To reverb or not?
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception

Is it?

I'd have thought that aural perception was a matter of physiology: the
structure of the ear and the way that sounds are interpreted by the brain.

Aural perception, is a part of the recorded arts
curriculum, and includes our ability to differentiate
between for example the sound made by two
musical instruments of the same genre.
Bechstein and Bosendorfer concert grand pianos
are a frequently used example.

The difference in the sound of tubular and conical
bore woodwinds is therefore closely related.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Iain Churches


Can you think of more explicit terms for "delay the reverb" and "reverb
the delay" (without filling an A4) I have yet to meet anyone who
cannot differentiate clearly between them once the object of the
excercise is made clear.

Well, it would be up to use and others in the relevant area of practice to
decide on the terms you use. I don't know how you use other jargon that
may
have established meanings in your field that aren't in my own! :-)

Indeed. It was this "jargon", which seems to have confused/misled you
the first time round.


However the key point is that you mean "delay" to signify slightly (but
significantly) different things.

Yes. It is used both as a verb and as a noun. If one uses the synonym
"postpone" in place of "delay", in the term "delay the reverb" then you
will understand better what is being done.


if you *loop back* the delayed output and combine it with the current
input
and then put these both back though the delay (whose output would then
loop
back again) you'd need to use some term like "looped delay".

There is an effect called looped delay, but that's not the effect I was
referring to.

FWIW in cases like this I'd suspect that when explaining it might be
easier
to sketch a signal flowchart as that should make clear what the signal
paths were. May be a case where a simple diagram bypasses many risks of
ambiguity.

I am making a series of audio examples,
links to which will be posted later in this thread.

Cheers
Iain

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception

Is it?

I'd have thought that aural perception was a matter of physiology: the
structure of the ear and the way that sounds are interpreted by the
brain.

Aural perception, is a part of the recorded arts
curriculum, and includes our ability to differentiate
between for example the sound made by two
musical instruments of the same genre.
Bechstein and Bosendorfer concert grand pianos
are a frequently used example.

The difference in the sound of tubular and conical
bore woodwinds is therefore closely related.


Aural perception is about our ability to hear and identify sounds and to
make judgments about the source of that sound. We can identify people from
the sound of their voice and to make judgements about their mood as well as
acquiring information by interpreting the speech carried by that voice. Many
people can identify not only the species of an animal by it's call, but also
often to identify an individual and determine it's emotional state. Other's
can learn much about machinery from the sound it makes; the "grumble" of a
bearing can provide useful information about a likely future failure whilst
during WW2 that ability that many had to identify the type of aircraft by
it's sound was highly valuable.

All of these, and many more, are *every bit* as "closely related" to aural
perception as the ability to distinguish between a Bechstein or a
Bosendorfer, or to hear the difference between a tubular or conical wind
instrument.

Of course, if we want to understand how aural perception works, we need to
study ourselves, our anatomy, physiology and psychology, not whatever object
happens to make the sounds we hear.

David.

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote


[1] A collection of late medieval songs in Latin
compiled by a Finnish cleric and first published in
1582. The music is interesting in that some of it
has no time signature, and in some parts no bar
lines or key signatures either.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)



OK I mentioned it, now go see this most beautiful clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M3YFK3sJ54&NR=1


Isn't that too lovely for words?

Thanks for the link. That's amazing.


The recirculatory breathing technique beggars belief and the sounds
(which
vary from singer to singer) are, as you say, quite amazing.



Morning Keith,

A friend of mine,. a music teacher, just returned from
a long stay in Japan, states that this technique is taught
widely to young children, would-be woodwind players.
The teaching method involves a plastic tube, one end in
the mouth and the other in an enamel mug filled with water.
The students learn to create a strong, steady and unbroken
stream of bubbles for minutes on end.


Morning Iain,

That's very interesting. The circulatory breathing system is also of course
well known to the Australians with their didgeridoo playing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RjRCblnEXc



Baritone saxophone player Harry Carney was a master,
and used to hold the last note of "Sophisticated Lady" for
several minutes.


Streuth!

To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


I am unclear what you mean by "details" If they have the same
"general behaviour" how do you explain the difference in harmonic
structure of the sound produced by tubular and conical bore
instruments?

Again, I guess that shows you aren't either a physicist or mechanical
engineer.

Indeed. In the same way that neither you or I have knowledge or
expertise as musical instrument builders:-)

Agreed.

No matter. A UKRA "lurker" has put me in touch with a gentleman, who,
before his retirement, was a woodwind designer for Boosey and Hawkes,
London at the time they took over Buffet Crampon, Paris.

He has already told me that the difference between tubular and
cylindrical bore is, to use his words "of the essence". I look forward
to further discussion with him.

Yes. I'm sure that the details of the specific arrangement affect the
results, and that what is required depends on the application.

So far as physics is concerned this is little different from using Newton's
Laws when designing a car and a Saturn V. The applications are quite
different, so the design details and performances are different. But the
physics of dynamics upon which they are based is shared. I've never
designed either a car or a moonshot, but physics is physics.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...


I presume you have applied them literally as described in Iain's
initial pair of statements. If so, that doesn't seem to be what he
meant.

If we use D = delay and R = reverb then we may also need a different
function, say, C = delay plus current input.

So although comparing DR with RD should give the same result, if we
change one of the Ds to a C they generally won't. The problem is to
clarify the language to distinguish these.



The problem seems to be that the word "delay" is used a both a noun and
a verb.

No. The problem was that you used the word "delay" to describe two
*different* processes. One was a simple delay. The other was generating a
delayed version and combining it with an undelayed version (or looped back
and re-delayed, but you said that wasn't what you meant.)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

On a recording of Piae Cantiones [1], the ensemble
complained that they were unable to perform their best
because of insufficient (natural) reverberation in the
location that had been chosen. Recording continued
the following day in a different location with a more
ideal acoustic.



Interesting. There's a track on the Hector Zazou Chansons Des Mers
Froides
album where the song was supposed to be sung in a church in some remote
place but the weather was so bad they couldn't escape the howling wind
noise, so they decamped to a cellar/storeroom in their hotel which had a
suitable acoustic! There's also a track with wind noise in the
background - I don't know if it's the same one recorded in both locations
and stitched or summat.

Church locations are fraught with problems - aeroplane noise, traffic etc
We had to temporarily stop a session at Petersham Church when a huge
flock of sparrows landed outside a window:-)


:-)

And they can be quite 'vocal' can't they? We get a flock of them in the
hedge at the edge of the garden and they are a noisy little bunch which
wouldn't do any recording session any good! In fact, I occasionally get
birdsong creeping into my own recordings, along with the odd car going past!






[1] A collection of late medieval songs in Latin
compiled by a Finnish cleric and first published in
1582. The music is interesting in that some of it
has no time signature, and in some parts no bar
lines or key signatures either.


Like Tuvan throat singing? :-)

:-) Well not quite.

Wiki has the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piae_Cantiones



Interesting but looks a bit like the songs would be far to dry for me -
along the lines of the stuff attributed to Hildegard of Bingen. I have a
record of this sort of thing here but it doesn't often see the light of day!

To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:

"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...

Can you think of more explicit terms for "delay the reverb" and
"reverb the delay" (without filling an A4) I have yet to meet
anyone who cannot differentiate clearly between them once the object
of the excercise is made clear.

Well, it would be up to use and others in the relevant area of
practice to decide on the terms you use. I don't know how you use
other jargon that may have established meanings in your field that
aren't in my own! :-)

Indeed. It was this "jargon", which seems to have confused/misled you
the first time round.

Or more specifically, that the "jargon" you used employed the same word for
two quite different functions. Hence the problem is the ambiguity in the
way you used the word and that you made no distinction at the time.

TBH I'm still not clear if you have understood and defined the difference
you meant even now.


However the key point is that you mean "delay" to signify slightly
(but significantly) different things.

Yes. It is used both as a verb and as a noun.

No. As I wrote earlier, I think you used the same word "delay" for two
difference *processes*.

If one uses the synonym
"postpone" in place of "delay", in the term "delay the reverb" then you
will understand better what is being done.

What word would you then use for the other use you meant when you used the
term "delay" but AIUI meant to combine the "postponed" version with the
current 'undelayed' input?


if you *loop back* the delayed output and combine it with the current
input and then put these both back though the delay (whose output
would then loop back again) you'd need to use some term like "looped
delay".

There is an effect called looped delay, but that's not the effect I was
referring to.

That is the kind of reason I explained why I can't provide new 'jargon' for
you. Someone familiar with the established jargon of the recording field
would need to understand the ambiguity and devise suitably descriptive and
unambiguous terms to distinguish the two different processes that you both
called "delay".

FWIW in cases like this I'd suspect that when explaining it might be
easier to sketch a signal flowchart as that should make clear what the
signal paths were. May be a case where a simple diagram bypasses many
risks of ambiguity.

I am making a series of audio examples, links to which will be posted
later in this thread.

TBH I don't know that will help. What would help is a clear and unambiguous
description (maybe a diagram) specifying the signal path topology and where
what functions are applied. As I've said above, I'm still not sure you've
correctly and unambiguously explained what you meant with your two uses of
"delay".

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

To reverb or not?
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception

Is it?

I'd have thought that aural perception was a matter of physiology: the
structure of the ear and the way that sounds are interpreted by the
brain.

Aural perception, is a part of the recorded arts
curriculum, and includes our ability to differentiate
between for example the sound made by two
musical instruments of the same genre.
Bechstein and Bosendorfer concert grand pianos
are a frequently used example.

The difference in the sound of tubular and conical
bore woodwinds is therefore closely related.


Aural perception is about our ability to hear and identify sounds and to
make judgments about the source of that sound. We can identify people from
the sound of their voice and to make judgements about their mood as well
as acquiring information by interpreting the speech carried by that voice.
Many people can identify not only the species of an animal by it's call,
but also often to identify an individual and determine it's emotional
state. Other's can learn much about machinery from the sound it makes; the
"grumble" of a bearing can provide useful information about a likely
future failure whilst during WW2 that ability that many had to identify
the type of aircraft by it's sound was highly valuable.

All of these, and many more, are *every bit* as "closely related" to aural
perception as the ability to distinguish between a Bechstein or a
Bosendorfer, or to hear the difference between a tubular or conical wind
instrument.

Of course, if we want to understand how aural perception works, we need to
study ourselves, our anatomy, physiology and psychology, not whatever
object happens to make the sounds we hear.

David.


Interesting observations. The power of aural perception is such that it
means that even the nuance of slight inflexions in someone's voice can even
lead a skilled person to detect when that person may not be telling the
truth.

To reverb or not?
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote

This is closely related to the subject of aural perception

Is it?

I'd have thought that aural perception was a matter of physiology: the
structure of the ear and the way that sounds are interpreted by the
brain.

Aural perception, is a part of the recorded arts
curriculum, and includes our ability to differentiate
between for example the sound made by two
musical instruments of the same genre.
Bechstein and Bosendorfer concert grand pianos
are a frequently used example.

The difference in the sound of tubular and conical
bore woodwinds is therefore closely related.


Aural perception is about our ability to hear and identify sounds and to
make judgments about the source of that sound. We can identify people from
the sound of their voice and to make judgements about their mood as well
as acquiring information by interpreting the speech carried by that voice.
Many people can identify not only the species of an animal by it's call,
but also often to identify an individual and determine it's emotional
state. Other's can learn much about machinery from the sound it makes; the
"grumble" of a bearing can provide useful information about a likely
future failure whilst during WW2 that ability that many had to identify
the type of aircraft by it's sound was highly valuable.

All of these, and many more, are *every bit* as "closely related" to aural
perception as the ability to distinguish between a Bechstein or a
Bosendorfer, or to hear the difference between a tubular or conical wind
instrument.


Indeed they are in the wider sense. But from the
perpective of recording arts, (which is the segment
of aural perception to which I was referring earlier)
where aural perception is a part of the syllabus, they
are far less relevant than for example the piano or
conical vs tube instrument comparisons.

On the other hand, I do agree that the ability of a
submariner to differentiate betwen the propeller
noise of a friendly or enemy vessel during WW2
was much more important to him at the time than
any Bosendorfer!

Iain