Definition of Synthesizer
MuseSlave
these questions kept coming up.
(if you want, you can look there for why I believe the Hammond B3 fits the
description of a synthesizer)
Specifically, I want to address the definition of synthesizer, synthesize, and
synthesis.
There is always a little confusion about the word "synthesize." Synthesis
comes from a greek word comprised of the words for "to place together." The
original english definitions were "putting together parts or elements so as to
form a whole," and "a whole made up of parts or elements put together."
'Synthesize' is typified as "to form by bringing together separate parts."
The problem is the word "synthetic." Originally it meant "of or from
synthesis," which we remember is the putting together of stuff to form a whole.
The problem is, it has come to mean "fake" or "artificial." The confusion
occurs because chemists began to synthesize not-naturally-ocurring chemicals
out of other chemical components... thereby "synthesizing" artificial
compounds. It's easy to see how "synthesize" could begin to mean "create
artificially." It doesn't help that early synthesizers were touted as being
able to simulate or fake real instruments. As a result, the word synthesize
starts to seem like it means "create artificially." Synthesizers that are
simulating real instruments are "creating the sound artificially," etc.
Don Buchla, who coined the term "synthesizer" stated that he named the device
that because (and I'm paraphrasing) the device created sound out of the various
components of sound... thereby "synthesizing" a whole out of the parts. You
have to remember that those synthesizer pioneers weren't creating a device to
simulate other instruments, they were creating a new form of expression, a new
type of musical instrument. Since that device creates sound in the way it
does, of course it could simulate other instruments... but much as it might
surprise those who purchase synths for how well they can fake a guitar or a
clavinet, that wasn't exactly the spirit in which they were originally created.
The person I was originally responding to in the Jazz Keyboardists thread asked
whether samplers were synthesizers... and I say no. (although I have a sampler
that has aspects of synthesis involved...) A sampler is a tape recorder, a
Chamberlin, a Mellotron. These are different keyboard devices with wholly
different technology, history, and intent.
What does everyone think?
Ed
MuseSlave wrote:
>
>(if you want, you can look there for why I believe the Hammond B3 fits the
>description of a synthesizer)
>
Agreed... additive synthesis at it's lowest level.
>
>
>Don Buchla, who coined the term "synthesizer" stated that he named the device
>that because (and I'm paraphrasing) the device created sound out of the various
>components of sound... thereby "synthesizing" a whole out of the parts. You
>have to remember that those synthesizer pioneers weren't creating a device to
>simulate other instruments, they were creating a new form of expression, a new
>type of musical instrument. Since that device creates sound in the way it
>does, of course it could simulate other instruments... but much as it might
>surprise those who purchase synths for how well they can fake a guitar or a
>clavinet, that wasn't exactly the spirit in which they were originally created.
>
Actually, I'm not sure Buchla coined the term... I could be wrong.
Actually, what turned into what we generally reffered to as
synthesizers (in the '60s) was an offshoot of an attempt to mimic
speech. R. Moog (et. al.) were developing oscillators and filters and
vca's and such for RCA, and Bell Labs in an attempt to "synthesize"
human speech. Somewhere along the line a few of the engineers said,
"hey, these are cool (or boss, or nifty, or whatever the word was at the
time) sounds, they could be used for music". While analyzing speech
(and the characteristics that define it), similar analysis of
instruments was done on existing instruments (horns, violins, etc) and
simulating or "synthesizing" those sounds was done. It was musicians
like Milton Babbit, Uschachevsky, Cage, etc. who delved into sound
creation... or sound synthesis.
Samplers synthesizers? Sure. Tape manipulation synthesis? I'd say yes
to that also.
But then again, maybe I just like to think so.
Ed
sraymar
"MuseSlave" <muse...@aol.comspamless> wrote in message
>
> Specifically, I want to address the definition of synthesizer, synthesize,
and
> synthesis.
asked
> whether samplers were synthesizers... and I say no. (although I have a
sampler
> that has aspects of synthesis involved...) A sampler is a tape recorder,
a
> Chamberlin, a Mellotron. These are different keyboard devices with wholly
> different technology, history, and intent.
>
> What does everyone think?
If a sampler has a synth engine - LFOs, envelopes, filters, etc.,
it is definitely a synthesizer in its truest definition. Its sad that
there are still some people that write of synths as poor imitatiors
of real instruments, that's so incredibly lost.
Steve
Mr Q. Z. Diablo
"sraymar" <sra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I've done some lovely, warbly, Vangelesque synth brass pads on an EPS
that people have sworn were analogue. The starting point? The feeble
EPS built-in square wave. Use internal processing algorithms
(crossfade, what have you), a bidirectional loop and some judicious
filtering with the right envelope and a detuned layer and there you have
it!
It's a little grainy but it works a treat.
Mr Q. Z. D.
--
Drinker, systems administrator, wannabe writer, musician and all-round bastard.
"...Base 8 is just like base 10 really... ((o))
If you're missing two fingers." - Tom Lehrer ((O))
MuseSlave
Mr Q. Z. D.>>
Okay, okay... I have an EPS 16+... and I admit I've used that square wave
myself... it is fun, and yes... I definitely believe that to be synthesis...
but that itself is outside of the definition of "sampler."
In the broad sense of the actual definition of "synthesis" any combination of
sounds combined to make another sound is synthesis... but synthesis as it has
come to be related to the synthesizer has the sounds originating with some type
of oscillator... so samples, tape recordings, closed groove records, etc.
don't really qualify.
Ed
MuseSlave wrote:
> but synthesis as it has
>come to be related to the synthesizer has the sounds originating with some type
>of oscillator... so samples, tape recordings, closed groove records, etc.
>don't really qualify.
>
How about scratches on the optical sound portion of a film? Those old
Hammond organs have sounds that originate by electromechanical
generation of waves (i.e. tonewheels)... not an oscillator in the sense
related to synthesizers. I guess it is more like the difference between
the words "synthesizer" and "synthesis". A synthesizer is one device
used to synthesize sound.
Ed
sraymar
"MuseSlave" <muse...@aol.comspamless> wrote in
> <<It's a little grainy but it works a treat.
>
> In the broad sense of the actual definition of "synthesis" any combination
of
> sounds combined to make another sound is synthesis... but synthesis as it
has
> come to be related to the synthesizer has the sounds originating with some
type
> of oscillator... so samples, tape recordings, closed groove records, etc.
> don't really qualify.
Maybe for the analog synths(that, in alot of cases, also had external inputs
for external sound sources) but digital samplers/romplers have oscillators
that play samples. The element that gives a synth its character is the rest
of the engine used for shaping and modulating sound, and that's the crux
and magic of synthesis.
Steve
MuseSlave
made use of optical synthesis... which is basically the same technology as the
graphic waveform method of 16mm film soundtrack.
<<Those old
Hammond organs have sounds that originate by electromechanical
generation of waves (i.e. tonewheels)... not an oscillator in the sense
related to synthesizers.>>
Well, it can be a semantic issue... but Hammonds, like the first synthesizer,
the Telharmionium, use the electromagnetic properties of tonewheels (to
generate analog frequencies) as the oscillator(s). Granted, there is a huge
difference in application... but let's remember that the tonewheel preceeded
the oscillator... and that the modern synth didn't happen until the 1960s...
judging the past by the present is a little backwards. The tonewheel was the
beginning of synthesizers... and in that way is very much an oscillator in a
sense related to synthesizers.
<<I guess it is more like the difference between
the words "synthesizer" and "synthesis". A synthesizer is one device
used to synthesize sound.>>
Ed, if you'd like, go back and read what I posted about the definition of
"synthesis." I address those words, how they are related, how they've come to
differ, and how improperly they are often used. If you can't find the posting,
I'll retype it... basically, it deals with the notion that "synthesize" does
not mean "create," nor does it mean "create artificially." It has come to be
used in that fashion, and I'm sure many dictionaries (which create definitions
based upon usage instead of meaning) will soon sport that type of usage, but
that particular usage is not accurate when it comes to what synthesis
originally meant, and what Don Buchla was thinking when he (supposedly) coined
the term "synthesizer."
Even so: a device designed to synthesize sound from components of sound (which
is an accurate portrayal of the word synthesize) is still different from a
device that plays back a digital recording of a sound... a sampler. Which is
why I stated the post that you responded to.
Ed>>
MuseSlave
for external sound sources) but digital samplers/romplers have oscillators
that play samples. The element that gives a synth its character is the rest
of the engine used for shaping and modulating sound, and that's the crux
and magic of synthesis.>>
Romplers and digital synths don't have true oscillators, they often have
waveform samples, or DSP algorithms, etc. to create sound. While some may be
purists (like me, in a lot of ways), one must concede that a fake bullshit
algorithm that simulates an oscillator is still an oscillator.
I should've been more clear in my original stance... so I'll clarify now... my
point is: samplers are not synthesizers because they serve (or have served) a
different purpose than synthesizers... they make digital recordings of sounds.
They often include functions to shape those recordings, but the spirit of the
sampler is digital recording and extrapolation... not creating sounds from the
components of sound.
In the past several years, more and more devices have been created that blur
the lines between sampler and synthesizer... however, that doesn't make the
original definitions untrue. We don't alter the past because things change in
the present. What needs to be created are new classifications of device. Just
because a new sampler can do both synthesis of some sort and sampling doesn't
mean the definitions of "sampler" and "synthesizer" should change.
As for what the magic of synthesis is... well, I'm sure its different for
everyone... but at least we all have enough of it in common to love these
devices.
And don't get me wrong... I love my samplers... but the square wave generator
on my EPS16+ just doesn't quite justify calling the danged thing a synth. ; )
Ed
><<How about scratches on the optical sound portion of a film?>>
>I urge you to explore the work of Daphne Oram and her Oramics machine... which
>made use of optical synthesis... which is basically the same technology as the
>graphic waveform method of 16mm film soundtrack.
>
I'd be happier if you urged me to dig out the some of the stuff I did in
the late 70's... grin
>
><<Those old
>Hammond organs have sounds that originate by electromechanical
>generation of waves (i.e. tonewheels)... not an oscillator in the sense
>related to synthesizers.>>
>Well, it can be a semantic issue... but Hammonds, like the first synthesizer,
>the Telharmionium, use the electromagnetic properties of tonewheels (to
>generate analog frequencies) as the oscillator(s). Granted, there is a huge
>difference in application... but let's remember that the tonewheel preceeded
>the oscillator... and that the modern synth didn't happen until the 1960s...
>judging the past by the present is a little backwards. The tonewheel was the
>beginning of synthesizers... and in that way is very much an oscillator in a
>sense related to synthesizers.
>
It seems to some extent, yes it is semantics. I agree that Hammonds are
synthesizers... they were being used to synthetically recreate the
sounds of pipes and bourdon tubes. Although your analogy (pun intended)
brings up a question about your assertions concerning samplers (see
below). Actually the "modern synth" was alive in the 50's... it just
didn't get neatly packaged and "normalized" until the 60's. All of the
components were there. The most used (and most marketable) patches are
what got packaged.
>
><<I guess it is more like the difference between
>the words "synthesizer" and "synthesis". A synthesizer is one device
>used to synthesize sound.>>
>Ed, if you'd like, go back and read what I posted about the definition of
>"synthesis."
>
I read it...
>I address those words, how they are related, how they've come to
>differ, and how improperly they are often used. If you can't find the posting,
>I'll retype it... basically, it deals with the notion that "synthesize" does
>not mean "create," nor does it mean "create artificially." It has come to be
>used in that fashion, and I'm sure many dictionaries (which create definitions
>based upon usage instead of meaning) will soon sport that type of usage, but
>that particular usage is not accurate when it comes to what synthesis
>originally meant, and what Don Buchla was thinking when he (supposedly) coined
>the term "synthesizer."
>
But by what you use for a definition, a trumpet is a synthesizer... the
player takes air pressure, varies it in a regular fashion, and uses a
variable length tube to ease resonances. He has brought together
various components and synthesized a sound. And, to a large extent what
is a word other than it's usage? And I do think that generating a
"synthetic" (i.e. non-natural) sound is precisely what DB was thinking
when (and if) he coined the phrase. I have my doubts that he had in
mind a complicated electronic analog (from analogy) of a piano... or a
device that could make keyboard players as sexy as guitarists. Maybe
the marketing aspect _was_ what he had in mind.
>
>Even so: a device designed to synthesize sound from components of sound (which
>is an accurate portrayal of the word synthesize) is still different from a
>device that plays back a digital recording of a sound... a sampler. Which is
>why I stated the post that you responded to.
>
How about if I take a slice of a sample... one cycle (or two, or 5, or
1000) and then play that back at variable rates? In essence, how does
that differ from the Hammond reference? Is it only synthesis if I run
that through filters and amps? How about a tape loop running at
variable speed? How about a card in the spokes of a bicycle wheel?
Would it be synthesis if I cut the card in a different shape or removed
specific spokes? How about if I miked it and ran that through filters?
Hey, I gotta try that!
I'm not arguing (per se)... it's an interesting topic. On the other
hand, I might just be feeling a bit contentious. I get that way
sometimes. Too bad we can't sit over a couple boards, down a cold one
or two, and give examples...
Ed
Lord Valve
MuseSlave wrote:
A Hammond organ is indeed a synthesizer, of the additive variety,
albeit a rather primitive one, in that it has no functional ADSR or
adjustable filters. (There are tweaks inside for HF rolloff and
percussion decay time, but these are not adjustable in realtime
by the performer.) The AGO (American Guild of Organists, as
uptight a set of stodgy old farts as you are ever likely to encounter)
sued the Hammond company in the 1930s for calling their instrument
an organ. (They lost. ;-)
Is a sampler a synthesizer? No, not if all it does is record and
play back sounds. However, most modern samplers include
synthesizer circuitry such as filters, amps, modulators, etc.,
which can be used to alter the characteristics of the samples.
Lord Valve
American
MuseSlave
or two, and give examples...>>
effective!
However... I have to confess... I'd probably down closer to four or five. : )