Re: [microsound] DSP

[Steven Taylor <kung.funk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

p h o n k wrote:

> >
> > >Sure, but I think we all know what is meant when someone says "oh,
> > >there's so much
> > >DSP on that album" = intense sound processing which goes beyond the
> > >typical EQing,
> > >compression, reverb, etc.. I don't think you're gonna hear anyone
> > >say "Man, there
> > >sure was a lot of DSP on that last Travis Tritt album !".  ; )
> >
> >
> > true enough...
> >
> > but i guess i was meaning the description for those people who didn't
> > know what "dsp" was..
> >
> > but yes, you're right!..
> >
> > taylor,
>
> But the boundary is very blurry, uh?
>
> We could say that DSP is used in most forms of modern music, but only on
> some is predominant. These latter kinds of music could qualify for the
> definition of DSP-based music.
> But most of today's electronic music (club stuff, pop, r 'n' b, hip hop
> etc...) is DSP based, since most of the instrumentation and effects have
> massive, or not so massive, number crunching dedicated DSPs inside
> (Motorola's, SHARCS, Yamaha's...).
>
> note that DSP can identify both the process and the processor, so while for
> example Kim Cascone uses Digital Signal Processing, he doesn't use any
> dedicated Digital Signal Processors, but only ROTM general purpose
> processors such as Motorola's G4 and Intel's PentiumX.
>
> Could we say that the less it sounds like DSP, the more are the
> possibilities of being DSP-based, and viceversa?

Basically if someone on this list said something was DSP intensive id take that
as meaning either very digitally fucked/cut-up OR over-produced. the latter
being the more likely meaning.

Steve