EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 55, Issue 16 This issue's topics: Analog Synths... (2 messages) ANALOG VS. DIGITAL cheapo syntho & new paradigms (2 messages) SUBTRACTIVE SYNTHESIS ye olde analog vs. digital fling Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 09:23:41 PDT From: metlay Subject: Re: Analog Synths... >In fact, the J-106 DOES transmit sysex messages in response to front panel >changes. The only stipulation is that the Function switch on the back >panel must be set to III. Hm! I stand corrected. >Unlike many subsequent Roland products, the J-106 was blessed with a >not-entirely-contorted sysex scheme. A paltry seven bytes are needed to >transmit a single parameter change. Gah. That's still a lot if you move a lot of stuff. Of course, it's better than the JD-800, which transmits eleven bytes per move. What I prefer is the scheme of the Chroma Polaris, which has a MIDI controller for every slider, supports running status, and allows for a lot more bandwidth before choking. This makes the Polaris, in conjunction with something like MAX, a very powerful user interface for MIDI control in real time. -- mike metlay * atomic city * box 81175 pgh pa 15217-0675 * metlay@netcom.com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Wow, now my hand's all sticky! Yum." (metlay's wife) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1993 10:45:00 EDT From: John Rossi III Subject: Re: Analog Synths... Might I suggest a few introductory sensory physiology classes to Mr. Beck? It is one thing to speculate about things which are not well understood, to actually make assertions as being fact, grounded in (presumably) scientific research, is pathetic. Any idiot who has had a high school biology class shoulod know that the transduction process used by both the eyes (retina) and ther ear (organ of Corti), involves resolution of graded information. The rods and cones of the retina do this by reacting to light in an amplitude (rods), and hue/amplitude (cones) fashion. Likewise, the hair cells on the organ of Corti respond to the amplitude of the wave in the fluid of the inner ear (and to some extent position on the membrane determines a differential response to frequency up to about 5K Hz). What happens after the initial stimulation of the receptors which are, indeed, graded (i.e., analog chemical (retina), or analog mechanical (hair cells)) is more complicated. At no place in the sensory pathways of either sight or sound does anything look very digital. Granted, single neurons behave in a somewhat on/off fashion, but generally information is coded as frequency of the response of a neuron, as well as the interaction of that neuron with its neighboring neurons. John ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 10:35:19 LCL From: Michael Vitali Subject: ANALOG VS. DIGITAL Regarding this whole digital/analog argument (synths, recording, etc.): Maybe the mind naturally enjoys the subtle forms of distortion that digital just won't provide. --- * Freddie 1.2.5 * Modulate or intermodulate? That is the question. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:00:24 EDT From: ronin Subject: cheapo syntho & new paradigms 1) harrington's old synth project reminds me of a paia string synth. top-octave squarewave generators, and a cascade of dividers. fully polyphonic, with a bucket brigade chorus and (i think) a lopass filter built in. i loved it. can't remember what they called it. it's the reason i kept the guts of an old baldwin organ, which are still lying in my basement. i have this fantasy of routing the top-octave tube oscillators through a bank of midi-controlled vcas. when that thing was alive, it produced the most satisfying swirling growl i've ever heard. 2) i'm still witholding my full commentary on the earlier subject, and while this was originally meant to be a nudge-poke, it is now meant more as a relevant query: agreed that new performance paradigms are required for new instruments. first... isn't that one of the goals of 'academic music', the exploration of such paradigms? granted that most of what results is unmusical (to be kind), but that seems to me proper. just add a line to the joke: "if it stinks it's chemistry, if it's dead it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics... and if it sets your teeth on edge it must be 'new music'." now i recognize that here i am distancing myself from a distinction between the theoretical purposes of academic music and the strongly felt reaction to its insularity and conservatism by those who have been exposed to it directly. on the other hand, need it be pointed out that not all academics are obtuse? anyway... i seem to have lost track of what disagreement, if any, is being covered here. is the point that synths are inherently 'stiff'? i agree. is the point that they cannot then be used in subtle ways? i disagree. is the point that this subtlety comes at the expense of hard work? i agree. is the point that the work is out of proportion to the results? i disagree. on the one hand, i have always thoroughly enjoyed flat, repetitive, beat-laden, unexpressive electronic music. what else could you expect? i grew up on rock and roll. on the other hand, i have always felt it absurd that an instrument with the possibilities of the synthesizer is so consistently underutilized. i think that the fact that a synth can be programmed is both its success and its failure as an expressive instrument. the parameters are there to played with. the more you put into it, the more you get out... although midi really has changed the whole approach (sorry... i'm a realtime snob. gimme back my damn knobs!). on the other hand, complex sound events in modern synthesizers are prepatched. you are not forced to approach the instrument anew every time you sit down with it. on a violin (not my favorite instrument, actually, but a favorite in this kind of discussion), nothing happens that is not a direct result of physical action on the part of the performer. on a synth... well, you know, don't you? as for performance paradigms, i think that moog was on the right track when he decided to make the synth responsive to conventional musical gestures. i mean, if there were a truly different paradigm for every sound, or even class of sound, that a synth might make, i don't really see anyone mastering anything. ahhh... i think i'm beginning to see something. originally, i was in disagreement with harrington's notion of an intelligent performance instrument. i don't want the machine faking mastery for me. the only thing i could imagine as useful would be something like a parameter manager for a sufficiently complex computer instrument model. but... i guess i can see a point in a system that allows a performer to operate within a familiar, mastered paradigm, and that develops/translates appropriate mappings for alternative parametric spaces. is this what is conceived? my only reservation (and i am enough of an elitist bastard to have this one) is that it would just be another way for people to avoid thinking musically, while generating pretty sounds. -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) or The American University Physics Dept. 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:03:36 -0400 From: idealord Subject: Re: cheapo syntho & new paradigms > > 1) harrington's old synth project reminds me of a paia string synth. > top-octave squarewave generators, and a cascade of dividers. fully > polyphonic, with a bucket brigade chorus and (i think) a lopass filter > built in. i loved it. can't remember what they called it. it's the reason > i kept the guts of an old baldwin organ, which are still lying in my > basement. i have this fantasy of routing the top-octave tube oscillators > through a bank of midi-controlled vcas. when that thing was alive, it > produced the most satisfying swirling growl i've ever heard. PAIA are still in business - for all those interested.. they've got some cool effects kits last time I saw a catalog... > 2) i'm still witholding my full commentary on the earlier subject, > and while this was originally meant to be a nudge-poke, it is now meant more > as a relevant query: > agreed that new performance paradigms are required for new instruments. > first... isn't that one of the goals of 'academic music', the exploration > of such paradigms? granted that most of what results is unmusical (to be kind), > but that seems to me proper. just add a line to the joke: "if it stinks it's > chemistry, if it's dead it's biology, if it doesn't work it's physics... > and if it sets your teeth on edge it must be 'new music'." now i recognize > that here i am distancing myself from a distinction between the theoretical > purposes of academic music and the strongly felt reaction to its insularity > and conservatism by those who have been exposed to it directly. on the other > hand, need it be pointed out that not all academics are obtuse? Sure, academics are helping map this "space" of performance potentials - but the space is infinitely large... every patch is a new instrument with the little subtle parts only being poked when you play at velocity 37 with controller 13 up 2 notches... how do we discover every patches most beautiful moments - trial and error? > anyway... i seem to have lost track of what disagreement, if any, is > being covered here. is the point that synths are inherently 'stiff'? i > agree. is the point that they cannot then be used in subtle ways? i disagree. > is the point that this subtlety comes at the expense of hard work? i agree. > is the point that the work is out of proportion to the results? i disagree. Not so sure about this... the performance model problem is what's keeping really significant music from getting made (IMHO). Until we've got a general purpose synth (heaven forbid) with re-programmable software and analog outputs (also physical modelling output)... you know something which could use any synths patches - Speaking perfectly frankly, I'm not too convinced of the longevity of any recording medium - and if you're work is not a notated score for a ubertype of synth you're piece is going to turn to dust like all those Hendrix tapes in the vaults... (or scratched CD's)... I'm not going to spend a lot of time on any medium which isn't easily reproducable... this is off the subject - but - if you're writing for one type of synth and they stop makin' it... well.. too bad... > on the one hand, i have always thoroughly enjoyed flat, repetitive, beat-laden, > unexpressive electronic music. what else could you expect? i grew up on rock > and roll. Sure but anything with a beat infects our beat-crazed minds (until you get numbbbbbbbbbbbb......). > on the other hand, i have always felt it absurd that an instrument > with the possibilities of the synthesizer is so consistently underutilized. > i think that the fact that a synth can be programmed is both its success > and its failure as an expressive instrument. the parameters are there to > played with. the more you put into it, the more you get out... although > midi really has changed the whole approach (sorry... i'm a realtime > snob. gimme back my damn knobs!). Yeah... my first real synth was at the emusic lab at LSU - it had 4 banks of moogs - I'd get these layers of sounds so dense I can't even remember how I got them... I used to run the reverbed sound back into the FM lines... too cool... > on the other hand, complex sound events > in modern synthesizers are prepatched. you are not forced to approach the > instrument anew every time you sit down with it. on a violin (not my favorite > instrument, actually, but a favorite in this kind of discussion), nothing > happens that is not a direct result of physical action on the part of the > performer. on a synth... well, you know, don't you? > as for performance paradigms, i think that moog was on the right track > when he decided to make the synth responsive to conventional musical > gestures. i mean, if there were a truly different paradigm for every > sound, or even class of sound, that a synth might make, i don't really > see anyone mastering anything. ahhh... i think i'm beginning to see > something. originally, i was in disagreement with harrington's notion > of an intelligent performance instrument. i don't want the machine faking > mastery for me. the only thing i could imagine as useful would be something > like a parameter manager for a sufficiently complex computer instrument model. > but... i guess i can see a point in a system that allows a performer to operate > within a familiar, mastered paradigm, and that develops/translates appropriate > mappings for alternative parametric spaces. is this what is conceived? my only > reservation (and i am enough of an elitist bastard to have this one) is that > it would just be another way for people to avoid thinking musically, while > generating pretty sounds. Who cares what those incompetents do? I'm looking for shortcuts... > > -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >----------- > Eric Harnden (Ronin) > or > The American University Physics Dept. > 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058 > (202) 885-2748 (with Voice Mail) > ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >------------------- > Jeff Harrington idealord@dorsai.dorsai.org ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 12:39:43 -0400 From: "Lawrence W. Hartzell" Subject: SUBTRACTIVE SYNTHESIS To any individuals on the EMUSIC-L and SYNTH-L lists: I am interested in any work people have done in the area of subtractive synthesis. My primary devices are Ensoniq SQ-80 and VFX. I keep both around because each presents different possibilities. I am past the experimental stage and would like some ideas on how other people use the various techniques involved with filters as a way of building interesting sounds. I have included my email address in case you would prefer to respond individually. If interesed I would be glad to share my work as well. Larry Hartzell lhartzel@rs6000.baldwinw.edu ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 10 Aug 1993 15:14:33 CDT From: John Eichenseer Delicate Ear Subject: ye olde analog vs. digital fling Regaring J.Rossi's potential exploration of the perceptual differences of analog and digital sound, it seems to me that most of the imperfections introduced by the ADA process would be completely "glossed over" by the imperfections of the circuitry and physical media of the sound generation. In other words, I am not convinced that amps, speakers, and air can preserve the miniscule differeces between analog and digital sound sources. As i think about it, I realize that this argument is quite probably completly bogus, since signal abnormalities could potentially result in chaotic and non-linear changes in the resulting waveform that would be within the accuracy of the hardware and media in question... At any rate, it is interesting to consider. Just more blather, jhno ....... . . .. . . . . . . . . Joh n E i c h e n s e e r D e l i c a t e E a r (512) 458-6474 eichen@trilogy.com . . . . . . . .. . .... ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************