Talk:Paraphony
Add topic | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
?
[edit](Can someone please explain this better? I was left not understanding it. Thanks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.47.45.166 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012
I understand it, but I don't think its a very useful distinction. Polyphony used to refer to the number of notes that could be triggered and held at the same time--regardless of the architecture of the synth engine. This otherwise undocumented term purports to make a distinction in cases where there is a shared component in the sound chain. In the example, the shared example is the filter. Well, suppose a synth can play 8 notes at once, each with a separate & unique amplifier/envelope and a filter/envelope but only has a single pan setting that affects all 8 notes at the same time in the same way. Does having pan as a common element in the sound chain make what used to be called a polyphonic synth suddenly a psuedo polyphonic synth (or a paraphonic synth)? Suppose now that a synth porcessorsis capable of playing up to 128 unique notes, with up to 32 different patches on 32 midi channels (i.e., its a multi-timbral synth), but in the chain there are only two effects processors through which all potentially 128 notes/voices are routed? Is that now to be called psuedo polyphonic? --Dr. Steve
I am curious to know why the referral to the Talk tab was removed. The entry is seriously flawed. Yet, at least one site referenced the entry as an authoritative source. I don't think Wikipedia should provide erroneous information, and when I tried to point out some flaws in the definition (in response to a legitimate concerned by someone who found the explanation confusing), the pointer to the comments was deleted. --Dr. Steve
a) The definition in the article is wrong. b) Dr. Steve is right. c) I'm not a native English speaker and won't change the article. 2A01:C22:A814:D100:11D0:17EE:7D89:8E3F (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Split proposal
[edit]Two distinctly different concepts that happen to use the same name; we normally have separate articles under such circumstances. 81.129.6.53 (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- True, but one of the concepts is covered in little more than a line in this article. Unless someone comes up with meaningful content, splitting is not reasonable now.Gorpik (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)