[A6] RE: Neuron (ot)

[F.A.S. Truhan III]

> > > Sampler - no.  The neuron is closer to something that does physical
> > > modeling, like the Z1/Prophecy
> > 
> >     Yeah, I know how it works. I was talking about the sounds 
> > it makes, not
> > how it makes them. I tried to stress that point actually.
> 
> Then you can answer your own question by asking yourself if a sampler can
> make the physical modeled sounds the Z1 can?  The answer is obviously no. 

     I'm going to have to strongly disagree that the answer is no, let
alone an obvious no. Z1 physical models attempt to recreate behaviour of
existing instruments using computer algorithm models. One use for a sampler
is to recreate the behaviour of existing instruments using creatively
triggered recordings of the actual instrument. 
     So, if you want to argue it from the standpoint of instrument realism,
I'd say the sampler has the edge. Get a microphone and the instrument you
want to sample, and program away. Since the basis you're working with is
the actual instrument and not a digital approximation, you would have an
edge using that method.
     If you want to argue it from which one can mangle the sound more in
unusual ways, I'd say it would be a draw. Different methods to the same
end, which is the crux of my point.

> thought I made that point clearly.  Sure a sampler can record and
playback a
> guitar note and map it and others across a keyboard, but it can't emulate
> the nuances of playing the sound via a physical model

     Again, if you take care to program it and play it properly, my opinion
is a sampler will do a better job at exactly this. I do say this from
comparing results from using several different samplers, a Z1, and various
Yamaha physical modeling synths as well.  

> - that's why its a
> sampler and not a modeler - and similarly, a sampler wouldn't be able to
> emulate the nuances of the duckdog either.

     Again, I think that you can get the same results and flexibility using
different methods. I'm not debating about how one prefers to get to the end
result, I'm just talking about the end result. 
     You're also making a dangerous habit of stating your opinion as fact
when it is only your opinion.

>  Does everyone need that kind of
> modeling to make music?  No.  But the same class of synthesist that loves
> the Z1 for what it does best (beyond playback samples) will love the
Neuron
> for what it can do in that analogous regard ;-) 

     Frankly, you miss my point. I'm not talking about the viability of a
Neuron (or anything that would similarly use physical models) versus a
sampler for making realistic approximations of existing instruments. I'm
talking about using other methods to get the same end sonic result the
Neuron so far demonstrated it will produce. This same sonic result is
highly reminiscent of late 80's sample+synthesis instruments. If this is a
good sound is not being debated. If you prefer using the Neuron to get this
sound rather than other devices/methods to get the same sound is also not
being debated. What IS being debated is the reality versus hype of the
method the Neuron uses to achieve it's sounds, when other methods that have
already existed can get the same type of sounds with a great deal less
expense.
    
> Same goes for those who
> love FM or Formants or Additive for how those methods can go beyond a
> sampler.  If someone doesn't see a synth for its particular strengths (and
> weaknesses) then they're probably better off sticking with a
sampler/rompler
> IMO.  Now whether its worth the $4500 - that's a call for each person to
> make.  It is for me so far.

     Ostensibly, the hope of new synthesis methods is to yield new types of
sounds, new types of sounds to more effectively move the emotions of the
people who will hear your music. People listening to your music won't care
how you made the sound, they will only care about the sound. Will the
average music lover hear the difference between a Neuron and a D50?
Probably not. Will the average music lover hear the difference between a
DX7 versus a K5000 or Casio CZ-101? Again, probably not. Different methods,
but the same types of sounds. Will the average music lover hear the
difference between a Prophet 5 and a Neuron? In this case, they probably
will...different methods AND different types of sounds. So, if as a
synthesist (or any other type of musician) you look at it differently than
that, you're cheating yourself. Which is why I ask, is Hartmann cheating
synthesist into thinking the Neuron can make new unheard-of sounds, when
really it only uses a new method to achieve a family of sounds we've
already been hearing, regardless of how they're made? My opinion is yes.
Obviously you disagree and you certainly have a right to hold your own
different opinion, but it's very small-minded and pompous of you to somehow
think your opinion more viable or closer to absolute truth than anyone
elses, as you obviously seem to in at least this case.   

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FasT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
"Speed kills but beauty lives forever. Speed thrills but beauty knows your
name."
 - BC