Finally got my first FT rig set up with a Cunsa. I LOVE THIS FILTER array. It is flexible, powerful and has a distinctive flavor. This video is super informative! Thanks Giovanni!
I think that what is lost in the synth community, is the physical origin and profound nature of resonance. Filters only happen to exhibit resonant-like behaviour because of a circuit topology that creates feedback at the cutoff frequency. In nature resonance is usually tied to a bandpass function that is "tuned" by some dimensional property. While tuning forks, Helmholtz resonators (cavities) and suspended bridges exhibit a strong bandpass behaviour, wind instrument bodies (including pipe organs) and stringed instrument soundboards (from guitars to violins and pianos) are in reality composed of many resonant modes ; so, not just some "cutoff frequency", but a whole spectrum of resonant harmonics and partials. The only synthesists who have understood this, are those who dab into so-called modal synthesis. Unfortunately, the rare such tools provided to musicians are hard-wired resonator banks that are purposely meant to emulate "physical" instruments being "excited". So you end up with rich-sounding modules like those Mutable designed, but nonetheless modules that isolate their inner workings too much from their users. In true modular synth spirit, it would be great to see someone approach multi-band resonance in a way that is openly intended to perform harmonic shaping. A good design should be excitable by a simple input of white noise, and the whole magic would happen with the resonator bank, how they are spread and tuned (one by one or according to a user-controlled function), and what their amplitudes are ; again, one by one or according to a simple or complex function. Tuning the frequency of resonators is one thing, but the magic is in how these banks are tuned and levelled collectively. A smart design would allow you to tweak each component in detail, but would also give you macro control over the whole bank, in both static and dynamic ways (input dynamics, velocity, pitch, etc). I am not convinced that Fumana is achieving this. The graphic eq approach of vocoders and the inherently opinionated "Buchla" aspect of this, in my opinion stifles the potential of tuned resonators. In general I feel we as a community are stuck in 1973 and little true innovation has occurred in synthesis over the last 50 years. We've had granular - a curiosity but "meh" ; the TZFM era of the DX7 ; the PPG wavetable concept (cool but to an extent, an admission of defeat for synthesis) ; and the pretentiously hardwired ideas of Don Buchla, only usable to do Buchla-sounding stuff and nothing else. How may circuit designers today think about the intrinsic nature of sound before crafting a synthesis voice ? We're redoing the same block diagrams that Bob Moog came up with 60 years ago. If you analyse natural sounds - say, the sound of a cello - you will see a complex combination of a noise spectrum (for all practical purposes, the ocean of partials is just shaped noise) and clear resonant peaks. This is what the vast majority of natural sounds are made of. Another thing you will see (and hear) is that natural sounds have far less energy in the HF regions than synthetic sounds. Stand 2-3 metres in front of a brass band, and you will hear for yourself that the sound is never strident, even for a loud piccolo trumpet. Compare this to the horrible "brass" sounds of 80s made with 'supersaws' or the harsh oscillators found on Oberheim and Sequential designs. While synthesis is not necessarily meant to emulate natural sounds, it should learn from nature a few tricks - why ? Because our ears are tuned to natural sounds by aeons of evolution. By providing the synthesist with pure synthesis tools that embody the character of natural sounds, it should be possible to create completely new, unheard sounds, that feel totally natural... Have you ever asked yourselves why Fender pianos are so enamoured ? Because they sound natural while being so synthetic. If I have to level both praise and critique to your designs are Frap, I would say that A) you stand out by a clear spirit of innovation and you are quality-minded. On the down side, while your aesthetics are pretty, doing everything via colour-coding and symbols is not as user-friendly as you'd think - you'd do well to offer alternative front panels for those who prefer a more verbose UI.
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed and informed comment. Your remark on tuned resonators is very interesting and we agree that FUMANA (like any fixed-filter bank) not only isn't ideal, but actually goes in the opposite direction. We also agree on the fact that in analog there is very little left to do, so as of today, we chose to focus mainly on the interfaces. We briefly talked about this in a recent interview for Synth Anatomy here: th-cam.com/video/ebXvw4_e2wU/w-d-xo.html As for the Fender pianos - if you refer to the Rhodes, I wouldn't call them synthetic... There are real vibrating bodies (like an electric guitar) involved. We also understand the remark on the interfaces, but as I said, as of today the interaction between the musician and the instrument is our main goal, rather than looking for "the new sound". Things might change in the future, though, but we prefer to take one step at a time! More info on our interface approach is here: th-cam.com/video/IWgRJIxioQU/w-d-xo.html
You're critizing the product for not being something it doesn't really want to be. But this is still an interesting topic. Maybe find a synth forum to discuss this. It's a bit out of place here.
Cunsa is sounding fantastic, beautiful work.
Thank you so much Ben! It means a lot! ❤️
Finally got my first FT rig set up with a Cunsa. I LOVE THIS FILTER array. It is flexible, powerful and has a distinctive flavor. This video is super informative! Thanks Giovanni!
Awesome, Wade, it made it! Super glad that it's finally there and that it's fulfilling your expectations. Thanks for the kind words!
Outstanding - a thoughtful and clear presentation - including the reference page for further reading! Thank you.
Glad it was helpful, thanks!
Excellent !
Thank you Dirk!
Oooh, that kick tho ❤
Thank you! We have a video ready on kicks and percussions coming up 🔥
I think that what is lost in the synth community, is the physical origin and profound nature of resonance. Filters only happen to exhibit resonant-like behaviour because of a circuit topology that creates feedback at the cutoff frequency. In nature resonance is usually tied to a bandpass function that is "tuned" by some dimensional property. While tuning forks, Helmholtz resonators (cavities) and suspended bridges exhibit a strong bandpass behaviour, wind instrument bodies (including pipe organs) and stringed instrument soundboards (from guitars to violins and pianos) are in reality composed of many resonant modes ; so, not just some "cutoff frequency", but a whole spectrum of resonant harmonics and partials. The only synthesists who have understood this, are those who dab into so-called modal synthesis. Unfortunately, the rare such tools provided to musicians are hard-wired resonator banks that are purposely meant to emulate "physical" instruments being "excited".
So you end up with rich-sounding modules like those Mutable designed, but nonetheless modules that isolate their inner workings too much from their users. In true modular synth spirit, it would be great to see someone approach multi-band resonance in a way that is openly intended to perform harmonic shaping. A good design should be excitable by a simple input of white noise, and the whole magic would happen with the resonator bank, how they are spread and tuned (one by one or according to a user-controlled function), and what their amplitudes are ; again, one by one or according to a simple or complex function. Tuning the frequency of resonators is one thing, but the magic is in how these banks are tuned and levelled collectively. A smart design would allow you to tweak each component in detail, but would also give you macro control over the whole bank, in both static and dynamic ways (input dynamics, velocity, pitch, etc). I am not convinced that Fumana is achieving this. The graphic eq approach of vocoders and the inherently opinionated "Buchla" aspect of this, in my opinion stifles the potential of tuned resonators.
In general I feel we as a community are stuck in 1973 and little true innovation has occurred in synthesis over the last 50 years. We've had granular - a curiosity but "meh" ; the TZFM era of the DX7 ; the PPG wavetable concept (cool but to an extent, an admission of defeat for synthesis) ; and the pretentiously hardwired ideas of Don Buchla, only usable to do Buchla-sounding stuff and nothing else. How may circuit designers today think about the intrinsic nature of sound before crafting a synthesis voice ? We're redoing the same block diagrams that Bob Moog came up with 60 years ago. If you analyse natural sounds - say, the sound of a cello - you will see a complex combination of a noise spectrum (for all practical purposes, the ocean of partials is just shaped noise) and clear resonant peaks. This is what the vast majority of natural sounds are made of. Another thing you will see (and hear) is that natural sounds have far less energy in the HF regions than synthetic sounds. Stand 2-3 metres in front of a brass band, and you will hear for yourself that the sound is never strident, even for a loud piccolo trumpet. Compare this to the horrible "brass" sounds of 80s made with 'supersaws' or the harsh oscillators found on Oberheim and Sequential designs. While synthesis is not necessarily meant to emulate natural sounds, it should learn from nature a few tricks - why ? Because our ears are tuned to natural sounds by aeons of evolution. By providing the synthesist with pure synthesis tools that embody the character of natural sounds, it should be possible to create completely new, unheard sounds, that feel totally natural... Have you ever asked yourselves why Fender pianos are so enamoured ? Because they sound natural while being so synthetic.
If I have to level both praise and critique to your designs are Frap, I would say that A) you stand out by a clear spirit of innovation and you are quality-minded. On the down side, while your aesthetics are pretty, doing everything via colour-coding and symbols is not as user-friendly as you'd think - you'd do well to offer alternative front panels for those who prefer a more verbose UI.
Thanks for taking the time for such a detailed and informed comment.
Your remark on tuned resonators is very interesting and we agree that FUMANA (like any fixed-filter bank) not only isn't ideal, but actually goes in the opposite direction.
We also agree on the fact that in analog there is very little left to do, so as of today, we chose to focus mainly on the interfaces. We briefly talked about this in a recent interview for Synth Anatomy here: th-cam.com/video/ebXvw4_e2wU/w-d-xo.html
As for the Fender pianos - if you refer to the Rhodes, I wouldn't call them synthetic... There are real vibrating bodies (like an electric guitar) involved.
We also understand the remark on the interfaces, but as I said, as of today the interaction between the musician and the instrument is our main goal, rather than looking for "the new sound". Things might change in the future, though, but we prefer to take one step at a time! More info on our interface approach is here: th-cam.com/video/IWgRJIxioQU/w-d-xo.html
You're critizing the product for not being something it doesn't really want to be. But this is still an interesting topic. Maybe find a synth forum to discuss this. It's a bit out of place here.