Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [KL] Future of Kurzweil? Re: Status of Kurzweil?

Expand Messages
  • Yash
    ... Another claim which just shows you misunderstand the concept of convolution. The parameters in SIR just affect how the convolution is applied: it doesn t
    Message 1 of 5 , Sep 1, 2004
      > From: "Marsiglio, Clifford C" <ccmarsig@...>
      > Subject: RE: Future of Kurzweil? Re: Status of Kurzweil?
      > SIR has as many parameters as one decides to put on it. It's a form of
      > synthesis as much as anything else.
      > SIR, is used as my example as it is a top of the line reverb type that
      > was originally only in very high end dedicated boxes and it's a form of
      > reverb that can't be duplicated by a shipping Kurzweil at this moment.

      Another claim which just shows you misunderstand the concept of
      convolution. The parameters in SIR just affect how the convolution is
      applied: it doesn't make another realistic reverb. Trying to say that
      just because there are parameters to tweak make it more than whatever
      reverbs there are in the KDFX and consorts is ludicrous, and is
      analogous to saying that because a sampler can wire in a filter after a
      multi-sample of an analog subtractive synth, then the sampler is doing
      analog subtractive synthesis. You'd better read up on convolution.

      > A more reasonable example would be something such as Emagic's Platnium
      > Verb...it is more in line with one on one feature specific with the top
      > of the line KDFX verbs. I can run a few dozen of these at the same time
      > in 96khz 24bit mode.

      Here again, you confuse convolving reverbs and the more traditional
      multi-effects. They are not the same.

      > The Uranius module at one point was their top of the line full synthesis
      > heavy and yet very clean synth that shipped with Reaktor -- though I
      > think it started off as a User Ensemble that was aquired by the company.
      > I use to use this for benchmarking because it had all the qualities I
      > wanted out of a synth and was sufficiently complex -- like a Kurz --
      > along with being a quality sounding synth.

      Are you kidding? The Uranus never had anything like the complexity of a
      Kurz! So your benchmarking was rotten in the first place.

      > This is what I benched it off of, and that's what a lof of friends
      > within the NI community were benching their polyphony on for a while.
      > It was just a standard mark and nothing else.

      Probably was, but it's a far cry from saying that you could run 10
      simultaneous Kurzweil K2000-like soft synths in your computer.

      > Sure it can. That's emulation. Emulation and backwards compatibility
      > take a lot longer than building something far more powerful from scratch
      > ignoring the limitations of the past device.

      When you claim something, you lust back it up by facts. You claimed
      Reaktor already did what a K does, and you still haven't proven it. As I
      said, Reaktor doesn't: it allows you to create synths. You could
      theoretically create a K2000 within it, but in practise that's another
      story, because you forget that a normal PC chip would have trouble
      processing as much as the custom DSP chips in the Kurz. Besides, the
      V.A.S.T. architecture is quite complex to build.

      To simplify things even more, I challenge you to build just algorithm 10
      of the K2000 in either Reaktor or Synthedit. Go right ahead. You will
      see it's not easy.

      > For instance, the granualarity of the numbering system in the Kurz is a
      > very limiting factor. Smooth this out, and you could see physicial
      > modeling on the Kurz today -- and not just a simple wave pipe emulation
      > that you can do with KDFX right now (sans any pitching, because you
      > don't have enough funtions to work with).

      Hello?? You are just repeating what you 'understood' from what I and
      another person who have actually programmed PM sounds on the Kurz
      posted. And no, it's not the 'Granularity of the numbering system' which
      is to be incriminated nor the 'lack of functions to work with'. It's one
      precise configuration of a function mapped to Pitch that is needed.
      Besides you can do PM even without the KDFX. This just shows again that
      you don't know what you're talking about.

      > Again, we are talking the future of Kurzweil, not *ME* emulating it in
      > software. Having said that, I ended up creating a few algorythm blocks
      > to translate sounds (as well as learn the system). It's a pain in the
      > butt to try to do 1:1 between them -- mainly because you are trying to
      > match filters and otherwise that aren't exactly 1:1. You can get close
      > -- you can get something better, but I believe your troll is trying to
      > get me to state that if its not 1:1 its not the same therefore I should
      > shut up? Am I getting close?

      No, not even close: the problem is you have a habit of making wild
      claims with no factual basis as well as argumenting with no proper
      knowledge of the VAST engine. When we have a Reaktor ensemble or a
      Synthedit instrument that can do what the K2000 does, with the VAST
      engine and all its realtime controllers working, including the Layers,
      setups, FUNs, etc..., then we can say that Reaktor allows you to do
      this, even though the actual filters and oscillators may not be exactly
      the same.

      > If you take the premise that you aren't locked into specific blocks that
      > need parameters identical numerically, then you see what I'm saying.

      No: what you were saying to somebody who was willing to buy a Kurzweil
      synth was basically to get Reaktor instead because it already featured
      the same or a better synthesis engine. A very misleading statement
      indeed and I know why you want to mislead.

      >>Did it have all the features of a K2500? Including the
      >>Setups, the FUNs,
      >>etc? Did it work as well as a K2500? No.
      > The FUNs worked perfectly. The programs ran perfectly. The program
      > didn't run as smoothly as it could, but the actual proof of concept was
      > there. Enough that they got shutdown a few months into a project mostly
      > accomplished by one guy while going to school and working.

      Here again we can see Clif in his wonderful argumentation:

      Yash: "Can it do ALL the features of a K2500, including the setups, the
      FUNs, etc..."
      Clif (manages to concentrate just on the FUN part and maybe go a little
      further to the programs to 'prove' his point): "The FUNs worked
      perfectly. The programs ran perfectly".

      BTW, Clif also said "It crashed a lot". That's, to him, a full emulation
      running 'perfectly'.

      Anyone who knows some programming and some MIDI knows that mathematical
      opearations like there are in the FUNs, involving a combination of two
      MIDI controller values via an equation is very simple to implement.

      What would be difficult, on the other hand, is reimplementing the whole
      architecture of a VAST synth.

      > Brett is my friend. I can say things to him that I'm not going to say
      > to you. You have publicly and privately trolled me in the past. I'm
      > leaving it at that.

      It doesn't matter in the least. What matters is that you were asking him
      to check his facts when yours are unchecked and make a pyramid of
      unsupported claims which are easily toppled over.

      You have a grudge against Kurzweil, hence all the bashing and misleading.

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.