10 Jun
2011
10 Jun
'11
12:28 p.m.
Sorry, meant to CC the list, but did BCC by mistake.
On 10 June 2011 08:15, Veronica Merryfield
<veronica.merryfield(a)tesco.net> wrote:
On 2011-06-09, at 3:37 PM, James Morris wrote:
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.
Oh well...
James.
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.