Rolf,
My tuppence worth ;)
I think where FPGAs score is in their ability to do lots of things at
once, something not possible with a CPU or DSP. So going from Mono to
poly is often quite simply a copy/paste (ok, I'm over simplifying it).
I 100% agree about off loading stuff like USB and MIDI to a CPU, which
is where the ZinQ and Cyclone SoC range really come into their own.
The main advantage over softsynths (like VSTs, etc) is that musicians
prefer a "tactile" surface rather than a keyboard/mouse when "playing".
Though I know a lot of composers (including film composers) who prefer
scoring using VSTs.
I also agree that MIDI is now at a stage where it's not adequate to
meet the demands of modern synths (VST, DSP, FPGA, or otherwise). Yes
you can use NRPNs and Yes OSC exists, but noether of these are widely
used. There are rumours about a MIDI V2, though I suspect that's a long
way away from being ratified and set in stone.
So in short, I think FPGAs have lots to offer, but I also believe that
DSP/CPUs have plenty more to offer too.
Paula
On 2018-07-24 15:59, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello Theo
>
> the word "hip" regarding FPGA seems to be a good hint. In several music
> groups the new music machines are discussed heavily. In terms analog
> modelling and recreating these formerly analog machines we know the digital
> way. At the first sight FPGAs are consequent descision what me and others
> doing such designs in professional business have a clear view on design
> speed, cost, amount of work and in many cases FPGAs are not acceptable and
> totally fail in comparison to DSPs. Yes, FPGAs have become cheaper and more
> powerfull in the recent decade and so did DSPs and CPUs too. If you look and
> todays options with multi core CPUs and GPUs, VSTs could take advantage off,
> i hardly see cases where FPGAs can do well.
>
> I tried FPGA sound synthesis myself and also completed some designs, but
> found that MIDI treatment is better hosted in the softcore part or in a hard
> core like in Cyclone V's ARM architecture. A 600MHz ARM design does all
> required for MIDI rapidly and totally sufficient. The same is with USB.
> Writing an USB core in FPGA is no fun I can tell you and is also better donw
> in a CPU / MCU architecture. Things like changes, new requirements, testing
> and simulation is much easier and can be done in the CPU / PC domain. We have
> sandboxes, testboxes, trigger cases all available in Python and CC+Libs ready
> for usage. And they can be accesses by any person for free. FPGA high tech
> development and simulation requires a profesional license when you want to do
> it effectively.
>
> What should be discussed regarding MIDI and accurate timing is things like
> channel handling and controllers. Todays synthesis units and VSTs have tons
> of parameters and MIDI does not really support this. It is already a hazzle
> to join 2 or more controllers to have 16 channels to control a DAW and add a
> third one to run the tunes. Synchronisation is an issue too.
>
> Rolf
>
> GESENDET: Sonntag, 22. Juli 2018 um 22:21 Uhr
> VON: "Theo Verelst" <[email protected]>
> AN: "A discussion list for music-related DSP" <[email protected]>
> BETREFF: [music-dsp] Creating new sound synthesis equipment
> Hi DSPers,
>
> I would like to reflect a bit about creating (primarily music) synthesis
> machines,
> or possibly software, as sort of talking about a dream that has been of some
> people
> since let's say the first (mainly analog!) Moogs in the 60s. What is that
> idea of
> creating a nice piece of electronic equipment to create blips and mieaauuws,
> thundering basses, imitation instruments, and as recently has "relived" all
> kinds
> of more or less exciting new sounds that maybe have never been used in music
> before.
> As for some it's like a designer's dream to create exactly the sound they
> have in
> mind for a piece of musique concrète, for others it's maybe to compensate for
> their
> lack of compositional skills or musical instrument training, so that somehow
> through
> the use of one of those cool synthetic sounds they may express something which
> otherwise would be doomed to stay hidden, and unknown.
>
> Digital computer programs for sound synthesis in some sense are thought to
> take
> over from the analog devices and the digital sound synthesis machines like
> "ROMplers"
> and analog synthesizer simulations. It's not true this has become the
> decisive reality
> thus far: there's quite a renewed interest in those wonderful analog
> synthesis sounds,
> various manufacturers recreate old ones, and some advanced ones make new
> ones, too.
> Even though it is realistic that most folks at home will undoubtedly listen
> most of the
> time to digital music sources, at the same time there's a lot of effort still
> in the
> analog domain, and obviously a lot of attempts at processing digital sound in
> order
> to achieve a certain target quality or coolness of sound or something else ?
>
> Recently there's been a number of interesting combinations of analog and
> digital processing as well as specific digital simulation machines (of
> analogue
> type of sound synthesis) like the Prophets (DSI), The Valkyrie (Waldorf
> "Kyrie" IIRC)
> based on FPGA high sampling frequency digital waveform synthesis and some
> others.
>
> Myself I've done a Open Source hard- AND software digital synthesizer design
> based on
> a DSP ( http://www.theover.org/Synth ) over a decade ago, before this all was
> considered
> the hip, and I have to say there's still good reason for hardware over
> software synthesis,
> while I of course can understand it is likely computers will get better and
> better at producing quality synthesis software. At the time I made my design,
> I liked to
> try out the limits I liked as a musician, such as extremely low, and very
> stable latency
> (one audio sample, with accurate timed Midi message reading in programmable
> logic)
> straight signal path (no "Xruns" ever, no missed samples or re-sampling ever,
> no multi
> processing quirks, etc). My experience is that a lot of people just want to
> mess around
> with audio synthesizers in a box! They like sounds and turning some knobs,
> and if a
> special chip gives better sound, for instance because of higher processing
> potential
> than a standard processor, they like that too, as well as absence of strange
> software
> sound- and control-interface latency.
>
> I'm very sure there are a lot of corners being cut in many digital processing
> based
> synthesis products, even if the makers aren't too aware, for instance related
> to sample
> reconstruction reality compared with idealized design theories as well as a
> hope for
> congruency between the Z transform with a proper Hilbert transform, which is
> unfortunately
> a fairy tale. It is possible to create much better sounding synthesis in the
> digital
> domain, but it's still going to demand a lot of processing power, so people
> interested in
> FPGA acceleration, parallel software, supercomputing, etc, might well have a
> hobby for
> quite a while to come, in spite of all kinds of adds about music software
> suggesting
> perfection is in reach!
>
> Theo V
> _______________________________________________
> dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
>
> _______________________________________________
> dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
_______________________________________________
dupswapdrop: music-dsp mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
