additive synthesis (was: Observations on tempering)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <ekin@lumma.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:31 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Observations on tempering

> >> No, the problem is not mostly with strings.
> >> There are good string libraries out, as well
> >> as good libraries for all wind, brass, and
> >> percussion libraries.
> >
> > What would be an actual example?
>
> There are near-perfect string physical models,
> and Carlos demonstrated almost 20 years ago that
> even the very primitive digital additive
> synthesis, carefully done, can be excellent.
>
> -Carl

to my mind additive synthesis is not at all
"primitive", altho i suppose you'd have to define
that term for me to really take a position.

i have always considered the additive synthesis
technique to be the most powerful way of creating
electronic sounds, simply because it allows
complete freedom of creation.

by breaking the sound up into many discrete parts
which act pretty much the same way (i.e., partials,
which, BTW, need not be exactly harmonic either),
and allowing a big set of many different control
parameters for each partial (but, theoretically,
the same set for all partials), one obtains an
extremely simple yet powerful means of sounds synthesis.

(i was very much into this back in 1984 when i
studied computer music at Brooklyn College with
Charles Dodge, on a PDP-11 running Unix, utilizing
Barry Vercoe's Music 4B, a precursor to Csound.

Dodge and my labmates were all under the spell of FM,
probably because it was so new -- the Yamaha DX-7
had not yet been released -- but i loved additive,
and created many beautiful and very interesting
and dynamic sounds with it.

this was during the era of _Beauty in the Beast_,
and i agree with you that Wendy Carlos created a
masterful array of additive synthesis timbres on
that ablum.)

-monz

>to my mind additive synthesis is not at all
>"primitive", altho i suppose you'd have to define
>that term for me to really take a position.

I meant the additive she had in '82 was primitive
by today's standards!

>i have always considered the additive synthesis
>technique to be the most powerful way of creating
>electronic sounds, simply because it allows
>complete freedom of creation.

It gives a little too much freedom, is the problem.
You have to figure out which choices lead to
interesting results. With physical modeling, you
are almost guaranteed an interesting result.

>Dodge and my labmates were all under the spell of FM,
>probably because it was so new -- the Yamaha DX-7
>had not yet been released -- but i loved additive,
>and created many beautiful and very interesting
>and dynamic sounds with it.

Never liked FM myself.

>this was during the era of _Beauty in the Beast_,
>and i agree with you that Wendy Carlos created a
>masterful array of additive synthesis timbres on
>that album.)

I was referring to Digital Moonscapes, which is my
pick for best synthesis ever.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> i have always considered the additive synthesis
> technique to be the most powerful way of creating
> electronic sounds, simply because it allows
> complete freedom of creation.

So far I haven't managed to produce what I regard as my own truly
satisfactory Csound instruments. It's a whole study in itself.

> this was during the era of _Beauty in the Beast_,
> and i agree with you that Wendy Carlos created a
> masterful array of additive synthesis timbres on
> that ablum.)

I think I need a good Csound instrument library to steal. :)