Jump to content

Chandler

Members
  • Posts

    96
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Chandler

  1. I would recommend that you have it set up by a professional and perhaps have the action lowered. Of course some people prefer a higher action and think it sounds better, but a lot of people have quit guitar because its too hard on their hands and it really doesn't need to be that way. I'd start with a lower action that's easier to play and then later if you want you should raise it once your skills have increased.

    • Like 1
  2. I thought I'd share a video I made of the new additions to MTuner. Its a really cool freebee. I've heard the midi out doesn't work unless you unlock the free bundle, but just the polyphonic function is awesome.  I hope you find the video useful.

     

     

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  3. Sorry I'm a little late, but here is a new video I made showing how you can use MCabinet and MFreeformEqualizer to create acoustic guitar IRs. This might be helpful for those who play acoustic, but don't have access to space to mic their guitars. Hopefully you find this useful.

     

     

    • Thanks 3
  4. Here is a quick video I did that will show you how you can use Melda productions MCabinet to create your own guitar cabinets from scratch.  You can now create whatever sound you like and refine and polish it as much as you like. Of course I'm doing this using electric guitar, but the same concept can be done with bass guitar, etc. I hope you find this useful.

     

  5. Hi Dave,

    As for your question, the answer is no, although you could if you wanted to calculate those values yourself in another program or on paper.  If that is your personal definition of physical modeling synthesis, then this isn't it. AFAIK there is no physical modeling synth that does anywhere near what you're saying PM is. The majority PM synths don't calculate those things in real time and most of the time they don't calculate them at all. For example AAS Tassman, Chromaphone or String Studio don't do anything like what you're proposing. The SWAM strings are said to use PM synthesis, but you can't change the type of strings or increase the string length beyond the lowest note. The violin body isn't even modeled, it uses an IR.  These are still referred to as physical modeling, but if you don't think so that's fine. I guess you could call it resonance synthesis or something, but why make up a new word for something that is already understood. 

    I appreciate your critique, but I feel like we're arguing over whether a cucumber is a fruit or a vegetable.  

  6. Hi Dave,

    I think you’re confusing how physical objects are described mathematically and how physical modeling synthesis actually works. For something like a string of course it can be discribed using a mathematical formula, such as a PDE. In practice this isn’t how it is done using a computer. In practice something like the karplus-strong algorithm is done using combfilters. Modal synthesis is usually done using a filterbank of bandpass filters which is what I’ve done here.

    I think you’re assuming this is some sort of additive synthesis. It isn’t and the signal can’t have an infinite decay because its generated through the excitation of filters not the generation of sine waves. Also the Fourier anaylsis isn’t generating the signal it only messures the frequency and amplitude of the partials. If you wanted to actually calculate these partials mathematically you enter them manually, you could certainly do that. IMO this is a waste of time for me and most people, so I skipped it. The material properties are contained in the analysis. Here is a paper discribing something similar to what I’m doing. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4176/122b3826976473661130d7cb3a44bf667a8f.pdf

    Of course you are right that I’m not correctly modeling every aspect of the physical object, however if you have to model every nuance perfectly and compute it in real-time then physical modeling doesn’t exist. If we’re going by that standard the karplus-strong algorithm isn’t physical modeling synthesis because it is modeling an ideal string instead of a real world physical object. Of course you’re free to have your own opinions on what constitutes PM and what doesn’t, but what is done in the video is consistent with what is generally known as modal synthesis and PM.

  7. Thanks Dave. This is actually physical modeling. This is a type called modal synthesis, which is commonly used in PM synths. In this case I didn't label things according to their physical analogues, but the same things are happening. You could label the resonance as "dampening" and the structure as "shape/material" if you like, but for this tutorial I chose not to as I feel its a waste of time. This is a more "under the hood" look at PM synthesis, but what is actually happening is the same.

×
×
  • Create New...