To reverb or not?
 

In article , Iain Churches
wrote:



It is not the word "reverb" that is in contention, but the use of the
word "delay", which can clearly be either verb or a noun, depending on
the context.

"Delay" is a verb in the expression "delay the reverb" but a noun in the
expression "reverb the delay"

Perhaps you will have done so by the time this posting appears.

But as yet I've still not seen you explain:

1) How anyone (not already privy to your jargon) reading your initial
assertion would have known you used the same word for two different things.

2) What you mean by saying one use is a "noun" and the other is a "verb".

Your earlier explanation seemed to say that in one case you applied a
reverb process, and in the other applied that *and then combined it with
the current input to the reverb process". That does seem to me to be a
clear functional distinction. But I it isn't clear to me how that answers
the above questions.

Both these terms are colloquialisms in
every day use in the studio environment. Every producer, engineer,
student and trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to adopt
a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like these are
common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth" to mean quite
different things which those "in group" would distinguish from context. But
I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone else to understand your (hidden)
meaning when you simply wrote

"You can delay the reverb or reverb the delay. Totally different".

This issue does interest me as I've lost count of the number of times I've
found both students and 'experts' don't really know what they are doing as
a result of such lazy jagon where the user assumes "people know what this
means" without the need to actually explain or resolve the ambiguity. It
clouds both comminication and the ability to think.

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
...

Now, while we are on the topic, here's one right up your street - Jan
Garbarek, a Norwegian who plays tenor and soprano saxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aTayousyDE


But perhaps not quite your sort of music - no?

Morning Keith



Morning Iain,


The hero of all jazz saxophone players, John Coltrane
was pretty "different" at times, and my taste is wide
enough to include Rahsaan Roland Kirk, so
Garbarek is well within the boundaries..


OK. Good, he makes a lot of music without playing a lot of notes!


Most enjoyable. Thanks for the link.


You're welcome.

To reverb or not?
 

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Iain Churches" wrote in message
...

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

Now, while we are on the topic, here's one right up your street - Jan
Garbarek, a Norwegian who plays tenor and soprano saxes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aTayousyDE


But perhaps not quite your sort of music - no?

The hero of all jazz saxophone players, John Coltrane
was pretty "different" at times, and my taste is wide
enough to include Rahsaan Roland Kirk, so
Garbarek is well within the boundaries..

Most enjoyable. Thanks for the link.


PS. With regard to Coltrane. There are dozens of
good saxophonists on YouTube, but I was intrigued
by this presentation of "Giant Steps", regarded by many
as one of the most important jazz compositions/improvisations
of all time. It dates from 1960. I can remember as a
lad being fascinated by the cycle of (chord) changes
moving in thirds.

Some years ago, I got to know a chap on RAO (Arny's
former home group) who was then in his final year at Berklee.
(and now a professor a the Lincoln Centre). He recently
transcribed this solo from CD to paper for use by his
students, and kindly sent me a pdf.

It's mind boggling!
However carefully you read/compare/listen, Coltrane
does not play a single note anywhere that, despite the
freedom of the solo, does not perfectly fit the chord
tones. Pure genius.

The YouTube video has had 1.25 million hits
Take a look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kotK9FNEYU



Fabulous! Thanks for posting the link.

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Jim Lesurf wrote:

My own understanding is that both "delay" and "reverb" are actions
applied to some "object" - in the forms of a stream of audio info.
Thus "verbs". So I'm still not clear why you think anyone else would
follow what you've been saying about that.

Normally described as 'adding reverberation' in my part of the pro
audio world. Obviously oh so different from the rarefied one Iain
exists in in. So always a noun. Reverberate would be the verb.

Try to keep up, Dave:-)

It is not the word "reverb" that is in contention, but the use of
the word "delay", which can clearly be either verb or a noun,
depending on the context.

Try reading the part of the post from Jim I replied to, Iain. For
convenience, it's at the top of this post.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
"Delay" is a verb in the expression "delay the reverb" but
a noun in the expression "reverb the delay" Both these
terms are colloquialisms in every day use in the studio
environment. Every producer, engineer, student and
trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

I've never ever heard 'reverb the delay' used. Pre and post reverb delay
are the usual expressions.

--
*I'm already visualizing the duct tape over your mouth

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Sparrows used to be about the most common bird in this part of London.
Then all but disappeared perhaps 10 years ago. And although they've
returned, in nowhere near the same numbers.

What happened to cause a reduction in their numbers?

I dunno. I've searched, but found no definitive answer. They seemed to
disappear near overnight.

A few of us meet up at a cafe on Streatham Common every Thursday for
brunch - work commitments allowing. Parking is free and easy there.
If the weather permits, we eat outside. The sparrows would join you and
demand to be fed. If you stayed still, they would perch on your hand and
eat out of it. But not for many years.

It's interesting how birds that live in an noisy urban
environment can alter their call/song by shortening it
and rasing the pitch slightly to make themselves better
heard.

Here we have seen a large increase in the number of owls
and hawks, due to, it is said, to an increase in the number
of field mice, voles and moles a year or two ago.

The one upside in the reduction of sparrow numbers was the greater variety
of birds in my garden. Or perhaps just that they are more visible.

--
*Sticks and stones may break my bones but whips and chains excite me*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
Sparrows used to be about the most common bird in this part of London.
Then all but disappeared perhaps 10 years ago. And although they've
returned, in nowhere near the same numbers.

What happened to cause a reduction in their numbers?

I dunno. I've searched, but found no definitive answer. They seemed to
disappear near overnight.

A few of us meet up at a cafe on Streatham Common every Thursday for
brunch - work commitments allowing. Parking is free and easy there.
If the weather permits, we eat outside. The sparrows would join you and
demand to be fed. If you stayed still, they would perch on your hand and
eat out of it. But not for many years.

It's interesting how birds that live in an noisy urban
environment can alter their call/song by shortening it
and rasing the pitch slightly to make themselves better
heard.

Here we have seen a large increase in the number of owls
and hawks, due to, it is said, to an increase in the number
of field mice, voles and moles a year or two ago.

The one upside in the reduction of sparrow numbers was the greater variety
of birds in my garden. Or perhaps just that they are more visible.


We feed the birds (and squirrels, hedgehogs and a fox) in the garden and I
have been informed there were over 30 in this morning's flock!

To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
"Delay" is a verb in the expression "delay the reverb" but
a noun in the expression "reverb the delay" Both these
terms are colloquialisms in every day use in the studio
environment. Every producer, engineer, student and
trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

I've never ever heard 'reverb the delay' used.

Do you mean you have never heard the effect or
never heard the term?

If you mean the effect, it is one of the most widely used
in popular recording and has been since the 1950s.

Pre and post reverb delay
are the usual expressions.

They are indeed common, but not the same thing as I
was describing.

In your "Pre and Post Reverb Delay" both reverb and
delay are audible in the resulting signal. These are perhaps
the the effects that Jim suggested would commute, and
perhaps what Don was demonstrating in his clip.

In "delay the reverb" the delay line is used solely feed the
reverb and establish a gap of silence between the main signal
(audible) and the reverb (audible), as in my example. This
is something quite different. My example with 4 secs is of
course extreme:-) but clearly illustrates the application.

Iain

To reverb or not?
 

In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Both these terms are colloquialisms in
every day use in the studio environment. Every producer, engineer,
student and trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to
adopt a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like these
are common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth" to mean
quite different things which those "in group" would distinguish from
context. But I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone else to understand
your (hidden) meaning when you simply wrote

The world of broadcasting is rather larger than Iain's one and I've never
heard such nonsense as 'reverb the delay'. We would use pre and post delay
to describe such a thing. Normal terms adapted to suit a variety of
applications.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

To reverb or not?
 

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim Lesurf wrote:
Both these terms are colloquialisms in
every day use in the studio environment. Every producer, engineer,
student and trainee understands their meaning, and the difference
between them.

That doesn't particularly surprise me. Quite easy for an in-group to
adopt a jargon that make no sense to anyone else. Ambiguities like these
are common enough. e.g. the use of "compression" or "bandwidth" to mean
quite different things which those "in group" would distinguish from
context. But I'm not clear why you'd expect anyone else to understand
your (hidden) meaning when you simply wrote

The world of broadcasting is rather larger than Iain's one and I've never
heard such nonsense as 'reverb the delay'. We would use pre and post delay
to describe such a thing. Normal terms adapted to suit a variety of
applications.

Pre and post delay are something totally different.
You, if anyone here should know that Dave:-)

In your "Pre and Post Reverb Delay" both reverb and
delay are audible in the resulting signal. These are perhaps
the the effects that Jim suggested would commute, and
perhaps what Don was demonstrating in his clip.

In "delay the reverb" the delay line is used solely feed the
reverb and establish a gap of silence between the main signal
(audible) and the reverb (audible), as in my example. This
is something quite different. My example with 4 secs is of
course extreme:-) but clearly illustrates the application.

Iain