| Author
|
Virus TI myth?
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 00:36
|
How much does milk's quality matter, if you are going to let it sour anyway in order to make cheese?
 |
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 03:41
|
|
freechameleon
Started Topics :
0
Posts :
91
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 09:49
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-03 00:36, Maine Coon wrote:
How much does milk's quality matter, if you are going to let it sour anyway in order to make cheese?
|
|
how much can one talk about milk if he never drank fresh milk from a cow who was in pasture all time?
if he only knows milk from modern high-breed cows, fed with power fodder all year? milk that is filtered, pasteurised, denaturalised and standardised before consumption?
.
if all synths had perfect waves and perfect filters and perfect internal fx, all would sound the same, except for their routing options..
pretty nice idea if all synths sounded the same. the war about which one is better would finally be over.
what can define milk's and oscillators' quality is the character they have, little nuances and differences in their properties, that can make them desireable or not. it's not about their perfectness.
the one searching for perfectness is on the wrong path. |
|
|
|
Shiranui
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
116
Posts :
1219
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 14:23
|
Electronic music has from the beginning been built on the sounds made by cheap or malfunctioning hardware.
the TB-303 was a tool for guitarists to practice with, never intended for use in recorded works or performances
the artifacts created by bad timestretching are now considered a desirable, cool-sounding effect when used purposefully
the beatrepeats and glitch effects now so common were inspired by the sound of a CD skipping
familiarize yourself with the concept of wabi-sabi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi |
|
|
|
Ascension
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
170
Posts :
3642
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 15:38
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-03 09:49, freechameleon wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-03 00:36, Maine Coon wrote:
How much does milk's quality matter, if you are going to let it sour anyway in order to make cheese?
|
|
how much can one talk about milk if he never drank fresh milk from a cow who was in pasture all time?
if he only knows milk from modern high-breed cows, fed with power fodder all year? milk that is filtered, pasteurised, denaturalised and standardised before consumption?
.
if all synths had perfect waves and perfect filters and perfect internal fx, all would sound the same, except for their routing options..
pretty nice idea if all synths sounded the same. the war about which one is better would finally be over.
what can define milk's and oscillators' quality is the character they have, little nuances and differences in their properties, that can make them desireable or not. it's not about their perfectness.
the one searching for perfectness is on the wrong path.
|
|
I'm lactose intolerant, so what's that mean? 
 http://soundcloud.com/ascensionsound
www.chilluminati.org - Midwest based psytrance group |
|
|
|
zebu connection
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
131
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 16:39
|
for sure the sylenth vst have some nice fat sounds
the virus is confortable to work, nice interface!!
but u might customize it by yourself... don't use the simple presets without changing it |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 19:26
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-03 09:49, freechameleon wrote:
how much can one talk about milk if he never drank fresh milk from a cow who was in pasture all time?
|
|
I personally buy organic milk, if we’re taking this question literally. And I would probably use organic milk if I were a cheese maker. But it also depends on what kind of cheese you’re making. By the time your cheese is blue from mold and stinks like a 2-day old corpse’s dirty socks – I doubt the kind of milk you used matters much.
Anyway, that was just a joke. I just rephrased Ascension’s comment about distortion.
Quote:
|
the one searching for perfectness is on the wrong path.
|
|
Yep. It’s not really about perfection even. It’s about which defects each one of us prefers. My defects are “soul” and “character”. Your defects are just defects. Regardless of which sides in this juvenile argument we pick. 
|
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 20:23
|
*facepalm at entire thread*
You want to know why the Virus is as much as it is? Its real easy. People are prepared to pay that much. Whether it is perfect, I'll leave up to you.
Some points:
Digital audio works with floating point values between -1 and 1. not merely 0 and 1 (.........?)
Any CD of an analog source you have heard is digital and stepped.
I don't care how good you are - the human ear cannot hear the steps in 32bit audio. I'd be amazed if anyone could hear 24bit full bit depth steps to be honest.
A oscillator may be mathematically perfect - this makes no promise of its sound apart from ... I've never seen a synth that sounds any kind of worthwhile use mathematically perfect waves - particularly in the saw wave.
Any imperfection or randomness imaginable is emulatable in digital, should the synth builder so wish.
Digital synths can even vary from computer to computer (use the HD serial number as a random number generator, for example) - if the synth designer so wishes.
Digital synths struggle to sound like analog ones, but it can be done. ACE, for example. Analog synths struggle to sound like digital ones (and some can sound warm -> Digital == Cold is a fucking retarded position to take).
Want a virus - be my guest, if you think it is worth it. .
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 21:04
|
|
i think some things you say arent true speaka , i dont have much knowledge but like analog ,digital have his own limitations like cpu ressource . every synth builders would dream their plugs to sound as good as a sh101 or minimoog so i guess it s not that easy to emulate cause we haven t seen one yet ,but yes ace is good but it s just one synth in thousands of digital ones that try to emulate analog but aren t even close.(and imo oscillators sux in ace vs some analog or others digital synths but it s maybe just taste ) |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 21:40
|
Ohhhhh nitpick nitpick nitpick.
Lol, who said anything about building digital synths being easy?
I know how to design digital filters (a little, at least, I do not proclaim any great knowledge, but I'll wager it is 'above average', and I'm damn certain that most people on this board have precious little idea on this subject - not all, but most), and I can assure you it is anything but easy.
This argument is fallacious however, as if you were to ask an analog synth maker to design a analog filter that sounded like a moog filter but was actually a different design ... they too would not find it easy! In fact, they may well find it impossible. On the other hand, why is it that the new moog doesn't sound more like some of the good digital filters out there? When this argument is quite validly inverted, it becomes apparent just how specious this position really is.
On ACE. Its one guy. Just one guy who built ACE. It isn't that difficult. I've built less capable (but still quite capable things) in under a month. Its nothing special. The shape of the osc may be not to your taste, but that is an easily changeable thing in synth design. If Bob Moog himself had reached down with a celestial finger, who knows, maybe the shape would be different, but I doubt he would complain about the tech - in fact - the shape is easily changable within the synth itself by using an LFO as a waveshaper.
And still what really pisses me off about this thread is just how many people are wearing their ignorance on the subject like some kind of badge of honour, and expect people to not correct them when they are just plain well ill informed, refuse to accept it when people who have demonstrably greater knowledge on the subject tell them they are ill informed, and persist in perpetuating an entirely unhelpful mythos on the benefits of hardware sound engines.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 22:15
|
you made some good points man ,dunno if you said that for me but i like to get corrected ,always want to learn new things and see different points of view so no problem at all .
but i dont agree with what you said : Any imperfection or randomness imaginable is emulatable in digital, should the synth builder so wish.
not talking about synth but for example just the emulation of compressors and eqs we use in plugins is a proof it s not true, maybe it s possible but why they dont do it then? maybe would take too much cpu ? they think about money so maybe they do lot of shortcut in their emulation to save cpu |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 22:41
|
Bravo, master Speakafreaka!
I was kinda hoping you’d emerge from wherever it is you hide most of the time and set the record straight. There is something to be said for a man who designed his own synth, gave it away for free and then explained in details why it is still not on a par with 5 instances of Ableton’s Operator. Big respect!
The whole analogue vs. digital argument is nothing but sentimentality. And, as often is the case, it boils down to your first positive experience. A couple days of reading up on signal processing on Wikipedia will tell you that there is nothing “cold” about (modern!) digital sound. It’s just clean, like an operating room. And it feels cold exactly like an operating room would – just because you tend to compare it with your bedroom.
BTW, there is a company that creates digital models of classic analogue synths by modeling each electronic component. They have a model of each tube or transistor, each capacitance, each resistor etc. It’s very promising and it actually works. You just can’t run these simulations on consumer-grade computers yet.
It’s very interesting academically, but forgive me for saying this:
it’s about as relevant as that dude (from the thread about Goa Gil) that lived with his arm up above his head for the last 15 years. Interesting skill and a complete waste of 15 years.
|
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Aug 3, 2010 22:45
|
yes man that why i said in a other thread in the futur digital will replace analog gears but it s not for today but it s not really a problem anyway as most release sound totally digital .
release made totally in digital should sound a lot better in few years cause of better tools to produce but they could already sound taht good with some analog racks in the studio but it s too much expensive for the money you get in psytrance anyway ,those who by analog it s more for their own satisfaction and pleasure , it justify the price |
|
|
|
yggster
Started Topics :
6
Posts :
87
Posted : Aug 4, 2010 19:00
|
"The whole analogue vs. digital argument is nothing but sentimentality".
Are you really saying there is no or little difference between analog and digital? I only ever heard software users say that.
Anyone owning a minimoog will never ever agree with that.
I can find tons of arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with sentimentality, that is pro analog.
"BTW, there is a company that creates digital models of classic analogue synths by modeling each electronic component"
Isn't that kind of yesterdays news? When VA's started popping up 10-15 years ago they used to model every part too. They are getting much better at it though, I'll give you that.
http://soundcloud.com/ygg-audio/tracks |
|
|
|
Maine Coon
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
1659
Posted : Aug 4, 2010 19:52
|
Quote:
|
On 2010-08-04 19:00, yggster wrote:
Are you really saying there is no or little difference between analog and digital?
|
|
No, this is not what I’ve been saying. What I am saying is that there are differences. But which side you prefer will have more to do with your first positive experience in synthesis than with any objective qualities of a synth itself.
Quote:
|
I only ever heard software users say that.
Anyone owning a minimoog will never ever agree with that.
|
|
And this agrees with my statement quite nicely.
Quote:
|
I can find tons of arguments which have absolutely nothing to do with sentimentality, that is pro analog.
|
|
Why don’t you do that then?
Just remember: the “warmth” an “soul” arguments are already taken.
Quote:
|
When VA's started popping up 10-15 years ago they used to model every part too. They are getting much better at it though, I'll give you that.
|
|
Maybe you’re right. I was under impression that earlier simulations modeled whole circuits, rather than part-by-part. Like this is the shape of a square wave coming out of Moog’s oscillator at 1 kHz – so this is the shape we’ll produce in our software when users set it to square and work at 1 kHz. This is the shape of a LP filter – so this is going to be the shape of our software filter too. Etc. The guys I was talking about actually took the schematics and analyzed properties of every single part, rather than blocks. I don’t know how old this work is – I read about it 2 months ago (in “Computer Music” or maybe one of its sister magazines). It’s all a very expensive kind of mental masturbation, if you ask me. Waste of resources.
|
|
|
|
