I don't intend to be a 'confrontational' poster. Have never been in this
board but this thread has too much people talking past eachother.I'm off
this thread, have fun splitting hairs.

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:14 PM, laryn91 < caymus91@... > wrote:

> I agree. My professional expertise is in speech research and speech
> synthesis and studies
> have shown the human ear cannot distinguish static phase relationships in a
> monophonic
> signal.
>
> BTW, looking at many of the posts for this thread (not yours), I notice
> arguments are often
> extreme black and white from the usual confrontational posters. If you
> can't do Additive
> synthesis 100% on analog then it's useless. If you can't make a pure 0% THD
> sine, then
> they are useless. Useful sines can only be generated by sine cores, etc...
>
> I find a lot of utility with my 1% THD triangle converted sines in Additive
> and FM
> applications :-)
>
>
> --- In Doepfer_a100@yahoogroups.com <Doepfer_a100%40yahoogroups.com>,
> Chris Muir <cbm@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:03 AM, achtung_999 wrote:
> >
> > > I think it is rather extremely naïve that you think you can model
> > > natural
> > > sounds with additive synthesis.History has proven that many people
> > > thought
> > > it was possible but failed in the end.
> >
> >
> > There have a number of pretty good additive synthesis and resynthesis
> > projects. Several systems, albeit digital, allowed phases to roll
> > freely. There have price barriers in commercializing these, though.
> >
> > There are certainly challenges in implementing an additive system with
> > analog electronics, but keeping phase relationships might not be as
> > important as you think, though.
> >
> > - C
> >
> > Chris Muir
> > cbm@...
> > http://www.xfade.com
> >
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]