Dawesome MYTH

[IvyBirds]

Resynthesis IS NOT equal to sampling my friend.

As you know, additive synthesis is adding simple sine waves in order to recreate more complex waveforms.
"Resynthesis" is about having a spectral analysis of a complex sound and breaking it down to sine waves (so it is the opposite path to additive synthesis).

Actually that's incorrect. Fourier Transformation Theory suggests that any sound can be broken down into individual sine waves.

Using that you can analyze a sound and create complex mathematical equations to represent it using Fourier Analysis. Computers are able to rather quickly take a sample and analyze it's timbre and come up with an equation that represents it.

Then use that data to create a set of instructions for an additive synth engine to recreate it.

Traditionally samplers could play a sample chromatically by changing the playback speed. So you could record say a piano playing C5 and play it back at half speed and it would sound like it was playing an octave lower or C4, play it back at double speed and you are an octave higher at C6. The challenge is that the timbre of a piano changes over time, so playing it back at half speed extends those changes by 100%

Using resynthesis all you are doing is playing back sine waves and you can change the underlying frequencies of them to change the pitch without changing how the timbre evolves over time. New England Digital which was a company made of Ivy League Computer Programmers and Mathematicians was pulling this off 40 years ago in the early 1980s using their Synclavier system which costs more than your average house back then

In 2024 Computers have gotten insanely more powerful, which means you can do a lot more with resynthesis concept. First off they can do a much better job of the original analysis to potentially create a much more accurate equation with more data, and then load that data into a better and more power additive synthesis engine, and you can now have AI and Machine Learning do this even faster and better

The fun and exciting part is you can modify the equation to get different results to feed into the additive engine which can then also be controlled, modulated, and tweaked to get different results. From there the audio can then be sent through other Synthesis processes like Subtractive, FM, Granular, etc, or turned into a Wavetable or even turned into another sample

In 2024 there are many different plugins available that use resynthesis. The difference between them is the quality of the original analysis, the quality of the additive engine, the controls or lack there of, that you as the user has over both, and then what you can do after those things

[Jac459]

Resynthesis IS NOT equal to sampling my friend.

As you know, additive synthesis is adding simple sine waves in order to recreate more complex waveforms.
"Resynthesis" is about having a spectral analysis of a complex sound and breaking it down to sine waves (so it is the opposite path to additive synthesis).

Actually that's incorrect. Fourier Transformation Theory suggests that any sound can be broken down into individual sine waves.

Using that you can analyze a sound and create complex mathematical equations to represent it using Fourier Analysis. Computers are able to rather quickly take a sample and analyze it's timbre and come up with an equation that represents it.

Then use that data to create a set of instructions for an additive synth engine to recreate it.

Traditionally samplers could play a sample chromatically by changing the playback speed. So you could record say a piano playing C5 and play it back at half speed and it would sound like it was playing an octave lower or C4, play it back at double speed and you are an octave higher at C6. The challenge is that the timbre of a piano changes over time, so playing it back at half speed extends those changes by 100%

Using resynthesis all you are doing is playing back sine waves and you can change the underlying frequencies of them to change the pitch without changing how the timbre evolves over time. New England Digital which was a company made of Ivy League Computer Programmers and Mathematicians was pulling this off 40 years ago in the early 1980s using their Synclavier system which costs more than your average house back then

In 2024 Computers have gotten insanely more powerful, which means you can do a lot more with resynthesis concept. First off they can do a much better job of the original analysis to potentially create a much more accurate equation with more data, and then load that data into a better and more power additive synthesis engine, and you can now have AI and Machine Learning do this even faster and better

The fun and exciting part is you can modify the equation to get different results to feed into the additive engine which can then also be controlled, modulated, and tweaked to get different results. From there the audio can then be sent through other Synthesis processes like Subtractive, FM, Granular, etc, or turned into a Wavetable or even turned into another sample

In 2024 there are many different plugins available that use resynthesis. The difference between them is the quality of the original analysis, the quality of the additive engine, the controls or lack there of, that you as the user has over both, and then what you can do after those things

There is a lot of things that are true in what you said, you read the right sources.

But your conclusion that sampling = resynthesis is incorrect.
Sampling is measuring a sound 44.1k times per second with a range of value of 65536. Period.

After, the fact that modern sampler (not your historical Akai) is using stretching algorithm to avoid the sample to change duration when played at different speed is a different story.
The fact that some of the algorithms doing that are using resynthesis is correct but that is not the point.

And going back to the point of discussion and Myth, saying that Myth is just a "sampler" is very far from the truth because it uses the resynthesis to allows to suppress some partials of the sound, some harmonics, etc. It goes way beyond stretching.

And to be clear, the fact that at one point of time your DAC converting the sound to digital use an FFT is not the point.
The point is that a synth like myth can play with the individual partials of the sound in real-time, using a kind of power that was not possible at all not so long ago....

[IvyBirds]

your conclusion that sampling = resynthesis is incorrect.

Thing is I never said that

You have to have some type of audio to be analyzed to do FFT. In digital audio production that is usually a very small digital recording usually referred to as a sample.

I have terabytes of small audio recordings on my harddrives that I have made and collected over a long period of time. Most people would refer to that as a sample library. I could load those into a sampler/Rompler. Using software I can turn them into a Wavetable, or use them as the basis for granular synthesis, or use them in resynthesis based plugins

As for Myth that plugin doesn't work at all for resynthesis unless you load a sample into it, because that's how resynthesis works

It's really rather silly and incorrect to try to remove samples from resynthesis or claim that anyone who states the obvious that resynthesis based instruments are sample based is saying "sampling = resynthesis"

Also gotta say that this

[Sampling is measuring a sound 44.1k times per second with a range of value of 65536. Period.

Is not what sampling is period. That is an example of how you can record a sample at 44.1k and 16 bits.

What if you are using a Synclavier from 1984 and sampling at 50khz or 100khz?

What if you are using a Mirage or Emulator at 8 bits?

What if you using a modern sampler and 48 or 96khz and 24 bits?

[martinjuenke]

What? Period!

[jobinho]

I bought this synth today, finally some serious innovation! with incredible sound.

I can't stop making patches and my Iridium is looking at me nervously.

Only thing I wish for is a Parametric EQ for each oscillator.

A sequencer would be nice too but the MSEG LFO thing is a great addition.

Seriously impressed, for ambient / soundscape / even sequenced rhythmic work this thing is a beast.

[Jac459]

your conclusion that sampling = resynthesis is incorrect.

Thing is I never said that

You have to have some type of audio to be analyzed to do FFT. In digital audio production that is usually a very small digital recording usually referred to as a sample.

I have terabytes of small audio recordings on my harddrives that I have made and collected over a long period of time. Most people would refer to that as a sample library. I could load those into a sampler/Rompler. Using software I can turn them into a Wavetable, or use them as the basis for granular synthesis, or use them in resynthesis based plugins

As for Myth that plugin doesn't work at all for resynthesis unless you load a sample into it, because that's how resynthesis works

It's really rather silly and incorrect to try to remove samples from resynthesis or claim that anyone who states the obvious that resynthesis based instruments are sample based is saying "sampling = resynthesis"

Also gotta say that this

[Sampling is measuring a sound 44.1k times per second with a range of value of 65536. Period.

Is not what sampling is period. That is an example of how you can record a sample at 44.1k and 16 bits.

What if you are using a Synclavier from 1984 and sampling at 50khz or 100khz?

What if you are using a Mirage or Emulator at 8 bits?

What if you using a modern sampler and 48 or 96khz and 24 bits?

Lol my friend, it seems we are having 2 separate discussions.

Of course 44k/16b is just an example. What I mean is that it is the fact to use pcm format to convert from analog to digital (please don't come back saying that there is other format like DSD, it is not the point).

And then the whooooole point of discussion is: I was reacting to somebody saying sampling = resynthesis.
And then I said no it isn't. And then you jumped into the discussion, mentioning a lot of things about synthesis (that are true) and telling me I am wrong.
But wrong about what? My whole point was to say synthesis is not equal to sampling, if you agree, why are we even talking.

Lol.

[IvyBirds]

the whooooole point of discussion is: I was reacting to somebody saying sampling = resynthesis.

And then I said no it isn't. And then you jumped into the discussion, mentioning a lot of things about synthesis (that are true) and telling me I am wrong.
But wrong about what?

I told you what you were wrong about, it's when you said this

Resynthesis IS NOT equal to sampling my friend.

As you know, additive synthesis is adding simple sine waves in order to recreate more complex waveforms.
"Resynthesis" is about having a spectral analysis of a complex sound and breaking it down to sine waves (so it is the opposite path to additive synthesis).

It's amazing anyone would think resynthesis is not additive. It's by definition additive, it doesn't work without additive as I explained earlier

But I get the fact you don't understand how any of this works and are just spinning your wheels after reading a Wikipedia article or two. Why else would you define what sampling is with such an ignorant and narrow statement capped off with a definitive period as you did, and now try to back track away from it

[sandandpaint]

the whooooole point of discussion is: I was reacting to somebody saying sampling = resynthesis.

And then I said no it isn't. And then you jumped into the discussion, mentioning a lot of things about synthesis (that are true) and telling me I am wrong.
But wrong about what?

I told you what you were wrong about, it's when you said this

Resynthesis IS NOT equal to sampling my friend.

As you know, additive synthesis is adding simple sine waves in order to recreate more complex waveforms.
"Resynthesis" is about having a spectral analysis of a complex sound and breaking it down to sine waves (so it is the opposite path to additive synthesis).

It's amazing anyone would think resynthesis is not additive. It's by definition additive, it doesn't work without additive as I explained earlier

But I get the fact you don't understand how any of this works and are just spinning your wheels after reading a Wikipedia article or two. Why else would you define what sampling is with such an ignorant and narrow statement capped off with a definitive period as you did, and now try to back track away from it

you dont need fft tho - coudn't you could use any set of basis functions, you could use regression, principal components, blind deconvolution etc with wavelets. Isn't Myth using piecewise projection (regression) onto simple saw, square waves etc to generate the MSEGs? Actually you could design a filter to do that as a type of moving average I think. 20 years since I did this stuff lol

[Jac459]

the whooooole point of discussion is: I was reacting to somebody saying sampling = resynthesis.

And then I said no it isn't. And then you jumped into the discussion, mentioning a lot of things about synthesis (that are true) and telling me I am wrong.
But wrong about what?

I told you what you were wrong about, it's when you said this

Resynthesis IS NOT equal to sampling my friend.

As you know, additive synthesis is adding simple sine waves in order to recreate more complex waveforms.
"Resynthesis" is about having a spectral analysis of a complex sound and breaking it down to sine waves (so it is the opposite path to additive synthesis).

It's amazing anyone would think resynthesis is not additive. It's by definition additive, it doesn't work without additive as I explained earlier

But I get the fact you don't understand how any of this works and are just spinning your wheels after reading a Wikipedia article or two. Why else would you define what sampling is with such an ignorant and narrow statement capped off with a definitive period as you did, and now try to back track away from it

Lol, funny as you are twisting the facts to pretend to be true.

I never said that additive is nothing related to resynthesis. I said it is the OPPOSITE path (you can check it is the word I used).
Meaning (as you seems to have trouble to understand), additive is when you add sine to make a complex sound. Resynthesis is when you break down a complex sound in sines...

So basically you entered the conversation saying true stuffs but reacting wrongly to what I said because you just didn't take the time to read.

And by the way, you can try to be insulting and dismissive, but during my Master, I had the chance to have a semester about MP3 with a teacher from the Fraunhofer and did a ton of FFT. That's a few years (decades?) ago and that doesn't make myself an expert but you can still try to stay polite.

Just read what is written and try to understand it....
If you want to look smart that is the best way.

[sandandpaint]

what is the cheapest way to buy myth at the moment?

[mcnelson]

what is the cheapest way to buy myth at the moment?

https://musicsoftwaredeals.com/price-hi ... tracktion/
Looks like it's around $125 at PluginBoutique, ADSR, and directly from Tracktion.

[jobinho]

what is the cheapest way to buy myth at the moment?

Try the code DAWESOME-LOVES-YOU on their site for a further discount

[Jac459]

what is the cheapest way to buy myth at the moment?

Try the code DAWESOME-LOVES-YOU on their site for a further discount

You rock ! It works...

[sandandpaint]

what is the cheapest way to buy myth at the moment?

Try the code DAWESOME-LOVES-YOU on their site for a further discount

and so it was thanks for that, makes it much more affordable

[Alexander137]

Does it have a randomness modulator?