Hi there,
thank you for those quick answers.
@Maelstorm said:
I've just recently been getting into physical modeling myself, so I only have so much to offer here, but your post is also raising some question for me. Mainly, what is rule of thumb modeling? And what makes you think you need an FFT for this? I mean, is there some FFT synthesis method your thinking of for modeling resonant systems?
Excuse my approximate English. Writing "rule of thumb modelling", I was thinking about some kind of empirical recipe leading to interesting audio results but not using a bunch of (simplified and discretized) physical laws. An example would be the proposal of obiwannabe in this topic : http://puredata.hurleur.com/sujet-3299-creating-metallic-klangs-bullet-hits-doppler-effect .
When talking about fft, I was just thinking aloud.
Of course direct routing of (filtered and lowered, possibly integrated or derivated) incoming audio signal to a designated 'excitation point' of the model should work in (I hope) many cases, and would be a 'time-domain mechanical' approach. That way one can imagine make his virtual string playing a radio program sending the radio's audio to "the bridge", reproducing what some instrument makers do to "wake up" a new or "asleep" instrument.
But I was also wondering if fft wouldn't be useful for defining the incoming signal in the frequency domain and handle virtual resonant objects as a bunch of transfer functions... but "just thinking aloud freewheel", uh !
@Maelstorm said:
(you can definitely get strings to resonate from energy propagating through air).
That would be one of my goals.
Now it's definitively time to follow the links you brought to me, fellows, as this answer was written before reading those.
Thank you.
Nau