[A6] RE: Neuron (ot)

[F.A.S. Truhan III]

> 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.

     Gigastudio softsampler, and play it with a MIDI windcontroller. Done.
 
> 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.

     No problem, everyone has tools they prefer or that work better for
them.
 
> >      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.

     One can cross-fade (via pressure, afterouch, LFO, whatever)
unprocessed sample layers into layers of the same sample that have been
re-sampled after odd processing, as far as jury-rigging real time. Then
there's always realtime filtering of different types on each layer if you
want, I see you have an Emu E5000 you're getting rid of so I'm sure you see
what I mean as far as a sampler with great synth/filtering/modulation
abilities. 
      
> 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. 

     Or it tells you that you're not as good at using samplers as others
may be, it all depends on how arrogantly you choose to look at it.

> 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.)

    If you want go that far with it, get a good sax player to listen your
physical modeling results and my sampling results, and chances are he'll
laugh at both of us for thinking our results are realistic enough. Same
would hold true for most owners of real analogue versus VA I would imagine.
 
> >      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.

     Your understanding and grasp being your opinion, which you can't seem
to understand is only your opinion and not gospel. We understand your
opinion is that physical modeling is better than sampling. If it works
better for you, then fine. But saying that other people who prefer sampling
for the same uses are less discriminating or have less nuanced hearing
(which you did plainly imply), you are implying your opinion is more valid
than others.  
 
> 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.

     The end result sound is all that matters. If all the Hartmann
employees who made patches and/or demoed it at shows, as well as everyone
who's played/programmed it themselves seem to be getting the same range of
sounds, it's a good bet that's pretty much what it can do. It's possible
someone, somewhere can create drastically impressive sounds that are
dramatically different than what has thus far been heard, but it's
unlikely. 
 
> >      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...

     No. I quite clearly stated that as my opinion about two sentences
later.
 
> > 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?

     If you can make a variety of sounds on a Neuron that cannot be
produced by samplers or sample+synthesis style instruments, then yes I
would be proven incorrect and my opinion would be adjusted accordingly.
 
> > 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

     When you make statement such as this previous one of yours: "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...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.", you quite clearly state your contempt for those
whose opinions differ from yours, implying yourself to be a higher "class
of synthesist" and presenting your opinions as more valuable than those of
whom you disagree with. Since you made a number of similarly arrogant
statements in your last response implying that those who don't agree with
you have both feeble skills/hearing and a lesser standard of "good enough",
a clear pattern of self-conceit is evident. No paranoia involved, merely
reading comprehension enabling one to see through your thinly-veiled
insults/statements of imagined superiority.     

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