How to cause magnetic inteference in sample playback MIDI synths?
Radium
Please assist me with the following.
I would like to make some replicable magnetic electronic nanobots that
will search for sample playback MIDI synths in any part of the world
and attach to the digital chips of sample playback MIDI synths. These
nanobots should contain magnetic receivers that will extract any
random environmental magnetic audio signals from 2 kHz to 50 kHz
[excluding spikes, square-waves, white noise, brown noise, pink noise
and bass sounds]. The nanobots then amplify those signals to the point
where they would significantly interfere with -- and cause inductive
crosstalk in -- the audio signals in the digital electronic chips of
the sample playback MIDI synths. This will cause sample playback MIDI
synths to be full of annoying -- and perhaps even frightening --
auditory disruptions from environmental magnetic interference.
That way all companies will be forced to make *real* synths and the
listeners will be forced to adapt to the excellent audio quality of
*real* synths. For those who miss their stinky human kakaa foam of
sample playback synths, well, f--k them!
Note: The magnetic signals that interfere with those digital chips
should be purely-analog. I just love it when purely-analog magnetic
signals cause significant disruptions in purely-digital chip-based
parts of electronic devices that I don't like. Sample playback MIDI
synths are an example of digital electronic devices that I don't like
so I want to victimize them in this manner -- i.e. via magnetic
inteferences.
On the Creative website -- forums.creative.com -- I am known as
"CMS220"
In the above link, is where I take revenge against the following:
1. Creative Technology for no longer making or upgrading Creative
Music Synth [220]
2. Customers who like -- or don't mind -- sample playback MIDI synths
3. Customers who dislike -- or don't care for - Creative Music Synth
[220]
On the Creative Technology site, I first asked my questions politely
but no one answered me. I then got frustrated and vented all my anger.
Now those jerks know how I feel.
I lost control of my temper and used very bad words. As a result, any
computer with my home IP address cannot access the Creative forums.
Also, if I login under the name "CMS220" in any part of the world, the
Creative site will automatically ban access to its forums from that
network. They've banned access to the forums from three places already
because I logged in under CMS220. They've got some auto-ban type of
feature, it seems.
It started off like this. I asked in the Creative Technology
http://forums.creative.com as politely as I could. I waited a couple
of weeks. No response. I asked again as politely as I could, waited
another few weeks. Again no answers. I tried on the third and last
time as politely as I could. AGAIN, no answers!!!
I then got impatient and aggressive. I started venting my anger in
those forums. I used bad words. As a result, they've permanently
banned my IP and I can no longer access their forums. What a buncha
jerks. Yes, I did get carried away with the foul language but hey, can
ya blame me?
So I can no longer sign-in under CMS220. I got a new username "SB16-
ISA-FM" and logged in from another network outside my house. I started
venting my anger again using colorful language. One of the Creative
Technology companymen then sent me a warning note, in which he/she/it
threatened to contact my ISP and shut-down my internet connection.
What those fools don't realize is that I can log in under any name
from any network that I am given access to. It doesn't have to be from
my house.
Maybe if Creative Technology weren't made up of such jerks, then I
wouldn't have started spamming their forums in the 1st place. So its
not my fault.
I would like a real Creative Music Synth [220]. Doesn't have to be in
a sound card. It could be a keyboard, a MIDI box or in any other form.
Sadly, its not gonna happen because the mechanism by which Creative
Music Synth [220] is kept classified as top-secret by Creative
Technology Ltd. CMS220 is no longer made yet the sick @$$ company
still keeps the working of CMS220 a secret.
Creative Technology is a stubborn piece of crap. F--k those stingy
secretive bastards.
I hate sick sample playback MIDI synths.
I just wish the audio communities would revert back to real, non-
emulated SB16 FM synthesis and upgrade from there.
FM emulation [or any audio emulation for that matter] is sample
playback. Sample playback synth = human kakaa
SB Live stinks like human kakaa. It has no real music synthesis. Its
all kakaa-like emulation.
SB16 PCI has the disadvantages of SB16 ISA [e.g. limitation to 16-bit
resolution] without the advantages [e.g. *real* FM synthesis]. All
SB16 PCIs should be burned in oxyacetylene flames.
AFAIK, some PCI cards contain something called 'Yamaha FM synth'. I
hate it though because it is emulation. The Avance sound card has
'Avance FM synth', but its also a real stinker as it isn't a real
synth. The evil PCI loves to inflict pain on other types of slot --
ISA being the unfortunate victim. PCI cards don't contain real FM
synths.
Anything kind of 'OPL' a PCI would have, would be emulation. The only
'OPL' any PCI cards have is OPL emulation. Emulation stinks like human
diarrhea kakaa foam. I don't understand why a PCI card cannot contain
a real FM synth like Creative Music Synth [220]. Is there a technical
barrier to this?
I can easily tell the difference between the freshness, brightness,
warmth, and liveliness of a *real* synth from the stale, cacophonous
-- or rather KAKAA-FOAMous -- fart of emulation.
Creative Music Synth [220] = SB16 ISA's FM synth = my favorite MIDI
synth.
I don't care for other MIDI synths.
Creative Music Synth [220] is:
1. Real
and
2. Digital
and
3. Hardware
and
4. Real-time
All other FM synths are okay. Wavetables are also good. But I don't
care for them.
Here are my ratings for *soundcard* MIDI synths in the order from best
to worst:
1. Creative Music Synth [220]
2. All digital hardware FM synths other than Creative Music Synth
[220]
3. Wavetables, non-FM digital synths, analog [non-digital] synths
4. Sample playback synths
Sample playback synths are the worst.
Sample playback synths STEEEENK!!!!
Sample playback MIDI synths are the worst audio equipment ever. They
are stinky, tickly, itchy, creepy, irritating, farty, hissy,
terrifying, disgusting, and annoying.
I like the audio quality of Creative Music Synth [220]. It sounds so
warm, fresh, bright, rejuvenating, lively and effervescent.
The only thing about Creative Technology that I like is their Creative
Music Synth [220]. Other than that, they are a piece of kakaa.
Creative Technology is one f--king piece of crap that provides sh--ty
customer service. Their tech support is so limited.
Creative Technology used to be such a great company 13 years ago. Now
there are nothing but stinky-diarrhea-kakaa-foam-of-humans.
I've asked them about Creative Music Synth [220] -- through a variety
of means, including but not limited to phone, fax, and their online
tech support -- only to be totally-ignored. I asked them about this
for the past 5 years. Never got a decent answer. In addition, most of
their online tech support is pre-written garbage.
Creative Technology also uses such f--ked up sickening disgusting
sample playback synths in their PCI cards.
I wish that a gang of persons who support Creative Music Synth [220]
would attack Creative Technology and force them to make hardware
versions of Creative Music Synth [220] -- in PCI cards that are
compatible with PCI slots and Windows XP -- upgraded from 16-bit to 32-
bit and from 44.1 KHz to 192 KHz. And from there, keep on upgrading!
When XP and PCI are obsolete then Creative Technology should be forced
to make even newer hardware versions of CMS220 -- with even wider bit-
resolutions and higher sample-rates -- that are compatible with the
newer hardwares and softwares that will exist in that future time.
If Creative Technology refuses, I hope the CMS220-advocating gang ties
up the people who make up that company and torturously forces them to
repeatedly listen to sample playback MIDI synths and emulation until
those Creative personnel are annoyed with burning headaches and are
deathly desperate for an escape. Only then will the people of Creative
Technology do the right thing -- make upgraded versions of Creative
Music Synth [220].
A rich spoiled-rotten company like Creative deserves to be heinously
hijacked and forced to do their duties.
The least Creative Technology Ltd could do is put a *real* 32-bit
resolution, 192 kHz sample rate version of Creative Music Synth [220]
on a PCI card. But noooooooooooooooooooooo! They are too f--king lazy.
Its not just Creative Technology that's responsible. Its also the
fault of self-destructive customers who don't mind paying $$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$ for those crappy sample playback synths. F--k those customers
as well. Masochistic perverts! I don't care if those customers destroy
themselves. Though, I sure as f--k don't want them destroying me! Such
customers should eat their own stinky diarrhea kakaa foam. If you feed
a scum, then you're just as filthy as that scum and I sincerely hope
you suffer just as much.
I feel like torching the chips of sample playback synths with
oxyacetylene flames to distort their audio output.
Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite MIDI synth.
Its those sample playback synths that are crap.
Sadly most MIDI magazines advertise the kakaa-stinky sample playback
as a good thing often referring to them as 'wavetables'. These sick
marketers call sample playback synthesis 'realistic sounding'.
Sample playbacks synths are nothing more than the sound of a stinky
fart emitted from a human colon.
I've been looking hard for true FM synths. No luck. Most PCI cards
have OPL emulation. I hate FM emulation. FM emulation -- much like any
sample playback synthesis -- is to the ear what human kakaa is to the
nose.
I want *real* FM synthesis not some stinky trashy out-of-a-human-
behind emulation.
Those stinky-f==king marketers who refer to sample playback synthesis
as 'wavetables' deserve to be thrown into the sewer and made to eat
their own crap.
There is a world of different between sample playback synthesis and
wavetable synthesis.
If you still believe the marketer-induced myth that wavetable
synthesis and sample playback synthesis are the same thing, then
please educate yourself with the hardcore scientific facts presented
on the following link:
http://www.musicdsp.org/files/Wavetable-101.pdf
Wavetable synthesis is so much better than any kakaa-spitting sample
playback synth but not nearly as heavenly as *true* FM synthesis. Of
all the *true* FM synths, Creative Music Synth [220] is my favorite.
If a synth is *not*:
1. *Real*
AND
2. *Digital*
AND
3. *Real-time*
AND
4. *Hardware*
then it,
STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I try playing Creative Music Synth [220], through my so called
'karaoke voice canceller' -- which inverts the phase of one stereo
channel [right or left] and then combines it the other channel --
which results in anything identical in both the left and right
channels being removed. I get a mono of what was different in the left
and right channels.
When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.
Any understanding, cooperation, and assistance is greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Radium
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> Hi:
> Please assist me with the following.
> I would like to make some replicable magnetic electronic nanobots that
> will search for sample playback MIDI synths in any part of the world
> and attach to the digital chips of sample playback MIDI synths.
Write a letter to Marvel Comics for help in your project.
<remaining insane nonsense snipped>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
notejam
Try going to www.zzounds.com and enter fm synth in the search window.
Also go to www.ebay.com and do the same.
ZZounds has 3 new fm software synths, and on ebay you can find lots of
hardware fm synths.
The old dx7 was kind of king of the old fm synths in the early days of
midi and synths.
They sounded pretty good, were used by lots of bands and on lots of
records.
The dx11 is 8 voice multi-timbral, sort of like a lil brother of the
dx7, as it had 4 operator (yamahas word for it) intead of 6 operator
synths. The dx7 is a solo instrument.
Think garage band also had a dx7 fm synth either with it, or in an add
on package.
contrex
high-functioning, but autistic all the same.
Afoklala
> He or she sounds from their writing like they are autistic. Possibly
> high-functioning, but autistic all the same.
Don't think so. Autistic people usually know very well what they're on
about. They know everything there is to know about their preferred subject
(they usually have one). This person just talks gibberish - nanorobots to
find files on the internet? That's rubbish. No autistic would come up with
such an idea. Either because they're not interested in related subjects, or
because they are and know all about it.
(BTW, I'm a father of an autistic 17yo)
--
Jan Willem from Odijk, Netherlands
Listen to my music on http://www.xs4all.nl/~dormoljw/gbcomponist.html
e-mail in From-field is wrong, real e-mail is:
jw point van point dormolen on xs4all point nl
(change point into dot, on into at)
And then there's this:
Forsooth, avoid archaisms.
Wes
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org
"Afoklala" <afok...@afoklala.invalid> wrote in message
news:1eemc68juipxp.1...@40tude.net...
Bob Myers
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1171511487.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Radium, your past trolls have at least had the advantage of appearing
to be SLIGHTLY in touch with reality. You may want to try again
with this one.
Bob M.
Bob
>
> read more »
Ask the nice folks at the home to adjust your meds...
Radium
> He's a troll. He has been doing this for years.
Whats trollish about wanting to take revenge against sample playback
MIDI synths?
I want to punish the purely-digital chip-based parts of sample
playback MIDI synths by terrifying their producers and consumers with
random magnetic auditory purely-analog interference.
I want to force companies and customers to be unwilling to make or use
any sample playback MIDI synths via the above method.
Wes
chip based world. To use the device you fantasize about will surely destroy
your SoundBlaster along with all the evil sample playback instruments. It
will be collateral damage.
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1171564456.3...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Radium
> To use the device you fantasize about will surely destroy
> your SoundBlaster along with all the evil sample playback instruments.
Nope. My magnetic device can precisely tell the difference between
Creative Music Synth [220] and a sample playback MIDI synth. It steers
clear of the former while polluting the latter with terrifying
magnetic disruptions.
I'll see to it that revenge is mine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wes
you already know this to be true.
Wes
"Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1171567617....@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mr Pyburn
Yes, oh what a shock - lots of forum posts of you harking on about
something which at first I thought was legitimate and interesting.
However, it would appear that I've wasted my time (yes, am aware of
the self-referencial irony, due to me wasting time typing this!)
Where have all the interesting posts gone?
Oh look - here they are... hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of
people who actually DO have something constructive to say.
Radium - why don't you write articles for Fortean Times or the
National Enquirer?
MrP
Michael A. Terrell
He should write the science column for the "Weekly World News"
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida
Wes
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org/
"Michael A. Terrell" <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:45D5D6E2...@earthlink.net...
Michael A. Terrell
>
> Even they wouldn't believe him.
That makes him a perfect fit for their tabloid.
Homer J Simpson
"Mr Pyburn" <p...@st-peters.bournemouth.sch.uk> wrote in message
news:1171626467.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Radium - why don't you write articles for Fortean Times or the
> National Enquirer?
Weekly World News - and if you have pictures of Batboy (the love child of
Marilyn and Elvis who now live in a trailer park and run the local Piggly
Wiggly) do include them.
--
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Bob Myers
>> Radium - why don't you write articles for Fortean Times or the
>> National Enquirer?
>>
>> MrP
>
>
> He should write the science column for the "Weekly World News"
All of the above publications have rejected his submissions on
the grounds of their straining credulity just TOO far...
Bob M.
Grayvyard Mushruumz
(Begged to know how to make cheap hardware even worse with nanobots.)
(...)
> I just wish the audio communities would revert back to real, non-
> emulated SB16 FM synthesis and upgrade from there.
Wasn't that Yamaha's OPL? Fine for many things, but not as flexible as
PCM.
> FM emulation [or any audio emulation for that matter] is sample
> playback. Sample playback synth = human kakaa
It works. It's easy to do. It's hard to make it good, but when it's
good, as when
someone spends thirty hours on one track, then it's very good. If I
wer to complain
about SBs, it's simply that the one I used briefly, to record my 1-bit
PC speaker, no less, was very noisy.
(...)
> SB16 PCI has the disadvantages of SB16 ISA [e.g. limitation to 16-bit
> resolution] without the advantages [e.g. *real* FM synthesis]. All
> SB16 PCIs should be burned in oxyacetylene flames.
When last I checked, it was very difficult to make a noticable
improvement on 16bit/44.1k sound -- IF you hav low electrical and
acoustic noise. The low order three to five bits of 16bit sound should
sometimes be ignored, but I prefer to use a noise profiler/filter.
> AFAIK, some PCI cards contain something called 'Yamaha FM synth'.
Last time I read anything about it, Yamaha wrote it, and Creative Labs
emulated it.
(...)
> I can easily tell the difference between the freshness, brightness,
> warmth, and liveliness of a *real* synth from the stale, cacophonous
> -- or rather KAKAA-FOAMous -- fart of emulation.
Sine waves are stale. Square waves are stale. I dress them up.
You hav nothing else to start with.
(...)
> Sample playback MIDI synths are the worst audio equipment ever. They
> are stinky, tickly, itchy, creepy, irritating, farty, hissy,
> terrifying, disgusting, and annoying.
That's what makes them fun. The catch for me, since I use a script
synth,
is how to keep the transforms and harmonics interesting without making
them
annoying.
(...)
> 192 KHz. And from there, keep on upgrading!
If it's done well, then 44.1k/16bit files are ample. If it's good
stuff, then it'll come through a phone. Whataya want with 192khz? Bat
chirps for echolocation? Brownian noise? Human hearing peaks at birth
around 20khz (22.05khz can be represented at a 44.1khz sampling rate).
An adult will hav trouble with pitches above 15khz, and the piano ends
about an octave below that.
> When XP and PCI are obsolete then Creative Technology should be forced
> to make even newer hardware versions of CMS220 -- with even wider bit-
> resolutions and higher sample-rates -- that are compatible with the
> newer hardwares and softwares that will exist in that future time.
The nutty thing is that this has already been done by Sony. They hav a
DVD format supporting something like 2.88 MHz. With the proper antenna
and amplifier, you could record most of the AM band up to 1400Khz
_simultaneously_ (and rebroadcast it later, at a lower wattage). In
everyday use, that would be electrical noise.
(...)
> I feel like torching the chips of sample playback synths with
> oxyacetylene flames to distort their audio output.
(...)
Reportedly, a microwave oven will vaporize them (more likely, turn
them into sand with a lot of sparking). Search for "microwave
incense".
Okay, so in sum, Radium seems to think samples are typically garbage,
and FM synthesis is hard to use. But he can't seem to make up his mind
whether Creative
Labs does a good job of either.
_______
<a href="http://www.mynumo.com/ringtones/preview.php?
Cat_Id=1&Cn_Id=3192"
>Hwisl 4 Dinner</a>
Grayvyard Mushruumz
Reverb is distortion, but I like it, and I just uploaded something
with a much more perverse multi-tap. Harmony is distortion, too.
It can be difficult to make out words through it, but it sounds good.
Radium
<brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> I thot this thread might be about causing distortion at home.
No. Its not about causing distortion, but more like, causing
interference. There's a significant difference. What I was discussing
in this thread is about keeping the original signal unaffected but --
at the same time -- adding external random audio signals. In my
experience, these random signals can sound pretty scary!
Radium
<brewh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> Last time I read anything about it, Yamaha wrote it, and Creative Labs
> emulated it.
AFAIK, there are significant differences between OPL3 and CMS220.
> If it's done well, then 44.1k/16bit files are ample. If it's good
> stuff, then it'll come through a phone. Whataya want with 192khz? Bat
> chirps for echolocation? Brownian noise? Human hearing peaks at birth
> around 20khz (22.05khz can be represented at a 44.1khz sampling rate).
> An adult will hav trouble with pitches above 15khz, and the piano ends
> about an octave below that.
DVD audio is 192 KHz. Thats why I want 192 KHz. Ultrasonic audio does
have subtle effects on audio perception that can affect emotion.
> The nutty thing is that this has already been done by Sony. They hav a
> DVD format supporting something like 2.88 MHz. With the proper antenna
> and amplifier, you could record most of the AM band up to 1400Khz
> _simultaneously_ (and rebroadcast it later, at a lower wattage). In
> everyday use, that would be electrical noise.
DVD audio = stereo, 24-bit, 192 KHz or 7.1, 24-bit, 96 KHz
I prefer the former over the latter.
Oh, and now that you mentioned 2.88 MHz. Now I want my version of
CMS220 to be 64-bit-resolution and 2.88 MHz-sample-rate, and mono*.
*Why I want mono:
I try playing Creative Music Synth [220], through my so called
'karaoke voice canceller' -- which inverts the phase of one stereo
channel [right or left] and then combines it the other channel --
which results in anything identical in both the left and right
channels being removed. I get a mono of what was different in the left
and right channels.
When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.
Due to the above, my MIDI synth dream would be a mono, 64-bit-
resolution, 2.88 MHz-sample-rate, version of Creative Music Synth
[220] based on the signals that were phased differently in the
original CMS220. CMS220 is a stereo FM synth who left and right
signals are phased differently, this is why I get a different sound
when I play throught voice-canceller. The signals of CMS220 that have
the same phase for both L and R have a more cheesy sine-wave quality
which I don't care for. The signals in CMS220 that are phased
differently in L and R tend to resemble a fresher sawtooth-wave
quality which I like. That is why I want my version of CMS220 to be
based on the sounds that were phased differently in the original
CMS220. I want my version to be monoaural because I want all speakers
to give out the same signal.
> Okay, so in sum, Radium seems to think samples are typically garbage,
> and FM synthesis is hard to use.
I never said FM synthesis is hard to use. BTW, yes, samples are
garbage
> But he can't seem to make up his mind
> whether Creative
> Labs does a good job of either.
As said before, the only thing about Creative Technology that I like
is their Creative
Music Synth [220]. Other than that, they are a piece of kakaa.
To those who think MIDI is something of the past, read the following:
There are many people who still care about MIDI but unfortunately,
these are the sick f--ks who actually like sample playback MIDI
synths, emulations, and soundfonts.
You are SOOOOO wrong if you think MIDI is obsolete. Its just that
today's MIDI audio often takes the stinky sample playback MIDI synths,
emulations, and soundfonts. I feel like burning all sample playback
MIDI synths, emulations, and soundfonts along with their consumers,
and their companies. Sick pieces of stinky thick diarrhea human kakaa
foam they are. Vaporize all of those involved with nuclear-fusion
flames!!!!!
I demand that MIDI either use CMS220, or that MIDI audio not be used
at all.
Death to MIDI other than Creative Music Synth [220].
All sample playback MIDI synths, emulations, and soundfonts must be
burned badly. That way those involved in MIDI audio will not have much
choice other than to listen to [or produce]:
1. Creative Music Synth [220]
2. Digital FM synths other than Creative Music Synth [220]
3. *Real* wavetables
4. Other digital synchs [excluding emulations, soundfonts, and sample
playback]
5. Analog synths
OR, the other option for those sample-playback-loving f--kheads is to
totally give up on MIDI, get depressed -- due to the absence of sample
playback MIDI synths, emulations, and soundfonts, and jump off a
cliff!!!!
So yes. There plenty of those sample-playback-loving scumbags who
still indulge in the evils of sample playback MIDI synths, emulations,
and soundfonts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Got it????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
There are tons of evil lovers of sample playback MIDI synths,
emulations, and soundfonts in the entire world.
Try visiting the newsgroups: comp.music.midi and alt.music.midi
Majority of those sick f--ks continually hurl insults at Creative
Music Synth [220] while praising sample playback MIDI synths,
emulations, and soundfonts. I feel like surrounding those scumslimes
with superhot flames resulting from localized nuclear fusion.
Here is my ratings for soundcard MIDI synths:
1. Creative Music Synth [220]
2. Digital hardware FM synths other than Creative Music Synth [220],
non-FM digital synths [including *real wavetables*; excluding sample
playbacks, soundfonts, and emulations], and analog synths
3. Sample playback synths, soundfonts, and emulations of synths.
Try listening to a sample playback MIDI synth -- such as SoundMax's
MIDI synth -- and compare that to Creative Music Synth [220]. You'll
*definitely* notice the difference.
SoundMax MIDI synth audio is to the ear what stinky thick diarrhea
kakaa foam of humans is to the nose.
The Crystal soundfont is even worse than SoundMax.
Creative Music Synth [220], OTOH, is auditory paradise.
Bob Myers
> DVD audio is 192 KHz. Thats why I want 192 KHz. Ultrasonic audio does
> have subtle effects on audio perception that can affect emotion.
Says who? And even if it were true - do you have ANY reason
to believe that there is any playback equipment around, either
consumer or professional, which could properly reproduce audio
in the 22-96 kHz range?
>
> DVD audio = stereo, 24-bit, 192 KHz or 7.1, 24-bit, 96 KHz
>
> I prefer the former over the latter.
Why?
>
> Oh, and now that you mentioned 2.88 MHz. Now I want my version of
> CMS220 to be 64-bit-resolution and 2.88 MHz-sample-rate, and mono*.
Nonsense. How do you plan on capturing "64-bit resolution"
samples in the first place? Do you even have the slightest idea
what "bits of resolution" translates to in practice?
> When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
> canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
> crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.
Gee, why do you think that might be?
> I never said FM synthesis is hard to use. BTW, yes, samples are
> garbage
Which means what, exactly?
As usual, about the only thing you are achieving here is demonstrating
the incredible depths of your ignorance regarding the subject at
hand.
Bob M.
Radium
> "Radium" <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172022083....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > DVD audio is 192 KHz. Thats why I want 192 KHz. Ultrasonic audio does
> > have subtle effects on audio perception that can affect emotion.
>
> Says who? And even if it were true - do you have ANY reason
> to believe that there is any playback equipment around, either
> consumer or professional, which could properly reproduce audio
> in the 22-96 kHz range?
Such equipment could -- in theory -- be made that could reproduce
those high frequencies and sample rates.
> > When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-
> > canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
> > crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.
>
> Gee, why do you think that might be?
Because the waveforms with sawtooth-wave characteristics are phased
differently in the L and R channels, while those with sine-wave
characteristics are phased identically in the L and R channels. The
voice-cancellor remove whats phased similarly in L and R while
preserving what phased differently in L and R.
Sawtooth waves tend to give a much brighter and warmer feel than sine
waves do.
Bob Myers
>> > DVD audio is 192 KHz. Thats why I want 192 KHz. Ultrasonic audio does
>> > have subtle effects on audio perception that can affect emotion.
>>
>
>> Says who? And even if it were true - do you have ANY reason
>> to believe that there is any playback equipment around, either
>> consumer or professional, which could properly reproduce audio
>> in the 22-96 kHz range?
>
> Such equipment could -- in theory -- be made that could reproduce
> those high frequencies and sample rates.
Tell you what - you get to work on that, and then be
sure to get back to us just the MOMENT you have
something to demo, OK?
>> Gee, why do you think that might be?
>
> Because the waveforms with sawtooth-wave characteristics are phased
> differently in the L and R channels, while those with sine-wave
> characteristics are phased identically in the L and R channels. The
> voice-cancellor remove whats phased similarly in L and R while
> preserving what phased differently in L and R.
>
> Sawtooth waves tend to give a much brighter and warmer feel than sine
> waves do.
Are you just making this stuff up as you go
along, or what?
Bob M.
Radium
> "Radium" <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172029610.2...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... :
> > Sawtooth waves tend to give a much brighter and warmer feel than sine
> > waves do.
>
> Are you just making this stuff up as you go
> along, or what?
Nope. If you have a valid email address, I can email you two WMA audio
files from the MIDI audio of CMS220. File A is converted to mono
without inverting the phase of either channel. File B is converted to
mono after inverting the phase of the left channel. IOW, file A is not
"voice-cancelled", while file B is.
After listening to them, you certainly will notice the difference I
describe.
Wes
Wes Taggart
Analogics
http://www.analogics.org
"Bob Myers" <nospam...@address.invalid> wrote in message
news:aZPCh.237$9A7...@news.cpqcorp.net...
Snip
HellPopeHuey
(drivel)
You are an ill-mannered moron and don't belong on any of these groups.
Get your stupid ass over to alt.flame or alt.slack, where aimless
bitch-slapping for its own sake is part of the FAQs. You clearly have
nothing to say that's worth hearing.
--
HellPope Huey
All argument means squat to a struck tuning fork
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
He writes so well, he makes me feel
like putting my quill back in my goose.
~ Fred Allen
"Another chance...
that's the scariest thing in the world."
~ "Judging Amy"
Bob Myers
> Nope. If you have a valid email address, I can email you two WMA audio
> files from the MIDI audio of CMS220. File A is converted to mono
> without inverting the phase of either channel. File B is converted to
> mono after inverting the phase of the left channel. IOW, file A is not
> "voice-cancelled", while file B is.
>
> After listening to them, you certainly will notice the difference I
> describe.
Whether or not there's a difference is not in question here - it's
whether or not you understand where that difference comes
from.
Bob M.
>
Radium
> "Radium" <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote in message
As I said, the signals that are phased similarly in L and R are
removed, while signals phased differently are not removed. Am I wrong?
If so, please correct me. This really does interest me. So if I am
incorrect, please explain, what causes them to sound different. I am
serious here, no joking around.
Bob Masta, sorry to bother you, but would you mind giving a hand here?
You seem to be the most intelligent when dealing with SB16's FM synth.
Bob Myers
>> Whether or not there's a difference is not in question here - it's
>> whether or not you understand where that difference comes
>> from.
>>
>> Bob M.
>>
>>
>
> As I said, the signals that are phased similarly in L and R are
> removed, while signals phased differently are not removed. Am I wrong?
No, as far as it goes, that's correct. Where you went off in the weeds
before is when you went beyond that simple statement, and tried to
bring in some imaginings about supposed differences between
"sawtooth" waves and "sine" waves.
Here's a hint - ALL waveforms you'll find in audio (or anywhere else,
for that matter) are either sine waves or summations of a series of
sine waves. Where the differences in this case come from will be
when the system doesn't preserve the proper phase relationships between
all the sinusoids in a given waveform's series.
What you might want to spend a little more time thinking about is just
where, in this "karaoke" sort of mono summing (the "vocal cancelling"
technique) is just which signals in the original stereo pair are likely
to have phase differences between the two channels, and why. And,
of course, which aren't.
Bob M.
Radium
> No, as far as it goes, that's correct. Where you went off in the weeds
> before is when you went beyond that simple statement, and tried to
> bring in some imaginings about supposed differences between
> "sawtooth" waves and "sine" waves.
>
> Here's a hint - ALL waveforms you'll find in audio (or anywhere else,
> for that matter) are either sine waves or summations of a series of
> sine waves. Where the differences in this case come from will be
> when the system doesn't preserve the proper phase relationships between
> all the sinusoids in a given waveform's series.
>
> What you might want to spend a little more time thinking about is just
> where, in this "karaoke" sort of mono summing (the "vocal cancelling"
> technique) is just which signals in the original stereo pair are likely
> to have phase differences between the two channels, and why. And,
> of course, which aren't.
I am sure Creative Labs deliberately made these phase differences in
the stereo CMS220 synths. BTW, I already new FM synthesis starts of as
sine-waves. What I was saying is that the sound that are phased
similarly in L and R sounded like sine-waves [such as a "whine" or
"hum"] while the tones that are phased differently in L and R sounded
like sawtooth waves ["buzz"]. Thats just how the company designed the
synth. Of course, as is obvious, the synth produces all its sounds
from what are originally sine-waves.
Laurence Payne
wrote:
>Radium wrote:
>
>(drivel)
>
> You are an ill-mannered moron and don't belong on any of these groups.
>Get your stupid ass over to alt.flame or alt.slack, where aimless
>bitch-slapping for its own sake is part of the FAQs. You clearly have
>nothing to say that's worth hearing.
Oh PLEASE! We all know it's a troll. Amuse yourself if you like, but
don't take him seriously.
Bob Myers
> I am sure Creative Labs deliberately made these phase differences in
> the stereo CMS220 synths.
Oh, you're "sure" of that, huh? And exactly what is the
basis for your certainty? (This should be good...)
> BTW, I already new FM synthesis starts of as
> sine-waves.
Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the
point I was making.
Bob M.
Radium
> "Radium" <gluceg...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172105543.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> > I am sure Creative Labs deliberately made these phase differences in
> > the stereo CMS220 synths.
> Oh, you're "sure" of that, huh? And exactly what is the
> basis for your certainty? (This should be good...)
Because, with or without the central channel, the sound is almost
equally loud, its just the waveshapes are different giving rise to a
different quality.
Maybe I am not sure. LOL. Ask Bob Masta. He's a pro with SB FM synths.
> > BTW, I already new FM synthesis starts of as
> > sine-waves.
> Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the
> point I was making.
Okay. What point did you make?
Rich Grise
> "Radium" <gluc...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> I am sure Creative Labs deliberately made these phase differences in
>> the stereo CMS220 synths.
>
> Oh, you're "sure" of that, huh? And exactly what is the
> basis for your certainty? (This should be good...)
>
>> BTW, I already new FM synthesis starts of as
>> sine-waves.
>
> Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the
> point I was making.
Speaking of this, I learned about the multiple harmonics for
triangles, sawtooths, square waves, etc. by reading about it -
then I saw a picture of a "sawtooth generator" with about 3
parts, and wondered, "How do they make all those harmonics
and phase them with so few parts?" ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Radium
Bob Myers:
Since you say I am wrong, from what you know, why is it that when I
play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the voice-canceller, it
sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and crisper than when I
don't use the voice canceller??
Don't ignore this question. It really interests me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rick Massey
Voice cancellers reverse the phase of one channel and then sum the channels.
This is because on most tracks the voice is in both channels, and reversing
the phase and then summing the channels will create a negative phase wave
that will cancel the original out, thereby resulting in the stuff going
away. These programs also often get rid of the bass as well if they're not
very good, as the bass is also usually in both channels.
So, what you're hearing with the voice canceller is the stuff that is panned
far to the sides. Because of the way your program, which, by the way, isn't
considered to be a real professional tool but instead something that is
designed for dabblers, , handles the stuff it creates, you get this effect
of making things sound brighter. The same thing can often be done in less
destructive ways, like by using an exciter, but if it works for you, great.
When you're tired of playing with that toy, graduate to a real program like
CSound, and start playing with real synthesis like Additive or Physical
Modeling. FM is just one small part of the synthesis world, and most people
don't play with sound cards for their synthesis. This is why you're getting
so much ridicule, as your statements are applicable only to the world of
sound cards, and professionals usually work with far more versatile tools
that have far higher fidelity.
Radium
> Voice cancellers reverse the phase of one channel and then sum the channels.
> This is because on most tracks the voice is in both channels, and reversing
> the phase and then summing the channels will create a negative phase wave
> that will cancel the original out, thereby resulting in the stuff going
> away. These programs also often get rid of the bass as well if they're not
> very good, as the bass is also usually in both channels.
I already knew all of the above. Bass and vocals are usually panned to
the center.
> So, what you're hearing with the voice canceller is the stuff that is panned
> far to the sides. Because of the way your program, which, by the way, isn't
> considered to be a real professional tool but instead something that is
> designed for dabblers, , handles the stuff it creates, you get this effect
> of making things sound brighter.
So, IOW, the sounds panned far to the sides are the sounds that just
happen to be brighter than whats panned in the center because the
company -- Creative Technology -- designed it that way. Right or
wrong? If wrong, then how so?
> The same thing can often be done in less
> destructive ways, like by using an exciter, but if it works for you, great.
What is an "exciter"?
Rick Massey
in your resources that you use to learn about this stuff. It's an aural
illusion you're hearing more than anything else.
A solid grounding in FM theory will help a lot too -- there are lots of good
tutorials on the web, and you very well may find that some of the
limitations of your soundcard are shown out in this as you start dealing
with higher numbers of operators in more professional environments.
>> The same thing can often be done in less
>> destructive ways, like by using an exciter, but if it works for you,
>> great.
>
> What is an "exciter"?
Look Up Aural Exciter in whatever resources you use to learn about these
things.