Re: [AH] Moog Jitter, & (false) Synth Myths & Fact vs Opinion

From Kenneth Elhardt
Sent Wed, Jan 7th 2004, 01:25

I've been offline a about a week.  But I need to respond as I'm getting
really tired of misinformation or irrelavant information being posted, facts
being ignored, and personal attacks against me that I have to keep setting
straight.  I believe AH gives me one response to clear things up if attacked
like this.  I'm the first person who has actually put some of this to the
test rather then just blindly believing.  This is a good reference for
opinion (personal belief) vs fact (measurable).

Kevin Lighter writes:
>>You're arriving at what you consider fact, via assumptive reasoning.<<

Wrong.  I'm using measurements and side by side comparisons.

>>You do NOT have all the variables accounted for here and it's just
stupidly assumptive here to believe that you do.<<

Wrong.  What more variables are there in a static waveform?  You provide no
answer and the ones you claimed are not there.

>>but when you come out here and tell us we're all wrong, crazy and you KNOW
this because you're sitting in a room in front of a waveform display<<

Wrong.  I'm not saying "you're all wrong".  It's only you who has been
making claims of waveform animation, jitter, and magic.

>>Unless you have an actual Moog there, this is like telling us what  women
are like via pictures and soundbytes.<<

Wrong.  Even if I had a Moog here I would still have to sample it to analyze
it for jitter or animation.  You don't own a Moog either.  Also keep in mind
I'm not talking about the sound of an entire Moog synth, just the timbre of
raw waveforms.  The only way most synth music can be heard is through
recording, you know, like Carlos, Tomita, Synergy, etc.  A waveform is one
dimensional sound pressure, it's not a 3D woman.  Unending false analogies
get you nowhere.

>>You've raised some questions, but provided no real answers.<<

Wrong.  I've provided answers that you don't like and ignore.

>>You've done this via NO real hands on experience with Moog modulars and
you have zilch electronics experience to indicate that you have any grasp on
jitter, drift, or anything else electronic.<<

Wrong.  I've actually measured the amount of jitter (you ignore) and drift
(you ignore).  You've done neither.  You just expect to force your view on
me and expect me to blindly except it without testing.  My college major was
computer hardware repair, I worked as an electronics bench tech, designed
and built a number of things, and repair my own synths.  You know nothing of
my electronics experience.

>>Nevermind that they may have Moogs, experience, test equipment, etc.<<

Those people are not making your claims.  You hypocritcally reject the use
of test equipment when it goes against your view, now you mention the use of
it to support you view.  I also have experience which you ignore.  Nor were
my myth busting posts all about Moogs either.

>>You're telling people that what they might have heard, WITH a moog for 20+
years, despite being exposed to many other synths, is garbage and your holy
self has landed on absolute truth via "long distance" mp3s and recordings.<<

Wrong.  It's not "people", it's you.  And it's not about the total sound of
the synth, just the raw waveforms.  Again you ignore that I have many
synths.  It's that very reason that I know when tall tales are being spread
about animated raw waveforms.

>>Your scientific method is absolutely ridiculous and you'd be laughed out
of scientific circles...You'd be a lousy scientist or lawyer because you
state as fact, assumption.<<

Wrong.  I used scientific methods to measure jitter and drift.  Just because
you can't do the same or understand the methods is not my problem.  What's
the alternative?  Do nothing and just believe anything you say and not
question it.  You give no answers.  You don't tell how to measure jitter or
drift.  You don't claim to hear the difference in waveforms in my soundbites
or point to the magical Moog attributes so we can agree.  You just argue and
argue about nothing.

>>The Sage didn't look so real that so many couldn't tell the difference and
then you DID have 100% control of the art and still failed.<<

Desperate attempt to bring up something that has nothing to do with VCO
tone.  Nor did I have 100% control over the art since the rendering software
wasn't written to do 100% of everything I needed it to do.

>>You're as silly as people watching one side of a court case and then
*knowing* the guilt or innocence of the person in question from just that
one side.<<

Wrong.  At first I believed Peake's non-cyclic drift example was do to a
drifty Moog.  When I got invovled I found it wasn't.  I thought Moog VCO's
would have a noticably different tone than other VCO's or digital waveforms.
When I compared them, they didn't.  When I didn't know if jitter contributed
to the Moog sound, I measured it, and it had about three times less than the
Selector.  I did not approach it from just one side.  Hypocritically you are
approaching it from one side.

>>I've had enough of this "brain" who wants to think for us and tell us what
we're hearing isn't there and that he knows why.<<

An analog sawtooth wave is a fast change in voltage than a ramp downward (or
upward) that repeats itselt.  Just why some try to apply such magical
attributes to something this boring is beyond me.  I just don't understand
their agenda.

Hopefully this is a lesson for those who like to argue just for the sake of
arguing.  There is nothing to back up his view so he resorts to personal
attacks.  That's usually the way it goes.  I just want to set things
straight.  If you want to hear how close two things sound to each other, you
listen and compare.  If you want to see how much drift and jitter there is
in something you measure it.  It's so simple.  There never was anything to
argue or debate.

Oliver Hesch writes:
>>we are in a free forum where everyone expresses his or her thoughts. if
someone doesn't agree, just argue against or if you are tired of it, skip.<<

Exactly.  I've done more than just express my thoughts.  I've backed it up
with audio examples and physical data.

Peter Grenader writes:
>> We are dealing with opinions here, and one person's in particular is
causing my inbox to ache. I do not agree with his arguments, I know his
conclusions are physically impossible, and I chuckle at the arrogance.  Ken,
almost everyone disagrees with you for a host of reasons.  Everyone, these
are his opinions and he has a right to them.<<

We are NOT dealing with opinions.  Geez.  Whether something drifts or
jitters and how much is FACT and can be measured.  Odd thing is that you had
previously agreed with me (until you brought up unrelated audio rate FM).
Now you flip-flop in your agreement which means you believe the opposite of
me.  So to get this straight this is what you believe by your own words
above (don't later say you didn't because above you just stated that you do
not agree with me):

1) The Moog has more jitter than other VCOs including the Selector.
2) Even though other VCO's have more measured jitter than Moog, Moog jitter
leads to unique magical animated Moog sound
3) motm, dotcom, doepfer low-end sawtooths sound audibly different than each
4) CEM sawtooth does not sound different than other sawtooth waves.
5) Peake's non-cyclic beating example was do to excessive and erratic Moog
6) motm drifts less than dotcom and doepfer VCOs.

>>NO MORE IN 2004!<<

As long as people including yourself don't keep posting false info that has
to be corrected over and over again, hopefully will be the case.
(false synth myths or contradictory info)

1) Digital synths don't have any real-time expression because it is a
computer program running.

2) "Musical" EQ has phase correction circuitry to correct for phase shift
introduced by the EQ stages.  But according to the Joe Meek company, it's
the phase shift introduced by EQ that makes the EQ "musical".