28 Sep
2008
28 Sep
'08
9:12 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 06:26:15PM -0400, Darren Landrum wrote:
Fons Adriaensen wrote:
You're mixing up things.
Using an analog modular synth did not require any understanding of
the quantum mechanics of semiconductors. But it did require some
understanding how these things worked, the concept of voltage
control etc.
In a similar way, if you want to write DSP code this requires at
least some understanding of coding in one way or another, be it
graphical, but it does not require any understanding of digital
electronics or chip design.
Paganini even if he did not build the violins he used probably
knew quite a lot of the art of violin building. Just like any
organist knows a lot about organ technology even if he can't
actually build the intstrument - this knowledge is essential
in order to understand his instrument and to use it in a non
trivial way.
Also the years of basically motoric training required to get
any decent sound out of a violin has in se nothing to do with
music. But you still need it.
Plus the simple observation that once we had the
synths
that nobody needed to understand whatsoever about, most
synth music, with few exceptions, degraded to junk food
quality levels.
Being good at using a modular synth still didn't require knowing how to
design and solder circuit boards along with understanding the quantum
mechanics of how electrons travel through a semiconductor. Making music by
coding one's own software synths *is* a lot like that, though. I seriously
doubt Paganini ever felt he needed to make his own violin in order to be a
better musician. You've already basically accused me of not being
able to play just because
I want to use software synthesis.
I've not accused you of anything nor do I want to.
I just made an observation that boils down to this:
the result you get from any artistic activity is related
to the effort you put into learning to do it. Even if you
can get some results without much effort that means that
these results can be obtained by anyone cheaply, and thus
the reference level will shift to what is obtained by those
that *do* put in some effort and get better results. Things
that are easy tend to be irrelevant in the end.
There is also some ambiguity in your arguments. Wanting
to use a software synth is not the same as wanting to be
able to write modules for such a synth. And that is again
quite different from the third level, writing software
that would enable another user to write DSP code in a
simple way.
For the latter you need not only be a coder, you also
need to understand some programming language theory.
Maybe even more of it if the language is graphical.
Ciao,
--
FA
Laboratorio di Acustica ed Elettroacustica
Parma, Italia
Wie der Mond heute Nacht aussieht !
Ist es nicht ein seltsames Bild ?