.

[stefancrs]

I wonder what people here really think of me I haven't been here for that long, but I do try to be active. When the missus lets me.

[moppel]

hey, don't cuss mister

moppeltron = "Then it just so happens by accident that most attempts at trying something new end up as "distortion effect" or "industrial noise synth"."

you're like some god-appointed expert on everyhtnig that ever happened. bless your cotton socks.

Why is that? I have experienced that myself. I tried new stuff, and most of the time it turned out as noise. I suppose it's different in your case, and everything you ever try just turns out wonderful. Now I'm out of this. I don't want to waste any more time with this kind of displaced aggression.

[xoxos]

I don't want to waste any more time with this kind of displaced aggression.

what - you mean like saying you know abotu everythnig ever?

[whyterabbyt]

moppel quoth
I'd rather like to see your explanation how these examples are supposed to prove your point about the ever changing math behind sound synthesis.

I see. You make a statement you cant actually validate, but if someone says 'you can't validate that', you expect them to do the work for you, huh?

But hey, lets look at what you said.

The math behind that won't change, so trying something entirely new usually just results in noise

So you firstly claim that the maths is never going to change, yeah? Whilst simultaneously stating that there is only one kind of maths involved. And then claiming that causally, as a result of these two (highly flawed) assertions, that it proves that somehow the end result of anything new wont result in a useful synthesis method.

Is it really necessary to show how utterly flawed this is? Guess so.

Okay we'll start with the 'math'. Its quite clear that convolution and wavetables have completely different mathematical basis. Ergo, there's more than one kind of math being used. And its not all about math anyway, since logical systems like 2D cellular automata can be used.


Secondly, you claim that there is never going to be any 'new' math involved. Ever. That's real interesting, but hey I'd like to see you do the work on this one. But I pretty much see fractals, a-life, and genetic algorithms as being 'new' in this field.

Now I think its fair to say that both your 'causal' factors are total bollocks (ooh, watch out saulc, see the 'abuse' fly) although lets just say thats mere opinion for now. But its pretty obvious that your conclusion is actually absolutely unrelated to the factors you've referred to. Lets remind ourselves....

so trying something entirely new usually just results in noise

Lets get this clear. There's only one math. All the math is old. So anything you do thats new will therefore be noise.

Nope. It doesnt fly. Even slightly.

Now, having put the onus on me, I think Ive quite clearly shown you're talking nonsense. Would you like to make any effort at all now?


Wavetable synthesis was created in the 1960s. Convolution methods were first used in the 1960s. Oh, FM synthesis was discovered in the 1960s. Etcetera. See the pattern?

Yeah; you're very selective with producing unrelated data and then conflating that into some kind of proof. Its not one.

[Sicklecell666]

I wonder what people here really think of me

Got any pics I can giff?