[A6] RE: Neuron (ot)

[Rhen, Kris]

>      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. 

Not the same.  Have you used a Z1 (I see below you have)?  We're talking
nuances here in the model.  I suppose if you sampled every possible level of
pressure of breath on a saxophone, multiplied by every tongue position, and
every sax body type, and every reed type yadda yadda, you might be able to
use a sampler to do what a physical model can, but I don't think any sampler
has that much ram :-)  So yes I guess you would be able to do the same thing
as a modeled synth with a sampler IF we were only talking about a REAL
PHYSICAL instrument *AND* IF you had a sampler with near infinite harddrive
space, ram, and horsepower.  However, with the Neuron, we're one step beyond
it in that the models AREN'T limited to real physical instruments.

>      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 

I disagree, because its the very nuances of playing that the phys model is
designed to reproduce, whereas samplers are meant to play back samples.  To
capture all the nuances you'd have to sample every possible set.  Now I KNOW
that this is the extreme, and to get realistic sounding samples is possible,
but you have to take a 'good enough' approach.  Sure that can be sufficient,
BUT I've used samplers with excellent samplesets and Z1 and Prophecy and
there's still a 'sample-icity' to the sampled versions.  My take.

> 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.

Ah but there you're wrong.  Samples ARE digital approximations as I've
shown.  Otherwise you'd need fourteen million samples crossfaded in many
many multiple dimensions to recreate what a physical model does.  True, your
music might not NEED that level of nuance, but therein lies the
approximation and the acceptance of 'good enough'

>      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.

Depends on your definition of 'mangle'.  Realtime mangle - maybe not.
Mangle in ways beyond complex crossfades - no.  Taking a basic sound and
turning it into something else - pretty much anything that works with raw
samples can do that with the appropriate digital processing.

>      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.  

Well, as I said, this tells me your 'good enough' would be different than
mine when, say, wanting to put a realistic sax in your mix, but that's fair
enough.  Same argument goes for why many love real analogs over VAs or
sampled analogs - its the nuances, some so infinitessimal they can't be
heard but only perceived (drift, fluctuations in analog circuits that can't
hardly be modeled with today's technology, etc.)

> > - 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.
> 
>      You're also making a dangerous habit of stating your 
> opinion as fact when it is only your opinion.

No I'm explaining my understanding and grasp on it.  Sorry if you've taken
it otherwise.

> >  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 
(SNIP)
> 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.

Frankly, until you use one somewhere other than a busy loud tradeshow I find
it hard to feel you have a real basis to make any sort of comparison, going
on some mediocre MP3s, a few minutes listening to presets, and some
not-hands-on understanding.  I guess you can believe that if you'd like.

>      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 

Sounds like you've got a bit of that "You're also making a dangerous habit
of stating your opinion as fact when it is only your opinion" going on there
vamp...

> 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.

So the real test here of your logic would be if I made a sound on my Neuron
and you couldn't reproduce it on your samplers, then you'd be wrong correct?

> 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.   

Back at ya Vamp.  I'm just explaining things as I understand them.  Just
because I disagree with you doesn't mean my opinions are closer to truth
than yours - just that those are MY opinions I'm presenting.  Get over it
pal.  Paranoia is small minded.  The world's not out to get ya... sheesh
KRIS