i couldn't agree with ya¡ more, that's one smooth sounding filter; nice knob tooo man¡ as usual, once again & one more time udahman, Udahbest Doty UrgUrU thanx again dude
@automaticgainsay
11 ай бұрын
Ha ha, thank you, sir!
@Bata9999
11 ай бұрын
you say 12db/octave filters can have a more vintage character which makes no sense at all and then follow it up with saying its due to reasons you don't entirely understand. This is unacceptable levels of old man babbling. sad to see how the great synth channels have fallen. im half kidding of course but this combined with no oscilloscope in the oscillator breakdown has me questioning why you even bother doing these when people like loopop have taken the format to such a high level.
@automaticgainsay
11 ай бұрын
Hey, Bata. There are many aspects of aural experience that defy logical explanation, practical demonstration, or even, in some instances, uniform perception amongst people. I have found, through decades of experience AND demonstration, that characteristics such as "fat" are still not understood or even perceived by some despite my constant demonstrations of what elements comprise that character. My fault is that I always assume that all of you have been along with me for this whole ride, and know these things... and for that I'm sorry. But simply because you personally don't know WHY I am making an assertion does not instantly make that assertion "old man babble, " and my friendly, personable delivery of casual-seeming statements does not make them motivated or unsupported. If you, personally, do not believe that analog 12 dB per oct filters can lend a certain "vintage" sound to a synth, that's fair. And, if you want to engage in discourse about your belief, I heartily invite it. But to show up here and make a blanket criticism without any attempt to demonstrate why you think the assertion is wrong is childish and pointless. So, here: While the Moog synthesizer presence is huge in popular and academic music from the 1960s and 1970s, and some of our most beloved iterations of synthesizers in popular music feature Moog... there were a LOT of non-Moog non-24dB per oct synthesizers used in various popular contexts in popular music. For example, years before Moog, there were instruments that didn't feature Moog's filter topology at all... and instead, embraced a formant-based approach... because the human voice lies at the foundation of synthesis (if you want to dismiss that statement as "old man babble," I can write you a historically-supported treatise on that, too). As you undoubtedly know, formant filtering is often achieved with band pass filters. As you also SHOULD know, 24 dB per octave filters do not typically feature a band pass function (although the original trio of 904 modules could be employed to achieve that outcome). Many of the early electronic and synthesis-related instruments have a similar character due to the frequency outcomes of formant, or band pass, filtering. And, these instruments are not obscure. The Hammond Novachord, for example (an instrument I have owned), was used quite a bit in pieces of music even you have probably heard. And, although I feel it doesn't need saying, I might say it just for you: 12dB per octave filters often feature a band pass function. I won't even go into the ways that the slope on the 12dB architecture differs from that of the 24dB, and how those who used synths of that type in the 70s evinced that character. The first ARP Odyssey comes to mind. There are a few premises for you to counter if you'd like to engage in discourse instead of unfounded (and ageist) criticism. As for what I "don't entirely understand," there are, again, many strange acoustical outcomes that occur in our perception of sound... and none of them can be adequately explained. I say things like that when I'm really saying "this isn't possible to practically explain," or occasionally to amiably indicate my own gaps in knowledge... which is fine. With my level of knowledge, at least you know that I am comfortable with my own informational shortcomings instead of being arrogant about the depth of my applicable knowledge. But great job finding fault in that. As for the oscilloscope: I often wish I had one simply as a means to illustrate assertions I'm making about waves. I often jokingly criticize myself for not using one in videos (although I have, you just probably haven't seen those videos). But the fact is, the average synth user, or even skilled synth user, simply doesn't have an audio analog to a visual wave. While we all recognize a sawtooth or whatever, none of us can look at a complex waveform and describe what timbre it represents. And therefore, an oscilloscope does not serve me in the way that I would want it to. As for Loopop, he's a great synth demonstrator, and I'm glad he is out there making the content he does. He and I have had several conversations about the way our approaches differ. I might point out to you that despite your dissatisfaction with my approach; I literally am the person who "invented" the component-by-component examination and demonstration video on KZitem. And, I started it in order to adequately demonstrate how vintage analog synthesizers functioned, and as a base-component aid to understanding how vintage synthesizers sounded when they did what they did. Anyway. I thrill at the opportunity to talk about ideas or engage in discourse. Every assertion I make has a foundation in fact, experience, and knowledge... and I love explaining how I came to the conclusions that I have. So, I'll have to thank you for that opportunity... even if your comment was presented as a needlessly-critical, arrogant, and shitty slam. Any other complaints about my approach? :D
@Bata9999
11 ай бұрын
@@automaticgainsay you are absolutely out of your mind if you think I'm reading all that.
Пікірлер: 6