|
Not OP, but I've worked on programming my own organ software before. I'd say physical modelling really cool tech, but the question is whether it makes a significant auditory difference. The thing is organs are a lot easier to sample compared to something like a violin. I'm oversimplifying, but it's mainly just note on, note off, vs lots of articulations where physical modelling is more beneficial. (Yes, there's wind sag, and wind delay, and regulators, but most organs specifically have things to avoid those artifacts so they'd only show up on more niche organs imo.) I've had great success simulating tremulants by just using FM demodulation to reconstruct the pitch and volume effects from tremmed samples[1]. Release samples are also difficult to match with the current phase, but I was also able to mitigate that with a single bin DFT + crossfaded. Another issue with physical modelling is it's decently CPU intensive, which is tricky when you have 700 simultaneous notes on bigger organs. So, it's definitely cool, but the question is whether it's significantly better than current sample-based technology. It could potentially reproduce some of the more strange interactions, but those interactions aren't necessarily wanted in the first place. EDIT: one thing that is nice about physical modelling is it's a lot easier to voice (modify) a pipe to the sound one wants. I think with some special filtering (comb filter for even harmonic attenuation, shelf for augmenting the harmonic series trajectory) voicing could also be satisfactory with traditional sampling (hauptwerk does some of this, but I think I could make it even more flexible). [1] https://github.com/smj-edison/sample-analysis |
The modeling is so accurate that it ends up replicating even the unintended side effects of amps, such as ghost notes (false notes being produced due to the power supply). The tech note explains it better than I can: https://forum.fractalaudio.com/threads/ghost-notes.126903/