From Brian Willoughby Sent Mon, Apr 8th 2019, 00:16
From Brian Willoughby Sent Mon, Apr 8th 2019, 00:16
The purpose of a polyphonic synth is to play chords, or at the very = least, to allow previous notes to decay without being cut short by = subsequent notes. As for multiple outs, a pertinent question might be: Why should a chord = have separate outputs for each note? The point of a chord is the harmony = (or dissonance) from several notes together. If they=E2=80=99re on = separate outputs then the notes are no longer together. Even a = monophonic synth with two oscillators can play intervals, e.g. fifths, = but you wouldn=E2=80=99t expect each note in an interval to be on a = separate output. However, once you have a polyphonic synth, there is often a polytimbral = option, in which case there is much benefit from having unrelated sounds = on separate outputs. But I would not assume that polyphony is always = about unrelated sounds. Typically, unrelated sounds come from separate = synths, where there is already a separate output. Polytimbral synths = allow musicians on a budget to get the equivalent diversity of owning = multiple synths, but without the expense or real estate of actually = having physically separate electronics. Then there=E2=80=99s the question of the purpose of multiple outputs. = One reason is stereo, another is separate processing. Some polyphonic = synths have a separate output for every voice. Some have assignable = outputs so you can put all voices on one output, each voice on a = separate output, or any combination between those extremes. Stereo = spread can be achieved so many different ways that there isn=E2=80=99t = one obvious way that is correct. Separate processing doesn=E2=80=99t = make sense for chords, but it does make sense when the notes are = unrelated because part of the voice architecture can be the kind of = processing applied. In some cases, complex sound patch design can be = achieved by assigning each note to a different output, applying the same = processing to each note separately, and then mixing the result together. = For non-linear, non-time-invariant effects, this separation can produce = different sounds even though the end result is mixed together into a = chord. In comparison, the acoustic piano has several options for stereo or even = multiple channels. You can place microphones inside the piano and get a = stereo spread with low notes on one side and high notes on the other. = You can alternatively place microphones in a room, and then the piano is = like a mono source with multichannel reverb. The latter can be achieved = with a polyphonic synth with one output feeding a stereo or multichannel = reverb, in which case there=E2=80=99s no reason to miss any more than = one output from the synth itself, so long as the reverb has multiple = outputs. Most music is produced as a multi-mono mix, with each instrument track = panned to a different position in the stereo spread. This production = technique matches well to synths with one output. It=E2=80=99s actually = somewhat out of the ordinary to have a stereo source - and when you do = have a stereo source the panning becomes a very different proposition. = I=E2=80=99m speaking more of analog studio production techniques, rather = than in-the-box digital mixing techniques, where the additional options = don=E2=80=99t quite require a mess of cables to implement. Bottom line: The number of voices is orthogonal to the number of = outputs. Brian On Apr 7, 2019, at 3:32 AM, Boniforti Flavio <xxxxxxxxx.x@xxxxx.xxx> = wrote: > As per the subject... I've questioned myself sometimes about the = purpose of a Matrix-1000... polyphonic but with MONO out... Never found = a satisfactory explanation - what do you say? >=20 > F. >=20