Hi Nick,
Sounds interesting, but also rather vague. What was the base waveform, the cutoff freq, the quality factor, the kind of internal filter distorsion? If the differences between Moog and Chamberlin are
subtle, then Moog isn't worth its extra CPU cycles.
'Warmth' depends on the lower harmonics. If you are aiming for warmth then start with a base signal with more lower harmonics, e.g. a square wave i.s.o. a pulse. Also equalizing and a suitable
amplifier are important. And the ultimate way to get warmth is to add a small amount of 1/2 or 2/3 harmonics. In software this is easy, for real instruments it's impossible!
W.Boeke
On 09/01/2014 11:53 AM, Nick wrote:
> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:35:25 +0100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [LAD] Software sound
>
> an interesting question might be: do you
> hear a difference between a Moog- and a Chamberlain filter? And if the answer
is yes, then isn't there a simpler way to reach the desired result?
Yes, you definitely hear the difference between these two algorithms. The best
way I could describe the difference would be 'warmth', 'character.'
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
