[LAD] Synth/Sampler why the distinction?
jwm.art.net at gmail.com
Fri Jun 10 10:28:22 UTC 2011
Sorry, meant to CC the list, but did BCC by mistake.
On 10 June 2011 08:15, Veronica Merryfield
<veronica.merryfield at tesco.net> wrote:
> On 2011-06-09, at 3:37 PM, James Morris wrote:
>> But are the two really so different? They both do exactly the same
>> thing except one does it with synthesised waveforms and the other does
>> it with sampled waveforms. From thinking about the fact that most soft
>> synths use wave-tables, it can't be that difficult to put a sample in
>> there? Aside from synthesised waveform and sampled waveform, I think
>> (but don't quote me on this :-) that it is perhaps only certain
>> conventions which distinguish the two.
> A sampler uses a range of samples over the note range that provide an entire note duration of waveforms. The sampler may have functions to insert looping points and may have timbre modification mechanisms, but it boils down to reproducing a sound.
> A synthesiser may have a waveform held as a sample, but it is only enough to reproduce one cycle of that sound. The timbre of that synthesised sound has to come from timbre control and modification mechanisms if one wants something more sophisticated than an on/off of a waveform. Granted, these waveforms may be quite complex but that are not the same as a full note sample.
> There are synths out there that do hybrid the two methods to some success.
Yes, a hybrid is what I'm thinking about I suppose. And probably what
I really mean is granular synthesis - which is just sampling after
all, just with a different time scale.
More information about the Linux-audio-dev