| Author |
Message |
Rob
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 580
Location: The Hague/Netherlands/EC
G2 patch files: 109
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 5:31 am Post subject:
|
  |
|
deleted post
Last edited by Rob on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
 |
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I don't know how to say this gently: I disagree with most of your post.
Sound itself is a time domain phenomenon: pressure waves in the air. It is not made up of sine waves.
Fourier analysis may be a useful tool to think about sound, but it is just a mathematical model. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:33 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| cbm wrote: |
Sound itself is a time domain phenomenon: pressure waves in the air. It is not made up of sine waves. |
http://www.rawilson.com/quantum.shtml
Please read that.
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Former site admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24864
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 353
G2 patch files: 320
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kassen wrote: | | Please read that. |
That is an interesting article  - simple words seem to have a powerful effect on the mind. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Jari Jokinen
Joined: Sep 11, 2006
Posts: 87
Location: Finland
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 1
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 3:27 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Infinite amount of sine generators, that are mixed together to make sound... One doesn't have to "believe" that to use Fourier analysis. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jari Jokinen wrote: |
Infinite amount of sine generators, that are mixed together to make sound... One doesn't have to "believe" that to use Fourier analysis. |
Yes, I know, I've lately had a renewed interest in FFT because of the ChucK implementation and how that's open for severe ruckus-causing-abuse in the re-synthesis stage.
I didn't object to adding sines so much as I objected to the idea that sound *is* waves in the air and so *is not* made up of added sines. Both can be true at the same time, in fact you can also see the complex waves in air pressure as a sum of more simple ones (mostly).
There is no need to believe in FFT or in waves but neither should believing in either (or in sound as particles, which some believed during the enlightenment) imply that the other(s) are heretical.
If that's your angle Wilson wrote a lot about believing as well, most of it quite interesting and very funny.
Anyway, the particles perspective is the best. I'm going to break in musical-schools and shake the particles out of their sound-proofing material. Sprinkled over records you can hear the original particles again, this is what "granular" synthesis is based on. Do you believe that?
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Former site admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004
Posts: 24864
Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 353
G2 patch files: 320
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:49 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kassen wrote: | | (or in sound as particles, which some believed during the enlightenment) |
Phonons nowadays I guess, but not back then probably. Here is the quote : | Quote: | | In particular, the properties of long-wavelength phonons give rise to sound in solids |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Rob
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 580
Location: The Hague/Netherlands/EC
G2 patch files: 109
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:08 am Post subject:
|
|
|
deleted post
Last edited by Rob on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:26 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:22 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Jari Jokinen wrote: | | Infinite amount of sine generators, that are mixed together to make sound... One doesn't have to "believe" that to use Fourier analysis. |
Right. A person can certainly take a frequency domain approach to the generation of sound. A person can take a number of approaches (walsh functions, various types of granular, etc.) based on different mathematical models.
That doesn't imply that sound is these models.
For an admittedly inflammatory example, clap your hands. Do you really believe that there are little sine pixies in your hands adding themselves together to create a change in pressure, which is then reflected off of the sine pixies in the walls, and absorbed by the sine pixies in the furnishings to generate whatever sense of space to the sound that your hand-clap pixies generated by the time it reaches your ears?
I'm not saying that Fourier analysis is not useful, it is. I've worked on a large commercial resynthesis project which utilized FFT for the harmonic aspects of sound, as well as Hidden Markov Models for the inharmonic aspects. FFT is a very useful model, but that's what it is: a mathematical model of sound.
-C |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:52 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kassen wrote: | | There is no need to believe in FFT or in waves but neither should believing in either (or in sound as particles, which some believed during the enlightenment) imply that the other(s) are heretical. |
Well then, why don't you try directly listening to your FFTs then?
What?
You need to convert them back into a time-domain waveform before they're audible?
You don't say.
FFT converts (Transforms) from a time domain waveform to the Fourier model. An inverse FFT converts from the Fourier model back into a time domain representation. (you could also use a sine oscillator bank for this, but that's pretty expensive, CPU wise).
The most "analog" representation of sound is that of pressure differentials. Edison put squiggles on a wax cylinder with no electronics, just capturing the pressure differentials in the air. Now, I suppose it could be argued that with enough tightly tuned Helmholtz resonators, one could capture something like a frequency domain representation on a wax cylinder, but that would be so difficult that it wouldn't pass the Occam's Razor test.
-C |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:58 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rob wrote: | | These words should signal to the reader that my post was ónly fine irony... |
<python>I came here for an argument.</python>
I guess that irony is as hard to detect as sarcasm in this text based representation. 
Sorry I missed it.
-C |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Nosferatu
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 234
Location: Planet Rock.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm not saying that Fourier analysis is not useful, it is. I've worked on a large commercial resynthesis project which utilized FFT for the harmonic aspects of sound, as well as Hidden Markov Models for the inharmonic aspects. FFT is a very useful model, but that's what it is: a mathematical model of sound. |
Interesting, which project?
Btw, i have a question for you at the Buchla thread!
Last edited by Nosferatu on Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Nosferatu
Joined: Jul 27, 2007
Posts: 234
Location: Planet Rock.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:01 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
del
Last edited by Nosferatu on Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:00 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Nosferatu wrote: | | Interesting, which project? |
Well,now that I have to actually write it down, perhaps "commercial" was stretching it a bit. Oberheim/Giboson had a project in the early 1990s called FAR, for Fourier Analysis & Resynthesis. This was done in concert with U.C. Berkeley's CNMAT, using licensed patents from CNMAT, M.I.T. and IRCAM.
A lot of development went on, there were some compelling demos given to the press. A final product design was finalized, hardware assembled, software was proceeding nicely, then Gibson pulled the plug. Gibson is sort of famous for this sort of stuff. As far as I know, the only fruit of all that labour is sitting in a secret vault at Gibson headquarters in Nashville.
-C |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| cbm wrote: |
Well then, why don't you try directly listening to your FFTs then?
|
I more or less did already, I started doing this in 1977 (I just thought I'd mention that, there has been some emphasis lately in this section on such information and I thought I'd join in as that seems the proper way of fielding a argument these days).
What happens is that the complex air pressure waves (or combinations of sine air pressure waves, or the particles for all I care) enter our ear and there cause some very small hairs to vibrate. The hairs are all "tuned" to each only react to components in a very specific frequency range, acting more or less like a narrow bandpass filter. If such a hair or cluster of hairs starts vibrating this is translated to discrete pulses in neurons, and transferred to the brain where analysis is performed upon it and the results are compared to other sets of such pulses received in the recent past.
So; in some way we are all listening to what comes down to FFT "directly" all the time (unless of course the sound is very low and we feel it's vibration directly).
That's not to say spectral analysers are more useful then scopes or sums of waves are preferable to complex ones, just that both can be seen in nature. Frankly I have no preference either way.
Did you read the article I liked to?
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| cbm wrote: |
I guess that irony is as hard to detect as sarcasm in this text based representation. |
In that case I'd like to be clear and say up-front I think the whole discussion is silly and rapidly moving towards flat out ridiculous.
Anyway, it's a particle, as was demonstrated by my fellow country-man Isaac Beekman in 1616 (Roads, Microsound, page 52, MIT-press, 2001). This whole "wave" business is the influence of Pythagoras whom we all know was cult-leader who preached about numerology from behind a white curtain. I wouldn't base my world view upon such a man, next step would be antics like sleeping in temples, then interpreting dreams for money; hardly a signifier of rigorous science.
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 8:54 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
| Kassen wrote: | | What happens is that the complex air pressure waves (or combinations of sine air pressure waves, or the particles for all I care) enter our ear and there cause some very small hairs to vibrate. The hairs are all "tuned" to each only react to components in a very specific frequency range, acting more or less like a narrow bandpass filter. If such a hair or cluster of hairs starts vibrating this is translated to discrete pulses in neurons, and transferred to the brain where analysis is performed upon it and the results are compared to other sets of such pulses received in the recent past. |
You left out an important part, the air pressure differences (which, before this thread, I would have described as waves) hit the ear drum where they're mechanically transmitted through the three little bones (they have a real name, but colloquially hammer, anvil and stirrup) to the fluid in the cochlea.
The way the cochlea reacts to sound and how it interfaces to the brain is a subject of considerable debate. It remains fairly mysterious. I believe the current thinking on the cochlea is that the whole basilar membrane & organ of Corti system act more like a dedicated neural network that pre-processes the mechanical vibrations presented to it. Groups of cilia react together and are pre processed before anything gets passed up to the brain. I think it's sort of cool that this area of human understanding is still as mysterious as it is.
| Kassen wrote: |
Did you read the article I liked to? |
Yes. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:53 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| cbm wrote: |
You left out an important part, the air pressure differences (which, before this thread, I would have described as waves) hit the ear drum where they're mechanically transmitted through the three little bones (they have a real name, but colloquially hammer, anvil and stirrup) to the fluid in the cochlea.
The way the cochlea reacts to sound and how it interfaces to the brain is a subject of considerable debate. It remains fairly mysterious. I believe the current thinking on the cochlea is that the whole basilar membrane & organ of Corti system act more like a dedicated neural network that pre-processes the mechanical vibrations presented to it. Groups of cilia react together and are pre processed before anything gets passed up to the brain. I think it's sort of cool that this area of human understanding is still as mysterious as it is.
|
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#conflict
This is now nesting one side-track within another, as the editor of this section I propose splitting-off these last few posts, starting with "I don't know how to say this gently: " to a new topic to be named "what sound is and isn't" so that the discussion on the generation and perception of high-frequency signals and side-bands can continue for those who are interested in that and this new topic on what sound is and isn't can also be debated in more depth by those who feel this is important. Some interesting points have been made in both sub-topics but these are two rather different topics.
Because right now this discussion isn't working I'm going to need some pritty strong points against this before I change my mind but I'm open to suggestions.
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Rob
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 580
Location: The Hague/Netherlands/EC
G2 patch files: 109
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:04 am Post subject:
|
|
|
deleted post
Last edited by Rob on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Rob
Joined: Mar 29, 2004
Posts: 580
Location: The Hague/Netherlands/EC
G2 patch files: 109
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 6:15 am Post subject:
|
|
|
deleted post
Last edited by Rob on Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| Rob wrote: |
And after close inspection it seems that E-Prime is not very suited to be the language of choice on internet fora, just as it seems to produce sentences that are much longer as when compacting the message in iE (internet english),
|
I don't believe E-prime leads to shorter sentences per-se but rather attempts to avoid stalemates in discussions so a larger percentage of the total amount of text would convey actual meaning.
I'm starting to doubt any amount of E-prime could save this discussion by now.
| Quote: |
Yeah, as editor you can do that splitting-off, if you choose to do so. But uhhh, shouldn't you start a little earlier in the thread, where it actually gets off topic? It would start quite silly if it would not be clear what the "I don't know how to say this gently: " actually refers to. |
I -as the editor- am expected to use that wording, partially because the powers that be believe that otherwise people will get confused. Either that or in analogy to "By Odin's eye...."
Anyway, where would you like to place this point?
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
| I would split it at Rob's "To add my two cents to this discussion" post. That way context is mostly preserved. |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
cbm
Joined: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 381
Location: San Francisco
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:00 am Post subject:
Of E-Prime, Pythagoras, and Geometry |
|
|
I would love to see a class in Geometry, or even basic math, taught in E-Prime.
Axioms?
Postulates?
My perception is that it would all fall apart.
-C
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
seraph
Editor
Joined: Jun 21, 2003
Posts: 12398
Location: Firenze, Italy
Audio files: 33
G2 patch files: 2
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:47 am Post subject:
|
|
|
it looks like it's too late to reply to Rob's posts 
_________________
homepage - blog - forum - youtube
| Quote: | | Don't die with your music still in you - Wayne Dyer |
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: 7678
Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 11:50 am Post subject:
Re: Of E-Prime, Pythagoras, and Geometry |
|
|
| cbm wrote: |
I would love to see a class in Geometry, or even basic math, taught in E-Prime.
Axioms?
Postulates?
My perception is that it would all fall apart.
-C
|
I think you're right. I'm not sure that matters, the issue E-prime is intended to solve is the is of "identity" or "equation" in a natural world where it's often misleading to equate things in that way. If anyting I think E-prime actually show a great deal of respect to the certainty that "is" implies so I wouldn't expect E-prime fanatics to have any issues with math and it's equality signs.
_________________
Kassen |
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
Forum index » Instruments and Equipment » Modular Synthesis
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Chat Room
