Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Is good analog synthesis like (airplane) wing design ?


Theo Verelst

Recommended Posts

Listening to recent analog synthesizers I feel compelled to make a "airplane design" score for them. Some create a feel with the listener that they could go beyond simulating steam engines and chopper sounds and do deep differential equation connected sound synthesis, without much of the "digital sound", a phenomenon which appears on many people's bug-to-feature list, which I don't maintain however.

 

To me, the examples I've heard from Moog Modulars sound like they have a distinct character, no matter who uses or records them, which I probably deeply appreciate. All others seem second to that, generally speaking. I am aware of non-linearities and probably built in deviations from time-invariant character (when not changing control voltages) as well as mutual influencing between signals, parts and maybe modules, of which some are directly related to sonic character, and others to mix qualities related to these electronic wizardry from the 60s/70s.

 

Some polyphonics were ahead of time to make new sonic standards, but much recently sounds similar probably as a result of standard hardware design practice improvements, with questionable taste in instrument design, and most isn't along the lines I thought would be important: quality circuits and control voltage management. Even interesting synths like the Prophet-12 (which I do respect) have digitally control voltages, and not adjustable analog created curves and signals...

 

Anyhow, recalling some discussion I had as student with airplane engineering students, the answer in general, both for digital solutions or analog behemoths is that seldom there is rocker design in synthesis setups. Some seem to fly more than others through, I say.

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I just have to say - whenever I read your posts I can't understand anything you are saying, but you never fail to blow my mind. :)

 

Keep up the excellent topics!

Electro 5, NI Kontrol S61/49, MX49, PC3, Rev2, Prologue, Pro3, Juno-DS, Mopho Keys, SE02, drums, tons of synth software, guitars, amps, and pedals...help me!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo: You have no clue about analog synthesis and (airplane) wing design. So, for you, the answer is clearly: yes. the one is like the other. Stop smoking weed btw, or at least don't smoke before posting.

The mutual information in your posts is way below Shannon, and partial differential equations can't model the amount of nonsense you output as long as they are linear or assume widesense stationarity.

2019 W.Hoffmann T122 upright, Roland FP-50, Roland RD64, Korg Microkorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say - whenever I read your posts I can't understand anything you are saying, but you never fail to blow my mind.

I have spent most my career explaining difficult technical concepts to others with non-technical backgrounds.

 

For those that might be in awe of TV's posts, let me say that it's easy to craft words that leave others in the dark.

 

What's hard is to make the difficult explainable.

Casio PX-5S, Korg Kronos 61, Omnisphere 2, Ableton Live, LaunchKey 25, 2M cables
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just have to say - whenever I read your posts I can't understand anything you are saying, but you never fail to blow my mind.

I have spent most my career explaining difficult technical concepts to others with non-technical backgrounds.

 

For those that might be in awe of TV's posts, let me say that it's easy to craft words that leave others in the dark.

 

What's hard is to make the difficult explainable.

 

:roll:

Now out! "Mind the Gap," a 24-song album of new material.
www.joshweinstein.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's hard is to make the difficult explainable.

 

It's not hard if you cultivate cooperative systems throughout multiple modalities. When you orchestrate learning-intensive business partnerships to close the achievement gap, you can optimize multidimensional living documents with synergistic effects. Only then you will cultivate student-centered scaffolding using authentic, real-world scenarios.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Listening to recent analog synthesizers I feel compelled to make a "airplane design" score for them.

 

looking froward to that, T.V.. Put it in the shameless plugs when ready so I can give it a listen. :thu:

:nopity:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, recalling some discussion I had as student with airplane engineering students, the answer in general, both for digital solutions or analog behemoths is that seldom there is rocker design in synthesis setups...

 

T.

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ad/fe/41/adfe41a8a99aa4d0e56f702d8caed6f4.jpg

"Turn your fingers into a dust rag and keep them keys clean!" ;) Bluzeyone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't fall off no turnip truck but good god son,

The Queens Engish is spoken here.

 

You want to try that again?

 

I sometimes wonder if this is auto generated so Soviet

Sleeper agent Boris and Natasha can decode it on their

Secret Squirrel rings.

 

Sorry Theo. That's a little harsh but how

am I supposed to understand any of that?

And it really does give me a headache

trying to grok what your saying.

You've said some good things before and I know

your smart.

I'm smart. Hell we're all smart.

We're keyboard players!

Translate some of that stuff like your trying

to sell to people. Not scientists.

 

Ok. I'm done.

Where is my last issue of

Mechanics Illustrated anyway?

 

I've got to finish the last nacelle on my flying car.

 

(Side bar. I've actually been in the vicinity during

tethered ground testing of the Moller. It's VERY loud.

And ya. It's the sexiest damn thing I've ever

laid hands on. Paul Moller is a nice guy. And a

genius.)

 

Thanks,

 

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually pretty much exactly the same thing.

Hammond: L111, M100, M3, BC, CV, Franken CV, A100, D152, C3, B3

Leslie: 710, 760, 51C, 147, 145, 122, 22H, 31H

Yamaha: CP4, DGX-620, DX7II-FD-E!, PF85, DX9

Roland: VR-09, RD-800

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo, I (even though at times have been critical) have always respected you. We've had PM's and I know you know your shit. You're very intelligent, but what's more important is sometimes you're very forward thinking about things.

 

The problem is that it gets wasted if it's not communicated, and that's always the issue. I feel like you have sort of almost a snobby sense in many of your posts like "I'm going to say it this way, and if you don't get it, you're too stupid" and then you just get a whole bunch of snarky comments on something that could actually be a REALLY interesting discussion that many people could benefit from.

 

I know you can do better - explain yourself, simplify things, use common terms, define things others may not understand. I think you'd get the respect you deserve and much better responses.

 

Dan

 

Acoustic/Electric stringed instruments ranging from 4 to 230 strings, hammered, picked, fingered, slapped, and plucked. Analog and Digital Electronic instruments, reeds, and throat/mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ad/fe/41/adfe41a8a99aa4d0e56f702d8caed6f4.jpg

Anne! We had no idea that you were an old rocker ... :laugh:

Casio PX-5S, Korg Kronos 61, Omnisphere 2, Ableton Live, LaunchKey 25, 2M cables
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to go into (only) some still illegal in the western world slanderous language, and again not starting up a deep interaction, in defense of the point I'm making: the computer simulation types dealing with certain wing design problems and the contemporary computer simulations for imitating analog synthesis are quite unrelated, which is in error. Also, there's the speaker as the target of certain synthesis efforts that, by the right synth designer, appears to be factored out of the synthesis equation of most people, because of reasons similarly important as wing design.

 

Also, since the longer ago or recent advent of some synth designers/managers to this particular forum, I though I'd test out how their electronics divisions (English) language skill have followed the conventional types of main divisions of the university EE world. No need to deeply look into that if you're only superficially interested. It's like some (certainly not a majority) of the people with "interesting" screen names are like little lap dog or something: only interested in little chunks of dog food, and their master padding them on the head. I'm sorry if talking about years of studying (for most people) undergraduate EE subjects cannot be presented as intellectual dog-food equivalent for self respecting writers. Just skip over the parts that are clearly smelling like "elite only" and continue the "comrade" thinking at will. I suppose.

 

T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the first sentence of TV's latest post translates as "here's a surprise: synth design and aerofoil design are actually related".

 

I didn't get anything else - I understood the words but not the combined sentences. I would always want Theo, or anyone on KC, to feel they can post something of interest - and this is potentially a topic that could be really interesting. But without understanding it, I can't contribute.

 

Cheers, Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo, if you think you have something interesting to say, then say so. But only making nebulous statements won't get you or anyone else anywhere. Actually it looks like you believe there are similarities but are unable to say which. If that is the case, then ask people if your understanding is correct or not, or ask if they can think about similarities.
2019 W.Hoffmann T122 upright, Roland FP-50, Roland RD64, Korg Microkorg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo, if you start a new thread, the assumption is that you would want a reasonably large number of people here to be able to understand what you are talking about - maybe not all people, but enough to make it worthwhile.

 

I don't think you are communicating well enough to make this happen. I am assuming you have studied several years of Electrical Engineering. I don't have that EE background, but I did earn a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering, and took two EE courses. But I have no idea what point you are trying to make in the second paragraph of your first post.

 

I have read many books on airplane design, including multiple books that discussed the wing designs of several World War II aircraft. I can't design an aircraft wing, but I can understand and enjoy those books.

 

You are not communicating clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an EE professor and I'd like to understand you Theo, but although I'm familiar with each of your phrases I'm not sure what your main idea is.

 

Are you saying that the nonlinearities of synth design are like nonlinearities of modeling air flow over a wing (because air isn't an idealized gas, or because of turbulence)? Or are you saying something more metaphorical?

 

Guys/gals: This isn't a problem with technical lingo. This could be a language translation problem. His grammar and sentence length aren't English-friendly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...