Re: Synthesis (was Re:Amelio's ouster)

["Geoff Kaiser" <superkais@macconnect.com>]

In article <26JUL199703162134@vax2.concordia.ca>, spec@vax2.concordia.ca
(Mitchell Spector) wrote:

>    ....The Sound Canvas does not have
>a digitized recording of _each_ and _every_ note on the keyboard scale!

Never said they did....they map several samples over the audible range of
notes available, just like a sample keyboard. A typical piano sample may
have 10-20 notes sampled, and played back at higher/lower rates for the
notes in between them.

>The Ensoniq 5503 in the IIgs worked the same way, which I wonder, do
>you not consider that a synthesizer either? Just what IS it then?
>And what was the Mirage keyboard that used the same chip back in 1985?

I'm not too familiar with the IIgs's built-in card, but the Mirage was a
sampler, not a synthesizer. You had to load each and every sound on floppies
to hear them. The Mirage, like most any sampler, doesn't create sound, it
only re-creates sound.


>    I suppose if you want to be really picky, the AdLib, SoundBlaster,
>Commodore VIC20, C64, TI99/4a, Mockingboard, Phasor, Atari ST, etc all
>had true "synthesizers". They generated sound from simple waves (i.e.
>squarewave, sinewave, triangle) or complex waveforms (FM synth).

Yes, that would be correct. I'm not saying that a true synthesized waveform
is the most desirable. Sampled ones usually are. I was only saying that
samplers are not synthesizers.


>    This is new, now if a Macintosh doesn't have something, it not only
>is an unnecessary addition, but you can try and mess with terms to the
>point the thing doesn't exist at all in other computers. My point was:
>The Macintosh has no synthesizer (call it what you wish) while PC's can
>and often do have one, through add-on boards.

My god, you are missing my point! Again! A wavetable card is NOT a true
synthesizer! Neither is Quicktime's built-in Roland sounds! I'm not arguing
whether having a card is better or not (the advantages of either are
obvious). I'm just saying that in the end it's the same thing. It is
COMPLETELY INCORRECT to say a generalized statement like "the Mac has no
synth, PCs have one". They each have the same resulting type of sound, one
does it through hardware, the other through software. But neither are
actually creating waveforms from "mathematical equations", as you say.

>    What is this "true keyboard synth" your talking about? Are you
>talking about wavetable or analog? 

There are digital synthesizers, like Roland's JD-800, and any of Yamaha's FM
synths (DX-7, DX-21, V50, etc. etc.) for examples. Most true synths are/were
analog, though.

>... Now the
>chip has to be in a keyboard to be consider a synthesizer? I'll bet
>the Mirage would be a true-synthesizer, but the IIgs not, right?

See above...the Mirage was a sampler.  IIgs I haven't heard....

>    One last thing, if I hooked up a "true keyboard synth" through a
>MIDI interface on the Macintosh, are games suddenly going to start
>playing music? 

Sorry; I was discussing this subject from a musician's point of view, not a
gamer's point of view. I'm not a gamer. I'm sure if you play games a lot
you'd want a hardware wavetable card for the best user experience. From a
musician's point of view, one would rather hook up MIDI units so that they'd
be able to take advantage of all their other MIDI keyboards, drum machines,
etc. (i.e. the computer would augment the existing music setup, not the
other way around). But it's still nice to know that through Quicktime (or a
hardware card) one can play back a MIDI file he composed without needing to
hook everything up...

The main reason I jumped into this thread is because I heard the erroneous
comments about the PC having a "synthesizer" and the Mac 'not having one'.
This is obviously misunderstood...

GK