On Feb 7, 2011, at 6:54 PM, Tom Wiltshire wrote:
On 7 Feb 2011, at 20:54, Andy Farnell wrote:
Do a search on "Yamaha Patent FM". Does that look like a
widespread interpretation that is clear and unambiguous to you?
My argument is simple at this point. Development was stifled.
This is an interesting case to try and make. Trying to think of
other synths that used FM from the era of the Yamaha/Stanford
patent, I came up with:
Synclavier
Casio CZ series, VZ series
ConBrio ADS
These synths all clearly have "FM" sound-producing facilities, and
were all developed independently from Yamaha/Stanford.
not so, regarding the Synclav.
New England Digital got licensing rights to FM before Yamaha bought
exclusive rights to it from Stanford.
Does three other manufacturers working in the area constitute
"stifled development"? In my view, it probably still does. The DX7
was a game-changing product, and many (mostly American)
manufacturers went to the wall when they found they couldn't
compete. That said, Sequential came up with "vector
synthesis" (which they might not have done if they could have made a
copycat me-too FM synth).
the Prophet VS is, essentially, a wavetable synth that can sorta
arbitrarily mix 4 independent wavetables. wavetable synthesis (with
enough wavetables) can produce any quasi-periodic tone and if the FM
carrier and modulation frequencies are both integer multiples of some
common fundamental, then it's periodic and wavetable synthesis can do
that, too. you just have to pre-define the wavetables.
--
r b-j r...@audioimagination.com
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
--
dupswapdrop -- the music-dsp mailing list and website:
subscription info, FAQ, source code archive, list archive, book reviews, dsp
links
http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/music-dsp
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/music-dsp
