Sorry, meant to CC the list, but did BCC by mistake. On 10 June 2011 08:15, Veronica Merryfield <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2011-06-09, at 3:37 PM, James Morris wrote: > >> But are the two really so different? They both do exactly the same >> thing except one does it with synthesised waveforms and the other does >> it with sampled waveforms. From thinking about the fact that most soft >> synths use wave-tables, it can't be that difficult to put a sample in >> there? Aside from synthesised waveform and sampled waveform, I think >> (but don't quote me on this :-) that it is perhaps only certain >> conventions which distinguish the two. > > A sampler uses a range of samples over the note range that provide an entire > note duration of waveforms. The sampler may have functions to insert looping > points and may have timbre modification mechanisms, but it boils down to > reproducing a sound. > > A synthesiser may have a waveform held as a sample, but it is only enough to > reproduce one cycle of that sound. The timbre of that synthesised sound has > to come from timbre control and modification mechanisms if one wants > something more sophisticated than an on/off of a waveform. Granted, these > waveforms may be quite complex but that are not the same as a full note > sample. > > There are synths out there that do hybrid the two methods to some success.
Yes, a hybrid is what I'm thinking about I suppose. And probably what I really mean is granular synthesis - which is just sampling after all, just with a different time scale. Oh well... James. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
