<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 15:07:32 +0100<br><div>> From: w.boeke@upcmail.nl<br>> To: linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org<br>> Subject: Re: [LAD] Software sound<br>> <br>> Hi Nick,<br>> Sounds interesting, but also rather vague. <br><br>Vague? Yeah, I could go along with that. The thing is, how do you describe a sound quality in words? I have heard people compare filter variants as 'fruitier' or 'squelchier' than others. <br><br>Whatever words do it for you, take them. The alternative is not that difficult: rig up a synth that can select between Chamberlain and other filter algorithms and listen to them. They all have really different qualities and personally I don't think it is as simple as adding sub-harmonics. <br><br>> If the differences between Moog and Chamberlin are subtle, then Moog isn't worth its extra CPU cycles.<br><br>Again, you have to decide that for yourself, I would definitely rate Fons' and Huovillainen's algorithms as more than worth the extra CPU but I accept that it is subjective. There are plenty of cases where using a Chamberlain in a synth that is buried in the mix will hide its deficiencies. Use it as a solo/lead instrument and it will be lacking.<br><br>> 'Warmth' depends on the lower harmonics. If you are aiming for warmth then start with a base signal with more lower harmonics, e.g. a square wave i.s.o. a pulse. Also equalizing and a suitable <br>> amplifier are important. And the ultimate way to get warmth is to add a small amount of 1/2 or 2/3 harmonics. In software this is easy, for real instruments it's impossible!<br><br>I don't think this really works, it is akin to just lowering the input signals by some given divisor. It does not address the non-linear aspects of the filter and it does not address how the irregularities of the filter change over the cut-off range whilst it is being driven by a modulation signal (env/pressure/etc) - these are both aspects of the above algorithms that are not addressed by Chamberlain filters.<br><br>Can't help you with your questions on input signals, frequencies, etc. I don't have them and I refer back to describing a sound as to whether these parameters are relevant. I used to be a musician playing in bands, then later started writing software. A few years down the line I used to records stuff, look/edit the sampled waves and got to the point where I would think 'man, you have to come and look at this sound!'<br><br>At that point I gave up on being a musician. When I stopped getting my ears around the sound then making music lost much of its charm.....<br><br>Nick<br></div> </div></body>
</html>