Hi Technobear,
Just in case you did not already pick up on it yourself: You might be interested in the discussion going on under the "Does this have a name?" label. It's very general but I am sure it will hit a nerve with you.
Marc
The Holy Grail ? (second reprise)
brasso
#42
Hmmm,
That's a difficult one. I have been looking for such sites myself but never found them. The best stuff one tends to find are papers written by university scholars or developers decribing such systems to their coleagues. The disadvantage of such studies however is that they tend to be very theoretical and mathematical.
A counter question: Could you describe how deep your understanding of the general physical properties of sound goes? What do you know about the workings of an organ pipe? Do you understand the Fourier principle? Stuff like that.
That's where it all goes if you want to do more then just tweak a filter, yah know! 
brasso
#43
Ugh! You know what? I have actually written something that can help you a bit myself. After all if Mohammed will not come to the mountian ...
It is actually tailored on using the Technics WSA1 but since I begin with the very basic principles it can also give you a start.
Have a look here: http://wsa1.technicskeyboards.com/wsa1-articles/wsa1-articles-first-steps/
You will find 2 articles here introducing the concepts of modeling as integrated into the WSA. There however is nothing to keep you from addopting the basic insights it provides on any other synthesis system.
I already wrote a 3rd installment but it has not been published yet. All 3 parts will also become available on my own website very soon, if only my webhoster would hurry up a bit!
Marc
axoman
#44
I have a very different approach to this stuff. I understand "sound", but I approach it my own way. I suppose you could say I take the hands-on approach to it all, not the scientific one.
It's sound after all, so as far as I'm concerned it's all about what I hear. That's been my own way of learning physical modeling. I listen to a sound and sort of put it into mind slots if you like. Think of the various types of synthesis out there, they each have a slot and when I hear sound, it falls into one of those slots. I take it from there, progressing as it becomes more and more obvious which type of synthesis are required to model a specific aspect of an instrumnents sound.
I used to play around with this a lot back when Reaktor was at version 2, so I'm currently having to re-igniting my brain after being dropped into Axoloti after all that time.
Now you're going to laugh at me here (oh yes you are), but physical modelling, even though I've been getting by without functions for all this time, is actually quite easy for me. I find it fun in areas where I can imagine others might find it completely frustrating. I suppose what I mentioned earlier comes into play as well, about certain advantages of being a high-level thinker.
That's kinda why I asked about the websites, I've faced the same problem as you have in finding them. It's something that interests me greatly, but almost everything out there takes the scientific/mathematical approach, whereas I don't.
Already intended to read your WSA stuff, and will do, just haven't finished the CS80 one yet 
brasso
#47
Of course a more intuitive way of treatiung sound is always a good thing. I also still integrate that into my prersonal approach as well. But on the long term it can become sort of limiting if one does not look further. That is probably the very reason why most users never get that much further then tweaking filters.
I am actually asking you this because by knowing the basic principles of sound and music it becomes much easier to see the similarities between the different synthesis methods. In that respect I can again recommend my little WSA course, especially the first part.
axoman
#48
Sorry Marc, haven't even downloaded them yet. I saw the website was working last night but couldn't be bothered to download them and went to bed instead. But thanks again, I'll definitely check them out, no worries.
Regards most users not getting further than tweaking filters, I hear you, but I'm really not in that category at all, I passed all that many years ago. I get that I must come across as a complete amateur on here, but that is not the case. I'm not here to learn sound design, I already know that stuff well enough to get anything I want.
I'm here to learn Axoloti, and as you'll no doubt discover when your own board arrives, things are not always done the way you expect they might be. The simplest things have tripped me up while the more complex stuff has been a breeze, where the worst case scenario is realising I could have done it more efficiently when I spot another object.
Eventually though, you start to build increasingly efficient designs. It's like that thing I posted to help out with the sample selector, hadn't even touched or looked into the mux objects at the time, so it never used one.
brasso
#49
Dear Axoman,
There is absolutely no reason to become apologetic. Everybody has his own prefered working methods. I'd say that anybody, novice or old hack, who is not constantly pushing out the same old same old but is able to stimulate him/herself to develop further is always on the right track. I also do not have the feelinng you are a stinking berginner anyway. The other thread about esoteric smoothing functions is proof that you think beyond the obvious anyway.
It's just that I have personally found that learning about the basics of sound has improved my ability to cross reference when looking for solutions. So much even that I sometimes wish I had some of the few synths I discarded again (Korg Mono/Poly, Yamaha DX7) just to check how much more I would be able to do with them nowadays.
Basically there are not even that many principles that one has to know. I'm sure I could pen them down on one A4.
And like I said: I am also not a mathematician but it is just like understanding keys and chords. Once you have a general insight into how things work everyhting jumps much more into focus. Even if you are not able to give every scale or chord its official name, as long as you understand the general system you will not be held back by it. I never think in scales anyway but I am still very aware of the overlapping principles behind sound. And like you already indicated yourself: In the end it is all (more or less ordered) sound / noise.
axoman
#50
Wasn't becoming apologetic, just explaining the situation. Seriously, the whole math and programming thing doesn't bother me at all. I have my own way of doing things and wouldn't want it any other way
Anyway, you mention the Yamaha DX7, so I'm wondering, are you aware of the Yamaha FS1R?
Rackmount FM synth with integrated formant synthesis, and even formant sequencing to make it speak or sing complete phrases. A very cool synth:
brasso
#51
Sure I know the FS1R! If I would get back to FM that would still be a great candidate, espcially since I love the whole idea of formant synthesis anyhow. I once had the chance to try one out for half an hour or so. Turning that single formant knob in real time while playing some of the presets already leads to wonderful stuff. They do however tend to be quite expensive second hand.
axoman
#52
You could make one when you get your Axoloti, it's all possible!
And I agree, I think it was a very good idea to combine FM and Formants in the same synth 
axoman
#55
Wow, that was some wait 
There's fun times ahead for you, but as a side note, I wish the smileys here were a little more masculine.
That smiley I just used makes me feel like my masculinity got taken from me!
As far as i understood the patents, in the FS1R they integrated phase modulation with sort of FOF: synched and windowed PM operators.
Jens_Groh
#59
Do you have the numbers of these patents or links to them? Could be interesting.
BTW, did you know that Trautwein's "Trautonium" around 1930 was already equivalent to FOF synthesis? He called the principle "Hallformanten" (reverberation formants).
Eskadrone
#60
That sounds a bit like, what this guy did:http://musicdsp.org/archive.php?classid=1#224