Many years ago, I read about a study that was done regarding the way our ears identify sounds. In this study, scientists took recordings of ordinary acoustic instruments, but they edited out the initial attack portion of the sounds. What they discovered is that people had a significantly more difficult time identifying sounds that had this attack portion removed.Obviously, this tells us that the attack portion of a sound is very important in defining the character of a sound. This is useful in trying to replicate real world sounds, but what I find more interesting is the possibilities this opens in the realm of sound design. Try taking a sample of a guitar or piano an edit out the attack portion. The sound will have a definite organic quality to it, but will also sound a bit alien since this is not the way our ears are accustomed to hearing it.
If you want to take it a step further, try combining the edited attack portion of one type of sound with the sustain portion of another. This is the basis of the "sample + synthesis" craze that swept the 90's, best exemplified by synths like the Roland D-50 or the Ensoniq SQ-80. It is entirely possible to create very strange sounds using the most mundane sources if you just mix them up. Try building your own library of attack and sustain samples of real sounds and before long you'll have your own unique "sample + synthesis" timbres...
Posts
2 comments:
I read that same study/article.
I also interpreted it as "always program your synths to have interesting attacks".
I agree with Anu. So often we think of the sound in terms of the sustain portion that we don't necessarily put enough emphasis on an "interesting attack."
Sometimes I'll take this a step further and completely take out the sustain portion. The same musical information is conveyed but the means is totally abbreviated.
-Tom N
Post a Comment