> Le 7 août 2017 à 13:56, cyrille henry <c...@chnry.net> a écrit :
> hello,
> I had a look at a modalys-help.pd file. It appear that modalys is not 
> implemented as a pd abstraction, but as a compiled object. I may be wrong, 
> but I think this object use modalys file that define all material / shape / 
> exitator / etc. So it's quite useless without the full modalys software.
> anyway, in order to add my piece of answer to the original question:
> about 20 years ago I  made my master degree about a bow / string interaction 
> using a fake motorized bow and a virtual string.
> 2 different strings where implemented :
> -The 1st sting was made using virtual 1D mass, spring and damper in a linear 
> arrangement, just like a spacial discretisation of a real string. This result 
> of incorrect tuning of high harmonics of the virtual string (regarding a real 
> string)
> -The 2nd string was made using something also named "modal synthesis" (but 
> very different from modalys) : it was "just" mass/spring/damper 1D resonator 
> connected together, a bit like the paper initially send in this thread.
> Since modalys use matrices, I guess that it use more complex interaction 
> between elements than a simple spring/damper interaction like I use to do. 
> This result in being able to also simulate the shape of the vibrating 
> structure.

There is a gap between mass spring modeling and modal synthesis with results 
from the mathematical formalization of the vibration phenomenon : to be short, 
modal synthesis shifts towards an « abstract » representation of vibrating 
structures which is general and applies to any vibrating object, mechanical or 
This formalization considers that a vibrating structure is a set of vibrating 
modes which are associated to a vibration frequency and a mode deformation 
Any vibrating deformation is thus computed as the infinite sum of elementary 
(modal) deformations. This applies obviously to mass/ spring, to strings and … 
to anything more complex.
This formalization is well known in maths (since 200 years or so), and used in 
the industry since 60 years or so (for vibrations in trains, boats or bridges, 
means large vibrating structures too complex to model with finite elements), 
but was at first used for sound synthesis at IRCAM at the end of the eighties 
as far as i know.

The advantage of seeing things this way is that
- on one hand you process in time domain, which allows the computation of 
natural transients in complex musical situations (things impossible or very 
difficult with other sound synthesis methods). Means you compute the 
displacement in time domain of significant points (eg contact points and sound 
pickup points). To achieve this, you simply program gestures on exciters 
structures, and you obtain the corresponding complex sound.
- on the other hand you keep an eye on the frequency domain which is very 
important in the musical perspective, because freqs are part of the 

Lastly, because the formalization is general, you are not « structure and 
device design dependent » like you’re are for instance with finite elements of 
with klarplus strong, and , as a result, you can work and program in a general 
abstract way, and use interpolation and dynamic evolution (mapping) of 
vibrating structures on the fly.
Mathematically, this boils down in a matrix equation to be solved at sample 
rate, (means matrix inversion) the dimension of the matrix depending on the 
number of interactions between vibrating structures.
If the structure is stable, you invert the matrix once and that’s it. If things 
change (vibrato), you invert the matrix each time step.
On the top of the software, you have vibrating structures (tubes / rods / 
plates / strings / membranes etc…), software to produce modal data from 
physical parameters (size, density etc) and a menu of excitation types (hit, 
blow, air jet, reed, double reed, glue, etc..) which connect the vibrating 
structures together (exciters such as hammers, bows and fingers being also 
vibrating structures).
You pick up the multi channel sound where you want on the vibrating structures.
Making sound is then assembling structures, and driving exciters with gestures, 
just like you manipulate your bow and left hand fingers on a violin.

I will try to find my PHD dissertation (it was saved on micro film !) which 
explains all this with multiple details, and from which the Missing Link 
publication is a short summary. Because the PHD stuff is kind of official, 
there is a good chance i can find the text somewhere. Of course i do not have 
any sample of this text at home (i have to search) and even less a pdf, the 
dissertation was typed on a VAX mainframe connected to a Versatec with an 
archeological text editor whose name i do not even remember (no-one remembers 
though … maybe Miller… what was the name of the text editor  ? :) 

> Anyway, about 15 years ago I start the pmpd library (physical modelling for 
> pure data) that provide simple mass / spring / damper simulation. The pmpd~ 
> object allow this kind of simulation at audio rate. There is an example of 
> the 1st kind of string simulation. The 2nd string can also be implemented 
> thanks to this object, but I did not provide any example since I miss the way 
> to tune the model.
> pmpd~ provide only simple interaction, so I don't use it any-more. I use the 
> pmpd object that is lot's more complex (but works only at data rate) and a 
> simple hack to compute audio data. There is also an example in the library 
> distribution.
> if you are interested, you can try pmpd using apt-get or deken on linux. I 
> know that Nicolas Montgermont compile pmpd for osX, so a recent binary exist 
> somewhere. I have no idea about recent build for windows.
> cheers
> C
> Le 06/08/2017 à 21:58, Jean-Marie Adrien a écrit :
>> would be great if it would be in pd abstractions !
>> everything is in the paper though, you are right, and the method is 
>> incredibly powerful, so the project was in that time to control it with 
>> gestures data bases and artificial intelligence and so on, all of this being 
>> existing now, not speaking about multi channel sound diffusion etc.
>> I was disappointed when, after having developed the method at IRCAM, i 
>> discovered (and had to pay for it though) some ten years ago the actual 
>> modalys thing that was kind of retro engineered after i left IRCAM, from the 
>> big C++ initial software with was developed between 1984 and 89.
>> The math is not so complex, it is just a matrix equation incremented step by 
>> step, and very straightforward and intuitive discontinuities in time domain 
>> which correspond to straightforward updates of the matrix, resulting for 
>> instance from contact between objects and other intuitive events.
>> If you simplify the maths, it will probably become more complex i’d say, and 
>> you will probably hear it, because time domain sound synthesis is quite 
>> sensitive.
>> On the same line, one advantage of modal synthesis is that you can achieve 
>> impossible physical excitations on imaginary structures, and interpolate 
>> between all this, having transient sounds and articulations, but even with 
>> the full math though, you could hear in that case that you were sort of 
>> tearing the equations, which corresponds to the fact that there is no 
>> existing physical gesture which you could refer to when exploring impossible 
>> configurations.
>> Math simplification is what happened probably when the available pd modalys 
>> software was achieved : i was disappointed by this tool and rarely use it.
>> Another application has been developed by Apple in Logic with the "sculpture 
>> » plugin : it is very much main stream, they probably make money with it and 
>> Im still poor. Bref.
>> I’d love the true vintage thing on pd now : it is just implementing a matrix 
>> equation with updates conditions.
>> The point is that, thirty years later, i do not understand anymore a single 
>> line in C++, although I’ve written many thousands of lines.
>> Hmm. I dont believe it myself, how is this even possible ?  But i remember 
>> very well the principles. Id be happy to help if i can anyway.
>> jm
>>> Le 6 août 2017 à 16:50, Jesse Mejia <jme...@anestheticaudio.com> a écrit :
>>> Yes - I mentioned Ircam's Modalys and that  paper in my initial post. 
>>> Because modal synthesis is so well known, and well documented, I'm 
>>> surprised there isn't a similar (but free!) pd implementation. Something 
>>> with abstractions instead of externals would be great.
>>> So let's make one. I know it's a bank of resonant bandpasses, but working 
>>> out their relationships based on the modal characteristics of physical 
>>> shapes seems to be key, and abstracting those relationships to friendly 
>>> controls.
>>> The math in the papers is a bit beyond me but it looks like it's all there. 
>>> I can't tell by looking at it if it's something that would be too 
>>> hard/annoying to do with vanilla.. or if it's describable in a less math 
>>> heavy way.
>>> Alex - newly compiled versions of the stk would be great! I tried and 
>>> failed at that about a year ago. But the faust implementations compile well 
>>> from faust to pd.
>>>> On Aug 6, 2017, at 3:24 AM, cyrille henry <c...@chnry.net> wrote:
>>>>> :)
>>>>> indeed and i had myself to _pay_ for it, which is something that probably 
>>>>> illustrates the "élégance à la française"
>>>>> jm
>>>> I did not encourage piracy, but since pd patch can't be protected I guess 
>>>> that an anonymous source could leak the files without any trouble.
>>>> cheers
>>>> c
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 
>>> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list

Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> 

Reply via email to