Talk:Synthesizer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article milestones
April 8, 2008 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Synthesizer has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] 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)


Synthesizer was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: December 18, 2006

.

[edit] 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)


---How can you relate that in a single article??? Each syntesizer had it's own influence on the music scene... You can't talk about synthesizers without talking about technical aspects.

--Maybe more pertinently - what is the point of the "Sound basics" section?

I uploaded an image of the Kawai K5000S synthesizer to the "Synthesizer Basics" section. This is only to illustrate what a basic synthesizer, or commonly, keyboard, appears as in the field of music. It may clear up confusion early on in the article. Also, the K5000S is the first in that series of synthesizers made by Kawai. Some of it's advanced features are additive synthesis, formant modeling and MIDI. Unitystudios (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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


[edit] 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)
    • I work a lot with sound modeling and musical signal processing, and from this POV, a spectral peak is not usually a "formant" -- rather, a formant (coming from the literature in speech processing) generally refers to a more global characteristic: local maxima in a sound's spectral envelope. For more on spectral envelopes, check papers from conferences such as ICASSP, WASPAA, DAFx, ICMC, etc. or just search Google, which is much easier ;). Hope this helps. 70.55.67.66 21:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)
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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)
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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

How about: "Synthesizers typically have a keyboard which provides the main performance interface to the instrument and are often thought of as keyboard instruments." Colin OOOD 12:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • "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)
  • Yes, the disambiguation page is probably more appropriate so I just created one. --Mike Sorensen 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree with some parts of your statement.
I agree that the definition of a music synthesizer could be improved, so please feel free to make changes. I just added the disambig page so I will move the other two definitions to the appropriate pages. 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 please drop me a line on my user page after you do that. --Mike Sorensen 10:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] De-spam

Removed links that smell like spam; your mileage may vary. Jafet 09:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a "Link Farm" tag (Template:Tpl/linkfarm ). This article has too many. Jrod2 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FM Synthesis/Yamaha

I've added a "this section is too long" tag to this section, because it is too long, I'm also dubious about whether that's original research or not, and by the looks of it most of it should be covered in frequency modulation synthesis rather than here. Perhaps this article should merely provide a brief overview as opposed to an article-sized section, what do you think? - Zeibura S. Kathau (Info | Talk) 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


I agree. The information, though vast and very detailed, belongs in the Frequency Modulation Synthesis page. perhaps a short synopsis of the section and addition of other examples of FM synthesis (such as the Yamaha TG 33 and the Korg Wave Station). Haikudeathmatch 06:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My opinion: Most of the FM/Yamaha information in that section can be cut, the remainder summarized and preferably merged into the Yamaha Corporation page, not the Frequency modulation synthesis page, which is short and sweet and definitely to the point. While I can understand the tendency to cover every type of synthesis used by synthesizers in this article, it is impractical to do so since there are numerous existing pages which already deal with synthesis types. A simple summary (two to four sentences for all the types of synthesis) with links to those pages would be ideal. Indeed, most of the types of synthesis are already linked in this article—so why the lengthy explanations and devoted sections? Redundancy should be avoided when it is covered elsewhere. Lastly, (sorry, the pedant in me is squirming) the Korg Wavestation is not an FM Synth, although it shares a common synthesis type with Yamaha's TG33, SY22, and SY55 keyboards using vector synthesis, which originated from Sequential Circuits' Prophet VS.  :) JordanSealy 09:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small ADSR schematic note

The paragraph says that to imitate natural sounds, ADSR shifts are usually exponential growth/decay curves. But the schematic diagram to the right has linear curves. There is a somewhat rougher, but more exponentialish diagram available at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/2/23/ADSR-Envelope_Generator.gif if people agree to use that instead.

[edit] Modified first paragraph, and wondering about some others

(I'm new here, please remember WP:BITE - revert if you must, but don't call me names...) - I felt the first paragraph was somewhat confusing and misleading, so I made some modifications. I'm also wondering how exactly software synthesis differs from digital synthesis? Both are using computer software - one is running on a bigger computer is all. ;-) I grant that there should be a article about software synthesis, and I may take a stab at it if no one else does, but I don't really think it deserves a category of it's own when describing types of synth - it's really a subcategory of digital synth in my opinion. Sheer panic 21:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg

Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging of article

The article is in poor condition at the moment. It reads like a hotchpotch of unconnected paragraphs when it needs to have a clear structure. It could also use some inline citations, as many of the statements are unsourced. Please help if you have the knowledge and the time. --♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing/misleading introduction

From the introduction: "Music synthesizers sometimes include a keyboard, which makes them reminiscent of certain traditional musical instruments, like a piano or an organ. Various alternative or additional pitch controllers, such as fingerboards and "ribbons", have been employed as well. (See sound module.)" Why does it say "see sound module"? I would think it should link to an article on controllers, not synths, so that the reader can read about the "various alternative pitch controllers" that exist. Henre (talk) 10:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg

Image:SwitchedOnBach.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The worst quality article on Wikipedia?

This is the worst article I've seen on Wikipedia. It's full of waffle, not properly referenced and blatantly inaccurate in many important areas. It's a disgrace. For example:

"PCM-sound is obtainable even with a 1-bit system, but the sound is terrible with mostly noise, as there are only two levels, on and off (for example, the MS Windows PC Speaker Driver[1] allows to play a WAV file by only switching on and off quickly the simple built-in beep speaker). Since the beginning of PCM synthesis (<1970), almost all number of bits from 1 to 32 have been used, but today the most common ones are 16 and 24bits, going towards 32bits as the next jump up in quality."

This typifies the sort of exercise in hoodwinking and inaccurate pseudo-science that this article has been used for. People you need to get it into your heads that sound synthesis is a matter of science, and being a 14-year fan of 'electronic music' or a 'DJ' who has done a half-assed search about synthesis with Google doesn't qualify you in any way to comment. If you don't know or you're not sure, DON'T include it in the article. --Zubedar (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the worst quality article, I can think of several others that are much, much worse, but I agree that it is in dire need of quality attention. Personally, I'd recommend scrapping the article entirely and beginning again. How many people would that piss off?JordanSealy (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Having had a quick read through this, I can say this article is pretty poor. The lead paragraphs are confusing, and later in the article there is a mix of stuff, mostly waffle. Large sections are not linked at all, and, obviously, there is a huge lack of references. If it were my decision, I would scrap it and start over - but I am sure that would annoy a few people. — Wackymacs (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I have re-written the lead, but it's only a start. The lead still needs working on. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This lede is much, much better. Good work! And most of the unnecessary stuff has been moved elsewhere. There is hope for this article yet. JordanSealy (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
One thing that should get some attention is the classification of synthesisers (sorry, British spelling :) ). 'Analogue', 'digital' and 'software' is inaccurate at best. There's cross-overs, like the early eighties synths with DCOs and analogue filter sections. And what is the real distinction between a virtual analogue like the AN1x, and a software package? Surely, virtual analogues are closer to a software package than they are to a DX7. The real problem is that the package and the synthesis method are thrown together in a heap. SeverityOne (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
As a generalization, it is accurate to define the three as digital, analog and software. The article explains later on the various types and hybrid synths. — Wackymacs (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A big THANKS to Wackymacs! :-) The entry is looking so much better. The quality issue has been resolved in my view. The main problems were inaccuracies and waffle, and a general disorderliness, but this has been fixed as far as I'm concerned. --Zubedar (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual Synthesizer by A. Fillebrown

It must be mentioned as "...an electronic instrument capable of producing a wide variety of sounds by generating and combining signals of different frequencies...". Commator (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's you who needs to discuss why your link is desired and needed on the article. We don't just put links for our own personal reasons. If you want me to be more specific read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #1, #8 and #13. Jrod2 (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
But where is your reasons why this synthesizer is not synthesizer? And why do you wish to name my contribution as vandalism? It is only link, which must be good for other readers on synthesizers. Your removing of it without detailed explanations seems closer to vandalism. Please explain your intolerance to my modest contribution? Commator (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Commator, the purpose that your external link attempts to demonstrate is NOT accessible (read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #8) and appropriate to the article (read WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #13. The subject is "Synthesizers" not virtual ones, virtual synthesis or experimental music instruments. Make your own article about it. If doesn't get Proded by someone, then you are home free. If you don't want to do that, try writing a whole section about that subject instead. Jrod2 (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Jrod2, my link is not the mentioned one at WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #8, because it is not direct link to documents that require external applications. It is only entrance to site where reader can decide what to do with content. The article also has section Software synthesizer. It describes quite similar ones which use Andy. So virtual synth by Andy is software one and has direct relation to the article. I don't understand why do you try to apply WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #13 to my link? So I'm finding my link is quite such, as mentioned at WP:EL#What should be linked. I would be glad if you restore it. Commator (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Commator: External links need to relate specifically to the article (hence why there are so few links there). Please leave the External links section for valuable research content, and not spam links. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Wackymacs, please explain how the word "spam" relates to my attempt of contribution. Also why my link is not relate specifically to the article. Commator (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll just chime in here... Commator, the link doesn't add anything to the article at all. It really and truly and properly doesn't belong on this page. As you've already been advised, consider including it in a different article. That's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.JordanSealy (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to agree. I don't see how this link relates to this article about synthesizers in general at all. In fact, I too would venture out to say it may be considered a spam link in that it promotes the work Mr. A. Fillebrown. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Please consider my link as it was added:

Virtual synthesizer by Andy Fillebrown works like the ANS but with 3D CAD drawings, which he name Audiosculptures.

It have explanation that this software synth works with 3D CAD drawings. Where in the article is information on this type of software synths? And why link to non-commercial site is promotion? All his works are available for free and they are only examples to demonstrate unique aspects of CAD synth. Commator (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ehh, No. Why is it so important to you that this link is added? This is an encyclopedia, and therefore external links need to have a certain level of credibility and reliability. — Wackymacs (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Commator, please. No one is saying that one can't link to non-commercial sites. But when when several users are telling you that your proposed external link inclusion is not specific enough, pay attention, or you'll only draw unnecessary attention to yourself. If you feel that strong about this type of "synth" write your own article. Jrod2 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
By other words the reader of general article on synthesizers must have not full information on types of them, and one who wish to add such information must be thrown out on his neck. Maybe somebody else explain why this synth is "synth"? Jrod2 and other opponents don't wish to do this. Commator (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
He did say that you can write your own article on it... — Wackymacs (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Commator, Obviously you don't know how Wikipedia works. Play by the rules and stop being stubborn about this. Here is what you should do: Look at the article page, do you see a "Modular Synthesizer" section? And, there is also a "See Also" section that has a wiki link to a modular synthesizer article? Well, that's how you get your synth technology or gadget included. Write an article about this gadget, then create a section with its own description on the Synthesizer article. Create a wiki link to this new article in the "See Also" section. Finally, add your external link, not to the Synthesizer article, but to your "new gadget's article" (Create an external link section). This does not guarantee you anything; editors can still revert or delete, but maybe they won't think that your contributions are geared to promote a name, a site or to spam Wikipedia. Jrod2 (talk) 17:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good work happening here

Earlier this month, Wackymacs asked me to take a look at this article and participate in its redevelopment. I was happy to give my impressions, but wasn't able to help out in working on it. Well. All I can say is that this is a completely different article than it was only a few weeks ago, immensely improved. Very good work, everyone! Risker (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)