From Peter Grenader Sent Fri, Oct 22nd 2004, 14:30
From Peter Grenader Sent Fri, Oct 22nd 2004, 14:30
Ken, please stop with the dramatics. You've taken my comment out of context. I was speaking about something the original post-person brought up, about his comment that it was hard to pick off the differences in the waveforms he was mentioning in the machines he listed -- one static, unchanging, raw, unprocessed, non PWM'd, VC'd or FM'd VCO to another and my point was it's harder to hear the imperfections in complex waveforms (hard, not impossible.) than those in purer waves such as sines. If you remember, what I commented on a few months back in which you are now basing my schizophrenia was in regard to one instrument's reaction to FM and VC stimuli, which does vary all over the map from instrument to another. Further, I don't for a second believe you weren't trying to be insulting. - P Kenneth Elhardt wrote: > Peter Grenader writes: >>> Raw waveforms are just that. Raw. And they will tend to sound the same > from machine to machine when listened to raw.<< > > I'm sitting here totally baffled. Months ago I said this, even posted audio > files proving it and you agreed with me. Then a couple of weeks later and > totally out of the blue you rudely posted a completely false statement > saying that nobody believes me. (People not believing in physical reality? > That's ridiculous). Now you go right back to saying what I had said in the > first place. I don't want to sound insulting, but this is some of the most > schizophrenic behavior I've ever seen on the list. Please explain the logic > behind all this, because at this point I don't see why we're supposed to > believe something you've already stated "nobody believes". > > > SealsCrofts 1 9 7 5 writes: >>> Every time I hear the regular square wave on different synths, it always > sounds the same. I mean how many ways are there to make a different sounding > square? And so on- same with the sawtooth.<< > > It turns out that the waveforms on most synths are more alike than most > would think. A while back I posted audio files showing that the MOTM, > Dotcom, and Doepfer oscs sound completely identical despite the fact that > people have catagorized them in such completely different ways. I even took > the two most extreme examples in the world that people would claim are on > the complete opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of sound and of course > they sound virtually identical. That was a completely sterile digital > waveform spliced to the fat, animated, organic, jittery, noisey, chaotic, > all glorious Moog 901 osc sawtooth, that no synth can touch, and that was as > if made by God. All a bunch of bull of course as the Moog sounds just a > boring as every other sawtooth osc. One reason is because it's shaped like > everybody elses. The file can be heard here: > > http://home.att.net/~elhardt5/Sawtooths.wav > > > matrix writes: >>> Is this a trap? Oscillators do sound different. Some are bolder than oth > ers. There's only so much a filter can do and like you said, when it's wide > open... The ION has beefy oscillators for a VA for example.<< > > Anything can be done in software. The ways a sawtooth can be contorted on > VA's like the JP-8080 and Supernova aren't anything an analog can do so it's > not quite a fair comparison. Passing the osc through the chain of > electronics ie. mixer, vcf, vca, does change the shape and sound of the osc > somewhat, even with the filter wide open. > > A case in point is the recent thread on "fatness". A person was trying to > say CEM based synths don't sound as fat as descrete osc synths. This > totally conflicts with everybody's view that the Memorymoog is one of the > fattest sounding synths and it has CEM based oscs. Must be those moog > filters and all the other stuff muddying and fattening up the sound. > > -Elhardt >