Hi,

One technique I've been using lately is to look at the frequency analysis
and use a combination of fof and filtered noise to match the frequencies
present in the sound I'm trying to synthesize.

Another technique is to try and think about what is happening and come up
with some type of "physical model" of the sound.  This usually doesn't pan
out too well for me.

If I want new sounds I often look to mathematics especially books by
Clifford Pickover, Martin Gardner & A. K. Dewdney and others.  Look for
patterns in the universe that will sound good.  A function that is too busy
will just sound like noise, something too simple is not very interesting.
Look for functions or phenomena that lie somewhere in between.  Something
that generates a fairly simple waveform but evolves over time or with
respect to some input parameters.

Experience in programming synthesizers helps a lot because there you can
get instant feed back on your changes and develop an intuitive feel for
what will happen with things like attack, decay, filter frequency cut-off,
resonance, low frequency oscillators, FM synthesis etc.

Bye,
Hans Mikelson

This is such a big question, and the story of my life, that I don't
think any short reply can really deal with it! I like Paul Lansky's
statement to the effect that 'we are not limited by our imagination, we
are limited by our ability to describe sound'. So the problem is mapping
our internal description of a sound to an available (or
able-to-be-described) instrument. Description depends on a vocabulary,
and unfortunately the gulf between our everyday musical/sonic vocabulary
and that associated with computer synthesis is very large. Musicians,
composers especially, are very opportunistic - they exploit and explore
what is available, with a fair amount of trial and error, and thus new
instruments, new sounds, arise incrementally. Very often the 'errors'
prove to be the key - for example, multiphonics on wind instruments can
be seen as wrong fingerings and poor technique raised to an art form.
Those sounds weere always there, but they had to wait until someone said
'wow! what a great sound' instead of 'ugh! what a horrible sound'. There
is even a motto amongst African Drummers - 'every wrong note is a new
style'.

So, important as theories and methods are, trial and error as a
technique has the strength of history behind it - many would say that in
most cases, it is the prime mover, and the trials simply get better, and
the errors more interesting, with practice. So stick with it!


Richard Dobson

PS: I think this is very much 'on topic'!


Qian Chen wrote:

> Hi, there
>
> If this is off topic, please let me know.
>
> Since I first got intersted in csound and dsp, I have always been
> wondering whether there are some methods when I want to generate a
> specific sound?  As a programmer, I know that there are a lot of
> algorithms to realize some result I expect.  But as for sound
> generation, I have learned AM, FM, waveshaping... but have no idea
> about what to do when I really think out of a sound.  What I have to
> do is just trying again and again.  Sometimes I got what I want, but
> it is very seldom for me.  Could someone tell me what to do?
>
> Regards
>
> ==
> Qian Chen


Qian Chen wrote:

> Hi, there
>
> If this is off topic, please let me know.
>
> Since I first got intersted in csound and dsp, I have always been
> wondering whether there are some methods when I want to generate a
> specific sound?  As a programmer, I know that there are a lot of
> algorithms to realize some result I expect.  But as for sound
> generation, I have learned AM, FM, waveshaping... but have no idea
> about what to do when I really think out of a sound.  What I have to
> do is just trying again and again.  Sometimes I got what I want, but
> it is very seldom for me.  Could someone tell me what to do?
>
> Regards
>
> ==
> Qian Chen
>
> _________________________________________________________
> DO YOU YAHOO!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

(please pardon my english)

> instruments, new sounds, arise incrementally. Very often the 'errors'
> prove to be the key - for example, multiphonics on wind instruments can
> be seen as wrong fingerings and poor technique raised to an art form.
	
	i am presently fascinated by 'poor technique' (both in my clarinet
playing and eamus) although i dont like your (Richard's) metaphor - i
think
multiphonics require a lot of technique - much more than squeaks,
badTone, "microtones" from wrong fingerings, etc...

in compMus -> digital pops,clicks, distortion, -noise- i find much more
interesting than "traditional" synthesis sonically (esp. experiencing 
pops almost "visually" resting on the speaker cone).  plus they have
attached meanings (being "bad technique") and inherently digital.

and what is this obsession with technique in "art"(academic?) electronic
music?  i dont think its going to last very long.  our tools are becoming
so powerful and accessible that almost anyone can make "cool sounds" with
a click of a mouse these days.  how can the elite (#include myself) keep 
their status?   f(Ear)??
					this is just me spouTing off the
CrusT of my head...


anyway - i want to request that everyone *please* use discretion when
doing their "sound design" with CSound:  there is enough
sequencer-trigger-pitch-domination-music already in the world.  thinking
about it, i think the best csound piece would have one i-statement in the
score (or at least one per instrument) OR have 128*dur(in sec)
i-statements per instrument in the score

> 'wow! what a great horrible sound'

-matt

(i wish cw3=tb! (sp?) was on this list!)