satt comments on Fermi Estimates - Less Wrong

51 Post author: lukeprog 11 April 2013 05:52PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (104)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: David_Gerard 11 April 2013 06:20:10PM *  0 points [-]

That article treats all forms of synthesis as one instrument. This is IMO not an accurate model. The explosion of electronic pop in the '80s was because the technology was on the upward slope of the logistic curve, and new stuff was becoming available on a regular basis for artists to gleefully seize upon. But even now, there's stuff you can do in 2013 that was largely out of reach, if not unknown, in 2000.

Comment author: satt 12 April 2013 01:38:38AM 2 points [-]

But even now, there's stuff you can do in 2013 that was largely out of reach, if not unknown, in 2000.

Have any handy examples? I find that a bit surprising (although it's a dead cert that you know more about pop music than I do, so you're probably right).

Comment author: David_Gerard 12 April 2013 06:54:26AM *  1 point [-]

I'm talking mostly about new things you can do musically due to technology. The particular example I was thinking of was autotune, but that was actually invented in the late 1990s (whoops).

But digital signal processing in general has benefited hugely in Moore's Law, and the ease afforded by being able to apply tens or hundreds of filters in real time. The phase change moment was when a musician could do this in faster than 1x time on a home PC. The past decade has been mostly on the top of the S-curve, though.

Nevertheless, treating all synthesis as one thing is simply an incorrect model.

Comment author: satt 13 April 2013 01:50:20PM 2 points [-]

Funny coincidence. About a week ago I was telling someone that people sometimes give autotune as an example of a qualitatively new musical/aural device, even though Godley & Creme basically did it 30+ years ago. (Which doesn't contradict what you're saying; just because it was possible to mimic autotune in 1979 doesn't mean it was trivial, accessible, or doable in real time. Although autotune isn't new, being able to autotune on an industrial scale presumably is, 'cause of Moore's law.)

Comment author: zerker2000 17 April 2013 03:14:03AM *  1 point [-]

Granular synthesis is pretty fun.

Comment author: satt 17 April 2013 10:51:09PM 0 points [-]

Agreed, although I don't know how impractical or unknown it was in 2000 — I remember playing with GranuLab on my home PC around 2001.