Talk:Physical modelling synthesis

There is a problem with the formant synthesis link. It goes to the formant article wich doesn't really deal with synthesis. Either this link has to be removed or a new article about formant synthesis has to be created. X-dark 13:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

There should be a page on Modal Synthesis (and a link).

Title mispelled

Should be "modeling." // Montag 17:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a misspelling... Both are fine. 218.159.144.49 (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

English: Modelling, American: Modeling. Thus modelling should be preferred. --2A02:8109:9840:75C:909A:82F4:8048:ECEA (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Formant Link

I'll see if I can put up a small page on Formant Synthesis, and maybe Modal synthesis. // --Calllahan (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I put up a new page on formant synthesis, not much on it now at all but I'll add more tomorrow and change the link. --Calllahan (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how to change the link but the page for formant synthesis is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formant_Synthesis. // --Calllahan (talk) 9:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Virtual Instruments not platforms

Indicating Reaktor and Max/MSP as virtual instruments is deceiving. They both are *platforms* to create instruments prototypes. Creating a physical model is only one of the many possibilities they offer. I suggest deleting them or specifying the name of patches they can run which offer physical modelling synthesis (e.g. foo_patch for Cycling 74 Max/Msp). Ingleopard (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

fully agreed: computer music languages can be used to implement instruments, but they should not be listed here 85.127.14.12 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

max/msp does not even include anything "physical modelling". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.251.201.142 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

not a great article

A haphazard and somewhat baffling overview crammed into the beginning. Most of this will be shifted to a section AFTER Contents, replaced by a "twenty words or less" abstracting statement.

Two lists, seemingly pulled together at random by whatever editor(s) launched this. There's no source for either list, therefore no way to know whether they're meant to be complete catalogues or somehow Notable or perhaps representative. Find a source AND properly decribe their intent.

The article leaves the impression that it's all about musical synthesis.

Is that first list of Technologies associated with physical modelling or is it Examples of physical modelling synthesis? One or the other, please.

In their prime, the DS-XG sound cards were easily the most affordable way of obtaining genuine VL technology… and the article winds down into advertising copy.

No awareness evident that Roland's COSM modeling was used for a couple of decades in their VG-series "13-pin" guitar devices.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've reworked the intro, and chopped a bunch of the (unsubstantiated) raving about the DX-SG soundcard.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Roland's "COSM" probably not "physical modeling" per se

Despite the name, COSM appears to be a mixture of methods incorporating samples (sample library developer Spectrasonics notes that they contributed to the COSM V-Drum, for instance - https://www.vdrums.com/forum/advanced/technical/47080-cosm-versus-samples/page3) and, it has been speculated, frame-based additive synthesis.

Musical instument/acoustic instrument

The opening line refers to musical instruments: "... to simulate a physical source of sound, usually a musical instrument." This is a range too wide to describe the physical modelling synthesis. Physical modelling, actually, simulates only acoustic instruments. It does not simulate electric or electronic instruments, eg. synthesisers or circuits. --2A02:8109:9840:75C:909A:82F4:8048:ECEA (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)