[anigbrowl]

But you can do this already using tools like Tassman or one of the many spectral convolution/resynthesis tools. And if you have sufficient money to throw at analog or sufficient computing power to run a large digital modular tools like Reactor (or any number of others) you can do so many wild things with bandpass filters and envelope followers as modulation sources. I have a Nord Modular sitting next to me and realistically that and a sampler offer more timbral possibilities than can be explored in a single human lifetime.

I don't want to just piss on this, of course any new technology is interesting. But synthesizing novel timbres is just not a big deal in 2017. 'Just imagine what's possible' is still a great marketing line, but anyone waiting on some new technology to make sounds that nobody has ever heard before is suffering from a failure of imagination rather than a limitation of technology.

think of it this way, I could probably hop over to my local biohacking lab and find some way to map audio data onto DNA, modify it, and read it back out again using CRISPR. It would definitely be possible to encode audio information in DNA form. You know perfectly well it won't automatically give you more 'organic' or 'natural' sound despite the novel fact of doing the computation on a biological substrate, and you also know perfectly well that it would be marketed that way, just like almost every other synth is marketed on the basis of its wild creative possibilities.

It's like showing off your new graphic manipulation software with a picture resembling the Mona Lisa. You're selling some basic tools, but people are buying into the idea that having the tools will endow them with increased artistic ability. In reality everyone likes the new tool or filter you've come up with, it spreads rapidly to the point of over-familiarity, and then becomes fairly standard in future toolkits after the novelty has worn off.