Csound Csound-dev Csound-tekno Search About

[Csnd] Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound

Date2008-07-12 02:41
FromMichael Gogins
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound
My own pieces, though composed almost exclusively algorithmically and rendered 
almost exclusively with Csound, are usually pieces in time and pitch, as 
opposed to acousmatic pieces, and many of them exclusively use 'pure synthesis' (perhaps 
better known as 'direct synthesis,' or maybe this term has gone out of use).

One of my better pieces was heard at the 1998 ICMC in Banff ('Cloud Strata') 
and can be heard in digital distribution such as iTunes. It uses a single, 
very simple, Csound instrument originally created by Michael Bergman and 
adapted by me.

Another piece, 'Triptych,' also exclusively uses direct synthesis, again 
pretty simple instruments adapted from other musicians (plucked strings, FM, etc.).

Personally, I find the juxtaposition of sampled sounds with direct synthesis 
hard to manage, even jarring (even though I do it), and for that reason I 
tend to prefer direct synthesis.

Recently, I have been experimenting with methods of direct synthesis that 
produce timbres as complex as natural sounds or acoustical instruments. 
There are several examples of such direct synthesis Csound instruments in 
the Csound Windows installer examples:

PythonDemoApp.py -- LaMonte Young type drone with waveshaping distortion
chuas_oscillator -- Chua's circuit (chaotic dynamical system oscillator) 
explorer
circle_map -- Another chaotic dynamical system explorer.

Generally speaking, I think that digital circuits tend to be more linear, 
analogue circuits tend to be more nonlinear. The nonlinear distortion in 
analogue circuits ends up creating a completely different sound and 
different esthetic, which is easier to make musical than digital circuits 
are. However, as I hope my examples show, it is possible to introduce 
various kinds of nonlinearity into digital circuits. I will continue to 
explore this.

Once the nonlinearity is present in the digital circuits, the 
programmability of the digital circuits should make them considerably more 
useful to musicians than the analogue circuits ever were.

Also, software instruments tend not have very 'playable' interfaces and, if 
they do have playable interfaces, it is hard to put in ten years of learning 
as a child on one.

This whole discussion omits all music made by morphing or vocoding sounds...

Regards,
Michael Gogins

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joseph Sanger" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound 
found in freesound.


> Hi there,
>
> Most of my experience with making music has been with acoustic or 
> electro-acoustic instruments and for years I shunned anything remotely 
> "digital". I still feel this way, largely, certainly for live 
> performance - I'm not against the idea of laptop performance at all, but 
> I've found it uninspiring when I've tried it myself, compared with the 
> experience of playing "real" instruments.
>
> However, I've recently been experimenting with "purism" in terms of 
> creating computer music and I'm finding that making physical models is a 
> really exciting way of working (for me), which is a very mathematical way 
> of approaching sound design. (I haven't finished anything yet, but I'll 
> post when I do!).
>
> What I'd really like to know is: Are there any other "pure synthesis" 
> composers/designers on the list, and can people point to any examples of 
> interesting, emotive, exciting... er... good..., music which is entirely 
> synthesised, with no "real sound sampling" used in the composition 
> process? (Examples which are free to listen to, of course!).
>
> All the best,
>
> Joe
>
>
> Tobiah wrote:
>>
>>
>>>  > Using only pitch change, mixing and reverb, the author
>>>  > of the sound that you linked to has created something
>>>  > that would take much artistry and effort to create using
>>>  > regular opcodes.
>>>
>>>
>>> *all* the matter is to synthesize this sound from nothing, with whatever 
>>> opcodes are needed. As a user of csound, i'm interested mainly in 
>>> synthesis, and that was the motive i sent the message.
>>
>> I understand the purist stance, but I finally agree with a
>> synthesis Guru that I studied with in the early nineties who even then 
>> had the foresight to describe mathematical synthesis to be 'passe', 
>> pointing toward capture and manipulation
>> as the new frontier; computers had just risen to that
>> level of capability.  I thought that he was a fool at
>> the time, my head filled with FM synthesis algorithms,
>> and with a passion for the ultimate in freedom from constraints that 
>> comes with opcode synthesis.  It may be
>> the same reluctance that had so many studios clinging
>> to mag-tape as their primary capture medium.
>>
>> For academic purposes, adding sinewaves together is loads of fun, and I 
>> understand your interest in making a synth
>> sound similar to your example sound.  The example though, probably
>> took the author 15 minutes to create, demonstrating that
>> capture and manipulation is the most efficient method to date, and in my 
>> experience, no matter the effort and complexity of the algorithm, capable 
>> of producing far more alluring and believable textures.
>>
>> You can still take advantage of all of the old techniques;
>> you can FM a source sound, or mod a sine with a source sound..
>> or what you like. I know that this all sounds very one sided and 
>> opinionated,
>> but my message is that one is not failing to use csound
>> to its greatest potential because of the liberal use of
>> real world source sounds.  I'll stop short of saying that
>> the lack of their use would mean the opposite.
>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
>> csound"
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
> csound" 




Date2008-07-13 01:51
Frompeiman khosravi
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound
> This whole discussion omits all music made by morphing or vocoding  
> sounds...

Indeed.

So I spent today doing what I love most: morphing!! This is  
synthesized in csound with 11 oscillators (data taken from Spear  
analysis) and later mixed in audacity (a very crude method!). This  
kind of approach I think blurs the gap between synthesis and sampling/ 
processing.

http://idisk.mac.com/peimankh/Public/bell2voice16.aif

Best
Peiman




On 12 Jul 2008, at 02:41, Michael Gogins wrote:

> My own pieces, though composed almost exclusively algorithmically  
> and rendered
> almost exclusively with Csound, are usually pieces in time and  
> pitch, as
> opposed to acousmatic pieces, and many of them exclusively use  
> 'pure synthesis' (perhaps
> better known as 'direct synthesis,' or maybe this term has gone out  
> of use).
>
> One of my better pieces was heard at the 1998 ICMC in Banff ('Cloud  
> Strata')
> and can be heard in digital distribution such as iTunes. It uses a  
> single,
> very simple, Csound instrument originally created by Michael  
> Bergman and
> adapted by me.
>
> Another piece, 'Triptych,' also exclusively uses direct synthesis,  
> again
> pretty simple instruments adapted from other musicians (plucked  
> strings, FM, etc.).
>
> Personally, I find the juxtaposition of sampled sounds with direct  
> synthesis
> hard to manage, even jarring (even though I do it), and for that  
> reason I
> tend to prefer direct synthesis.
>
> Recently, I have been experimenting with methods of direct  
> synthesis that
> produce timbres as complex as natural sounds or acoustical  
> instruments.
> There are several examples of such direct synthesis Csound  
> instruments in
> the Csound Windows installer examples:
>
> PythonDemoApp.py -- LaMonte Young type drone with waveshaping  
> distortion
> chuas_oscillator -- Chua's circuit (chaotic dynamical system  
> oscillator)
> explorer
> circle_map -- Another chaotic dynamical system explorer.
>
> Generally speaking, I think that digital circuits tend to be more  
> linear,
> analogue circuits tend to be more nonlinear. The nonlinear  
> distortion in
> analogue circuits ends up creating a completely different sound and
> different esthetic, which is easier to make musical than digital  
> circuits
> are. However, as I hope my examples show, it is possible to introduce
> various kinds of nonlinearity into digital circuits. I will  
> continue to
> explore this.
>
> Once the nonlinearity is present in the digital circuits, the
> programmability of the digital circuits should make them  
> considerably more
> useful to musicians than the analogue circuits ever were.
>
> Also, software instruments tend not have very 'playable' interfaces  
> and, if
> they do have playable interfaces, it is hard to put in ten years of  
> learning
> as a child on one.
>
> This whole discussion omits all music made by morphing or vocoding  
> sounds...
>
> Regards,
> Michael Gogins
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Sanger" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent  
> sound
> found in freesound.
>
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Most of my experience with making music has been with acoustic or
>> electro-acoustic instruments and for years I shunned anything  
>> remotely
>> "digital". I still feel this way, largely, certainly for live
>> performance - I'm not against the idea of laptop performance at  
>> all, but
>> I've found it uninspiring when I've tried it myself, compared with  
>> the
>> experience of playing "real" instruments.
>>
>> However, I've recently been experimenting with "purism" in terms of
>> creating computer music and I'm finding that making physical  
>> models is a
>> really exciting way of working (for me), which is a very  
>> mathematical way
>> of approaching sound design. (I haven't finished anything yet, but  
>> I'll
>> post when I do!).
>>
>> What I'd really like to know is: Are there any other "pure synthesis"
>> composers/designers on the list, and can people point to any  
>> examples of
>> interesting, emotive, exciting... er... good..., music which is  
>> entirely
>> synthesised, with no "real sound sampling" used in the composition
>> process? (Examples which are free to listen to, of course!).
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Tobiah wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Using only pitch change, mixing and reverb, the author
>>>>> of the sound that you linked to has created something
>>>>> that would take much artistry and effort to create using
>>>>> regular opcodes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *all* the matter is to synthesize this sound from nothing, with  
>>>> whatever
>>>> opcodes are needed. As a user of csound, i'm interested mainly in
>>>> synthesis, and that was the motive i sent the message.
>>>
>>> I understand the purist stance, but I finally agree with a
>>> synthesis Guru that I studied with in the early nineties who even  
>>> then
>>> had the foresight to describe mathematical synthesis to be 'passe',
>>> pointing toward capture and manipulation
>>> as the new frontier; computers had just risen to that
>>> level of capability.  I thought that he was a fool at
>>> the time, my head filled with FM synthesis algorithms,
>>> and with a passion for the ultimate in freedom from constraints that
>>> comes with opcode synthesis.  It may be
>>> the same reluctance that had so many studios clinging
>>> to mag-tape as their primary capture medium.
>>>
>>> For academic purposes, adding sinewaves together is loads of fun,  
>>> and I
>>> understand your interest in making a synth
>>> sound similar to your example sound.  The example though, probably
>>> took the author 15 minutes to create, demonstrating that
>>> capture and manipulation is the most efficient method to date,  
>>> and in my
>>> experience, no matter the effort and complexity of the algorithm,  
>>> capable
>>> of producing far more alluring and believable textures.
>>>
>>> You can still take advantage of all of the old techniques;
>>> you can FM a source sound, or mod a sine with a source sound..
>>> or what you like. I know that this all sounds very one sided and
>>> opinionated,
>>> but my message is that one is not failing to use csound
>>> to its greatest potential because of the liberal use of
>>> real world source sounds.  I'll stop short of saying that
>>> the lack of their use would mean the opposite.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>>> "unsubscribe
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
>> "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>
>
>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body  
> "unsubscribe csound"


Date2008-07-18 13:15
FromJoseph Sanger
Subject[Csnd] Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound
Sorry - this is a very late reply to this thread.

Michael Gogins:
I heard some samples of your work online (I could only find short 
segments as I was browsing!) and they are very interesting.

I was wondering if the examples you mention which come with the windows 
installer are available for other platforms? I use csound on Mac and 
Linux. They look fascinating. I really like the notion of introducing 
non-linearity into digital circuits.

All the best,

Joe

Michael Gogins wrote:
> My own pieces, though composed almost exclusively algorithmically and rendered 
> almost exclusively with Csound, are usually pieces in time and pitch, as 
> opposed to acousmatic pieces, and many of them exclusively use 'pure synthesis' (perhaps 
> better known as 'direct synthesis,' or maybe this term has gone out of use).
> 
> One of my better pieces was heard at the 1998 ICMC in Banff ('Cloud Strata') 
> and can be heard in digital distribution such as iTunes. It uses a single, 
> very simple, Csound instrument originally created by Michael Bergman and 
> adapted by me.
> 
> Another piece, 'Triptych,' also exclusively uses direct synthesis, again 
> pretty simple instruments adapted from other musicians (plucked strings, FM, etc.).
> 
> Personally, I find the juxtaposition of sampled sounds with direct synthesis 
> hard to manage, even jarring (even though I do it), and for that reason I 
> tend to prefer direct synthesis.
> 
> Recently, I have been experimenting with methods of direct synthesis that 
> produce timbres as complex as natural sounds or acoustical instruments. 
> There are several examples of such direct synthesis Csound instruments in 
> the Csound Windows installer examples:
> 
> PythonDemoApp.py -- LaMonte Young type drone with waveshaping distortion
> chuas_oscillator -- Chua's circuit (chaotic dynamical system oscillator) 
> explorer
> circle_map -- Another chaotic dynamical system explorer.
> 
> Generally speaking, I think that digital circuits tend to be more linear, 
> analogue circuits tend to be more nonlinear. The nonlinear distortion in 
> analogue circuits ends up creating a completely different sound and 
> different esthetic, which is easier to make musical than digital circuits 
> are. However, as I hope my examples show, it is possible to introduce 
> various kinds of nonlinearity into digital circuits. I will continue to 
> explore this.
> 
> Once the nonlinearity is present in the digital circuits, the 
> programmability of the digital circuits should make them considerably more 
> useful to musicians than the analogue circuits ever were.
> 
> Also, software instruments tend not have very 'playable' interfaces and, if 
> they do have playable interfaces, it is hard to put in ten years of learning 
> as a child on one.
> 
> This whole discussion omits all music made by morphing or vocoding sounds...
> 
> Regards,
> Michael Gogins
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joseph Sanger" 
> To: 
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 8:34 PM
> Subject: [Csnd] Re: Re: RE: Re: about the synthesis on an excellent sound 
> found in freesound.
> 
> 
>> Hi there,
>>
>> Most of my experience with making music has been with acoustic or 
>> electro-acoustic instruments and for years I shunned anything remotely 
>> "digital". I still feel this way, largely, certainly for live 
>> performance - I'm not against the idea of laptop performance at all, but 
>> I've found it uninspiring when I've tried it myself, compared with the 
>> experience of playing "real" instruments.
>>
>> However, I've recently been experimenting with "purism" in terms of 
>> creating computer music and I'm finding that making physical models is a 
>> really exciting way of working (for me), which is a very mathematical way 
>> of approaching sound design. (I haven't finished anything yet, but I'll 
>> post when I do!).
>>
>> What I'd really like to know is: Are there any other "pure synthesis" 
>> composers/designers on the list, and can people point to any examples of 
>> interesting, emotive, exciting... er... good..., music which is entirely 
>> synthesised, with no "real sound sampling" used in the composition 
>> process? (Examples which are free to listen to, of course!).
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>> Tobiah wrote:
>>>
>>>>  > Using only pitch change, mixing and reverb, the author
>>>>  > of the sound that you linked to has created something
>>>>  > that would take much artistry and effort to create using
>>>>  > regular opcodes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *all* the matter is to synthesize this sound from nothing, with whatever 
>>>> opcodes are needed. As a user of csound, i'm interested mainly in 
>>>> synthesis, and that was the motive i sent the message.
>>> I understand the purist stance, but I finally agree with a
>>> synthesis Guru that I studied with in the early nineties who even then 
>>> had the foresight to describe mathematical synthesis to be 'passe', 
>>> pointing toward capture and manipulation
>>> as the new frontier; computers had just risen to that
>>> level of capability.  I thought that he was a fool at
>>> the time, my head filled with FM synthesis algorithms,
>>> and with a passion for the ultimate in freedom from constraints that 
>>> comes with opcode synthesis.  It may be
>>> the same reluctance that had so many studios clinging
>>> to mag-tape as their primary capture medium.
>>>
>>> For academic purposes, adding sinewaves together is loads of fun, and I 
>>> understand your interest in making a synth
>>> sound similar to your example sound.  The example though, probably
>>> took the author 15 minutes to create, demonstrating that
>>> capture and manipulation is the most efficient method to date, and in my 
>>> experience, no matter the effort and complexity of the algorithm, capable 
>>> of producing far more alluring and believable textures.
>>>
>>> You can still take advantage of all of the old techniques;
>>> you can FM a source sound, or mod a sine with a source sound..
>>> or what you like. I know that this all sounds very one sided and 
>>> opinionated,
>>> but my message is that one is not failing to use csound
>>> to its greatest potential because of the liberal use of
>>> real world source sounds.  I'll stop short of saying that
>>> the lack of their use would mean the opposite.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
>>> csound"
>>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to this list.
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe 
>> csound" 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Send bugs reports to this list.
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"
>