On Oct 27, 2022, at 10:10 PM, jonah@... wrote:

?

The last track (53’43) Does not have the cheapie sound of a tone generator at all!

Yes, the phrasing and dynamics are impeccable.

For me, the only tell is the uniformity of the attacks. Not so much the attack time, but the way a real guitar string resonates differently if you brush it with a fingernail, play with the pad of the thumb, or a pick near the bridge.

I think you'd need to use something like physical modeling to approximate that degree of detail, though. And its lack isn't noticeable if you're not looking for it. Nor does it really impact the musical effect.

Pretty amazing what can be done with tech from two and a half decades ago! Gotta up my programming game....

The deeper I get into programming XG, the more impressed I am with the spec. Some things are irritating, like the lack of a separate filter envelope or a sustain level setting.

But the more I use it, the more workarounds I find. Despite the intervening innovation and advancement in music tech, I never really feel held back by the mid-90's XG spec.

It does take a lot of time and effort to learn, though. These days, I find myself focused on exploiting it to achieve weird, abstract, and unexpected sounds.