3 ms·

Neat! Like a Kaoss pad DIY sample 2d crossfader running on rpi3. This is 2 Parts, a high end computer that analyses (with ML and Neural magic!) some source wav

Neat! Like a Kaoss pad DIY sample 2d crossfader running on rpi3. This is 2 Parts, a high end computer that analyses (with ML and Neural magic!) some source waves and outputs blended samples that you can put on a 2d grid, and for these generated waves a simple sample player (made with openFrameworks) running on rpi3 that mixes the waves depending on your xy position. However it doesn't sound interesting or good for what they show, they probably need a better demo without any roland classics. Their Bass / Piano mix sounds mushy and essentially represents the most boring average synth sound i could imagine. The most interesting thing is the flute/snare crossover that is buried in the overladen promotional fluff video. Would be nice to hear a demo that really puts out the 'new' neural sounds. edit: the essential 15 seconds of the video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=iTXU9Z0NYoU https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=iTXU9Z0NYo...

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
They missed the boat on being first with NN synthesis by about fifteen years. http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/neuron.php http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/neuron.php (IMO it's depressing that Google don't appear to know this.) Musically the sound is a lot less interesting than the engineering is. In fact it's a perfect demonstration of why you can't just throw NNs at a problem and expect to get something useful out. Musical sounds - even synthesised musical sounds - tend to cluster around certain perceptual parameter sets. If you don't know what those parameter sets are - and they're not just frequency distributions, or envelope shapes, or waveform sequences - your model will tend to generate sounds that are perceived as musically trivial and/or uninteresting. By a strange coincidence, this was the problem with the Hartmann Neuron. There was some very clever technology inside the box, but the sounds had none of the quality that made it a must-have for musical production. It shipped a few hundred units and then disappeared. That quality is a very elusive thing. Some synth companies, like Roland, have been very good at capturing it. But if you ask their designers what they're aiming for, it's unlikely they'll be able to tell you. Even more strangely, that quality sometimes appeared in products apparently by accident, when they were abused to make sounds that were an accidental twist on their original design. ...Which would be a convincing argument for cultural preference if it weren't for the fact that many of the classic products that were abused in this way were made by Roland. All we know is that musicians respond to that quality when they hear it. Unfortunately for engineers, sounds that have that quality can have very little in common with each other. So there's unlikely to be a statistical process that can engineer "good" sounds with a high hit rate.

TheOtherHobbes 9y ago

They missed the boat on being first with NN synthesis by about fifteen years. http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/neuron.php http://www.vintagesynth.com/misc/neuron.php (IMO it's depressing that Google don't appear to know this.) Musically the sound is a lot less interesting than the engineering is. In fact it's a perfect demonstration of why you can't just throw NNs at a problem and expect to get something useful out. Musical sounds - even synthesised musical sounds - tend to cluster around certain perceptual parameter sets. If you don't know what those parameter sets are - and they're not just frequency distributions, or envelope shapes, or waveform sequences - your model will tend to generate sounds that are perceived as musically trivial and/or uninteresting. By a strange coincidence, this was the problem with the Hartmann Neuron. There was some very clever technology inside the box, but the sounds had none of the quality that made it a must-have for musical production. It shipped a few hundred units and then disappeared. That quality is a very elusive thing. Some synth companies, like Roland, have been very good at capturing it. But if you ask their designers what they're aiming for, it's unlikely they'll be able to tell you. Even more strangely, that quality sometimes appeared in products apparently by accident, when they were abused to make sounds that were an accidental twist on their original design. ...Which would be a convincing argument for cultural preference if it weren't for the fact that many of the classic products that were abused in this way were made by Roland. All we know is that musicians respond to that quality when they hear it. Unfortunately for engineers, sounds that have that quality can have very little in common with each other. So there's unlikely to be a statistical process that can engineer "good" sounds with a high hit rate.