An Old Idea

infuzion · 11 Sept 2006

I thought about making modules a bit more "random" also...There are some threads here on making random numbers, etc, but it seems it takes abit of CPU, which I need to save. I tend to manually make paramitor adjustments in the song-sequencer to make the sound a bit more random-sounding anyway, no use wasting CPU cycles.

Tom7777 · 12 Sept 2006

So you actually want clicks in the sound and stuff, just try and get denormals in your synth and don't fix them with dezippers or noise modules then you can tick that from the list 🙂

rlahalla · 12 Sept 2006

I think he's asking if there's anyone who can help him build a VST that sounds very nice, but has a feel of an old analogue modular. Something like karmaFX synth but a lot more old skool and hardware feeling, eh? I think that would be an nasty project. That's what I'm thinking about a lot anyways. I need to do more research before I am able to contribute that much to something, but that is a great idea I think. I wonder how SM would be to build a modular synth VSTi. Hmm...

stefan · 12 Sept 2006

It is definately doable. You could use a modulation matrix for the actual connections (all modules outputs should be defined as modulation sources and all inputs as modulation destinations), and ofcourse you could visualize it differently if you wanted too.

Tom7777 · 12 Sept 2006

I made a modular synth a while back so it's definately possible 🙂

GaryG · 12 Sept 2006

I know where Martin's coming from; I used to have an old analogue delay pedal with a worn (I guess) delay pot, the delay time would jump erratically all over the place if you turned it slowly, got some really cool sounds out of it.

If it's any use, Autodafe did some work on Patch Cords...

.g

rlahalla · 12 Sept 2006

Hmm...Autodafe's implimentation of those patch cords is a good start I believe. Thanks for the link gary 🙂 I didn't think he actually completed those cords, but it seems to work well, just needs a bit of refining. . .

bazaarM · 3 Oct 2006

First, I am sorry that it took so long for me to answer, I had a tough time the last weeks (not ONLY hollidays). Second, I am very happy that I started such an intelligent discussion with my thread.

But I think, it needs a more precise discription, of what I really meant.

When you are not an absolute beginner in synthesizer music, you are familliar with some types and names of parameters like ADSR for envelopes CUTOFF and RESONANCE, COARSE and FINE, FM-AMOUNT, DRY/WET and so on.

When it comes to the point, where the systems and algorithms become different from that standard synthesizer stuff, there have to be new sets, names and thinking about the parameters to control the sound. Most of it happens in the computerworld, where the knobs are not touchable and getting the right feeling for them is very much harder. So I dream of a synthesizer with the "old" parameters, but doing different sounds with it. Maybe my dream is really to do a VERY VERY VERY good One-Knob-Synth. Or maybe a synth with only one KNOB for every Unit (one for the osc, one for the filter, one for the effects, ONE FOR LFO AND ONE FOR ENVELOPE) I know, that sounds mad, but I think it has to be very sophisticated, when it comes to the point, to do for example controling envelopes with only ONE knob. Or different Oscillatortypes with ONE FUCKING SINGLE KNOB. I have seen a One-Knob--Synth ones, but it wasn't producing interesting sounds. During my hot-REAKTOR-time I made synths with knobs and faders for every fucking parameter, but when I had to do music with them, I was unable because of that mass of controlable parameters.

I know it is difficult and you can't do an "EVERY-SOUND-ON-EARTH"-Synth with it (for example routing the LFO when you have only ONE knob is quite impossible) but thinking like that forces to reduce and to think twice about parameters.

The other thing, building it as a broken modular system is more like, developing modules for use in every synth you like with simple parameters but strange sound. And the second thought was more like a political statement. All this emulation madness, drives me mad. OH, THATS REALLY THE BEST EMULATION OF A MOOG-SYNTH, I am bored, I am sick of it!!!! I can't hear it anymore! So it would be cool to have a group of synthmakers, who are maybe able to do it "right" but they say NO and produce emulations of MOOG-Synths, wich have fallen out of the window, and sound of ARPS, when a car has rolled over it.

And maybe some of the knobs are broken now and you have only some of the possible parameters. And the rest is not behaving normal anymore.

bazaarMartin

GaryG · 3 Oct 2006

I don't think you're mad, you're definitely not alone... look at the fxpansion freebie Orca, only six knobs (eh... gills... 🙂); they conciously limited/combined the parameters to create a tool that does a certain range of sounds really good, not the most versatile synth ever but there are plenty of those about already.

Maybe a movement in the making, more musicality, less options.

🙂

.g

mypetrobot · 1 Apr 2007

I know this is somewhat of an old thread, but ...

In regards to the concept of a 'broken synthesizer' ... I share the same dream.

yes. There is something truly beautiful in taking something as sterile and lifeless as the auditory representation of basic mathematical 'waveforms' and having them manipulated by 'error,' creating something organic and real. Its the stark contrast of science versus dirt -- bad-ass!

I love bad connections, cassette tape hiss, clicks/pops on old vinyl, when CDs skip, pitch warble from old tape, the radio whilst in-between stations, faulty wiring, etc. Look at the popularity of 'circuit bending' -- you are definitely not crazy, my friend ...

In terms of how to implement these things, I have ideas but lack the knowledge to carry them out ... I'm an art-school drop-out with limited math skills. Although, even simple things like having pitch 'modulated' by a series of sin-LFOs and utilizing sampled line-noise have helped make some of my initial SynthMaker projects feel a tad bit more 'organic' ... I don't think I'll ever be able to build our dream VST synth. Bleh.

infuzion · 2 Apr 2007

You can add noise simply by making loops of sampled noise! No need for SM here, just a trusty DAW will work. SM can be handy in making an all-in-one noise-loop tool to make things go easier & perhaps more fun.

There are threads around for pitch-shifting.

williamsharkey · 5 Sept 2007

Hi bazaarM,

I love your idea and way of explaining it. It inspires me remember how to think that way (after working with technical things for awhile, my romanticism got lost).

This thread gave me one insight: A single knob can produce more than 1 dimension of data, if you track the position over time.

- Usually we control parameters from the instantaneous level of a knob. -- You don't have to do it that way. - To extract more information, you see how the user is moving it. A good tool for this is FFT. -- IF we assume a human is using this knob, then we only need frequency resolution in the haptic range, the frequencies that a human can produce- It could be a rather broad range, around .1hz to 20hz, or perhaps 30 if you are a madman on coke.

My other point is this: Don't dilute your grand dream, but do break it down into smaller building blocks: Why don't you take a prexisting synth that you like, and retrofit it with a new interface that only features one knob.

I'd be happy to help in your strange-man-fantasy waterlogged synth. I'm a synthedit user though, but I might be able to learn synthmaker.

Regards, William

P.S. Have you ever seen Dali play a piano in the sea?

Acrobat · 6 Sept 2007

bazaarM wrote: During my hot-REAKTOR-time I made synths with knobs and faders for every fucking parameter, but when I had to do music with them, I was unable because of that mass of controlable parameters.

Yes, you are right, anyway a rationalization of parameters can come just from long, hard use of an instrument. I think a plan is necessary, yes, but don't count on it too much. You can have a bright idea from the start but it might be change a lot in the process of development and become a completely different one when an instrument accept modifications based on "use".