Sparse Vs The Full Sound

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 06/07/2007 - 15:27

XO: If the intent was to only mimic the real world instruments, then why did Yamaha make it possible to combine the different models?... They made it possible to Blow a violin or Bow a flute or the like, so I'm sure that the initial reason for the technology was to mimic the real ones yes, but they clearly saw potential in other areas as well, and it's mainly that aspect I'm after, in addition to the imense expression possibilities it gives you.... really, you can make sounds that are to different from "normal" synthesis techniques with it, if you just delve deep enough into the technology, stuff you simply cannot reproduce using conventional synthesis.

Also, the VL technology has been used in other sythesis technologies as well... The Yamaha EX5R has FDSP synthesis that is also build around some of the VL synthesis engine... FDSP is sort of like a polyphonic FX machine... gives you the option to make for example a phaser fx, that is individualy controlled for each key... in the EX5R there are as many as 10 different such algorithms, many based on the VL technology.

So to me, the VL technology is much more interesting when it can be combined with other types of synthesis, are fooled around with in general... it opens up new possibilities of sound design beyond the mere reproduction of accoustic instruments... this is why I'm getting the Nord Modular G2 also, since this has practically all types of synthesis available (almost)... the possibilities of combining all these building blocks is really intriguing... it's like a sound designers kind of LEGO

xo · Post by xo » 06/07/2007 - 15:32

Okay, let me put it this way. Physical modeling or simulation must have as the number one criteria: correctness. If that doesn't hold, it's a strange bastard. That's just a question og definition and logic.

Second, once the fidelity and accuracy is sufficient, or before, if you wish, you can begin to create alternative ways to interface with the instrument. Both things have their merrit, I'm just saying: physical modelling by its very definition must be about accurate simulation and therefore realistic sound.

I like what you're saying about the flexibility of physical modelling and I think you're probably right. Physical modelling is a vast space. It's processor intensive, but vast and with huge potential. Not just in music.

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 06/07/2007 - 15:38

XO: I'm not to argue that Physical modellings main aspect is to produce as realistic accoustic instruments as possible... my post was derived from romeo knight's post that physical modelling was not convincing... true, but it does not rule the technology non-outstanding for a lot of other uses. The yamaha VL synthesis is still outstanding in my eyes, as it can do sounds that no other hardware synthesizer can do, and in a really organic and accoustic-like way no other synth can.

Maybe it's just me using the technology in a way it was not meant to be used, but I'm fine with that... I find it to be an outstanding sound character with lots of expression possibilities

... convincing or not. and I'm certain, that with the right programing, the VL synthesis can make sounds that will sound so weird and organic, that many with think "What the HELL was that for a kind of synth!? ... how did it do that!?", and that's the sound I'm after

Razmo · Post by **Razmo** » 06/07/2007 - 15:52

And this topic also leads me to another thing: inovativeness... Why focus so much on just reproduction of accoustic instruments?... we have these instruments in their real state if we want them... I'm thinking, that physical modelling is not just about sound... other models of physical things could be made, and used for audio synthesis... I'm talking about the experimentation of using things that was not even meant for audio as building blocks for audio as well... either as sound generators if the frequency output is high enough, or as modulation stuff...

What if we used our imagination a bit, and constructed a physical model of say, something like gravity?... and used it for audio processing?... I'm thinking of making modular synthesis not just replications of old analog modular synthesis, but actually bring in whole new dimentions?

I think it's time that synthesis gave us something new, instead of always the same, over and over again, trying to make what is already sufficient better and better... making better is ok, but new stuff is welcome i think.

Romeo Knight · Post by **Romeo Knight** » 07/07/2007 - 18:13

I think this is a very interesting thread but since im on vacation in the moment I don't have the time to get really deeper into it.
@xo:
Example of the Reaktor instrument Sehktar 1.2:
http://www.native-instruments.com/php/f ... tar_se.mp3

Examples of the Reaktor instrument Steampipe 2:
http://www.native-instruments.com/index ... eaktor5_us
Play examples 15-18 in the flash whatever player on the right.