On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 03:02:48PM +0000, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
>
> Isn't, again, a matter of introducing a bit of randomicity (if this is
> the correct term)?
The problem is that the idea of just adding a "bit of randomicity"
is that "randomness" is always a matter of glossing over complexity,
chaos, and non-linearity with a simple function which generally does
not behave in the same way as the original system. There is nothing
truly random in this universe, except at the quantum level, and we
are not even 100% sure of that. Outside that there is only a glossing
over of detail and calling it random. So adding random simulated heat
fluctuations to the virtual components of a soft synth is not going to
make it sound more like an actual analogue synth unless you have done a
very heavy statistical analysis of the original system and come up with
an equation for your soft synth that does approximate the mathematical
properties of the original system closely. Most of the time though we
all just call the rand() function (or whatever is available to you in
your particular environment), which always yeilds the same statistical
bell curve "feel" - in my opinion this is insufficient to make a soft
synth sound analogue, or a drum machine sound like a person. (That said,
I'm guilty of doing this in my own music all the time because I enjoy
the robot like aesthetic of machine generated pseudo randomness).
Best,
Chris.
-------------------
chris@email-addr-hidden
http://mccormick.cx
Received on Thu Jul 13 20:15:02 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jul 13 2006 - 20:15:02 EEST