shooting dialog scenes with loud silent cameras

[Ari Michael Leeds]

LOUD CAMERAS, DIALOGUE? Dub dub dub dub dub :sings: B) See all the IMAX scenes shot in the Dark Knight films. Camera is so loud to make sync sound impossible, from what I have read. Haven't had the pleasure, myself, yet.

[Tyler Purcell]

P.S. (not beating a dead horse here): film is 125 years old, but it always evolved and improvements only were slowed down by the slow and painful video/digital take over. Digital isn't "recent" at all. It is clearly a form of video, which is directly linked to live television. So we can safely say: video is at least 60 years old (I am counting from the first video tapes in use, live television was around for public viewing in the 1930s). It took "video" much longer to mature than film.

Film from day one had and in a lot of ways, still has, a huge upper hand on video; it's see-through so you can project it. Unlike video which was designed from the ground up to be presented on CRT displays, motion picture film was always a see-through format for mass-audience presentation. The only way to project video until the advent of the LCD display, was using a three tube projector which weren't very bright and never calibrated properly. So it was the technology of the LCD display which ushered in the new age of video and finally allowed it to be projected. First projectors were B&W, but eventually turned into multi-layer color and we started seeing decent throw projectors in the early 90's, but nothing that could touch film. It wasn't until Texas Instruments developed the DLP imager that things changed. Finally an imager that could pass a lot more light and was decent quality. It took quite a feat to develop it however, it's a very complex system, but in the late 90's it started gaining speed and we've been using it in theaters since. So this was the first big problem and it wasn't solved until around 20 years ago.

 

The second big problem is resolution and since the broadcast standard was 525 lines, it made no sense to make video tape machines run at a higher bandwidth. Sony did in the 80's with the 1125 standard in Japan, but it never took off in the states. Japan switched to "HD", which at the time was square hence the 1920x1125 vs the final standard of 1920x1080 which is 16x9. However, even those older analog systems were full of troubles and we just didn't have bandwidth to deal with them here in the states. So HD stayed away for quite sometime until a digital standard was released a decade later. In the late 90's the writing was on the wall for NTSC and standard definition as MPEG compression got better and smaller. The rest of the story we all know very well. So HD quality broadcast was the big leap necessary to make the switch, but it didn't really happen until the late 90's. This is what ushered in the new cameras like the F900 and eventually the Thompson Viper. Both designed for broadcast, but had cinema frame rate functions. Mix that with an SRW-1 VTR and you've got a pretty good setup for portable shooting, though it brings back memories of the u-matic days.

 

So I guess my point is that analog video was never up to the challenge. We didn't have the technology 60 years ago to make it capable of doing what it does now. In fact, I'd argue we still don't have the technology to trump film today. Sure, 4k laser projection looks pretty good, but it's still nowhere near the quality of 5/70 or 15/70. In fact, there is no 6k or 8k distribution standard right now, let alone servers that can handle that sort of playback. Even IMAX is saying they're stuck at 4k for the time being. To me, that shows how limited digital really is and how it still isn't better then film in many ways. Easier to use? Yes... Less expensive? Yes... but that's about it.

 

When we have 8k digital all the way around, things will be different. Since the vast majority of films and theaters are still 2k today, digital is nowhere close to the technology from 100+ years ago.

[Christian Schonberger]

Tyler:

 

Thanks again for the insight.

 

Yep, and that's just projecting and resolution. On our upcoming album we used (besides the obligatory computers) an analog mixing console (besides the very musical harmonic distortion it also handles the summing of audio signals much better (computers/software hide a LOT from the user: for examples the information they simply scrap when they can't handle it) it's like night and day - much clearer, deeper, silkier and more powerful) - sure: needs maintenance and calibrating, but it's worth it. We also used fresh analog tape for the mastering stage (needs to be top notch though to reduce tape hiss - the equivalent of film grain) and we will release it on vinyl. CD is long since obsolete for tons of reasons I will not get into. Just a hint: the standard resolution is very low due to technical reasons, add to that the first generation D/A converters that simply scrapped a lot of "bits". Same with the first generation digital audio workstations: sound engineers at the time called this: "cardboard bass and braking glass sound!" - spot on!

 

Great to know that vinyl records are now made with fresh, sturdy 180 gram or at least 130 gram vinyl (not the re-used, flimsy, contaminated (with dust, trapped air bubbles and even rests of paper from labels!!!!) garbage they used back in the '70s and '80s) and stampers are not being worn out (as they did back in the day to save $$$), but from a certain quantity on, new stampers will be made. As it always should have been. Those poor quality vinyl albums and purposefully misleading advertising campaigns convinced people that CD's were better. I am in the business since the early '80s (including sound engineering) and people with not a shred of knowledge at the time even argued with me when I said: vinyl is better. The nerve!

 

Conclusion: there are organic artifacts that just sound fantastic. Same with film/video. It needs tons of CPU power to come up with algorithms achieving the necessary complexity to obtain something similar (to evoke emotions as opposed to just capture moving images) and megatons of CPU power to run these (or render....). Perhaps a new computer technology will arrive - at the moment the components within a microchip are reaching the absolute limit of miniaturization. Semi conductors will not work when they are too small - the unpredictability of atoms and particles are the problem! At the time being, digital video is just being "banged up" in post to get rid of that ugly glassy metallic flat and sterile look.

 

C.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Christian Schonberger

[Tyler Purcell]

Ohh you can absolutely make digital better then analog, but nowhere near the price for resale.

 

Imagine a DLP imager the same size as 15/70.

 

Imagine huge 20TB raid solutions that store the movies for 800MBps playback.

 

Imagine true 24 bit analog to digital converters at super high sample rates.

 

These are all possible, but not at a cost relative to mass production.

 

What kills digital anything is what I call the "lowest common denominator" factor. It's the same with analog in a lot of ways. You can give people a 15 ips, 1/4" , half track master on metal tape or you can give them a cassette. Which one is cheaper? Same goes for digital. As you pointed out, it's the conversion which looses much of the resolution (visual or audio), not the necessarily the storage medium. Optical disk formats have their own challenges, using data extrapolation and buffers to constantly error correct. However, linear PCM encoding isn't inherently bad, but it does require good mastering and excellent playback devices. I have BB55's in my CD player and it sounds pretty good for a digital device.

 

180 gram vinyl is pretty awesome, but most of the modern albums are digital, so it's back to the whole digital intermediate process once again. Analog instruments, recorded with digital equipment and pressed onto analog playback device. You loose quite a bit of data when you do that, if not done perfectly. Beck's Sea Change is one of the best 180 gram LP's I've heard. First playback, I recorded it onto my 1/2 track 15 IPS tape deck to capture that first playback and it was worth it! :)

[Christian Schonberger]

Ohh you can absolutely make digital better then analog, but nowhere near the price for resale.

 

Imagine a DLP imager the same size as 15/70.

 

Imagine huge 20TB raid solutions that store the movies for 800MBps playback.

 

Imagine true 24 bit analog to digital converters at super high sample rates.

 

These are all possible, but not at a cost relative to mass production.

 

What kills digital anything is what I call the "lowest common denominator" factor. It's the same with analog in a lot of ways. You can give people a 15 ips, 1/4" , half track master on metal tape or you can give them a cassette. Which one is cheaper? Same goes for digital. As you pointed out, it's the conversion which looses much of the resolution (visual or audio), not the necessarily the storage medium. Optical disk formats have their own challenges, using data extrapolation and buffers to constantly error correct. However, linear PCM encoding isn't inherently bad, but it does require good mastering and excellent playback devices. I have BB55's in my CD player and it sounds pretty good for a digital device.

 

180 gram vinyl is pretty awesome, but most of the modern albums are digital, so it's back to the whole digital intermediate process once again. Analog instruments, recorded with digital equipment and pressed onto analog playback device. You loose quite a bit of data when you do that, if not done perfectly. Beck's Sea Change is one of the best 180 gram LP's I've heard. First playback, I recorded it onto my 1/2 track 15 IPS tape deck to capture that first playback and it was worth it! :)

Yep. For the analog tape mastering we used a Studer A 80 (what a beast! Studio rental), half inch tape at 15 ips speed (30 isn't better at all because of increased flutter for mechanical reasons and loss of bass response, 15 is the ideal speed). About vinyl coming from digital data masters: yep: it's the digital intermediate thing again. BUT there is a hi cut filter in the machine that makes the lacquer master (direct metal master has problems BTW) at 17600 Hz, so the glassy high end is out of the equation. The analog stages also fill in the "holes" in the sound with very musical harmonic distortion (not intermodulation - which sounds horrible and not clipping) and impulse response. There is also an advantage: since our master is digital, we were able to turn everything below 90Hz into mono with a very recent phase accurate EQ (this does not affect the perceived stereo image at all and makes for a rock solid bottom end) - ideal for vinyl because the stylus won't jump. Getting the low end absolutely in phase accurate mono was always a problem in the analog world. Sure it can be done with minimal loss, but only with very expensive military grade gear (and while I'm at it: basically anything in entertainment technology - and many other areas - comes from military technology or makes giant leaps forward because of it).

 

C.

 

It's better than no vinyl at all.

[Tyler Purcell]

That's very fascinating... I didn't know that's what they did. :)

[Ari Michael Leeds]

"It's better than no vinyl at all."

Yes, it is, but that is flawed logic. It is not impossible to master off of a computer, just as it is (sofar, knock on wood) still possible to make a movie without a computer being involved with the imagine (although I don't fault bypassing $60,000 worth of workprints that end up in the rubbish bin at the end, anyway) through scans/tapes/video/digital dailies.

[Christian Schonberger]

"It's better than no vinyl at all."

 

Yes, it is, but that is flawed logic. It is not impossible to master off of a computer, just as it is (sofar, knock on wood) still possible to make a movie without a computer being involved with the imagine (although I don't fault bypassing $60,000 worth of workprints that end up in the rubbish bin at the end, anyway) through scans/tapes/video/digital dailies.

Well I didn't just refer to the sound. Vinyl wears out, has surface noise, pops and crackles (eventually), the track speed decreases, etc. etc. etc.. Vinyl is simply a great looking physical "manifestation" of music (or any kind of sound) and everything about it, the way you play it on the turntable, two sides, the cover art, credits you can read without a microscope.... that's what I was referring to. Same with film. Knowing behind you is a long string of beautiful individual images that actually physically exist, running through that old trusty projector by a guy who actually gives a beep and keeps an eye on frame line and focus. Think about it: you can do (in theory) anything on a computer. I still wait for the first self generated symphony though (composers ran out of ideas about 100 years ago). But by the time this is possible we humans probably will never hear it. The computer doesn't need to play it - it knows already what it's going to sound like ;-) Just messing ;-)

 

Christian

[Carl Looper]

Speaking of digital intermediates

 

In the digital animation work I do, the image can be rendered to any pixel size one might like (16K, 32K, etc), and at any bit depth one might like, but the result has no way of being displayed using any current digital display technology. Rendering it out to film and projecting it becomes the alternative way to appreciate what is otherwise locked up in computer memory - that only the computer can see :).

 

One can use fine grain stocks for this. Indeed, using stock designed for optical sound track recording is a good choice. It is fine grain and very contrasty (has very rich completely opaque blacks). The contrast is useful and can be cancelled out where required by rendering the image with the opposite contrast.

 

But how to render it out to film? Where are 64K film out printers?

 

A technique I've been testing at a theoretical level involves physically jittering a 4K display in which the displayed image is syncronised to this jitter. In practice it's the lens which is jittered as it's a lot less weight to move around, but the effect is the same. Each of the re-sampled images being exposed effectively interfere with each other to produce the higher definition image one is otherwise rendering on the film.

 

While a lens acts as a low pass filter, it's not a cut-off filter - it's frequency response rolls off rather than comes to an abrupt stop. It may still have an ultimate limit in terms of frequency response (due to all sorts of factors) but one can at least counter-act the roll off. This is done by increasing the contrast of the image at it's highest frequencies, counter-acting the lenses insistence on reducing the contrast of those same frequencies. Using high contrast film helps a lot in this regard. The resulting projected image is not contrasty - it's as perfectly balanced, in terms of greyscale values as one likes.

 

C

Edited March 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

Here goes my 2C:

 

The huge roadblock of digitally rendering image and audio is that we are using calculus. To exactly describe, say, a curve in steps (pixels, bits...) the number of pixels must be infinite and the pixel size an infinitesimal. But there is a reasonable limit which very likely can be achieved with technology soon to come. The other roadblock consists of the various stages of software processing. Each time you do something to an image or audio signal represented in "pixels", it becomes degraded and information of the original is lost. The problem is that we are long since used to the high control of digital editing/processing. Layers, masks and the likes in image and heavy editing (timing, tuning, patching takes together etc.) in audio. Even top notch symphonic orchestral recordings usually consist of editing takes together to obtain the illusion of one flowing performance, as flawless as possible. It's that editing power which is not possible in an all analog production. The signal degrading has been heavily improved upon in recent years through oversampling to minimize all the errors caused by interpolation and the likes (aliasing!).

 

Add to that the fact that analog editing requires the medium (tape) to be run dozens if not hundreds of times, causing wear and heavy signal degrading. BUT there is a way around that which has been done in audio (my line of work) before digital workstations took over: work with multiple tape recorders and only run the parts to be edited, saving the already finished parts to come in only at the end. For a complete film soundtrack (dialog, sound effects and music) consists of as many as 70 individual tracks or more. Back in the analog day it was insane, but it was done successfully (with limits in quality). Same with film. Any simple fade or dissolve had to be an optical effect to be inserted into the final edited neg (grease pencil marks on the work print) - clearly visible in many an older film by degraded image quality (color, contrast, dynamic range, more grain and even slightly mismatched framing)... That's where analog has its limitations: generation loss, being cumbersome and expensive and no real time control or fine tuning after the fact.

 

The convenience and relative ease of digital processing/editing has lead to other problems: 1) audiences get used to the false, tweaked "perfection" (listen to any pop/rock vocal performance from the '80s - lots of notes are out of tune because we are formatted by now to expect perfect tuning - how perfect depends on style). 2) it allows less talented people to come into the game and even talented people get sloppy (we'll fix it later).

 

There is a huge difference between getting it right "in camera" or "live on tape" and "fixed after the fact". This is very obvious in music: dynamics, expression and human effort all match up. With "fixing after the fact" we have ill-fitting performances and results, but it long since became a standard. That goes for image exposure to framing to performance, on set lighting, set design... just about anything. Even pre-recorded television "live" shows have tons of editing both image and audio. Official DVD's of live performances (musicals, rock groups ad even symphony orchestras) have been heavily edited and "fixed". Obvious to the keen observer, not noticeable to the average person who buys the product.

 

We need to get back to more discipline and choosing people who can nail performances live. This will also cause a much better sense of accomplishment for anyone involved. What good is watching your work consisting of heavy editing. That feeling of "I did that!" has a very bitter aftertaste, because it was digital editing that actually "did" that.

 

I'm glad seeing younger people driven to actually learn their craft, performing in real time (that goes also a lot for camera operators and their assistants including crane/dolly and focus pulling and any skilled steady cam operator) as opposed to relying too heavily on automation/robotics and tweaking it until it feels right. Take human effort out of the equation (= one can do anything) and it will be off. Don't get me wrong: I like "impossible" camera movements (as an example) like tracking through a glass door or through the handle of a coffee pot (Fincher anyone?). But this is only "impossible" when compared to what IS possible in the physical world. Once the impossible has become the new standard, what's left?

 

Time to do some heavy re-thinking or letting it run its course - until there is no more challenge and nothing new.

 

All of the above are dead horses being beaten since this topic has been addressed by generations of old masters who left the stage shaking their heads. "That's reality, face it!" is definitely not the answer. The results are visible.

 

Just my usual ramblings,

 

C.

[Carl Looper]

Film isn't just a recording medium. It's also a playback medium. The same with audio tape. The media (projector/speaker etc) these all become a "musical" instrument so to speak. One "plays a film" in the same one plays a guitar. The film screening becomes a live performance in this regard.

 

That's the important point. Film is otherwise "canned theatre" and that's the worst kind of film making there is - well in my opinion anyway.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

So cameras, film stock, audio tape, digital switches, computers, projectors, speakers, cinemas - these can be understood in the same way one understands musical instruments such as drums, guitars, flutes, a piano - they are instruments for creating sounds and images. One "plays" these instruments in certain ways to obtain a particular effect.

 

Now consider the piano. A piano can be regarded as decomposing all possible sounds into just a finite number of sounds. It's a bit like digital in this regard. But we work with that. We can make a piano create some great sound despite such limited capability.

 

The same goes for film, or digital for that matter. One works around the limitations of one's instruments and creates what does work with such instruments. There are great experiences one can create with little more than some acetate or polyestor running in front of a light. Of course, what goes into that performance (like any performance) is a lot of work.

 

That is how the film makers I work with make films. As live performances. Making a film is preparing for this performance - making all of one's "props" so to speak. It's not theatre, but it's very much like theatre. It's the creation of a kind of ghostly 'theatre' with disembodied images and sound/music in the air. If the ghosts are grainy - all the better - the more ghostly they are. One works with the grain rather than putting up with the grain. Or if one prefers one's ghosts more solid one plays another instrument instead. Either way it is a ghost world that one is exploring with such instruments.

 

It's not a second rate substitute for theatre or a music show. It's first rate cinema.

 

C

Edited March 17, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Christian Schonberger]

Film isn't just a recording medium. It's also a playback medium. The same with audio tape. The media (projector/speaker etc) these all become a "musical" instrument so to speak. One "plays a film" in the same one plays a guitar. The film screening becomes a live performance in this regard.

 

That's the important point. Film is otherwise "canned theatre" and that's the worst kind of film making there is - well in my opinion anyway.

 

C

 

Agreed. There are some rather "stagey" movies which are very obviously adapted stage plays or done this way (ensemble cast in a confined space). Some of these actually work extremely well because the camera work is ace (and of course story, dialog and acting). I am a huge fan of the original "Twelve Angry Men" which is an adaptation of a live television play of course. I also like the original "Sleuth" a lot. Same goes for hitchcock's "Rope" which was intended to be "canned theater", but it works: the camera work and the look and feel of the film stock turn it into first rate cinema.

 

About the film grain and overall image: back in the day the director and DoP had little control over how a movie was actually seen. Poor quality and /or worn faded (the horrible '70s Eastman print stock that loses the cyan layer in only a few years and looks red/magenta!) 35mm prints, pan and scan or cropped 16mm prints.... later VHS. None of this was truly intended. I tend to like a film when it is as close as possible to what the director and DoP actually intended: a fresh, clean release print in the intended format.

There are horrible BluRay editions with tweaked colors and grain reduction to make them look more "modern". I'm happy to see efforts like the "de specialized" versions of the original Star Wars Trilogy, done in painstaking detail by skilled enthusiasts, using low fade 35mm prints as the color grading reference and even a 16mm Scope print as a reference for the subtitles as they were in the 1977 original. There is a fine line between what was actually intended and what the film makers simply had to cope with. Also: the grain structure is different on each release print, both in pattern and intensity.

 

Another example (intended format, look and feel) is Hitchcock's "Psycho". He made it with a television crew in black and white to give it some sort of gritty B-movie look. Just check Bernard Herrmann's brilliant score. Just strings! No other instrument. Herrmann was a violinist, so he knew how to write for the string section - bringing out all the colors and expression! Genius!

 

First time I watched Psycho (didn't air on tv for many years) was through Super 8mm digests - very grainy and each version (there was a 60 meter silent and a 120 meter sound version that I know of) had a different look. The grain was a little too intense (cheap Orwo film stock) but a nice 16mm print with the correct aspect ratio probably would have been the closest to what Hitchcock intended. I have seen the restored BluRay version. It looks fabulous, pin sharp, clean and it is more immersive than any version I have seen before - but I would love to see a nice 16mm print.

I actually owned some 16mm prints, including "Gentleman's Agreement". This one looked fabulous on 16mm. Just enough clarity, yet that silky look without true deep blacks (not needed) and warm optical sound, even the noise floor was sweet because it's not an annoying hiss. Of course it was an excellent print (a former rental print, sold to collectors by established sellers - those still exist BTW) with some scratches and splices so it was affordable for me back in the day). Sure: for a large screen the resolution wouldn't have been sufficient. I have no idea how these prints (very likely at least two generations away from a 35mm release print) look to younger people. 16mm color prints are another story. Some look horrible (shadows are washed out by a haze and the color palette leans towards cyan and yellow - no rich greens and reds - and strange browns) - these were hastily made with at least one generation too many. But in general: I am not the "the sharper, cleaner and true to life, the better" guy. The look of a certain kind of film stock and format is very much part of a film for me.

 

Not sure how it works today. Probably many a DoP shakes the head when seeing what the color grader did in digital post.... back in the day at least the film makers were aware of how their films would look like on final release prints on the various formats in use.

 

About musical instruments: yep, they all are limited in one way or another, but that adds to the character. A high Eb (written F) on a Bb trumpet sounds very different from the same note played on a piccolo trumpet. It's the effort to play that note on the Bb trumpet that makes it sound so powerful in certain styles (jazz, funk, latin). Same with violins: a leap into a high note doesn't always sound best when the violinist nails it dead center. That slightly shaky pitch or portamento (slide-in) at the start of the note adds so much character when it's just the right amount. That's why I love many an orchestral score from the '30s and '40s. Not 100% perfect, but with tons of soul and passion. Just listening to the Warner Bros. orchestra (yep: the full orchestra!) playing incredibly difficult stuff for the 1940s "Looney Tunes" animated shorts: fantastic and rather thankless - because this material is actually much more difficult to compose and play than most dramatic scores from the same time. Check: "Long-Haired Hare". Now that's brilliant on all levels - IMHO doesn't get better than this, including the gorgeous Technicolor prints (here is the "showdown"):

 

 

O.K. I'm writing another novel here :-) I just love to share my opinions (which are just that). Thanks for reading.

 

Cheers,

C.

[Carl Looper]

Love your wramblings Christian - don't stop - it's all good :)

[Peter Bitic]

Yup, I like reading them too.

 

Since the debate has broadened to audio and characterictics of different mediums etc. I would like to ask if there is a form of music-making that is inherent to digital, or more accuratelly computers? The same way pixel art and vector graphics are inherent to computers for example. They are "purely digitally synthesized", meaning that they have no origins outside of computer, and they also aren't trying to imitate any physical medium. They are also methodical and precise in their approach in the sense that you are working with individual pixels in pixel art and in vector graphic you have extreme control over the geometry.

 

Is there a similiar stuff in music? Creating unique sounds in a computer without any sampling from outside?

 

This is probably incredibly beginner question :)

[Christian Schonberger]

Yup, I like reading them too.

 

Since the debate has broadened to audio and characterictics of different mediums etc. I would like to ask if there is a form of music-making that is inherent to digital, or more accuratelly computers? The same way pixel art and vector graphics are inherent to computers for example. They are "purely digitally synthesized", meaning that they have no origins outside of computer, and they also aren't trying to imitate any physical medium. They are also methodical and precise in their approach in the sense that you are working with individual pixels in pixel art and in vector graphic you have extreme control over the geometry.

 

Is there a similiar stuff in music? Creating unique sounds in a computer without any sampling from outside?

 

This is probably incredibly beginner question :)

Absolutely no beginner question. Of course there are computer generated, unique sounds that use no samples and don't imitate/emulate any physical instrument.

 

Two methods come to mind:

 

1) physical modeling. This method needs a LOT of CPU power if used to emulate real instruments without samples, that's why the results are still unsatisfying, even though the concept are decades old.

 

2) graintable (granular) synthesis. Imagine it as a series of "frames", just like film. The waveform changes are visible in a 3D model. This method goes back to the late '70s/early '80s and was pioneered by the PPG keyboards.

 

And of course the two traditional synthesis methods, which can be vastly expanded in a virtual instrument/synth:

 

1) subtractive synthesis: a basic single cycle waveform (such as triangle, square, pulse and sawtooth or any imaginable shape in the digital realm), rich in overtones is filtered and can be manipulated with other waveforms.

 

2) additive synthesis: either as sine waves being added (each with its own loudness contour - the underlying concept is the Fourier analysis of sound, just reverse-engineered = synthesized) or as FM (frequency modulation) synthesis - where one waveform (Modulator) modulates the frequency (z-axis) of another waveform (Carrier) or more.

 

You might want to check out modern virtual synthesizers such as the Absynth which creates truly complex soundscapes in surround sound (if desired), not rooted in the "real world".

 

Hope this helps,

Christian

[Peter Bitic]

Yeah, definitely helpful, thanks. It is very useful to have a concise starting point so I can base further research on these concepts/tools that you mention. Before that I had no idea where to even start. Thanks again.

[Christian Schonberger]

Yeah, definitely helpful, thanks. It is very useful to have a concise starting point so I can base further research on these concepts/tools that you mention. Before that I had no idea where to even start. Thanks again.

Glad to be of help. Anything you'd like to know: just holler! Synthesis definitely is my gig! :-)

 

C.

 

P.S. oops, error. Frequency modulation: the modulator acts on the x-axis of course (just like good old FM radio). The y-axis is loudness (=amplitude). No z-axis here.

Edited March 17, 2016 by Christian Schonberger