Talk:Synthesizer

The content of this article was moved from page titled Synthesizer

The Synthesizer page will become a disambiguation page. --Mike Sorensen 09:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizer was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: December 18, 2006.

.

Too much technicalities, too little about cultural influence!

This article is very singel minded IMO, it almost only brings up the technical aspects synthesizers, and there is almost nothing to be found about how the synthesizer has affected the music scene etc! 84.217.135.167 14:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

Although "sweet", is the photograph of the child playing with the Yamaha really necessary/appropriate? Perhaps it might be better to replace it with either a shot of a classic synth, a modern synth, or maybe something in between (such a modern Moog)? Just a thought. michaelb 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That "synthesizer" looks like a toy. Judging by the portion of the instrument which is visible in the photo, it looks more like an electronic keyboard than a synthesizer. The caption doesn't include a model number. I agree: a well-known classic Moog, Roland, or Yamaha synth would be better. --Trweiss 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the DX7 that was replaced in July 2005. --Trweiss 14:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all actuality sir, the synth the child was playing with is no toy, but rather a Yamaha MU-15 Tone Generator synth module, with some info here: http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/MU15/ - MegaKitsune 10:26, 28, January 2006

I don't know what photo the above discussion refers to, but the Yamaha PSR=295 currently depicted is NOT a synthesiser by any stretch of the definition but an entry-level home keyboard. A much better choice for a representative instrument would be any of the following;

Minimoog Prophet-5 Yamaha DX-7 Yamaha CS-80 Korg Triton Roland D-50 Moog Voyager

-- butterfingersbeck

Physical model(l)ing synthesis

Physical modeling synthesis/Physical modelling synthesis-- both appear to be correct spellings and are widely used. Anyone know if one is standard?

modeling is american english, modelling is <ahem> proper (UK) english ;-)

On another note, there already exists a section on digital synthesizer, which I edited recently... do we want that one merged into here, or simply link it? -- ND

Formant?

Is formant really the right word to use in this article to describe sound components? All of my synthesizers refer to them as partials or oscillators, and formant is more commonly used to describe the filtering performed by the resonances of the vocal tract. I don't think I've ever heard formant used like this before. -- Tlotoxl 02:11, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Decide for yourselves:

formant = a spectral peak in an absolute frequency region

harmony = a tone produced on a stringed instrument by lightly touching an open or stopped vibrating string at a given fraction of its length so that both segments vibrate. Also called overtone, partial, partial tone

oscillator is the word I've seen most overall

sugarfish 05:37, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

the term "formant synthesizer" is found in more than 800 matches on Google. here are but a few...

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20021008154046.17677.00000083%40mb-fl.aol.com

http://lorien.die.upm.es/research/documentation/articuloJuanaEurospeech2001.PDF

http://www.mindspring.com/~ssshp/ssshp_cd/ss_melp.htm

waveguy

In all three of those cases (and most of the rest as well), 'formant' was referring either to the synthesis of speech or to the use of a formant filter to give speech-like characteristics, as in the case of the FS1R. 'Formant' is not the term used to refer to the oscillators or partials of a synthesizer. -- 211.123.199.32 12:41, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reich and E-mu

I think that listing Steve Reich as being associated with the Yamaha DX-7 is slightly odd. The DX-7 was the most popular synth of the mid to late 80s and was used by literally everybody.

Also, listing the E-mu Emulator I as a classic synth is also a bit odd.

sugarfish 05:52, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favor of removing lists of "users" altogether. TheScotch 11:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ARP link

I don't know much about ARP other than that is is an 1970's synthesizer, but the link in the article refers to Adress Resolution Protocol which is something completely different. How can one add another definition?

ARP stands for Alan Robert Pearlman, who was the original creator of ARP Instruments Inc. There actually is a link to ARP Instruments Inc. on this site.

Toshiba as a synthesizer manufacturer?

A recent (anonymous) addition of Toshiba under commercial manufacturers surprises me. Can someone cite example(s)? --Ds13 02:18, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

I searched around a bit, and couldn't find anything. Maybe it should be deleted. michaelb 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the mention of a "Yamaha CS2" in the list of synthesizers is probably an error. There is a CS2X - part of the recent CS1X/CS2X/CS6X line - but they are by no means important instruments. The old CS lines (CS-5/10/15/30, CS-20M/40M, and polyphonic CS-60/70/80) are worthy of inclusion in the list, especially the CS-80.

Samplers and Sampling

This bit:

Sampling started out as the purview of academic researchers with access to mainframe computers. The appearance of the Fairlight CMI in 1979, the first well-known digital instrument capable of sampling, started a revolution. The Fairlight was used on scores of popular recordings by artists such as Jean Michel Jarre, Kate Bush, Peter Gabriel and The Art of Noise. The costly, complex and rare Fairlight (and an equally costly competitor, the New England Digital Synclavier) caused California company E-mu to introduce their Emulator I in 1981, a lower-cost sampling keyboard which could save sound recordings to floppy disk. Ensoniq followed suit in 1985 with an even lower-cost sampling keyboard, the Ensoniq Mirage, which cost about $1,500 USD compared to the $7,900 USD price tag of the Emulator I.

By 1984, Raymond Kurzweil, on suggestion from Stevie Wonder, created the first synthesizer that could duplicate the sounds of orchestral instruments. It was based on recorded samples of actual instruments. Trained conductors and musicians were incapable of distinguishing the Kurzweil synthesizer from the real thing.

...belongs in the sampler article. It has nothing to do with synthesis.

The sampling section in this article should be expanded to describe PCM synthesis. Though, as the preview states, the line between sampling and synthesis are blurred, it is still there. Synthesis means creating/generating a sound. Sampling is recording and playing back a sound.

--Trweiss 15:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge musical keyboard into this article

I suggest that musical keyboard be merged into this article, since the two articles seem to be of the same subject, albeit with a slightly different focus.

Perhaps "musical keyboard" is a more intuitive title than "synthesizer", but this article seems better established and has far more content so that's why I suggest that this article's title retained and the other becomes a redirect. Thoughts? --Qirex 09:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree. This article is not the place for discussion of the layout and history of the musical keyboard; musical keyboard should not redirect to synthesizer. Similarly the musical keyboard article is not the place to discuss the synthesizer, which is just a specific example of a musical instrument that (sometimes, and not necessarily) employs a keyboard in its design, and which was not developed until the 20th century; synthesizer should not redirect to musical keyboard. Therefore they are two different subjects and should have separate articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot to add to RobertG's answer, except my strong agreement. These are two completely different subjects. No merging, redirecting or disambiguating should be done. EldKatt (Talk) 11:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, normally I would allow this kind of thing a day or two, but by the looks of this, I doubt there will be many, if any, users who agree that a merge should take place. So I'll remove the tags and sit back down, looking awfully sheepish no doubt. --Qirex 13:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence (definition of synthesizer)

Re: "A synthesizer (or synthesiser) is an electronic musical instrument designed to produce electronically generated sound, using techniques such as additive, subtractive, FM, physical modelling synthesis, phase distortion, or Scanned synthesis.":

It seems to me that the first half of this sentence is too broad (after all, a Farfisa organ is "an electronic musical instrument designed to produce electronically generated sound") and the second half is too narrow and technical. I'd replace it with a sound (so to speak) definition, such as: A synthesizer is a collection of electronic devices that modify or manipulate an electronically generated musical tone or sound source. TheScotch 11:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "A synthesizer is an electronic device that generates, modifies and/or manipulates electronically generated sounds for musical purposes.":

Someone replaced my rewriting of the opening sentence with the above.

1) You may wish to consult Donald Hall's Writing Well or a similar work about the construction and/or; it does not belong in non-legal prose.

2) Collection (or some synonym) is essential to the definition. Modular synthesizers are obvious collections, but synthesizers housed in one box, such as the MiniMoog and the A.R.P. 2600, are no less collections of distinct devices. The above definition would make a single device, such as a filter, an envelope follower, a wah-wah pedal, a fuzz pedal, and so on, a synthesizer in itself, and I think the absurdity of calling a fuzz pedal, for example, a synthesizer should be readily apparant.

For these reasons, I've (manually) reverted the replacement. TheScotch 09:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

Re: "Synthesizers typically have a keyboard which provides the human interface to the instrument and are often thought of as keyboard instruments.":

I don't see that there is anything more human about a keyboard than there is about a fader or knob. The keyboard, rather, "provides" a pitch controller reminiscent of (certain) traditional musical instruments. TheScotch 11:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DX7 envelope inaccuracy

In the "newly added" section on the history of FM synthesis, in discussing the envelopes on the GS and the DX7, it is said, "Interestingly, what became the DX7's 4-stage ADSR at that time actually had many break points....about 75..." If my memory serves, having owned a DX7 and a DX7-IIFD, the envelope, while certainly not a 75-stage, is significantly more complex than an 4-stage ADSR. It is a baselevel-attack-decay-breakpoint-sustain-release envelope, with settable levels for base level (sorry if that's not the right nomenclature, but I mean to signify the level before striking a key and after its release and decay), attack level, break point level, and sustain level. There are time settings for attack time, initial decay time, break decay time, and release time.

The addition of a non-zero base level, an attack level, and the break point level and break point decay, make for an envelope that is both more flexible and useful, and harder to understand, than an ADSR. In my opinion it is, along with FM in general and with the sparse user interface, one of the contributors to this synthesizer's status at the time as "a synth you buy voice cartridges for, because it's too hard to program," in contrast to the analog synths of the time.

69.207.168.214 02:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Peter Puleo[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Musical Thing

I'm trying to figure out whether a certain stick-like musical keyed instrument, cranked out by Mattel in the late seventies and early eighties with colorful looking buttons as keys, called a "Magical Musical Thing" or MMT for short, was a synthesizer or an electronic organ. Three million of those were reportedly made; my family once owned one of those; it is generally advertised on Ebay as being "rare" with prices apparently in the $10-20 range; it apparently is easy to break and its sounds are apparently pure, high pitched sounds that don't warble (I'm hard of hearing, so don't take my word for it). There is a roughly triangle-shaped speaker at one end of the instrument, and it is battery powered. I would like to see if anyone can dig up a history of that toy - and, of course, whether it can be classified as a synthesizer or an electronic mini-organ. Rickyrab | Talk 23:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Style of article

I would like to confirm what the tag says, and point out that this article is currently too technical for most readers. Some of the information will make perfect sense to people who are familiar with how synths work, but may come across as meaningless to people who are not experts. The article could use a rewrite that reflects this. Also, some more images would help.--Ianmacm 17:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early work by Sherwin Gooch

While it wasn't a commercial product, Sherwin Gooch's early work with the GSW (Gooch Synthetic Woodwind) around 1974, and the GCS (Gooch Cybernetic Synthesizer) around 1976, seems worth mentioning in the discussion of the history. I don't know if each of these was the earliest of its type, but if not the very first I would expect it to be close. The GSW was a four-voice computer controlled synthesizer, and the GCS a 16-voice PCM synthesizer. The GCS also came with a pressure-sensitive keyboard, which I suspect may also have been rather an early specimen of the type. All this was part of the PLATO project. Paul Koning 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesizer Template?

I'd like to propose some sort of Synthesizer template. I was looking to add specs to the Roland XP-30 page and realized it would make more sense to have something preformatted for this, since the info is applicable to all product-specific synth pages, no? Check the XP-30 page to see what I come up with...Yuletide 22:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification and disambiguation of the opening paragraph

I re-wrote the opening paragraph to clarify what the synthesizer is and to provide the distinction between musical and scientific synthesizers. Comments are welcome. --Mike Sorensen 08:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific" is a slightly odd term because the users of those devices wouldn't call them that. Also, as a matter of style, shouldn't this sort of distinction be made on a disambiguation page? In other words, have the article here be "music synthesizers" and the other be "synthesizers (measurement)" and then "synthesizers" is a disambiguation page that points to these? Paul Koning 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the disambiguation page would probably be more appropriate so I just created one. --Mike Sorensen 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "disambiguation" problem; there is the problem that "Music synthesizers can create an electrical signal needed to drive and play audio amplifiers" is nowhere near sufficient to describe the musical instrument called a synthesizer; and there is the problem that the other two definitions are not substantiated and sound to me extremely questionable. Moreover, since synthetic, synthesis, and synthesize, were all common English words long before the RCA Electronic Music Synthesizer, the Siemens Synthesizer, and the Moog modular synthesizer, there is no need to go directly and immediately to the Greek cognate. To synthesize is to build up out of component parts, as it its antonym to analyze is to break down into component parts. This is why synthesizers are necessarily collections of electronic devices. As I've already pointed out (there was no need to create a new discussion section concerning the first or "opening" paragraph or opening sentence when these already existed), a Farfisa organ "[creates] an electrical signal needed to drive and play audio amplifiers", and obviously a Farfisa organ is not a synthesizer. TheScotch 07:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some parts of your statement and disagree with others.

I agree that the definition of a music synthesizer could be improved, so please feel free to make changes. The other two definitions can also be improved but they convey the general idea behind and give a necessary distinction between music synthesizers and other types of synthesizers. Yes there was no need to create another heading so if you feel so strongly about it please feel free to move my comments to the appropriate section and the drop me a line on my user page after you do that.

I tend to disagree on the following points: 1. The Greek "syntithenai" is the direct root for the word synthesizer and gives a full context and connotation to the meaning of "putting things together", however I believe that you are misunderstanding the application of this word. It applies to the synthesizer's function and not its structure. The synthesizer is a device to "put things together" and not a device put together from things (though this may also be true ;). 2. A synthesizer can be entirely encapsulated in just one integrated circuit so it does not have to be composed of separate devices, unless of course you want to brake apart the IC then any electronics apparatus is a collection of devices. Furthermore a simple, single circuit oscillator is a very primitive form of a synthesizer. 3. And "YES" Farfisa organ is a form of a synthesizer. --Mike Sorensen 09:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]