On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:27 PM, John Lato <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Evan Laforge <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I should have mentioned Pianoteq back there as an exception to "no >> interesting physical models since the '90s" thing. But it's pretty >> specialized, and since it's proprietary who knows what they're doing >> in there anyway. > > I always assumed it was a very well-tuned waveguide model. But I haven't > actually used it myself.
Yeah, they have some other stuff going on too, with sympathetic resonance. It might be a separate technique because when they changed algorithms, pitch bend affects the string but not the resonance, which sounds quite strange. I believe they have mentioned that they have more accurate models but don't use them for fear of no longer being realtime. > My results are better than that. The most complex systems I've run so far > are about 3:1 with my code, although Matlab is slower than that by orders of > magnitude. Simpler stuff is generally closer to 1:2. Of course real-time is always more convenient, but 3:1 sounds pretty good already. >> It seems like it should be possible to get speedups with parallelism as >> well. > > Not as easily as you might expect, unfortunately. More precisely, the most > interesting systems are those in which options for parallelism are most > limited due to non-linear effects. Well, how about multiple strings, coupled through a soundpost and the air? Would it be naive to run each string on its own processor? I suppose if it gets the sympathy through a sample stream then you've got at least a one sample delay which might be enough to mess things up... >> I've seen lots of percussion and woodwind models, but bowed strings >> are conspicuously absent. Is there something particularly hard about >> it? > > Yes and no. Bowed strings are easily modeled with waveguides driven by > sawtooth waves. In fact, many plucked string models will work pretty well > if you just change the driver from an impulse to a sawtooth. I think that's > why bowed strings are mostly absent, intellectually they aren't as > interesting as other problems. Of course generating a true-to-life sound > requires a significant investment of time tweaking your model (and driving > signal) precisely. Indeed. One of the things I'm trying to do is make it easier to drive instruments in complex ways, which could wind up being something like "bow synthesis". I think most of the promise in physical modeling is not imitating specific instruments, but making something interesting and organic sounding, like it *could* be a real instrument. A lot of the burden of that is on giving it interesting control data. > I have some hope that I'll be able to release it relatively soon. Looking forward to it! _______________________________________________ haskell-art mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lurk.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-art
