Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave of one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency. Don't know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~ external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful to interested people in the community.
hi,
Am Donnerstag, 6. April 2006 20:18 schrieb cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
well, what is "analog sounding" after all? in case of an osc its basically a distorted variant of a prerfect curve/waveform. this is due to the nonlinearities and value fluctiations of the analogue parts. you can achive the same effect by using kind of a table, where the input sample from the perfect osc is used to select an output sample of a table. that way you can map nonlinearities of any osc, amp, speaker, whatever to any other signal.
another way of achieving that is to code nonlinearities into the osc source code itself. of course that probably needs more cpu time then. in the example of a square-wave osc, you may do a simple modification: instead of the sudden change from 0 to +1 (or -1 to +1), wich introduces a high frequency part, you may interpolate that through some samples. the more non-linear you do that, the more analog sounding it will probably be. also, if you have ever seen such pure signals on a scope, you will see that there is sometimes kind of overswing at the corners. so instead of 0..1 it goes more like 0...1,1...0,9.....1.....
if you want to have the nearest real analogue sound in a digital enviroment as pd, you can sit down and port analog circuit emulators (that is software like spice, pspice, ...) as externals to pd. these would directly allow you to use any circuit, emulate it and have its sound .....
- What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
an analog one? ;)
you can always use a multichannel soundcard and route certain signals through external stuff ....
some stuff i tried once was to "filter" signal just by a sine function.... this already gets out the digital distortion, in case a signal is below/above -1/+1 ....
also, use many filters serially, while the first ones only have a small effect, mostly beeing used to shape the signal .... and the latter ones to do the real work ....
- Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave of one period in another program, how long should it be?
one period, that is....
but see below ...
I know this should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency. Don't know if anyone built this already.
it depends on how you want to use wavetable synthesis.
if you want to use it for final instruments, like a piano, you surely want to have as much different notes sampled as possible .... complex sounds indeed sound bad when just pitch-shifted ....
in case of oscillators for creating your own synths (pure tones), just one sample of a full period at the lowest frequency is pretty much all you need. period time = 1 / frequency... you can either skip the excess samples in that wave, or average them in some way or the other .... since you go on and process the signal afterwards anyway, that is perfectly sufficient....
iirc, you can use soundfonts in pd.... so go ahead, sample your favorite analogue ascillators, pack them into a soundfont and use that as osc for your pd synth ....
greets,
chris
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~ external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful to interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Christian Klippel wrote:
you can achive the same effect by using kind of a table, where the input sample from the perfect osc is used to select an output sample of a table.
Isn't that called waveshaping?
This may also be achieved by some [expr~] formula. It's sometimes faster or more accurate, depending on which table sizes you use normally.
Mapping the whole range in 16-bit using an array requires at least 128k RAM (256k in Pd); mapping it in 24-bit requires 48M RAM (64M RAM in Pd).
A modest-sized table can be used together with [tabread4~] and that's how [osc~] works internally so if the speed of [tabread4~] is ok then you can get something super accurate.
that way you can map nonlinearities of any osc, amp, speaker, whatever to any other signal.
I'd suspect that the rate of change of the current also affects the signal, due to reactance, right? Then how would you model it?
instead of the sudden change from 0 to +1 (or -1 to +1), wich introduces a high frequency part, you may interpolate that through some samples.
This is equivalent to introducing some kind of low-pass after the squarewave. A low-pass doesn't exactly interpolate because the signal doesn't necessarily go thru the control points, but it may be close enough and/or correctable.
you will see that there is sometimes kind of overswing at the corners. so instead of 0..1 it goes more like 0...1,1...0,9.....1.....
Doesn't that look like the Gibbs effect on a truncater Fourier series?
Or maybe a higher-order IIR low-pass (not sure)
some stuff i tried once was to "filter" signal just by a sine function.... this already gets out the digital distortion, in case a signal is below/above -1/+1 ....
I'm using tanh() instead because it doesn't bounce back: very high
amplitude signals thru sin() sound like white noise, whereas thru tanh()
they sound like squarewaves. If I wanted to emulate overswing I'd prolly
try to combine tanh() with something else.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
You want band limited functions which Pd doesn't have by default. Someone may have externals that do band limited saw and pulse waves available.
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave of one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency. Don't know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~ external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful to interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
This GOP patch takes as $1 the name of the table you want to use. Do a tabosc4~ and it sounds ok.
I think getting the waveformed tuned by hand and not simply by using mathematically exact proportions gets you closer to the sound you want, gives you a little randomness on the proportions. For a nice square wave for instance add just a tiny bit of the lower even-numbered partials for a more realistic sound. A problem you're going to run into with waveforms with too high partials is aliasing, though this diminishes the quality with lower fundamental frequencies... tradeoffs of the digital domain...
-david
On 4/6/06, chris clepper cgc@humboldtblvd.com wrote:
You want band limited functions which Pd doesn't have by default. Someone may have externals that do band limited saw and pulse waves available.
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com <cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com > wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave of one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency. Don't know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~ external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful to interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hi, this patch looks interesting, but it is broken for me: I get a whole lot of "error: : no such object" as soon as I start it. Moving the sliders also gives me this error. I'm using PD-extended on Wincrap XP (at work - programming PD when I'm supposed to be typing letters and adding up receipts).
~David
This GOP patch takes as $1 the name of the table you want to use. Do a tabosc4~ and it sounds ok.
I think getting the waveformed tuned by hand and not simply by using mathematically exact proportions gets you closer to the sound you want, gives you a little randomness on the proportions. For a nice square wave for instance add just a tiny bit of the lower even-numbered partials for a more realistic sound. A problem you're going to run into with waveforms with too high partials is aliasing, though this diminishes the quality with lower fundamental frequencies... tradeoffs of the digital domain...
-david
On 4/6/06, chris clepper cgc@humboldtblvd.com wrote:
You want band limited functions which Pd doesn't have by default. Someone may have externals that do band limited saw and pulse waves available.
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com <cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com > wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one
major
weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also,
the
filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they
need
to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple
versions
from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of
the
digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check
out:
Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a
custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave
of
one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this
should
be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is
that
a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just
get
the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency.
Don't
know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~
external,
but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful
to
interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Whoops! Try attached... it's not a standalone patch, and takes a creation arg ($1) as the table name.
-david
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Hi, this patch looks interesting, but it is broken for me: I get a whole lot of "error: : no such object" as soon as I start it. Moving the sliders also gives me this error. I'm using PD-extended on Wincrap XP (at work - programming PD when I'm supposed to be typing letters and adding up receipts).
~David
This GOP patch takes as $1 the name of the table you want to use. Do a tabosc4~ and it sounds ok.
I think getting the waveformed tuned by hand and not simply by using mathematically exact proportions gets you closer to the sound you want, gives you a little randomness on the proportions. For a nice square wave for instance add just a tiny bit of the lower even-numbered partials for a more realistic sound. A problem you're going to run into with waveforms with too high partials is aliasing, though this diminishes the quality with lower fundamental frequencies... tradeoffs of the digital domain...
-david
On 4/6/06, chris clepper cgc@humboldtblvd.com wrote:
You want band limited functions which Pd doesn't have by default. Someone may have externals that do band limited saw and pulse waves available.
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com <cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com > wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one
major
weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also,
the
filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they
need
to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple
versions
from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of
the
digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check
out:
Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a
custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave
of
one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this
should
be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is
that
a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just
get
the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency.
Don't
know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~
external,
but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful
to
interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hallo, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com hat gesagt: // cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Hi, this patch looks interesting, but it is broken for me: I get a whole lot of "error: : no such object" as soon as I start it. Moving the sliders also gives me this error. I'm using PD-extended on Wincrap XP (at work - programming PD when I'm supposed to be typing letters and adding up receipts).
It's meant to be used as an abstraction with an argument that can be used as the table name internally.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
Dealing with rollover (I think it's called) is discussed in Miller Puckett's "Theory and Techniques of Electronic Music" http://www-crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques.htm. Therein he describes a couple of techniques like band limiting and upsampling.
I have played with the examples a little bit (which are included in the documentation with Pd 0.39), but I think it might be best to use externals to this end. creb has band limited oscillators (blosc~) but they are not included in the current pd-extended, so you'd either have to compile them in or wait.
Regarding filters, have you tried the moog~ filter? Also iemlib contains quite a few filters worth checking out. it's in Pd-extended.
Good luck,
Tristan
On 4/6/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a custom
table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a wave of one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency. Don't know if anyone built this already.
Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~ external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most useful to interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
hello,
Sounds like a very interesting project.
It is my understanding that analog synthesizers generate the basic
waveforms with additive synthesis. I'm wondering if using [tabosc4~]
and sinesum be a step in the right direction?
see attached patch  On 6-Apr-06, at 2:18 PM, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one
major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good!
Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.So, my question is:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but
they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple
versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of
the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want,
check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
Is wavetable synthesis a reasonable option? How do I create a
custom table to use for such synthesis? For example, if I synthesize a
wave of one period in another program, how long should it be? I know this
should be easy, but my brain is broken on this question. My gut instinct
is that a wavetable would only sound good near original frequency or you
just get the typical digital artifacts from pitch-shifting a sample... is that correct? I'm guessing what I'm really talking about is ROMpler style multi-sampling, and selecting the wave closest to input frequency.
Don't know if anyone built this already.Btw, I can solve the problem for myself by loading in the VST~
external, but I want what I build to be cross-platform so that it is most
useful to interested people in the community.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
regards, Alexandre Matheson amatheso@alcor.concordia.ca iChat: ealx@mac.com
Hallo, alexandre matheson hat gesagt: // alexandre matheson wrote:
It is my understanding that analog synthesizers generate the basic
waveforms with additive synthesis. I'm wondering if using [tabosc4~]
and sinesum be a step in the right direction?
To fight foldover at half the sample rate this will only work for a certain range. For example if you want to play any non-sine waveform at almost half the sample rate, you will only be able to play a sine-waveform at that frequency without any partial above that folding over. Such foldover will also happen when you play a sinesum through tabosc4~.
Miller's book describes some ways around this problem, which I sometimes use as well (attached is a little GOP abstraction ripped straight from his examples).
Besides foldover, which can be fought, there also is another area of getting "good" sounding analogish oscillators: Analog gear tends to have certain distortions an irregularites, that people tend to like and to associate with that "warm" analog feeling. I guess, Reaktor may introduce some of this stuff as well. There is a LADSPA plugin, forgot its name, by Steve Harris which has a "warmth" control to introduce such distortions, but I think, these are hard to model and would need a lot of fiddling. Anyways static waveforms always tend to sound a bit digital, so finding ways to make the sounds dynamic often is useful.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On 4/6/06, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Besides foldover, which can be fought, there also is another area of getting "good" sounding analogish oscillators: Analog gear tends to have certain distortions an irregularites, that people tend to like and to associate with that "warm" analog feeling. I guess, Reaktor may introduce some of this stuff as well. There is a LADSPA plugin, forgot its name, by Steve Harris which has a "warmth" control to introduce such distortions, but I think, these are hard to model and would need a lot of fiddling. Anyways static waveforms always tend to sound a bit digital, so finding ways to make the sounds dynamic often is useful.
I wonder how practical it would be to have several tables, crossfade between them, and change one while crossfading between the other two or whatever. I'm thinking if they're fairly small tables, just a few periods, then the changes would sound pretty smooth. If the switch between them is precise, though, maybe crossfading isn't necessary... Just two tables, and change one while the other is playing.
I'm wondering if you could use waveshaping to introduce this type of distortion, and gradually morph the waveshape itself overtime. Anyone know of an approach to this?
Is there any recommended waveshaping that might follow the oscillator to add a little nonlinearity? Or most analog sounding distortion that is in PD?
Another question: how does one gradually morph between two wavetables?
Finally, I must say that the patches from Frank B. and David G. are exactly what I needed... Running through the moog~ filter, I'm now getting a much better starting sound. I think that if I was to add dual-osc detune with slight pitch drift, they would start to sound fairly musical. I hope I can include them in my project, with their permission.
~David
On 4/6/06, Frank Barknecht fbar@footils.org wrote:
Besides foldover, which can be fought, there also is another area of getting "good" sounding analogish oscillators: Analog gear tends to have certain distortions an irregularites, that people tend to like and to associate with that "warm" analog feeling. I guess, Reaktor may introduce some of this stuff as well. There is a LADSPA plugin, forgot its name, by Steve Harris which has a "warmth" control to introduce such distortions, but I think, these are hard to model and would need a lot of fiddling. Anyways static waveforms always tend to sound a bit digital, so finding ways to make the sounds dynamic often is useful.
I wonder how practical it would be to have several tables, crossfade between them, and change one while crossfading between the other two or whatever. I'm thinking if they're fairly small tables, just a few periods, then the changes would sound pretty smooth. If the switch between them is precise, though, maybe crossfading isn't necessary... Just two tables, and change one while the other is playing.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Hallo, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com hat gesagt: // cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Finally, I must say that the patches from Frank B. and David G. are exactly what I needed... Running through the moog~ filter, I'm now getting a much better starting sound. I think that if I was to add dual-osc detune with slight pitch drift, they would start to sound fairly musical. I hope I can include them in my project, with their permission.
You could also combine them: The basic "trick" with Miller's antialiasing - which I ripped - is upsampling in the subpatch (see the block~ object) and then filtering out all harmonics that would be above the normal samplerate, 44.1kHz in the example filter.
You can apply this operation to any waveform that might alias. However be aware that this is a very expensive way to antialias. If you open just the bandolero.pd patch, try to watch a system/CPU monitor while switching audio on and off: It is a significant difference.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
alexandre matheson wrote:
hello,
Sounds like a very interesting project.
It is my understanding that analog synthesizers generate the basic waveforms with additive synthesis.
Analog synths do subtractive synthesis: they start with square and triangle waves and pass them through filters to remove harmonics. The square and triangle waves are derived from the voltage on a capacitor that's charged and discharged at a constant rate. A fourier synthesizer does additive synthesis by adding harmonics together at various levels. Analog synths have trouble with this because analog oscillators generally don't stay synchronized.
Martin
My understanding was then a misunderstanding. Thanks for sorting this
out for me.
On 6-Apr-06, at 4:52 PM, Martin Peach wrote:
alexandre matheson wrote:
hello,
Sounds like a very interesting project.
It is my understanding that analog synthesizers generate the basic
waveforms with additive synthesis.Analog synths do subtractive synthesis: they start with square and
triangle waves and pass them through filters to remove harmonics.
The square and triangle waves are derived from the voltage on a
capacitor that's charged and discharged at a constant rate. A fourier synthesizer does additive synthesis by adding harmonics
together at various levels. Analog synths have trouble with this
because analog oscillators generally don't stay synchronized.Martin
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
regards, Alexandre Matheson amatheso@alcor.concordia.ca iChat: ealx@mac.com
Howdy,
cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically).
The best oscillator sounds I've gotten out of PD have been from [plugin~] and the BLOP LADSPA plugins. They are bandwidth-limited so you don't get any aliasing, which is the weakness of most any other way of doing it in PD, and the aliasing is probably what makes it the most "digital sounding". Linux only for now, I afraid. At least until [plugin~] gets ported to OSX correctly at least, but they sound pretty "Reaktor-like"(tm). I use the [vcf~] filters, and they are passable but not great. You could also look into the [blosc] external, but I've never used it.
best, d
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 22:13:35 +0200 derek holzer derek@x-i.net wrote:
Howdy,
cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically).
The best oscillator sounds I've gotten out of PD have been from [plugin~] and the BLOP LADSPA plugins. They are bandwidth-limited so you don't get any aliasing, which is the weakness of most any other way of doing it in PD, and the aliasing is probably what makes it the most "digital sounding". Linux only for now, I afraid. At least until [plugin~] gets ported to OSX correctly at least,
Actually, [dssi~] supports LADSPA plugins now, and is [plugin~] compatible in most respects (i.e it supports 'listplugins', 'info' etc. in a similar way). It compiles and has binaries for OS X. Main difference is that if you want 20 sine waves, you just do [dssi~ sine_faaa 20], and the inlets and outlets get created for you.
Jamie
but they sound pretty "Reaktor-like"(tm). I use the [vcf~] filters, and they are passable but not great. You could also look into the [blosc] external, but I've never used it.
best, d
Hi Jamie,
Jamie Bullock wrote:
Actually, [dssi~] supports LADSPA plugins now, and is [plugin~] compatible in most respects (i.e it supports 'listplugins', 'info' etc. in a similar way). It compiles and has binaries for OS X. Main difference is that if you want 20 sine waves, you just do [dssi~ sine_faaa 20], and the inlets and outlets get created for you.
Oooooooo! Super cool. I like the way DSSI is heading. With a little polishing up and a few more instruments/plugins, it could really be a great package!
best, d.
Best analogish sounds I get is by combining two or more oscillators, slightly detuned, running through a waveshaping (=table lookup = tabread) with a curve which compress and distort it slightly and then run through the moog~ filter.
People tend to ask from which machines my samples are, ouch!
Cheers,
Malte
Malte Steiner media art + development -www.block4.com-
Elektronengehirn concert 29. April 2006 KuBaSta Hamburg, Germany
more at blog 4, also available as rss feed: http://java.block4.com/blog4/
Hi Malte,
could you be so kind as to post an example. Waveshaping is one thing I haven't figured out very well in the PD domain yet. I'm also interested in using it for distortion, so even the simplest starting point would be nice. I second the detuned oscillators, BTW. They give it an extra heaviness that Mario never had ;-)
best, d.
Malte Steiner wrote:
Best analogish sounds I get is by combining two or more oscillators, slightly detuned, running through a waveshaping (=table lookup = tabread) with a curve which compress and distort it slightly and then run through the moog~ filter.
People tend to ask from which machines my samples are, ouch!
Cheers,
Malte
Hallo, derek holzer hat gesagt: // derek holzer wrote:
Hi Malte,
could you be so kind as to post an example. Waveshaping is one thing I haven't figured out very well in the PD domain yet. I'm also interested in using it for distortion, so even the simplest starting point would be nice.
3.audio.examples/E05.chebychev.pd is the waveshaping example in Miller's docs.
The basic idiom is very simple and similar to how you build a wavetable oscillator with phasor~ and tabread4~: You scale the incoming signal by multiplying with the table size so that it spans the whole table, and then use the incoming signal as an index to tabread4~ which gives the output signal. The contents of the wave(shaping) table are also called the transfer function.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Frank Barknecht wrote:
3.audio.examples/E05.chebychev.pd is the waveshaping example in Miller's docs.
You may also test with *any* Chebyshev polynomial using the following polynomial:
[min 1] | [max -1] | [expr cos($f2*acos($f1)]
the min max are required because tabread4 needs one sample over each side of the [-1;1] range, but that's not permitted by acos.
This expr *really* acts like a polynomial when used in the [-1;1] range. That's the same formula that Chebyshev used to find the coefficients for the polynomials.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Hallo, Mathieu Bouchard hat gesagt: // Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Frank Barknecht wrote:
3.audio.examples/E05.chebychev.pd is the waveshaping example in Miller's docs.
You may also test with *any* Chebyshev polynomial using the following polynomial:
[min 1] | [max -1] | [expr cos($f2*acos($f1)]
the min max are required because tabread4 needs one sample over each side of the [-1;1] range, but that's not permitted by acos.
That's very cute!
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
I'm working on a set of abstractions that will allow users to easily sequence rhythmic-pattern style music; basically, to make it easy to create IDM/electro/minimal-techno style stuff. Anyway, there's one major weakness to the whole project: PD oscillators don't sound good! Also, the filters I've tried don't sound very analog at all.
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
- Does anyone have any good, "analog-sounding" oscillators already
created? I guess I only need saw, PWM square, and triangle, but they need to sound GOOD (like Reaktor, basically). I see how to do simple versions from the example patches, but I don't know enough DSP to get rid of the digital sound. For a great example of the kind of sound I want, check out: Asynth vst from antti at smartelectronix. http://antti.smartelectronix.com/
- What would be the most analog sounding filter to use?
as someone else said - an analog one. why fake it? its like synthesising a violin. if you want a violin then get a real violin because it will sound more like a violin..
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
sorry, just realised i'm being very negative. i'll shut up now.
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
The idea of unique genius? Access to technology and the creation process should be as easy as possible so nothing is in the way, but I can understand your fear of painting by numbers music of so called creatives. But I have the high hopes that audience is mature enough to recognize a good work from a boring one (hence the crisis of the music/film industry ???). For me the most important thing is a good idea, not a complicated technique (thats so 90s :) ). Its the same with the media arts, which is maturing in the moment. The tryout phase of the 90s is over and everybody showed that he and she can put out some flickering and sounding stuff but now its time to create something actually. I know some people talking about a crisis in media arts but I think it is the most exciting times right now.
as someone else said - an analog one. why fake it? its like synthesising a violin. if you want a violin then get a real violin because it will sound more like a violin..
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
sorry, just realised i'm being very negative. i'll shut up now.
No, you got some good points. Look at the VSTi plugin market, loads of analogue emulations instead creating new sounds with the software possibilities, its incredible. But a TB303 plugin sells better, I learned it the hard way. Its nothing bad to toy around with analogue simulations and if it attracts more people to be creative its ok with me. In one of my music projects I like to mix some 'analogish' elements with wired digital ones although I sometimes realize its a bit strange to recreate my studio which is inhabited by some analogue synths, but I like to have a studio on the run but I am not happy with the limited commercial approaches like Reason.
Cheers,
Malte
On 4/7/06, Malte Steiner steiner@block4.com wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
The idea of unique genius? Access to technology and the creation process should be as easy as possible so nothing is in the way, but I can understand your fear of painting by numbers music of so called creatives. But I have the high hopes that audience is mature enough to recognize a good work from a boring one (hence the crisis of the music/film industry ???). For me the most important thing is a good idea, not a complicated technique (thats so 90s :) ). Its the same with the media arts, which is maturing in the moment. The tryout phase of the 90s is over and everybody showed that he and she can put out some flickering and sounding stuff but now its time to create something actually. I know some people talking about a crisis in media arts but I think it is the most exciting times right now.
There's enough variety and enough to learn about writing for classical orchestra to keep the most dedicated student busy for a lifetime. Think how much more is possible with absolute control of every vibration. There will always be gear-heads, who have to have their hands on the latest gadgetry and use it for IV-V-I, and there will always be those who only care about sophisticated music but settle for Reason sounds. If 1 person out of every 1,000 can successfully meld a mastery of synthesis with a talent for musical expression, it will amount to progress.
as someone else said - an analog one. why fake it? its like synthesising a violin. if you want a violin then get a real violin because it will sound more like a violin..
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
sorry, just realised i'm being very negative. i'll shut up now.
No, you got some good points. Look at the VSTi plugin market, loads of analogue emulations instead creating new sounds with the software possibilities, its incredible. But a TB303 plugin sells better, I learned it the hard way. Its nothing bad to toy around with analogue simulations and if it attracts more people to be creative its ok with me. In one of my music projects I like to mix some 'analogish' elements with wired digital ones although I sometimes realize its a bit strange to recreate my studio which is inhabited by some analogue synths, but I like to have a studio on the run but I am not happy with the limited commercial approaches like Reason.
I agree that if you want a violin, find a violin. Then again, I'm surrounded by musicians. I might have a different attitude after I graduate. I respect those who do it for the challenge, which is the impression I get of most Pd-users. You learn something from trying. I know some analogue purists I wouldn't mind fooling (and thereby humiliating), but it doesn't have to sound exactly like some other synth to be useful. Nobody worried about synths that didn't really sound like brass ensembles in the 80's, they just let it sound cool.
-Chuckk
On Fri, 7 Apr 2006, Malte Steiner wrote:
The idea of unique genius? Access to technology and the creation process should be as easy as possible so nothing is in the way,
Yes. That's why standards of recording are currently raising in order to justify high-end equipment. If the rich musicians can't show off their high-end equipment around because everyone's got high-end, then they won't get all the attention that they think that they deserve. Don't you think it'll get harder to get funding for projects that don't use HDTV resolution and/or 8.1 ambisonics at 24-bit 192 kHz ?
See also Miller's talk "Giving an Engineer a Hammerfall". (kidding)
but I can understand your fear of painting by numbers music of so called creatives.
In the future it will get easier to come up with original stuff using just "paint-by-numbers" music, but this advantage of technology won't be used much in mainstream music because originality isn't much valued there.
But I have the high hopes that audience is mature enough to recognize a good work from a boring one (hence the crisis of the music/film industry ???).
The difference between a good work and a boring work lies in the expectations that one has vis-à-vis the music, and hence what one pays attention to in the music.
For me the most important thing is a good idea, not a complicated technique (thats so 90s :)
Non non non, the most important thing is a _simplistic_ technique! First, spend all of your energy on the grant request paperwork. _That's_ what's important: that's what you get your paycheck for!
I know some people talking about a crisis in media arts but I think it is the most exciting times right now.
What was it like, to make movies in the 1910's?
No, you got some good points. Look at the VSTi plugin market, loads of analogue emulations instead creating new sounds with the software possibilities, its incredible. But a TB303 plugin sells better, I learned it the hard way.
It's because originality is not valued by the mainstream.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ... | Mathieu Bouchard - tél:+1.514.383.3801 - http://artengine.ca/matju | Freelance Digital Arts Engineer, Montréal QC Canada
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
Hallo, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com hat gesagt: // cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be.
Join the RRADical team, booty shakin' is part of its goal: http://footils.org/cms/show/36
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_ __goto10.org__
If you can use Pd to shake some booties, more power to ya!
Speaking of shaking them asses, has anyone made any trunk-rattling abstractions?
~Kyle
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be.
-- http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com (((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
(((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
is this a new bf dialect? or someting else...
BF dialogue? Nah, just meaningless ASCII mashing.
~Kyle
On 4/7/06, carmen ix@replic.net wrote:
(((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
is this a new bf dialect? or someting else...
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- http://perhapsidid.blogspot.com (((())))(()()((((((((()())))()(((((((())()()())()))) (())))))(()))))))))))))(((((((((((()()))))))))((()))) ))(((((((((((())))())))))))))))))))__________ _____())))))(((((((((((((()))))))))))_______ ((((((())))))))))))((((((((000)))oOOOOOO
that makes sense. cool.
I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project
i especially agree with this.
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
Part of the decision for me is whether most people already have several CDs that sound like it. Being that I'm not a hot woman, my only chance is if I make music that's different, that folks can't get unless they come to me. I'm very very interested in the science of perception, and how people perceive order in sound, and so the other part of the decision for me is that I just find it more interesting to make music that's tonally complex.
I also like the process of expectation and disappointment. Get a good booty-shakin groove going, then let it fall apart. Bring it back in, let it fall apart again. Bring it back in again, at which point no one "trusts" the groove to keep going, but at the crucial moment, add more instruments and modulate and make the groove stronger as a pleasant surprise. They'll respond much more than if you just looped the groove over and over, and not know why. The effect is even stronger in that most people have no vocabulary to describe what just happened.
The best explanation I know of emotional response is Leonard B. Meyer in 'Emotion and Meaning in Music'. It's an abstract, esoteric book, but one point he makes is essential: emotional response comes from tendencies being inhibited. If a smoker reaches into his pocket for a cigarette and pulls one out and lights it, he does so with very little awareness of what he's doing. He might not even remember later whether he had a cigarette. If, however, he reaches into his pocket and finds an empty pack, he is immediately aware of the action and has an emotional response.
Form isn't something for chin-strokers, it has a real visceral effect that you should study if you want to move people with music. It's not *that* removed from the experience.
-Chuckk
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- "It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
hey mister, got any music online? i like your words.
On 4/8/06, Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the decision for me is whether most people already have several CDs that sound like it. Being that I'm not a hot woman, my only chance is if I make music that's different, that folks can't get unless they come to me. I'm very very interested in the science of perception, and how people perceive order in sound, and so the other part of the decision for me is that I just find it more interesting to make music that's tonally complex.
I also like the process of expectation and disappointment. Get a good booty-shakin groove going, then let it fall apart. Bring it back in, let it fall apart again. Bring it back in again, at which point no one "trusts" the groove to keep going, but at the crucial moment, add more instruments and modulate and make the groove stronger as a pleasant surprise. They'll respond much more than if you just looped the groove over and over, and not know why. The effect is even stronger in that most people have no vocabulary to describe what just happened.
The best explanation I know of emotional response is Leonard B. Meyer in 'Emotion and Meaning in Music'. It's an abstract, esoteric book, but one point he makes is essential: emotional response comes from tendencies being inhibited. If a smoker reaches into his pocket for a cigarette and pulls one out and lights it, he does so with very little awareness of what he's doing. He might not even remember later whether he had a cigarette. If, however, he reaches into his pocket and finds an empty pack, he is immediately aware of the action and has an emotional response.
Form isn't something for chin-strokers, it has a real visceral effect that you should study if you want to move people with music. It's not *that* removed from the experience.
-Chuckk
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- "It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
http://www.badmuthahubbard.com The Pure Data page isn't up yet, but I don't know that I have much to contribute yet for that anyway. http://www.badmuthahubbard.com/biggiantworms.mp3 was made with my microtonal Pd sequencer. I'm ashamed to say I used a GM soundfont, my synth sounds aren't very sophisticated yet.
On 4/8/06, Peter Worth peterworth@gmail.com wrote:
hey mister, got any music online? i like your words.
On 4/8/06, Chuckk Hubbard badmuthahubbard@gmail.com wrote:
Part of the decision for me is whether most people already have several CDs that sound like it. Being that I'm not a hot woman, my only chance is if I make music that's different, that folks can't get unless they come to me. I'm very very interested in the science of perception, and how people perceive order in sound, and so the other part of the decision for me is that I just find it more interesting to make music that's tonally complex.
I also like the process of expectation and disappointment. Get a good booty-shakin groove going, then let it fall apart. Bring it back in, let it fall apart again. Bring it back in again, at which point no one "trusts" the groove to keep going, but at the crucial moment, add more instruments and modulate and make the groove stronger as a pleasant surprise. They'll respond much more than if you just looped the groove over and over, and not know why. The effect is even stronger in that most people have no vocabulary to describe what just happened.
The best explanation I know of emotional response is Leonard B. Meyer in 'Emotion and Meaning in Music'. It's an abstract, esoteric book, but one point he makes is essential: emotional response comes from tendencies being inhibited. If a smoker reaches into his pocket for a cigarette and pulls one out and lights it, he does so with very little awareness of what he's doing. He might not even remember later whether he had a cigarette. If, however, he reaches into his pocket and finds an empty pack, he is immediately aware of the action and has an emotional response.
Form isn't something for chin-strokers, it has a real visceral effect that you should study if you want to move people with music. It's not *that* removed from the experience.
-Chuckk
On 4/7/06, cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com cyborgk@nocturnalnoize.com wrote:
Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.
PD-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
-- "It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
-- "It is not when truth is dirty, but when it is shallow, that the lover of knowledge is reluctant to step into its waters." -Friedrich Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
-
alexandre matheson -
carmen -
chris clepper -
Christian Klippel -
Chuckk Hubbard -
cyborgk＠nocturnalnoize.com -
david golightly -
derek holzer -
Frank Barknecht -
Jamie Bullock -
Kyle Klipowicz -
Malte Steiner -
Martin Peach -
Mathieu Bouchard -
Peter Worth -
tristan chambers