Sick of sample-based "synthesis"!

[Radium]

I disagree here. I never remember hearing hiss out of the Moog. And
even if there were, the filter was not for the hiss, but rather was
a significant part of the instrument's sound. Especially when you
cranked the Q so that you could hear the cutoff frequency as a
whistle. Re: the end of ELP's "Lucky Man" where he holds that
low, low synth note and tweaks the LP filter.

You're correct.

 

[Radium]

[...]
In an analog FM synth the signals
smoothly vary by their frequency. In a digital FM synth the signals
vary by their frequency in discete steps.

An "analog FM" synth? Never heard of such a thing.

Exactly. Neither have I.

I have no idea what Les Cargill means about FM being differen from
digital. FM synths are digital, like it or not. I don't see why they
shouldn't be. Most analog systems have poor SNRs, are bulky, and need
physical precision to play decently.

FM synthesis is a digital method. Anyone who thinks different need to
read more about FM synthesis.

Samplers are different from FM synths even though both groups are
digital. Samplers have a stale cut-off at high frequencies. Samplers
are suckers for synth sounds. Synth pads, synth FX, synth lead, synth
bass are a torture to listen to when played through sample-based
synths. After all, these "synth" sounds were generated on an FM synth
to begin with.

I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are
better than FM synths. How so??

All "synth" type of instruments (e.g. pads) sound horrible when
sampled. The tone of synth pads was generated on a FM synth. Sampling
this type of sound only makes it less realistic.

 

[Randy Yates]

[...]
I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are
better than FM synths. How so??

I think that when you say "sample synths," what you really mean is
"wavetable synthesis."

They're just more realistic. The timbres produced by FM sound "nice"
(i.e., clear, good high-frequency content, etc.), but just aren't as
realistic as wavetable synthesis. At least in my opinion.

All "synth" type of instruments (e.g. pads) sound horrible when
sampled. The tone of synth pads was generated on a FM synth. Sampling
this type of sound only makes it less realistic.

It's business. If you look into the software development effort, it's
much easier to spend all your time and effort getting the wavetable
synthesis working rather than having to build both a wavetable synthesis
and FM synthesis engine (so that FM sounds could be generated instead
of reproduced through the wavetable).
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[Andrew Mayo]

Sample-based synths are stale and rigid. Any sound effect in action
will noticeably quantize and alias the music. They are a hell an
earsore for life-wanting instruments such as synth pads and synth fx.
The tone of synth pads are generated on FM synths! No wonder pads
sound so crappy in samplers.

A *real* digital (not analog) FM/modelling synth is a dream! It should
be hard-coded and able to do its own processing and memory.

Well, yes, I agree. Your dream machine exists, btw. It's called the
Yamaha FS1R. It has 64 operators, each with its own independent
amplitude envelope. 32 of these operators can do sine, square or
sawtooth waveforms (and formant shape them, either statically or
dynamically). The other 32 can do pitched or unpitched noise (you can
go from a sinewave right out to white noise, depending on bandwidth
settings). (compare with the original DX7, which had only 6 operators
- so this is 10 DX7's in a box!)

It is four-part multi-timbral with three independent effects units and
a comprehensive range of filters. It can do formant synthesis. It
produces utterly beautiful sounds which respond to every nuance of
your playing.

Faced with such a beautiful piece of hardware, Yamaha marketing then
did their best to screw up, first with an inadequate manual, then,
panicking, they took it off the market after only a year or so, when,
understandably, buyers balked at the complexity of programming it
themselves. (it did not, originally, come with a PC-based programmer,
which didn't help).

At which point they became collector's items. I drove 300 miles to buy
mine second-hand. I will never ever sell it. It is, undoubtedly, the
deepest, most powerful hardware synth ever made. And not a single
sample anywhere in it (except, I guess, a sine wave).

I don't understand why Yammy don't bring them back now that FM is back
in vogue. With a better manual and more sample patches they really are
something else.

Anyway, see if you can get hold of one. I think it will answer your
prayers, but be warned; it is deep and complex.

(another, software-based, alternative is NI's FM7 but this lacks the
raw power of the FS1R, though in theory you could run multiple
instances on a sufficiently powerful PC).

 

[Radium]

[...]
I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are
better than FM synths. How so??

I think that when you say "sample synths," what you really mean is
"wavetable synthesis."

They're just more realistic. The timbres produced by FM sound "nice"
(i.e., clear, good high-frequency content, etc.), but just aren't as
realistic as wavetable synthesis. At least in my opinion.

Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying aliasing.

 

[Radium]

it's
much easier to spend all your time and effort getting the wavetable
synthesis working rather than having to build both a wavetable synthesis
and FM synthesis engine (so that FM sounds could be generated instead
of reproduced through the wavetable).

Then why not build the FM synth engine without a wavetable synth?

In "real" FM synthesis no wavetable should be needed. Right?

 

[Radium]

Yes. Digital oscillators with numerically-controlled frequencies
are used. The outputs of the digital oscillators are PCM streams
that are summed into a composite PCM stream, which can then be
converted to analog in the usual fashion.

What type of synthesis is this?

 

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying
aliasing.

It is possible to design a sampler that does not suffer
from aliasing.

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo [email protected] (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
The Earth is around 70% water. Fish rule the seas.
Humans are over 90% water. It's only a matter of time.

 

[Randy Yates]

[...]
I find so many comments from newsgroups saying that sample synths are
better than FM synths. How so??

I think that when you say "sample synths," what you really mean is
"wavetable synthesis."

They're just more realistic. The timbres produced by FM sound "nice"
(i.e., clear, good high-frequency content, etc.), but just aren't as
realistic as wavetable synthesis. At least in my opinion.

Samplers don't sound too realistic either given the annoying aliasing.

Usually it's not aliasing that occurs but psychoacoustic entropy loss. PEL
results in less harmonic convergence and at the same time causes your
energy bill's balance to decrease.
--
% Randy Yates % "...the answer lies within your soul
%% Fuquay-Varina, NC % 'cause no one knows which side
%%% 919-577-9882 % the coin will fall."
%%%% <[email protected]> % 'Big Wheels', *Out of the Blue*, ELO
http://home.earthlink.net/~yatescr

 

[Jerry Avins]

Then why not build the FM synth engine without a wavetable synth?

In "real" FM synthesis no wavetable should be needed. Right?

You miss the point. It's assumed that you need wavetables no matter
what. Your "real FM synth" is extra.

Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of
an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can. I missed that the first time
around.

Jerry

 

[Eric C. Weaver]

So this process was purely in the digital domain?

Yes. The only thing after the D/A was an amplifier. A cheap one from Radio
Shack.

 

[Radium]

Please explain again why a wavetable synth can't reproduce the sound of
an FM synthesizer as well as a CD can.

The point is not to reproduce an FM synth's sound but to listen to it
while producing it. That is, listen to an FM synth actually generate
its musical tones, rather than recording those tones from the FM synth
to another medium and then playing them back.

 

[Stefan Stenzel]

Consider the Waldorf Q, here FM can be applied to all waveforms, including
wavetables. FM Sources are selectable, any OSC, noise or external input.
FM can also be applied to filters.

Stefan

 

[Jerry Avins]

The point is not to reproduce an FM synth's sound but to listen to it
while producing it. That is, listen to an FM synth actually generate
its musical tones, rather than recording those tones from the FM synth
to another medium and then playing them back.

If there's no audible difference, why should I care?

Jerry

 

[Olli Niemitalo]

If there's no audible difference, why should I care?

I think Radium's main point that is not quite getting through, is the
following (perhaps somewhat softened by me):

From the point of view of the author of the music, if you use a sampler,
your choice of the synthesizer sound is limited by your sample library, to
an extent defined by your ability to modify these samples, inside or
outside the sampler. If you instead generate the synthesizer sound in
real-time, using FM or any other technique which allows you to change the
sound drastically using just a few parameters, you can adjust the sound
until it is exactly what you want. Moreover, repeatedly hearing the same
"good" samples can be boring - be the cause a lack of imagination or not.

-olli

 

[Jerry Avins]

I think Radium's main point that is not quite getting through, is the
following (perhaps somewhat softened by me):

From the point of view of the author of the music, if you use a sampler,
your choice of the synthesizer sound is limited by your sample library, to
an extent defined by your ability to modify these samples, inside or
outside the sampler. If you instead generate the synthesizer sound in
real-time, using FM or any other technique which allows you to change the
sound drastically using just a few parameters, you can adjust the sound
until it is exactly what you want. Moreover, repeatedly hearing the same
"good" samples can be boring - be the cause a lack of imagination or not.

-olli

Thank you. Now I get it.

Jerry

 

[Radium]

Exactly Olli.

 

[Steven Sullivan]

Well, yes, I agree. Your dream machine exists, btw. It's called the
Yamaha FS1R. It has 64 operators, each with its own independent
amplitude envelope. 32 of these operators can do sine, square or
sawtooth waveforms (and formant shape them, either statically or
dynamically). The other 32 can do pitched or unpitched noise (you can
go from a sinewave right out to white noise, depending on bandwidth
settings). (compare with the original DX7, which had only 6 operators
- so this is 10 DX7's in a box!)

It is four-part multi-timbral with three independent effects units and
a comprehensive range of filters. It can do formant synthesis. It
produces utterly beautiful sounds which respond to every nuance of
your playing.

What albums by what artists can it be heard on?