Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning RE: [tuning] FM synthesis

[Alexandros Papadopoulos]
>People ,
>How can you stand FM synthesis on your DX,TX, and SY's ?
>The same for analog modeling and sample playback.
>Real analog seems the most fresh and adventurous synthesis method to me ,
>and I don't do dance music.

I agree that real analog is adventurous -- I have an Oberheim Xpander that is
almost as flexible as a modular, sounds fantastic, and is also retunable to
almost any equal temperament -- but I can also answer you question about FM
synthesis.

What I like about FM synthesis is that you can program patches that _feel_
authentic to play. I don't mean that they sound identical to familiar
instruments, but that the expressive control of the FM sound via touch
(velocity sensitivity) can be very convincing; the relationship between finger
activity and the sound produced resembles real instruments.

A physical object makes no sound if you hit it with zero force, and is loud
when you hit it as hard as you can. (Try this on a piano if you doubt me.) In
between these two extremes is a range of tonal variation that is often more
complex than simply an increment in the number of overtones as striking force
increases. In reality, new overtones having different amplitude envelopes
appear.

You will find that FM synthesis is capable of simulating this behaviour. Many
of the factory patches in a TX802 are barely audible when played gently. With
extreme force the sound is bright and loud. But with medium force, the sound
is not necessarily the average of the two extremes as is usually the case with
sample playback. Playing an FM synth is like playing some weird physical
contraption (like a piano from another dimension) that responds to striking
force in just the way you would expect it to: hardly any sound when played
softly, and little clicks and pings that only come out when you really spank
it.

DARREN McDOUGALL
Australia.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "McDougall, Darren Scott - MCDDS001"
<MCDDS001@S...> wrote:
> [Alexandros Papadopoulos]
> >People ,
> >How can you stand FM synthesis on your DX,TX, and SY's ?
> >The same for analog modeling and sample playback.
> >Real analog seems the most fresh and adventurous synthesis method
to me ,
> >and I don't do dance music.
>

Darren,

Hello!

I totally missed this post from Alexandros, or else I would have
replied to it too. And you've made the case for FM with such
eloquence, that there is little I feel that I can add. It is obvious
to me that you have gotten into programming FM, as these are indeed
the most interesting attributes of FM synthesis. I feel that because
the factory sets of most FM synths were optimized for use in pop
music, they create a bad impression for those not brave enough to
tackle the FM paradigm.

I will back you up here. FM is a totally rich sound design palette
for the synthesis/microtonalist. The fact (as you ably mention) is
that one can make timbres that behave in a much more "instrument-
like" manner than subtractive methods.

One thing that I find of huge importance for good electronic sound,
is to not be totally reliant upon just one synthesis method for the
sounds in your electronic pieces. Using many different kinds of
synths adds variety to compositions, where if you do it all in one
box, then the music tends to have a subtle "sameness" about it.

FM has always got a bad wrap for being difficult to program - and it
is not for the faint of heart. But the rewarding part of it, is that
you can get sounds that you could never program with a
oscillator/filter synthesis paradigm. In my younger days, I used to
ponder why Yamaha didn't put resonant filters on FM synths, but after
I learned how to program FM, I see that you really don't need them,
as you can still create filter-like effects by other means than
subtractive methods.

Thanks for this insightful and informative post!

Jacky Ligon

>
> I agree that real analog is adventurous -- I have an Oberheim
Xpander that is
> almost as flexible as a modular, sounds fantastic, and is also
retunable to
> almost any equal temperament -- but I can also answer you question
about FM
> synthesis.
>
> What I like about FM synthesis is that you can program patches that
_feel_
> authentic to play. I don't mean that they sound identical to
familiar
> instruments, but that the expressive control of the FM sound via
touch
> (velocity sensitivity) can be very convincing; the relationship
between finger
> activity and the sound produced resembles real instruments.
>
> A physical object makes no sound if you hit it with zero force, and
is loud
> when you hit it as hard as you can. (Try this on a piano if you
doubt me.) In
> between these two extremes is a range of tonal variation that is
often more
> complex than simply an increment in the number of overtones as
striking force
> increases. In reality, new overtones having different amplitude
envelopes
> appear.
>
> You will find that FM synthesis is capable of simulating this
behaviour. Many
> of the factory patches in a TX802 are barely audible when played
gently. With
> extreme force the sound is bright and loud. But with medium force,
the sound
> is not necessarily the average of the two extremes as is usually
the case with
> sample playback. Playing an FM synth is like playing some weird
physical
> contraption (like a piano from another dimension) that responds to
striking
> force in just the way you would expect it to: hardly any sound when
played
> softly, and little clicks and pings that only come out when you
really spank
> it.
>
> DARREN McDOUGALL
> Australia.

RE: [tuning] FM synthesis

🔗McDougall, Darren Scott - MCDDS001 <MCDDS001@STUDENTS.UNISA.EDU.AU>

🔗ligonj@northstate.net

🔗Jeff Harrington <jeff@parnasse.com>

🔗Rick McGowan <rmcgowan@apple.com>