On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 02:32:43PM -0400, David Robillard wrote:
> Another thought on the more artistic side of things that occurred to me
In a sense, yes, but the analogy fails in some respects.
* It can take years for a player to develop the motoric skills
required to e.g. get a decent sound from a violin. But once
those are in place, that is something quite difficult to
emulate by either analog or digital electronics, yet it is
an essential part of any music made on such an instrument.
OTOH, an analog synth and a software emulation of the same
can have exactly the same human interface, nothing is lost.
* There's limit to what can be done with analog eletronics.
There's virtually no limit to what can be done in software.
A 'perfect' emulation of an analog synth, including all its
defects, *is* possible. The brute force method is to build
a Spice model of it, and run it on a system that is fast
enough to do that in real time.
> I think the most exciting thing about computers is the unique
I agree. You need to emulate the function, the visual ergonomics,
but that doesn't mean things have to be 'photo-realistic'.
> ... Maybe this will become less true as
Which is why musician prefer hardware controllers. And not only
musicians. I find using a 'real' mixer, even a digital one with
assignable knobs and switches much more productive than any DAW.
> Sonically.. I'm not sure. I suppose anything FFT based is pretty
Doesn't have to be. The FFT is just a mathematical trick, it doesn't
imply anything regarding the sonic results. What makes things sound
'computer' is ignoring the complexity of most real sounds.
A world of exhaustive, reliable metadata would be an utopia.
It's also a pipe-dream, founded on self-delusion, nerd hubris
and hysterically inflated market opportunities. (Cory Doctorow)
Linux-audio-dev mailing list