In this second part of my impressions of Blade I wanted to 1st observe what Blade does not do that most additive synthesizers do and that is re-synthesis. What is re-synthesis? In additive synthesizers it takes a sample and breaks it up into a series of partials each with it's own pitch and amplitude envelope.
What Blade does is provide a series of additive models with a large number of partials which can then be shaped by various additive shapers for lack of a better word. Blade calls this a harmolator. Because of this design Blades sounds are more edgy than most I have used.
Pads and soundscapes are not really part of this synths sonic vocabulary. IMHO it lends itself more to leads although I an personally intrigued by using it with velocity maps and another sampled layer similar to a Kawai K5000. Certainly the partial heavy sounds lend themselves well to cutting through a mix which is perhaps the reason for it's name. The name might also be a play on Native Instruments synth Razor. Both seem to cater a bit to dance music with Razor and it's spectral filters claiming more of a dubstep ficus.
Blade has a plethora of interesting effects that extend well beyond the yawn worthy delay, flange, phaser, distortion effects that you find in many soft synths.
What you can do with these effects is something I rarely see on soft synths is the ability to modulate effect parameters. This combined with the XY pad that us stage center for Blade opens up some real interesting possibilities. More on this in Part III.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
1st Impressions of Rob Papen's Blade - part I
It's been a long time since I have invested in a new synth (software or hardware) so I did see something unique about this synth before I bought it.
Whenever I buy a synth now I will only buy it if there is little overlap with what I have. For additive synths, I have used Cube, Poseidon, Chameleon, Alchemy and now Blade. Blade has very little in common with any of those so first test passed.
I also like to be able to start using a synth without ever looking at the manual. Good synths have a vision behind their design and if you get that it's easy to go exploring without the manual. Blade's focus us dead center on the XY mapping of parameters. Nicely designed and clear. Second test passed.
Morphing
Most additive synths use morphing. Blade does not but rather morphs between additive parameters that effect the structure of the partials. One of my frustrations with additive synthesizers is that I really get very little sense of what an additive model sounds like looking at partials. Blade rather shapes the partial to create the type of harmonic shifts that
make additive sounds so interesting without the need to interpret graphs if partials.
So, that's it for part I. In Part II I want to get more into the sound which is really where things get interesting.
Whenever I buy a synth now I will only buy it if there is little overlap with what I have. For additive synths, I have used Cube, Poseidon, Chameleon, Alchemy and now Blade. Blade has very little in common with any of those so first test passed.
I also like to be able to start using a synth without ever looking at the manual. Good synths have a vision behind their design and if you get that it's easy to go exploring without the manual. Blade's focus us dead center on the XY mapping of parameters. Nicely designed and clear. Second test passed.
Morphing
Most additive synths use morphing. Blade does not but rather morphs between additive parameters that effect the structure of the partials. One of my frustrations with additive synthesizers is that I really get very little sense of what an additive model sounds like looking at partials. Blade rather shapes the partial to create the type of harmonic shifts that
make additive sounds so interesting without the need to interpret graphs if partials.
So, that's it for part I. In Part II I want to get more into the sound which is really where things get interesting.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Post Industrial Soundscapes and Electronica
I have often been interested in the concept of a Soundscape which is really just the constant flood of sounds that we hear everyday. Where we live can have a big influence on this. I live in a city with a highway overpass nearby. At the moment I hear the muffled sound of cars and trucks from the overpass and the local roads, the sound of the furnace, the sounds of the office, someone coming upstairs, the doorbell (very irritating) and even the sound of my typing on the IPad.
As a continuation of my last blog, I realize how much of what we hear is mechanical and industrial. This must have an impact on our music. Perhaps the sound set of house, techno, hip hop, dubstep and the whole host of evolving genres is just a reflection of the industrial Soundscape we live in.
I wonder if those who live in Montana listen to different music than those like me who live in a city? Would Vivaldi have written about the 4 seasons if he lived in a modern city?
This is more of a question than an answer. I am wondering what others think and hoping to get some comments.
As a continuation of my last blog, I realize how much of what we hear is mechanical and industrial. This must have an impact on our music. Perhaps the sound set of house, techno, hip hop, dubstep and the whole host of evolving genres is just a reflection of the industrial Soundscape we live in.
I wonder if those who live in Montana listen to different music than those like me who live in a city? Would Vivaldi have written about the 4 seasons if he lived in a modern city?
This is more of a question than an answer. I am wondering what others think and hoping to get some comments.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
A Sound Walk
Every once and a while I decide to make a conscious effort to listen to everything I hear. Today, i parked my car on the roof if a garage. I live and work in a city so pretty much everything I heard was mechanical. But what I observed was how sound tells a story.
First, the change from the many conversations inside the building to outside. The conversations were replaced by cars some distant and some near. The filtering and reverb was multifaceted. Music, even electronic, usually only applies reverb at one distance.
Then the garage elevator closes and you get a change from the vast collection of sounds to the motor of the elevator. As I watched the world outside, the silence was so noticeable.
Then the door opens and the city sounds return but the are muffled by the height. Not just softener but the more distant sounds increased.
Then I got in by car. Door closing and immediately silence except for the intimate environment inside and the slight but muffled engine sound. It was distinct from the elevator.
The the slight phasing of sound as the car moved through the enclosed garage. Then the window opens so I can swipe my card. The sounds of the city return but still muffled and then as I moved outside the sounds were similar to walking to the car but also different. Then I closed the window but since I was not in the garage the city sounds remained but muffled.
What amazed me was that filtering and reverb told as much of a story as did the sounds. I have to record this. It was an interesting sound walk.
First, the change from the many conversations inside the building to outside. The conversations were replaced by cars some distant and some near. The filtering and reverb was multifaceted. Music, even electronic, usually only applies reverb at one distance.
Then the garage elevator closes and you get a change from the vast collection of sounds to the motor of the elevator. As I watched the world outside, the silence was so noticeable.
Then the door opens and the city sounds return but the are muffled by the height. Not just softener but the more distant sounds increased.
Then I got in by car. Door closing and immediately silence except for the intimate environment inside and the slight but muffled engine sound. It was distinct from the elevator.
The the slight phasing of sound as the car moved through the enclosed garage. Then the window opens so I can swipe my card. The sounds of the city return but still muffled and then as I moved outside the sounds were similar to walking to the car but also different. Then I closed the window but since I was not in the garage the city sounds remained but muffled.
What amazed me was that filtering and reverb told as much of a story as did the sounds. I have to record this. It was an interesting sound walk.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
First Impressions of Blade
I decided to make a blog of my first impressions of Rob Pappen's Blade. I have a long history with Virsyn's Cube which had a rather unfortunate parting of the ways between me and it's designer but for anyone who wants my reflections on Cube and additive synthesis you will find some pretty in depth posts on Virsyn's Cube bulletin board. I am "Ex Member".
At the time I started to get into additive synthesis I was very intrigued. Having an extensive background in mathematics made the prospect of additive synthesis seemed like the holy grail of synthesis. By drawing partials one could create any sound or so I thought. Understanding what a Fourier Transform is and what it is not I should have know better but that is a complex topic. Reading my posts (ex member) will provide a whole library of my thoughts on that.
What I tried to communicate to Harry Gohs was that drawing harmonics gives someone very little idea of what a waveform is going to sound like. Not only that but waveforms are static as is the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform). Cube (and Alchemy's additive morphing) both use a concept called windowing. This idea is also used in granular synthesis as well. Without going into the details (which is where the devil of spectral morphing is), windowing allows one sound to be morphed into another (not cross faded - long explanation with frightening math). It also allows for the morphing of time (slowing down and speeding up without the dreaded chipmunk effect)
So Cube (and Alchemy's older brother Chameleon) both use spectral morphing. Cube and Chameleon both used an XY pad to graphically represent this. Each point of the Cube was a spectral model.
If you ever see a demo of Cube you will see the dancing dots you see in Blade. However, the XY pads only controlled the morph in both Cube and Chameleon and there are no LFOs and envelopes to control other parameters.
The path on the XY pads of both cube and Chameleon are line segments. Blade records the motion of the musician making it far more flexible and natural. I am sure this was a bit influenced by Korg's M3 and Kaos pads.
One of the features wanted to see added to Cube was a way to tame the spectral displays of partials. This is in fact what Blade is doing. It is taming an almost unintelligible series of partials and translating them into something musical. Native Instrument's. Razor also does this and to some extent their Reaktor Synth Prism. I do see a bit or borrowing from Alchemy's "symmetry" and also Absynth's multiple voices per oscillator. Virsyn's Cube and Poseidon also have a similar feature.
What I also see is what I would call one of the 1st West Coast synths. What I am referring to is Donald Buchla. If you look at a 200e music box you will find a highly complex oscillator. Buchla placed for focus on the oscillator than the filter by creating dynamic waveforms. This is what Blade is doing.
I buy very few new synths. When I do it's for a reason. When I first started making electronic music I was a neophyte but now I can look at the specs and demos of a synth and get a pretty good idea of what it's about. When Blade is released I will buy it because it's breaking away from old additive and subtractive models. It's leaving familiar but boring standards and defining it's own ground and for that I very much approve.
At the time I started to get into additive synthesis I was very intrigued. Having an extensive background in mathematics made the prospect of additive synthesis seemed like the holy grail of synthesis. By drawing partials one could create any sound or so I thought. Understanding what a Fourier Transform is and what it is not I should have know better but that is a complex topic. Reading my posts (ex member) will provide a whole library of my thoughts on that.
What I tried to communicate to Harry Gohs was that drawing harmonics gives someone very little idea of what a waveform is going to sound like. Not only that but waveforms are static as is the FFT (Fast Fourier Transform). Cube (and Alchemy's additive morphing) both use a concept called windowing. This idea is also used in granular synthesis as well. Without going into the details (which is where the devil of spectral morphing is), windowing allows one sound to be morphed into another (not cross faded - long explanation with frightening math). It also allows for the morphing of time (slowing down and speeding up without the dreaded chipmunk effect)
So Cube (and Alchemy's older brother Chameleon) both use spectral morphing. Cube and Chameleon both used an XY pad to graphically represent this. Each point of the Cube was a spectral model.
If you ever see a demo of Cube you will see the dancing dots you see in Blade. However, the XY pads only controlled the morph in both Cube and Chameleon and there are no LFOs and envelopes to control other parameters.
The path on the XY pads of both cube and Chameleon are line segments. Blade records the motion of the musician making it far more flexible and natural. I am sure this was a bit influenced by Korg's M3 and Kaos pads.
One of the features wanted to see added to Cube was a way to tame the spectral displays of partials. This is in fact what Blade is doing. It is taming an almost unintelligible series of partials and translating them into something musical. Native Instrument's. Razor also does this and to some extent their Reaktor Synth Prism. I do see a bit or borrowing from Alchemy's "symmetry" and also Absynth's multiple voices per oscillator. Virsyn's Cube and Poseidon also have a similar feature.
What I also see is what I would call one of the 1st West Coast synths. What I am referring to is Donald Buchla. If you look at a 200e music box you will find a highly complex oscillator. Buchla placed for focus on the oscillator than the filter by creating dynamic waveforms. This is what Blade is doing.
I buy very few new synths. When I do it's for a reason. When I first started making electronic music I was a neophyte but now I can look at the specs and demos of a synth and get a pretty good idea of what it's about. When Blade is released I will buy it because it's breaking away from old additive and subtractive models. It's leaving familiar but boring standards and defining it's own ground and for that I very much approve.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
On Organ Stops and Additive Synthesis
I have been thinking about pipe organs these days and they have given me some food for thought for a few observations.
One only need a brief perusal of the world of organ stops to realize that trying to mimic sounds by mimicking their partials has been with us since the 1st additive synthesizer, the pipe organ.
Pipe organ stops attempt to mimic anything from violins to the human voice by simply trying to physically recreate partials. Truth be sold that attempts to get a pipe organ to sound like a human voice or a violin have been rather feeble.
This brings me to a diamond in the rough, the Kawai K5000. This is a great synth because those who designed it realized what pipe organs would have told them centuries ago. No natural waveform is fixed.
If you want to get something to sound like a certain musical instrument sample it. And yes, I am aware that sampling is passé and old school. Who cares? Certainly not me. The exception to this is physical modeling but that is for another blog.
Its also important to realize that the attack and decay of a sound should be looked at differently that the sustain and release. This is what the K5000 did and it's easy to do with any DAW today by layering (or dare I say modern day orchestration w/o the orchestra).
I also don't really understand spectral morphing. My personal opinion is that trying to morph one instrument into another with additive synthesis is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. What additive synthesis can do is a lot of spectral Alchemy in the sustained part of the note. It's why I like Alchemy more for pads and soundcapes than instrument sounds. But the partials in the attack transient are non linear, noisy and chaotic not to mention very brief. Trying to morph them just creates artifacts that IMHO are far from musical.
What synths like Alchemy do well is create morphs in the sustained part of the note. This is worth doing. It creates a dynamic spectrum rather the fixed spectrum of a natural instrument during it's sustain which is what synthesis does well.
I think the focus in additive synthesis is in the wrong place. Rather than trying to create modern day organ stops it's far more productive to look to the richly creative world of pads, drones and soundcapes and leave the transient to samplers and physical modelers.
One only need a brief perusal of the world of organ stops to realize that trying to mimic sounds by mimicking their partials has been with us since the 1st additive synthesizer, the pipe organ.
Pipe organ stops attempt to mimic anything from violins to the human voice by simply trying to physically recreate partials. Truth be sold that attempts to get a pipe organ to sound like a human voice or a violin have been rather feeble.
This brings me to a diamond in the rough, the Kawai K5000. This is a great synth because those who designed it realized what pipe organs would have told them centuries ago. No natural waveform is fixed.
If you want to get something to sound like a certain musical instrument sample it. And yes, I am aware that sampling is passé and old school. Who cares? Certainly not me. The exception to this is physical modeling but that is for another blog.
Its also important to realize that the attack and decay of a sound should be looked at differently that the sustain and release. This is what the K5000 did and it's easy to do with any DAW today by layering (or dare I say modern day orchestration w/o the orchestra).
I also don't really understand spectral morphing. My personal opinion is that trying to morph one instrument into another with additive synthesis is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. What additive synthesis can do is a lot of spectral Alchemy in the sustained part of the note. It's why I like Alchemy more for pads and soundcapes than instrument sounds. But the partials in the attack transient are non linear, noisy and chaotic not to mention very brief. Trying to morph them just creates artifacts that IMHO are far from musical.
What synths like Alchemy do well is create morphs in the sustained part of the note. This is worth doing. It creates a dynamic spectrum rather the fixed spectrum of a natural instrument during it's sustain which is what synthesis does well.
I think the focus in additive synthesis is in the wrong place. Rather than trying to create modern day organ stops it's far more productive to look to the richly creative world of pads, drones and soundcapes and leave the transient to samplers and physical modelers.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
On the Development of Instruments
In my early posts you can find many posts criticizing the whole notion of additive synthesis for the very simple reason that it is not really possible. I will not get into the reasons here to avoid mathematics which most don't have a background in.
As a clarification, I do own Alchemy because I find it's application of additive synthesis useful. However, I find the whole notion of describing sound in terms of partials to be of only limited use. I also find waveforms while essential for analogue synthesis to again have limited value for describing natural sounds.
For the most part, when we hear a sound, it is the attack transient that our brains use to determine what instrument is being played. Lets do a thought experiment. Take a number of orchestral instruments and have a group of musicians begin to play them together but separated by a few measures and then stop playing in the same manner. Experiments have show that it is relatively easy to distinguish when each instrument started but difficult to distinguish when each finishes.
The truth is simply this. It is the attack transient that we use to distinguish an instrument and not the much more stable waveform during the sustain or decay part of a note.
So if waveforms don't help and partials don't help much in understanding sound what does? My theory is that by studying the dynamics of transients and their underlying physical properties one can develop a means of classifying sounds that is far more natural and corresponds to how we hear sounds rather than how they can be expressed with mathematics. So in studying instruments historically I can find a basis to begin to describe how sound changes and how that can be used musically.
This is where I find myself drawn to musically and many times my music also is truly experimental in that I am learning as well as creating.
This is not my only interest musically. I am also very interested in how music creates an emotional response. I also have an interest in orchestration but these will have to be for future blogs.
Comments are always most welcome.
As a clarification, I do own Alchemy because I find it's application of additive synthesis useful. However, I find the whole notion of describing sound in terms of partials to be of only limited use. I also find waveforms while essential for analogue synthesis to again have limited value for describing natural sounds.
For the most part, when we hear a sound, it is the attack transient that our brains use to determine what instrument is being played. Lets do a thought experiment. Take a number of orchestral instruments and have a group of musicians begin to play them together but separated by a few measures and then stop playing in the same manner. Experiments have show that it is relatively easy to distinguish when each instrument started but difficult to distinguish when each finishes.
The truth is simply this. It is the attack transient that we use to distinguish an instrument and not the much more stable waveform during the sustain or decay part of a note.
So if waveforms don't help and partials don't help much in understanding sound what does? My theory is that by studying the dynamics of transients and their underlying physical properties one can develop a means of classifying sounds that is far more natural and corresponds to how we hear sounds rather than how they can be expressed with mathematics. So in studying instruments historically I can find a basis to begin to describe how sound changes and how that can be used musically.
This is where I find myself drawn to musically and many times my music also is truly experimental in that I am learning as well as creating.
This is not my only interest musically. I am also very interested in how music creates an emotional response. I also have an interest in orchestration but these will have to be for future blogs.
Comments are always most welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)