Subject: RE: physical modeling and the real
From: Van Richard Stiefel, Dr (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Sep 17 2005 - 13:33:48 EDT
It's hard to tell what's going on. The speaker feeds back guitar as you'd expect. Sensors on the speaker send gesture data which is mapped to the flute-guitar model synthesis instrument. I'm switching between mappings on the laptop (which I'd like not to be doing). It's more fun when I don't know which mapping I get and I can just play.
If you wish to be bothered, you can look at this paper, explaining the rig in more detail.
Unfortunately, Ensemble Modem does not get around as much as we'd like.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Rick
Sent: Sat 9/17/2005 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: physical modeling and the real
ooohoo! cool. Ensemble Modem? Barely a pixel from having to change the
name! Is this a regular gigging group?
So the synthesis is controlled through the mouse/keyboard, playing
through the handheld speaker, mixed with the guitar which feeds back?
Is that right?
On 9/17/05, Van Richard Stiefel, Dr <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sorry, this clip...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org on behalf of Rick
> Sent: Sat 9/17/2005 8:26 AM
> To: email@example.com
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
> > Richard
> Rick Nance
> De Montfort University
> Leicester, UK
-- ====================== Rick Nance De Montfort University Leicester, UK RickNance.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:11 EST