I think this part isn't quite right - the wavelength isn't dependent on distance from the source - if it were, frequency would drop linearly with distance.sangha wrote:(Note: by "expands" I mean that the "size" of the sound wave (the dimensions that contain the air that is vibrating) increases as the distance from the vibrating source increases)
Smart Electronix Anechoic Room Simulator
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
-
- KVRAF
- 5350 posts since 8 Aug, 2003 from Berlin Germany
When I first saw the plugin I thought it was going to be a reverb removal plugin. Would there be a way to reduce reverb by deconvolving samples using an IR aproximation of the reverb? That would be an interesting experiment.
-
- KVRAF
- 6519 posts since 13 Mar, 2002 from UK
No. And please don't derail this pointless thread with practical requests.soma wrote:When I first saw the plugin I thought it was going to be a reverb removal plugin. Would there be a way to reduce reverb by deconvolving samples using an IR aproximation of the reverb? That would be an interesting experiment.
-
- KVRist
- 252 posts since 28 Jan, 2005
I agree. It's clumsily worded, but it was the best I could do.Borogove wrote:I think this part isn't quite right - the wavelength isn't dependent on distance from the source - if it were, frequency would drop linearly with distance.sangha wrote:(Note: by "expands" I mean that the "size" of the sound wave (the dimensions that contain the air that is vibrating) increases as the distance from the vibrating source increases)
To be more clear (I hope), I was referring to the wavelength, which is the horizontal distance (at least it's depicted horizontly on graphs) from peak of one wave to the peak of the next wave. I was referring to the volume/dimensions of air that is vibrating.
Consider a vibrating string (in an anoechoic chamber). At very close distances (to the string) the sound wave is very close to the size/dimensions of the string itself. But as that sound wave travels, the vibrating air molecules cause the adjacent molecules to vibrate, including those molecules that lie "alongside" the wave, causing the "width" of the wave to increase (note: I'm putting directional words in quotes because relationships like "side" "width" and "height" depends on the direction the wave is travelling in)
I hope that made it easier to understand. I'm gonna go see if I can Google something that will explain this better.
on edit: It's important to distinguish between the vibrating object that is the source of the sound (and which determines the wavelength on the sound) and the medium (ex air, water, etc) through which the sound wave travels.
P2 3.2GHz, XP Pro, M-Audio FW-1814, Cubase SX3
-
- KVRAF
- 2460 posts since 3 Oct, 2002 from SF CA USA NA Earth
You aren't actually making uniform pressure circles, though. If the frequency is such that the wavelength is 10cm, then when the sound is 2m from the instrument, the spherical "wavefront" is actually a collection of high-pressure nodes and low-pressure antinodes each 10cm apart.sangha wrote:But as that sound wave travels, the vibrating air molecules cause the adjacent molecules to vibrate, including those molecules that lie "alongside" the wave, causing the "width" of the wave to increase
-
- KVRist
- 252 posts since 28 Jan, 2005
You are aboslutely correct. As your response implies, there are a great many details that influence the "behavior" of the sound wave. The main point is how and why a sound can be heard behind an obstacle in an anechoic chamber.Borogove wrote:You aren't actually making uniform pressure circles, though. If the frequency is such that the wavelength is 10cm, then when the sound is 2m from the instrument, the spherical "wavefront" is actually a collection of high-pressure nodes and low-pressure antinodes each 10cm apart.sangha wrote:But as that sound wave travels, the vibrating air molecules cause the adjacent molecules to vibrate, including those molecules that lie "alongside" the wave, causing the "width" of the wave to increase
And I just realized two things:
1) In my previous post, I wrote something like "I was referring to the wavelength" when I meant "I was *NOT* referring to the wavelength"
2) I was wrong to imply that the wavelength has nothing to do with a sounds ability to be heard on the far side of an obstruction. The wavelength, and it's size relative to the thickness of the obstacle does have an effect here.
P2 3.2GHz, XP Pro, M-Audio FW-1814, Cubase SX3
-
- KVRAF
- 8389 posts since 11 Apr, 2003 from back on the hillside again - but now with a garden!
Just playing with ARC in a mix..
Were I standing in a real ARC, no matter it's ambient properties, just by moving my head from side to side I can make a basic tremolo effect/ stereo pan.
Now using your favoutite host, put a sample in atrack, and use ARC as an insert. Put some headphones on to listen closely. Now while it's playing shake your head vigorously. Any stereo panning? Any basic tremolo? Nope! Cheap rubbish!
Why couldn't Bram have made us a REAL simulation, not this imposter!
DSP
Were I standing in a real ARC, no matter it's ambient properties, just by moving my head from side to side I can make a basic tremolo effect/ stereo pan.
Now using your favoutite host, put a sample in atrack, and use ARC as an insert. Put some headphones on to listen closely. Now while it's playing shake your head vigorously. Any stereo panning? Any basic tremolo? Nope! Cheap rubbish!
Why couldn't Bram have made us a REAL simulation, not this imposter!
DSP


