4 ms·

Using genetic algorithms or other evolutionary computation methods for this purpose is pretty old. There are two versions. First, there is evolutionary resynt

Using genetic algorithms or other evolutionary computation methods for this purpose is pretty old. There are two versions. First, there is evolutionary resynthesis, where the system is trying to optimize a synth program to match an existing sound. This can be done automatically: try a bunch of sounds, have some automatic comparator compare them to the target sound, assess them, mix-and-match, try again. Then there is interactive evolution, where the system is trying to come up with sounds interesting to the musician. Here the system proposes and auditions synth patches, and the musician responds with what he thinks are the better ones, and using that information the system mixes and matches and tries again. Evolutionary resynthesis has been around since at least 1996 (Horner). Aphex Twin was enamored with it for a while. I don't think it's particularly interesting: if you already have a target sound, why are you trying to come up with a program to match it? Why not use the sound itself? But interactive evolution is both useful, more difficult, and interesting, as it makes it possible for the musician to explore the space of synth programs without having to program them (and that's particularly good for FM, since FM is EXTREMELY counterintuitive to program). I wrote what I think is the best general-purpose interactive evolution style synth programming system right now: Edisyn. It works with a wide range of synthesizers and synthesis types. If you restrict yourself to exactly one synthesizer of your own design, you can get better results still, and there are a number of softsynths out there which do this. But most interestingly: interactive evolution has a specific inventor: BRIAN ENO! He invented it around 1995 in a letter he wrote to Stewart Brand.

tomjakubowski 3y ago
> if you already have a target sound, why are you trying to come up with a program to match it? Once you have the program matching the sound, you can tweak it and get variations. At least that's what I imagine people would want it for.
coldtea 3y ago
>if you already have a target sound, why are you trying to come up with a program to match it Because then you have it (or something close) in your own synthesizer, as opposed to whatever other synth or natural source you sampled it from, and you can enhance it, adjust it, use filters and others on it, and so on using all its native cabilities.
- SeanLuke 3y ago
  Sure. But you can manipulate the sample in complex ways with filters, effects, etc. on your sampler or rompler already. I'm not saying there's no reason -- I'm just saying it's a fairly narrow and not hugely compelling one.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >But you can manipulate the sample in complex ways with filters, effects, etc. on your sampler or rompler already. Much much less.
    - SeanLuke 3y ago
      If you say so. I own an UltraProteus with almost 500 filters and an extensive mod matrix. Pretty sure it can mangle a sample quite a lot.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >If you say so. Nope, it's objective reality. >I own an UltraProteus with almost 500 filters and an extensive mod matrix. Pretty sure it can mangle a sample quite a lot. Which is neither here, nor there. I didn't say you can't change the sample "quite a lot", I said you can change it much less than if it was as a synthesis patch on a synth. Any fx or filter available to the sample is also available to the synth. The reverse is not true. As a simple example for an extremely basic thing you can't do: you can't change the sample's inherent attack. The ASDR envelope on the sampler works on top of the raw sample's attack, so you can't, for example, change a slow attack to a fast one.

tomjakubowski 3y ago

> if you already have a target sound, why are you trying to come up with a program to match it? Once you have the program matching the sound, you can tweak it and get variations. At least that's what I imagine people would want it for.

coldtea 3y ago

>if you already have a target sound, why are you trying to come up with a program to match it Because then you have it (or something close) in your own synthesizer, as opposed to whatever other synth or natural source you sampled it from, and you can enhance it, adjust it, use filters and others on it, and so on using all its native cabilities.

SeanLuke 3y ago
Sure. But you can manipulate the sample in complex ways with filters, effects, etc. on your sampler or rompler already. I'm not saying there's no reason -- I'm just saying it's a fairly narrow and not hugely compelling one.
- coldtea 3y ago
  >But you can manipulate the sample in complex ways with filters, effects, etc. on your sampler or rompler already. Much much less.
  - SeanLuke 3y ago
    If you say so. I own an UltraProteus with almost 500 filters and an extensive mod matrix. Pretty sure it can mangle a sample quite a lot.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >If you say so. Nope, it's objective reality. >I own an UltraProteus with almost 500 filters and an extensive mod matrix. Pretty sure it can mangle a sample quite a lot. Which is neither here, nor there. I didn't say you can't change the sample "quite a lot", I said you can change it much less than if it was as a synthesis patch on a synth. Any fx or filter available to the sample is also available to the synth. The reverse is not true. As a simple example for an extremely basic thing you can't do: you can't change the sample's inherent attack. The ASDR envelope on the sampler works on top of the raw sample's attack, so you can't, for example, change a slow attack to a fast one.