[A6] A vs D?

[Dave Scrimenti]

It does improve a digital sound to program randomness in to it. But since we
don't really understand all the variables, it doesn't quite live up to the
real thing. And it takes a lot more work. Harmonic content refers to the
type not the number of harmonics. Overdriving analog tape or a tube amp
sounds great. But even a couple of clips on a digital recording sound
terrible. This is because of the different kinds of harmonics (noise) that
are produced. As was pointed out in another note, digital isn't continuous.
44,000 seems like a lot, but we can still hear the difference with higher
sampling rates. There will come a point when we can't hear the difference,
but we're not there yet. Florescent lights seem continuous, but they're not.
That's why people get tired quicker with them. You're not consciously aware
of it, but you're physically reacting to every one of those on-off switches.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ioannis Kazlaris" <ikazlar at yahoo.com>
To: <a6 at code404.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 1:26 AM
Subject: [A6] A vs D?


> Hi list,
>
> In a sound design context, an organic sound is so called because it
contains elements within that evolve without being predetermined by its
programmer, noise modulation aside this is the purest way it can be
explained,
>
> >>> Well, randomness can be easily programmed in digital synthesizers. For
instance some noise leakage to the VCOs or VCFs, inermodulation between the
two, non-linear curves, 1-pole lowpass filters to emulate coupling
capacitors...blah, blah
>
> the term organic can also be applied to the way in which a musician
sequences (plays) the audible notes as it is the human element that is
looked upon as organic, the word organic being used loosely to describe
something that resembles the signature of something living / created by a
living organism.
>
> >>> same things apply whether it's sound design or music performance we
are talking about
>
> The term "fat" applies to the texture / richness of the sound and can
apply to almost all types of audible signal as it is largely the harmonic
content that dictates the perceived fatness of a sound source.
>
> >>> The harmonic content dictates the perceived fatness? Do you mean the
more frequencies the more "phatt"? Well, white noise has all frequencies of
the spectrum, so do you consider noise to be fat?
>
> Often due to the purity the unbroken waveform produced by an analogue
oscillation analogue synths can sound naturally richer to the ear or in my
own terminology I would describe their sound as more solid sounding.
>
> >>> Do you consider a continuous signal as rich? If so, with a sampling
rate of 44.1KHz a signal is sampled 44100 times a second. This seems
continuous to me, lest we mention higher sampling rates. So, at one point or
another our pure analog signal is going to hit the AD converters, and the
continuity is gone.
>
> Yannis
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
> _______________________________________________
> A6 mailing list
> A6 at code404.com
> http://code404.com/mailman/listinfo/a6
>