| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 366.1 | MKS-80 Analog all the Way | ERLANG::FEHSKENS | | Tue May 20 1986 17:36 | 6 |
| Yes, SAS is NOT used on the MKS-80 (Super Jupiter), which is a
traditional all analog synth. I haven't seen a technical explanation
of what SAS is yet.
len.
|
| 366.2 | I LIKE the alpha Juno presets | MENTOR::REG | a remote control for my foot ? | Tue May 20 1986 17:54 | 6 |
| re .1 But Len, it was YOU that I was looking to FOR the technical
explanation ! :-) Anyway, who else likes the presets on the Alpha
Juno 1 & 2 ? nobody ? OK, no accounting for taste I guess :-)
Reg
|
| 366.3 | both impressive machines | BAILEY::RHODES | | Wed May 21 1986 09:51 | 10 |
| I have heard both the Juno 1 & 2, and am very impressed with both.
Although I don't have the money for either, I wish I did. One thing
though - I tried changing some of the preset sounds to find that
most of the parameters seem to have only a few different settings.
(ie. modulation, etc.). Maybe I was doing somthing wrong. I would
like to know more about them though. I'll keep my eye on keyboard
mag.
Todd.
|
| 366.4 | Need to get into the other mode... | MENTOR::REG | Life is NOT a spectator sport | Wed May 21 1986 15:41 | 12 |
| re .3 I don't think you were doing anything "wrong", but you
may have entered the mode that combines several params and enables
you to make fairly gross changes to them as a group. I don't remember
what this is called, but the other mode has a bewildering number
of things that can be mucked with and the alpha dial is used to
scan through them. Roland boast 50 or more parameters I think, you can
even use it to name/rename patches that you take off the presets,
modify and store, similarly for from scratch patches. I'll
post_some_of_the_boast when I have their flyer in front of me.
Reg (I_want_one_too)
|
| 366.5 | Japanese competition at work | BARNUM::RHODES | | Thu Jun 26 1986 10:05 | 10 |
| Oh well, its too late. I already bought a DX100. Looks like Roland
should have come out with a "Juno .5" (Juno 1 with mini keyboard)
priced at around $350. :^)
Maybe sometime in the near future "Keyboard" or one of those guys will
have an article explaining the details of this technology. I'm
still interested.
Todd.
|
| 366.6 | a snippet of very outdated info. | AUSSIE::SULLIVAN | Greg Sullivan | Fri Dec 08 1989 07:51 | 13 |
| I read an article in an electronics mag. about four years ago (I think)
that mentioned SAS. It did not give a very good explanation of this
synthesis technique, but I remember that it said that SAS involved some
'very advanced' statistical analysis of samples of real instruments,
which allows a sort of 'formula' for the sound to be derived. This
formula is then used to compute the sound in real time, instead of the
original samples.
The article also said that SAS was *not* capable of synthesising
non-percussive instruments (Although they stressed that SAS was still
in development at the time).
Greg.
|
| 366.7 | My understanding of it | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | Conliberative | Fri Dec 08 1989 09:31 | 22 |
| I've been given a pretty consisten description of it:
Basically the key part of it is that they take samples across several
domains (pitch, velocity, damper up/down, etc.) than they analyze
how the waveforms change between samples and develope functions
that approximate or I'd say "interpolate" between samples in
a given domain.
You can think of it as a sampler that instead of having distinct
split points, knows how to gradually mutate the waveform on one side
into looking like the waveform on the other side.
So if you have a square wave sample for the A key and a sawtooth wave
sample for E key, the closer your play to A, the more you get something
that looks like a sqaure wave. The closer you play to E the more
you get something that looks like a sawtooth.
The real trick here is being able to do all this in real time.
It's a neat idea. I wish they'd publish more about it.
db
|
| 366.8 | | SALSA::MOELLER | Guinter is guarmer in Guaymas, Mexico | Mon Dec 11 1989 12:07 | 4 |
| If SAS is so hot then why oh why do I infinitely prefer the Kurzweil
grand piano over any Roland grand piano I've heard ?
karl
|
| 366.9 | Can't really compare with existing products | DREGS::BLICKSTEIN | Conliberative | Mon Dec 11 1989 13:25 | 22 |
| It would be interesting to compare the Kurzweil method of piano
synthesis to Roland's SAS.
However we can't really draw a valid comparison from the products
that are out there today:
o The KZ does stuff the Roland SAS doesn't (strings, brass, etc.)
o The Roland SAS stuff costs a lot less
The reason why you may prefer your KZ could be something as simple like
it having more samples (memory or higher sample rate) or just better
samples. However that by itself doesn't imply any inherent inferiority
to SAS.
I also prefer the Kurzy piano to the Roland, but not "infinitely".
I do however prefer the Roland Rhodes sound to the Kurzy
Rhodes... "infinitely" in fact.
db
|