Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
We don't have the or a/an in the Finnish language Anyone remember the band The The? Probably not in Finland. ;-) Steven Cook. -- From: Olli Niemitalo o...@iki.fi Sent: Monday, January 16, 2012 6:56 PM To: A discussion list for music-related DSP music-dsp@music.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia? No, it was my doing that the paragraphs had the synth name as their first word(s). We don't have the or a/an in the Finnish language, so I'm not always sure if they are needed, like in front of names (of synthesizers) here. But I'm going to claim that most of that text looked even worse before. :-) -olli On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com wrote: On 1/16/12 1:16 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote: Nice improvements. This may seem like nitpicking, but the Timeline of additive synthesizers section seems to choose keeping the instrument name as the start of the sentence over proper grammar. For instance: Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses nine drawbars to mix several harmonics, which are generated by a set of tonewheels. This should either read The Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses... or something like Hammond organ—invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... or Hammond organ: Invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... (Note that one entry, EMS Digital Oscillator Bank (DOB) and Analysing Filter Bank: According to..., does it this way already.) You have enough cooks working on that page right now, so I'd rather leave it up to you guys what route you go. But if you use a sentence, it should read like one. well, there is evidence that Clusternote is from Japan. dunno if these sentences were written by him. i wouldn't discourage you from editing at all. L8r, -- 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 -- 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 -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 1/16/12 1:16 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote: Nice improvements. This may seem like nitpicking, but the Timeline of additive synthesizers section seems to choose keeping the instrument name as the start of the sentence over proper grammar. For instance: Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses nine drawbars to mix several harmonics, which are generated by a set of tonewheels. This should either read The Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses... or something like Hammond organ—invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... or Hammond organ: Invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... (Note that one entry, EMS Digital Oscillator Bank (DOB) and Analysing Filter Bank: According to..., does it this way already.) You have enough cooks working on that page right now, so I'd rather leave it up to you guys what route you go. But if you use a sentence, it should read like one. well, there is evidence that Clusternote is from Japan. dunno if these sentences were written by him. i wouldn't discourage you from editing at all. L8r, -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
I'd like to say well done to everyone who has edited this so far, it looks massively better :) -Original Message- From: music-dsp-boun...@music.columbia.edu [mailto:music-dsp-boun...@music.columbia.edu] On Behalf Of robert bristow-johnson Sent: 16 January 2012 16:16 To: music-dsp@music.columbia.edu Subject: Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia? On 1/16/12 1:16 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote: Nice improvements. This may seem like nitpicking, but the Timeline of additive synthesizers section seems to choose keeping the instrument name as the start of the sentence over proper grammar. For instance: Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses nine drawbars to mix several harmonics, which are generated by a set of tonewheels. This should either read The Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses... or something like Hammond organ-invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... or Hammond organ: Invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... (Note that one entry, EMS Digital Oscillator Bank (DOB) and Analysing Filter Bank: According to..., does it this way already.) You have enough cooks working on that page right now, so I'd rather leave it up to you guys what route you go. But if you use a sentence, it should read like one. well, there is evidence that Clusternote is from Japan. dunno if these sentences were written by him. i wouldn't discourage you from editing at all. L8r, -- 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 -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
No, it was my doing that the paragraphs had the synth name as their first word(s). We don't have the or a/an in the Finnish language, so I'm not always sure if they are needed, like in front of names (of synthesizers) here. But I'm going to claim that most of that text looked even worse before. :-) -olli On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com wrote: On 1/16/12 1:16 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote: Nice improvements. This may seem like nitpicking, but the Timeline of additive synthesizers section seems to choose keeping the instrument name as the start of the sentence over proper grammar. For instance: Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses nine drawbars to mix several harmonics, which are generated by a set of tonewheels. This should either read The Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses... or something like Hammond organ—invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... or Hammond organ: Invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... (Note that one entry, EMS Digital Oscillator Bank (DOB) and Analysing Filter Bank: According to..., does it this way already.) You have enough cooks working on that page right now, so I'd rather leave it up to you guys what route you go. But if you use a sentence, it should read like one. well, there is evidence that Clusternote is from Japan. dunno if these sentences were written by him. i wouldn't discourage you from editing at all. L8r, -- 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 -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
I agree Olli—it was much worst before—the article was painful to read. (And as I said, this is nitpicking.) There's nothing wrong with have just the name first—it just needs a bit of change to keep it that way and make it grammatically correct. I didn't change it right away when I read it because I, too, liked the device name first, but wanted to think about whether it was worth making a bigger change (compared with simply prefacing with The). I'm working late so will take another look when I have time to think, but I'm leaning towards using an em-dash (—) over a colon (mostly for visual reasons in that context). I might have time to deal with it tomorrow night. On Jan 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Olli Niemitalo wrote: No, it was my doing that the paragraphs had the synth name as their first word(s). We don't have the or a/an in the Finnish language, so I'm not always sure if they are needed, like in front of names (of synthesizers) here. But I'm going to claim that most of that text looked even worse before. :-) -olli On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson r...@audioimagination.com wrote: On 1/16/12 1:16 AM, Nigel Redmon wrote: Nice improvements. This may seem like nitpicking, but the Timeline of additive synthesizers section seems to choose keeping the instrument name as the start of the sentence over proper grammar. For instance: Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses nine drawbars to mix several harmonics, which are generated by a set of tonewheels. This should either read The Hammond organ, invented in 1934[26], is an electronic organ that uses... or something like Hammond organ—invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... or Hammond organ: Invented in 1934[26], the Hammond organ is an electronic organ that uses... (Note that one entry, EMS Digital Oscillator Bank (DOB) and Analysing Filter Bank: According to..., does it this way already.) You have enough cooks working on that page right now, so I'd rather leave it up to you guys what route you go. But if you use a sentence, it should read like one. well, there is evidence that Clusternote is from Japan. dunno if these sentences were written by him. i wouldn't discourage you from editing at all. L8r, -- 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 -- 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 -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
hey, i appreciate the help from folks here (namely Olli and Ross) dropping in on that Wikipedia article, now that it has been released from protection. please don't go away, there is lotsa stuff to do and we have time to do it. it appears that this editor who wanted to rewrite everything according to his understanding is now holding off now that he/she sees that there are other people involved besides this IP that he didn't feel he needed to pay any heed to. i wouldn't mind if, from the community here, if the whole thing gets rewritten, including the math. but i would like to see knowledgeable people do it that also can listen. so don't leave it alone, it's a little early for that. but thanks for the attention and help. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 11/01/12 06:45, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Just to get my fingertips wet again, I fixed something trivial that I had commented on
over two years ago: One of the simplest things you could imagine, an article on the while
loop construct in programming. There were examples in many computer languages, but a writer
obviously had a special love for Perl—he gave the expected example, then showed that with
***Perl*** you could write a compact one-line version, unlike C and C++. First thing is it's
idiotic to show off terse programming skills, giving a hard-to-read version, in an article designed
to give newbies an explanation of one of the most basic programming structures.
That original writer was correct, although it's not so much that you can
write on one line, but that statements support statement modifiers
such as while or for. This is a single statement:
$factorial *= $counter-- while $counter 0;
and as such is not the same as this:
while($counter 0) { $factorial *= $counter-- }
Sure, you'll get the same answer, but it compiles differently (see perl
-MO=Concise output), lexical scoping rules are different, and you can't
have multiple statement modifiers, so while(Y) { while(X) { ... } } has
no ... while X while Y; equivalent. The postfix-while/for/etc. idiom is
common enough in Perl code to warrant inclusion here precisely *because*
it's not something you can do in C/C++.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn.html#Statement-Modifiers
Oh, yeah, that and the fact it was totally wrong—of course you can do the same
one-liner while loop in C/C++.
No, you can't - at least the last time I checked neither C nor C++
support statement modifiers. Sure, you can write while(counter 0)
factorial *= counter++; but that's just not the same.
Tom
--
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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
Hi Tom,
The wikipedia entry was:
Very similar to C and C++, but the ''while loop'' could also have been written
on one line:
As I said, this implies that that it couldn't be done in one line in C/C++, and
it can. So, I'd say that the original writer was incorrect.
And again, so you think that a page introducing apparent newbie programmers to
the general concept of the while loop should be celebrating how compact it
can be in Perl (and not other languages? A separate article focusing on Perl,
perhaps yes, but it's out of place there.
Nigel
On Jan 11, 2012, at 4:25 AM, Tom Molesworth wrote:
On 11/01/12 06:45, Nigel Redmon wrote:
Just to get my fingertips wet again, I fixed something trivial that I had
commented on over two years ago: One of the simplest things you could
imagine, an article on the while loop construct in programming. There were
examples in many computer languages, but a writer obviously had a special
love for Perl—he gave the expected example, then showed that with ***Perl***
you could write a compact one-line version, unlike C and C++. First thing is
it's idiotic to show off terse programming skills, giving a hard-to-read
version, in an article designed to give newbies an explanation of one of the
most basic programming structures.
That original writer was correct, although it's not so much that you can
write on one line, but that statements support statement modifiers such as
while or for. This is a single statement:
$factorial *= $counter-- while $counter 0;
and as such is not the same as this:
while($counter 0) { $factorial *= $counter-- }
Sure, you'll get the same answer, but it compiles differently (see perl
-MO=Concise output), lexical scoping rules are different, and you can't have
multiple statement modifiers, so while(Y) { while(X) { ... } } has no ...
while X while Y; equivalent. The postfix-while/for/etc. idiom is common
enough in Perl code to warrant inclusion here precisely *because* it's not
something you can do in C/C++.
http://perldoc.perl.org/perlsyn.html#Statement-Modifiers
Oh, yeah, that and the fact it was totally wrong—of course you can do the
same one-liner while loop in C/C++.
No, you can't - at least the last time I checked neither C nor C++ support
statement modifiers. Sure, you can write while(counter 0) factorial *=
counter++; but that's just not the same.
Tom
--
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
--
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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On January 9, 2012 at 3:02:04 PM Veronica Merryfield veronica.merryfield@shaw.cawrote: The Synergy was also an FM machine and could do everything the DX-7 could do just it wasn't packaged or priced that way. I would say, in fact, that the Synergy was _primarily_ an FM machine. One of the enduring myths about it is that it depended on additive synthesis to achieve its sounds. While it _could_ sum the output of up to 16 of its 32 oscillators to form a note, few (if any) of the sounds provided for it actually did. Study of the available Synergy documentation reveals that most sounds used frequency modulation in large part (or, rather, the same phase modulation that Yamaha's DX synths used). Digital Keyboards called it Phase Modulation and Cancellation, the better to confuse it (intentionally) with the Synergy's method of amplitude control and thereby distance it from Yamaha's so-called FM. Despite having a better implementation of FM than the DX7 you needed a computer to program your own voices (a Kaypro II or equivalent CP/M machine). For this and other reasons the Synergy never was a real threat to Yamaha, so all of DK's worry was for not. FYI, this site is a treasure trove of information on the Synergy: http://users.ece.gatech.edu/lanterma/synergy/ -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 1/10/12 9:31 PM, Alen Koebel wrote: I get paid to write, so I'm no stranger to research. I have edited the work of others and had my work edited. Many here can say the same, I'm sure. With that background I have tried to edit articles on Wikipedia. IMO, Wikipedia is fundamentally a bad idea. Trying to rescue it is a fool's errand. It's a lost cause. Clusternote is just the tip of the iceberg. well, i think the tip was exposed long before Clusternote. Jimbo wants money to keep it going. I say, let it die. A minority opinion here, I'm sure. being a banned editor (for a scrape i had in 2006 and 2007 regarding the Intelligent design article), it might seem logical to agree with you here, but i hold more hope for it as a macroscopic project. there will always be articles that are shit and some articles will pass from good to bad and maybe some will pass the other way. but, to get some quick facts on many topics that are neither subtle nor controversial, WP can be very useful and promising. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On January 9, 2012 at 3:02:04 PM Veronica Merryfield veronica.merryfield@shaw.cawrote: My feel is that to make it right, it probably needs more than a bit of adjustment. If this is to be fixed, I think it needs to be an organized effort. I scan down the page and see all the things wrong: misinformation, disorganized presentation... how much of this stuff even needs to be in the article? As much as historical arcane synthesis trivia gets me off, I don't think it needs to make up the bulk of the article (even pretending for a moment that it's correct, organized and well written). It's a mess, and I'll break out in hives if I seriously consider doing something about it myself. I'd suggest a group effort, but the history and talk page hint at a total nightmare. Someone (hello!) has already had fun trying to fix it, and gotten the page locked. That Clusternote guy needs to release his death grip before any progress can be made. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 1/10/12 11:29 PM, Scott Nordlund wrote: On January 9, 2012 at 3:02:04 PM Veronica Merryfield veronica.merryfield@shaw.cawrote: My feel is that to make it right, it probably needs more than a bit of adjustment. If this is to be fixed, I think it needs to be an organized effort. I scan down the page and see all the things wrong: misinformation, disorganized presentation... how much of this stuff even needs to be in the article? As much as historical arcane synthesis trivia gets me off, I don't think it needs to make up the bulk of the article (even pretending for a moment that it's correct, organized and well written). It's a mess, and I'll break out in hives if I seriously consider doing something about it myself. I'd suggest a group effort, but the history and talk page hint at a total nightmare. Someone (hello!) has already had fun trying to fix it, and gotten the page locked. That Clusternote guy needs to release his death grip before any progress can be made. Scott, the place to initially engage is the talk page. whether you have a WP account or not (as long as your IP does not look so much like anyone elses) you can participate. if you *do* have a username, it would be better to use it, if you want to spend the capital. and you need to tell the admin (Charles Matthews) what you say above. Wikipedia is crappy enough. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
I've long treated wikipedia as a useful tool that I reference often, and trust about as far as I can throw the internet. That is, it's good for getting a quick look at many things, as long as you understand that anything that has the slightest chance of involving a point of view will be bias, and wrong in some manner. And this doesn't have to just be an obvious thing like, say, the definition of fascism (which you can guarantee will involve bias and measurably incorrect information before even pulling up the page). Just to get my fingertips wet again, I fixed something trivial that I had commented on over two years ago: One of the simplest things you could imagine, an article on the while loop construct in programming. There were examples in many computer languages, but a writer obviously had a special love for Perl—he gave the expected example, then showed that with ***Perl*** you could write a compact one-line version, unlike C and C++. First thing is it's idiotic to show off terse programming skills, giving a hard-to-read version, in an article designed to give newbies an explanation of one of the most basic programming structures. Oh, yeah, that and the fact it was totally wrong—of course you can do the same one-liner while loop in C/C++. And that's about as simple as it gets. The additive synthesis page is a such a train wreck it's hard to know where to start. On Jan 10, 2012, at 7:50 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: On 1/10/12 9:31 PM, Alen Koebel wrote: I get paid to write, so I'm no stranger to research. I have edited the work of others and had my work edited. Many here can say the same, I'm sure. With that background I have tried to edit articles on Wikipedia. IMO, Wikipedia is fundamentally a bad idea. Trying to rescue it is a fool's errand. It's a lost cause. Clusternote is just the tip of the iceberg. well, i think the tip was exposed long before Clusternote. Jimbo wants money to keep it going. I say, let it die. A minority opinion here, I'm sure. being a banned editor (for a scrape i had in 2006 and 2007 regarding the Intelligent design article), it might seem logical to agree with you here, but i hold more hope for it as a macroscopic project. there will always be articles that are shit and some articles will pass from good to bad and maybe some will pass the other way. but, to get some quick facts on many topics that are neither subtle nor controversial, WP can be very useful and promising. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
Ah, that (the RMI using Walsh functions) sounds familiar...I remember Bernie Hutchins (Electronotes) did some articles back in the 70's on Walsh functions...it also reminds me of having fun back in the 70's when I figured out I could run my analog sequencers at audio rates and get some cool tones twiddling the knobs... Do you have any refs to the RMI? I think I happened upon a patent doc that might have been that the other night, I'd have to dig it up again and look. On Jan 9, 2012, at 8:58 AM, Scott Nordlund wrote: I looked at it a bit, and it's a lot to juggle, looking at diffs and the back and forth. Maybe it's just getting late, and I played a lot of basketball earlier, but the final thing that told me it's bed time was, in skimming the article, Its [RMI] waveforms were calculated beforehand on non-realtime, and individual harmonics and harmonic envelopes couldn't be changed in realtime, by means of additive synthesis. Ouch. The thing that bugs me about the RMI Harmonic Synthesizer part is that I've seen the schematic. It doesn't do that (though the Keyboard Computer models probably do). The Harmonic Synthesizer uses Walsh functions. Resistor networks mix the individual Walsh components for each of the harmonic sliders. It may just muddy the issue further, but Ralph Deutsch is an important name in this field. Oh god, there are so many things wrong... -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
Hi Robert, Care to narrow down the target (I suppose there are multiple, but maybe start with the one or two of most immediate concern)? I looked at it a bit, and it's a lot to juggle, looking at diffs and the back and forth. Maybe it's just getting late, and I played a lot of basketball earlier, but the final thing that told me it's bed time was, in skimming the article, Its [RMI] waveforms were calculated beforehand on non-realtime, and individual harmonics and harmonic envelopes couldn't be changed in realtime, by means of additive synthesis. Ouch. Anyway, it's clear that you're not clusternote... ;-) Thanks, Nigel PS—Ouch, I need to stop peeking—painful grammatical problems throughout: 'Additive synthesis using only harmonics is referred as Harmonic additive synthesis rarely', 'The Hammond organ, invented in 1934,[9], generate nearly sinusoidal waveforms[10] by set of tonewheels, and these are mixed using nine drawbars as harmonics', 'Hammond organ was invented as a substitute for the much bulkier and expensive pipe organ', 'After several decades of researches and developments, original additive synthesis technique was either', 'Fourie transform'...my brain hurts... On Jan 8, 2012, at 10:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: there's a guy there with handle Clusternote (who might be lurking here for all's i know) who is slugging it out with an IP (can't imagine who that is) about the math that goes into additive synthesis. if you ever bother to edit the en WP, it might be a good time to examine the article and earlier versions and make your opinion known. L8r, -- 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 -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
Wouldn't it be nice if all of the knowledge embodied in this list could find its way into Wikipedia, fixing the howlers and myths that exist in some of the audio, synthesis, effects, computer music, etc pages? I know that some of us have at time contributed, but it would be a nice community project to do it on a consistent basis. Victor On 9 Jan 2012, at 08:16, Nigel Redmon wrote: Hi Robert, Care to narrow down the target (I suppose there are multiple, but maybe start with the one or two of most immediate concern)? I looked at it a bit, and it's a lot to juggle, looking at diffs and the back and forth. Maybe it's just getting late, and I played a lot of basketball earlier, but the final thing that told me it's bed time was, in skimming the article, Its [RMI] waveforms were calculated beforehand on non-realtime, and individual harmonics and harmonic envelopes couldn't be changed in realtime, by means of additive synthesis. Ouch. Anyway, it's clear that you're not clusternote... ;-) Thanks, Nigel PS—Ouch, I need to stop peeking—painful grammatical problems throughout: 'Additive synthesis using only harmonics is referred as Harmonic additive synthesis rarely', 'The Hammond organ, invented in 1934,[9], generate nearly sinusoidal waveforms[10] by set of tonewheels, and these are mixed using nine drawbars as harmonics', 'Hammond organ was invented as a substitute for the much bulkier and expensive pipe organ', 'After several decades of researches and developments, original additive synthesis technique was either', 'Fourie transform'...my brain hurts... On Jan 8, 2012, at 10:16 PM, robert bristow-johnson wrote: there's a guy there with handle Clusternote (who might be lurking here for all's i know) who is slugging it out with an IP (can't imagine who that is) about the math that goes into additive synthesis. if you ever bother to edit the en WP, it might be a good time to examine the article and earlier versions and make your opinion known. L8r, -- 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 -- 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 Dr Victor Lazzarini Senior Lecturer Dept. of Music NUI Maynooth Ireland tel.: +353 1 708 3545 Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 1/9/12 11:00 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote: Wouldn't it be nice if all of the knowledge embodied in this list could find its way into Wikipedia, fixing the howlers and myths that exist in some of the audio, synthesis, effects, computer music, etc pages? I know that some of us have at time contributed, but it would be a nice community project to do it on a consistent basis. nothing stopping us, Victor. (actually, one thing that impedes my contributions is that i am a forever banned editor until i can get Jimbo to take notice and correct some 5 year old bullshit. the surrounding issue had nothing to do with my technical edits, but were about my attempt to impede some serious POV edits to controversial articles. i am a bit politically incorrect even though i am pretty far left-of-center.) Wikipedia has a serious content problem, but it can be addressed by more *reasonable* people, who act in accordance to their expertise, getting involved. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 1/9/12 11:58 AM, Scott Nordlund wrote: I looked at it a bit, and it's a lot to juggle, looking at diffs and the back and forth. Maybe it's just getting late, and I played a lot of basketball earlier, but the final thing that told me it's bed time was, in skimming the article, Its [RMI] waveforms were calculated beforehand on non-realtime, and individual harmonics and harmonic envelopes couldn't be changed in realtime, by means of additive synthesis. Ouch. The thing that bugs me about the RMI Harmonic Synthesizer part is that I've seen the schematic. It doesn't do that (though the Keyboard Computer models probably do). The Harmonic Synthesizer uses Walsh functions. Resistor networks mix the individual Walsh components for each of the harmonic sliders. It may just muddy the issue further, but Ralph Deutsch is an important name in this field. Oh god, there are so many things wrong... then, people, *please* get involved. just because there are some tenditious editors crapping up the article doesn't mean we (who might be expected to know better) should just let that decline continue. -- 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
Re: [music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
On 2012-01-09, at 8:58 AM, Scott Nordlund wrote: The thing that bugs me about the RMI Harmonic Synthesizer part is that I've seen the schematic. It doesn't do that (though the Keyboard Computer models probably do). The Harmonic Synthesizer uses Walsh functions. Resistor networks mix the individual Walsh components for each of the harmonic sliders. It may just muddy the issue further, but Ralph Deutsch is an important name in this field. Oh god, there are so many things wrong... Ain't that the truth. There is ton of stuff that is misleading in the synth section. For instance, the Alles machine... the Bell Lab work was on digital telephone exchanges and some bright spark at Bell figured it could be used as a synth engine. The controls run in realtime and it should be considered Additive synthesis with time-varying terms but that section only deals with voice synthesis, which is where the Synergy was born from. The Synergy was also an FM machine and could do everything the DX-7 could do just it wasn't packaged or priced that way. It should probably be added that most realistic sounding synthesized instruments do not use harmonic partials but have harmonics that tend to be sharper at the start of a note. This reflects the physics of sound generation in instruments. Thus, the math of non-harmonic synthesis is perhaps more pertinent. At which point, where does one draw the line with FM synthesis. My feel is that to make it right, it probably needs more than a bit of adjustment. -- 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
[music-dsp] anyone care to take a look at the Additive synthesis article at Wikipedia?
there's a guy there with handle Clusternote (who might be lurking here for all's i know) who is slugging it out with an IP (can't imagine who that is) about the math that goes into additive synthesis. if you ever bother to edit the en WP, it might be a good time to examine the article and earlier versions and make your opinion known. L8r, -- 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
