Subject: RE: physical modeling and the real
From: Van Richard Stiefel, Dr (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 12:48:08 EDT
Your remarks about physical modelling being put to the service of fantastic instruments is of particular interest to me as a performer/composer. Dan Truman has a wonderful Max/MSP object called the ublotar that combines the control parameters of a flute model and an electric guitar model. I use it in this clip--perhaps a confusing demo, since there are other sounds involved--mapping the hybrid instrument to a hand-held speaker used to feedback the guitar while playing the synthesis instrument.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Rick
Sent: Sat 9/17/2005 8:26 AM
Subject: physical modeling and the real
It seems to me, that physical modeling would be put to good (or
better) use attempting to design new instruments, not necessarily
synthesized, that had wider ranges of sound available to them. Horns
with white noise valves, finger triggered mutes (with tremolo!),
strategically placed pickups on strings (pickups inside strings),
resonant chorus of strings on double-reed instruments; whatever.
Use all those things like parameters for lacquer, wood density, string
alloys, and so on to build instruments that can approach the
requirements of the modern composer whether EA or written/acoustic.
Violins do pretty well already, but L. Shankar's 10 string acoustic
electric with full orchestra range and resonators is one example of
something new. Although I doubt there was any physical modeling going
on in the design.
On 9/17/05, Richard Wentk <email@example.com> wrote:
> At 23:55 16/09/2005, you wrote:
> >Well, if they made it correctly, you would be able to adjust
> >parameters which would allow you to MAKE it a good piano, or not. If
> >it only had one sound, what's the point? Well... there is one, but, it
> >would be vastly more useful if there were parameters.
> I think you'd have to have so many parameters - right down to the
> metallurgical characteristics of the alloys used in the frame and strings,
> and the physical properties of the case and soundboard, including the
> layers of lacquer - that you could spend forever tweaking everything trying
> to get the perfect sound.
> And then you have the problem of how to diffuse it. A piano is not a point
> source, and a stereo simulation will lose a lot of relevant information.
> Speakers are always the weak link in the chain, and only become tolerably
> realistic if you have a five or six figure budget. Which means instead of
> trundling around a big flat harp on a truck you have to trundle around a
> huge speaker set instead. Oh well. :-)
> Meanwhile at the other extreme today's sampled pianos seem good enough for
> recording anything that isn't a commercial solo classical performance.
-- ====================== Rick Nance De Montfort University Leicester, UK RickNance.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:11 EST