Re: [KL] Future of Kurzweil? Re: Status of Kurzweil?
> From: "Marsiglio, Clifford C" <ccmarsig@...>Another claim which just shows you misunderstand the concept of
> 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.
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 PlatniumHere again, you confuse convolving reverbs and the more traditional
> 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.
multi-effects. They are not the same.
> The Uranius module at one point was their top of the line full synthesisAre you kidding? The Uranus never had anything like the complexity of a
> 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.
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 friendsProbably was, but it's a far cry from saying that you could run 10
> within the NI community were benching their polyphony on for a while.
> It was just a standard mark and nothing else.
simultaneous Kurzweil K2000-like soft synths in your computer.
> Sure it can. That's emulation. Emulation and backwards compatibilityWhen you claim something, you lust back it up by facts. You claimed
> take a lot longer than building something far more powerful from scratch
> ignoring the limitations of the past device.
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 aHello?? You are just repeating what you 'understood' from what I and
> 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).
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 inNo, not even close: the problem is you have a habit of making wild
> 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?
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
> If you take the premise that you aren't locked into specific blocks thatNo: what you were saying to somebody who was willing to buy a Kurzweil
> need parameters identical numerically, then you see what I'm saying.
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 theHere again we can see Clif in his wonderful argumentation:
>>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.
Yash: "Can it do ALL the features of a K2500, including the setups, the
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
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 sayIt doesn't matter in the least. What matters is that you were asking him
> to you. You have publicly and privately trolled me in the past. I'm
> leaving it at that.
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.