ITT, We whine about how bad humanity is (especially white peoples), and rip off

[Triple Zero]

physical modelling FTW, you can get arbitrary close, given enough computing power (and some smart algorithms).

though, then comes the problem of controlling the model. it's all nice and sweet if you can model some guy plucking a guitar string perfectly, but it gets kinda tedious when you need hundreds of sliders to specify the exact way in which his finger is moving over the string.

[P3nT4gR4m]

One word - Presets!

Imagine an online database with every concert venue that ever existed from the Cavern club to The royal concert hall. Acoustic modelling the way I see it panning out will be a 3d cad job, rather than sliders, like sound engineering is right now. You'll build your room from a choice of materials from padded plasterboard over breezeblock, to solid, 3 foot thick mahogany. Choose the size, shape, etc then let the soundwaves bounce and interfere their way to the mic spots.

[AFK]

I have a couple of Danelectro guitars at home.  Danelectro has come out with all sorts of pedals and fx boxes for them.  One was a sitar effect, supposedly to make your Danelectro sound like a sitar.  Awful!  I've heard better sitar sounds on a Casio keyboard.  Modern technology still has a long way to go to reproduce sounds like that. 

I don't begrudge electronic music.  Heck, I have a program on my computer at home where I experiment with electronic beats, sounds, etc.  But, for me, at the end of the day, nothing can compete with the raw energy of a guitar, bass and drums.  A computer can't reproduce that.  I think even if you came up with a "raw energy" emulator or whatever, it still wouldn't be the same.  That's where a lot of the "power" of rock music comes from, the feedback, the little intangibles and tangibles of the electrified and acoustic instruments.  The literal strumming of a guitar, slightly imperfect beats.  You just can't reproduce that on a computer.  But, then again, if you aren't into rock music I suppose that isn't an issue.  I grew up on it.  I've fed myself a steady diet of that stuff, and while I appreciate the creativity of electronic music, it just doesn't affect my soul the same way. 

But, that's just me. 

[LMNO]

Take 1 drum.


We'll make it easy.  A floor tom.  Wooden cylinder, 2 heads.

Each head has 8 lugs on the rim, and can be tightened anywhere between 1 and 16 revolutions.  Just for the sake of actual numbers, we will say that for this experiment, there are no subsets of revolutions*.

So, for each lug, you have 16 options.  If I recall, that means for one head, the possible combination of tunings are (8 x 16!), which means (8 x 20922789888000) = 167382319104000 combinations.  

However, since there are two heads, when one strikes a drum, the they react to each other through sympathetic resonance. ¬†I believe that means the possible combinations are now (8 x 16!)² = 28016840748633283362816000000 combinations.

Now it gets interesting. ¬†Where on the head you strike a drum affects how the drum responds. ¬†Let us assume that we're playing a 16" head, and (again, for number's sake) let's say one can only strike in 1" differences, and rim shots don't count. ¬†The number of places to strike is (pi 8²) = 200.96 different places to strike the drum, which now brings the total number of possible sounds from one floor tom to 5630264316845344624591503360000 possible combinations. ¬†The current top-end electronic drum pad contains between 16 - 128 different sounds (most of which are merely velocity settings).


Now, seeing how each one of these combinations will yeild a different set of wavelengths, which will reflect and refract in the given acoustic space, and considering one usually plays an entire drum set, rather than just one drum, I find it quite amusing that y'all think an electronic drum kit or a computer simulation will be able to mimic a real drum in real space.




*else, we could just say that the amount of combinations are infinite.

[AFK]

Bingo!

Try taking a John Bonham drum track, reproduce it note for note, drum head by drum head, onto a computer program, mix it in with the original Zepplin tune, all the other tracks being the same.  I guarantee the difference would be night and day.  No comparison. 

Now I know, you're saying that's a bad example because it was recorded back in the 70's.  Okay, do it with a more modern band that uses a live drummer.  A computer program simply can't reproduce the intricacies of the human wrist and ankles, nor the example LMNO lays out.  I use a drum machine for my recordings because of space considerations in my house.  While it is suitable for keeping the beat to arrange guitar and keyboard tracks, I'd never use it in a final mix, unless I was doing an industrial metal track.  It just makes the song sound canned. 

[LMNO]

But again, if your intended goal isn't to have your music sound like a real drummer in real space, the point is moot (take Big Black as an example.  Great use of a crappy drum machine, there.  Or Kraftwerk.)


Just don't go around saying that your MIDI drum sound "just like" a real drum.

[AFK]

True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums.  I wonder if Rock n Roll will survive, and if so how long.  Will it eventually be replaced by Click n Drag?  Man, I am getting old. 

[LMNO]

::cue appropriate Neil Young song::

[P3nT4gR4m]

True, "Head Like a Hole" would sound really funny with real drums.  I wonder if Rock n Roll will survive, and if so how long.  Will it eventually be replaced by Click n Drag?  Man, I am getting old. 

Folks will always want to stand on a stage and play real instruments and I reckon enough folks will always want to stand in the same room, drinking beer, taking chemicals nd generally having a stonking god time. Look at how strong classical music still is today then think about the fact that there weren't as many people listening to it back in its heyday as there are people listening to rock right now. I reckon it's got centuries in it yet

[P3nT4gR4m]

Take 1 drum.


We'll make it easy.  A floor tom.  Wooden cylinder, 2 heads.

Each head has 8 lugs on the rim, and can be tightened anywhere between 1 and 16 revolutions.  Just for the sake of actual numbers, we will say that for this experiment, there are no subsets of revolutions*.

So, for each lug, you have 16 options.  If I recall, that means for one head, the possible combination of tunings are (8 x 16!), which means (8 x 20922789888000) = 167382319104000 combinations. 

However, since there are two heads, when one strikes a drum, the they react to each other through sympathetic resonance.  I believe that means the possible combinations are now (8 x 16!)² = 28016840748633283362816000000 combinations.

Now it gets interesting.  Where on the head you strike a drum affects how the drum responds.  Let us assume that we're playing a 16" head, and (again, for number's sake) let's say one can only strike in 1" differences, and rim shots don't count.  The number of places to strike is (pi 8²) = 200.96 different places to strike the drum, which now brings the total number of possible sounds from one floor tom to 5630264316845344624591503360000 possible combinations.  The current top-end electronic drum pad contains between 16 - 128 different sounds (most of which are merely velocity settings).


Now, seeing how each one of these combinations will yeild a different set of wavelengths, which will reflect and refract in the given acoustic space, and considering one usually plays an entire drum set, rather than just one drum, I find it quite amusing that y'all think an electronic drum kit or a computer simulation will be able to mimic a real drum in real space.




*else, we could just say that the amount of combinations are infinite.

Most of what you just said there was based around calculations. Moore's law is still holding fast (the sorta bastardised popular version too) You underestimate the technology like a lot of people who say "computers will never...." Notice that a lot of the things these people have said have already been cpu-pooed, "A computer will never beat a human at chess..."

"Computers will never _____ " is one of those arguments I will never let lie until I've fixed it with "Eventually computers probably will"

Bear in mind that what you actually hear IS a model, simulated by your brain

[LMNO]

What you say is possible, yes.


But, when you are programming your MIDI drum track, are you really going to want to choose from (at least) 56x10²⁹ different options for one sound?

Furthermore, will a synth drum manufacturer want to put that many sounds on a drum pad?

And let's not forget, one of the selling points of a drum pad is that it can emulate many different kinds of drums, from timbales to congas.  Do you think they will want to take the time to program that many options into their system?

I think not, from a cost-effective basis.

[Jasper]

I would venture that you might want to phrase it then, as "Eventually computers probably will theoretically be able to"

[AFK]

I would further posit that music composition and creation would be different between live instruments and computer simulated ones.  You get a different feeling and vibe from hitting a drum with a stick or your hand then you do dragging a mouse and clicking.  You get a different feeling from strumming a guitar than you do clicking and dragging.  And, that feeling, at least in my experience, influences the song.  You can't "jam out" on a computer the same way you can on a live instrument.  Again, LMNO's point about the intended result rings true.  If all you want to create is computer-styled/electronic music, then this is all moot.  But, if your aim is to reproduce rock music, blues, funk, folk whatever on a computer, I just don't see how the cold environment of 1's and 0's can do that.  

[Jasper]

I bet you could teach a robot to play.

[AFK]

Probably, but would it have enough "soul"?  Sorry, I'm not the most spiritual person in the world until it comes to music.  I've experienced different scenarios.  I've played in different live bands, (funk, blues, jazz, improv/jam, etc.)  I've recorded music in a "real" studio, on my home "studio", on a computer.  I've used live instruments, I've used computerized instruments. 

Anyway, my point, for me personally, I just don't get the same feeling in front of a computer that I get from playing my Danelectro until my fingers bleed.  It just can't compare.  And I doubt a robot could ever, truly, reproduce that spirit in the same manner.  Sure, it is possible to make music, I just can't see the music having the same affect on me personally.  Being "inside" the music is different then experiencing it from the outside.  To me, composing on a computer feels like I am outside of the music.  Plugging into an amp, laying on some distortion, and going with it, to me, feels like I am in it.  Does this make any sense or am I just nutty?