Questions regarding Creative Music Synth.

[Green Xenon [Radium]]

Radium,

Your answers demonstrate why it is almost impossible to help you (any
who everyone on these lists is fed up with you),
as your knowledge in so
many areas is so lacking:

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:

How did they figure out Creative Technology’s
patches unless they were
the ones who designed them?

It's called "reverse engineering", you have to be ~really~ smart to do
it, and when it comes to things such as FM patches,
the procedure is (in
the absence of actual path data) to (a) know how FM
synthesis works
(b) understand the implementation you are using (i.e the OPL3) and
(c) change synthesis parameters until the sound matches
the one you are
trying to copy. So you need a good critical ear too.

From reading the above paragraph it seems like there is no way to
figure out the exact mechanisms of the patches unless Creative
Technology tells you. The 'reverse engineering' seems to involve lots of
guess work and no exact answers. That's what is frustrating. You want
something exact but know you can't have it.

So you don't even know what a "patch" is? You hardly
understand how the
things works at all. It is not something they change on the chip prior
to soldering (not that sort of chip...), it is FM parameter
editing done
in software, typically using a "patch editor". Have you never ever
created your own patches for your FM synth? Another name would be
"preset" or even "voice". I fear you hardly understand the very
technology you are infatuated with! How could you understand the
information even if Creative Labs gave it to you?

So the patch is something that is completely software and not in the FM
chip? I hope so but fear not.

Also...

....I try playing Creative Music Synth [220], through my so called
'karaoke voice canceller' -- which inverts the phase of one stereo
channel [right or left] and then combines it the other channel -- which
results in anything identical in both the left and right channels being
removed. I get a mono of what was different in the left and right channels.

When I play Creative Music Synth [220] audio through the
voice-canceller, it sounds more treble, sharper, brighter, warmer, and
crisper than when I don't use the voice canceller.

I can get the same effect if I use Wavelab [or other audio software] to
make a stereo recording of the MIDI audio and then invert the phase of
the one [but not both] of the channels -- left or right – and then I
convert the stereo file to mono.

Whether I use the voice-canceller or Wavelab to cancel the central
channel, the effect is the same – the sound is more treble, sharper,
brighter, warmer, and crisper.

Is it likely the differences I describe [e.g. the differences I hear
when “voice-canceling” the FM audio] is due to the FM signals
themselves? I hope not but fear so.

Do these differences occur because that’s how the FM chip was designed?
Is this because whoever designed the chip, decided for it to work this
way? I hope not but fear so.

In addition, are these differences I describe due to the patches of
Creative Technology? I hope not but fear so.

 

[Richard Dobson]

Green Xenon [Radium] wrote:
...

From reading the above paragraph it seems like there is no way to
figure out the exact mechanisms of the patches unless Creative
Technology tells you. The 'reverse engineering' seems to involve lots of
guess work and no exact answers. That's what is frustrating. You want
something exact but know you can't have it.

The product is supplied with a standard set of preset patches; but these
can all be modified using the patch editor software they will have
supplied with the card (nobody would have bought the card unless that
facility were available). With knowledge and skill, the reverse
engineering can be virtually exact.

..

So the patch is something that is completely software and not in the FM
chip? I hope so but fear not.

I just told you it is software, user-editable. The operator structure
in the chip is fixed (just as it is in all other FM synths including the
DX7 and its descendants), but all the relevant parameters (and there
will be a~lot~ of them) are variable from outside. The set of all those
parameter settings constitutes a "patch".

Also... ...

In addition, are these differences I describe due to the patches of
Creative Technology? I hope not but fear so.

All these "hopes and fears" can only be answered by you, doing
~research~. For example, by systematically comparing the effects with
other systems. Which again requires technical knowledge and insights as
a prerequisite. Nobody else can do that for you. But I suspect the real
nature of these hopes and fears is that you actually realise you don't
have the knowledge and skills (yet) to conduct this investigation, or
understand the equipment you have. Only you can change that. People will
answer precise technical questions, but will not take on the task of
educating you in the basics online - not least because there are books,
websites, Colleges etc that already do all that.


I suggest you learn to use a synthesis language such as Csound, with
which you can create your own FM synthesiser, and have a go at
replicating the structure of the OPL3 there. It will be trial and error,
a lot of the time, but with practice the trials will get more successful
and the errors more interesting.



Richard Dobson