The Fight for FM

[living sounds]

error

[Aroused by JarJar]

But "colors" in sound do exist, they can be measured, recorded, synthesized.

Let's see a chart, then, shall we?

I mean, if this is basic stuff, there should be some sort of sound color chart available for those of us who are less....shall we say....synthetically attuned?

I am sure that any such chart that you produce would instantly win universal assent among all educated people, as it is inconceivable that people could have fundamental disagreements about the meanings of such basic terms, is it not?

Are you implying that sound spectra can't be measured, recorded and synthesized? Or are you saying that our subjective perceptions of sound color come from something other than the things we can measure, record and synthesize, such as harmonic partials, amplitude change over time, etc? If our subjective perceptions don't come from, or are triggered by, these things, what do you think they do come from... magic?

If you are one of those who believe that there are right and wrong answers to Rohrschach blot test, you're not going to agree with this, but here it goes, once again more slowly:

We can describe sounds with different parameters, and we can measure, record and synthesize sounds using those very same parameters. The things we perceive about a sound, and the effects we feel from a sound (all somewhat (sometimes a lot) differently of course, we being humans) are caused, or triggered, by those very same things we can measure, record, and synthesize.

The "color" of a sound is found in what we measure/record/synthesize as its partials, their frequency relations to each other, their amplitudes, in the shaped "noise" found in a sound, and so on. One person may perceive a timbre as "blue" and another percieve the same timbre as "phat", but the objective description of that timbre remains the same.

There is an objective Klangfarbe (timbre, tone-color) as well as subjective interpretations of the same. Our subjective interpretations are based on/triggered by that objective thing/event.

Yes, we can say objective things about a timbre/tone-color: this one has more high freqencies than that one does, for example.

To continue: being physical, animal, and social beings (as well as perhaps spiritual and so on, not necessary to address here), we don't have, in practical reality, a precise border between what's objective and what's subjective.

This means that it is not out of line to refer to a specific tone with a large number of high frequencies as "bright". It may very well be percieved by a few people as "dark", but we do have general consensus on a lot of things. In this case our objective and subjective, generally speaking, measurements do jibe: if there's tons of energy above 8kHz in this sound, yeah most people are going to percieve it as "bright" or "sharp" or "brilliant" or "annoying". "We get the picture".

To continue further, we also have, to various degrees, associations from previous experiences, in which we associate means of sound production with sounds. For example, "metallic" sounds. If I bang on a piece of metal, it is an objective measurement to call this a "metallic sound", regardless of what it "sounds like". There is some small chance that the object or metal itself sounds so different from any other struck metallic object we've ever heard that we'd hesitate to call it a "metallic sound", but objectively we have to.

However, we do have a general consensus on what constitutes a "metallic" sound, it's a very common term in discussing sound. It comes from general experience of hearing struck, scraped, etc. metallic objects. And sure enough there are objective things about "metallic" sound we can use not as absolute rules but as rules of thumb when synthesizing "metallic sounds" (usually but not always inharmonic partials and so on).

And so on... I guess I was sorely mistaken in thinking that all this is a "given" in synthesis discussion, and that it's more, dunno, New Age or something here. Not that there's anything wrong with that! If some people think that the difference between a clarinet tone color and a violin color has nothing at all to do with near-absence of every second overtone in the clarinet spectra and everything to do with phallic shape of one instrument and the Eve shape of the other, more power to them, I respect that too.

anyway, @ Whyterabbit:

yes, though I think (given a non-tiny size of wavetable), the most effective techniques are interpolation, wavetable size, oversampling, in that order.

The objective side of "smoothness" is, as you know, basically absence of error, deviation, and artifact. In the visual world noone would think twice about, say, an objective statement about one line segment being drawn straighter than another. And I think everyone would understand that that would not be an artistic judgement at all. Obviously just because one waveform is rendered more smoothly (less error and artifact) than another on an objective level doesn't mean that the final sound will necessarily be percieved as "smoother" by everyone.

Same thing with "snappy envelopes". Objectively ultra-snappy envelopes, ie, blinding rise times, are easy to make, also as you know (though it doesn't seem that many VSTi coders take the plunge there). I just said, hey, say about five times as fast my Waldorf Pulse, whatever. And from there it's easy to test how much "snappiness" is a perception thing, and there I agree with others that it's not just rise time but shape that's important, and so on.

Anyway back to work. Oh, there seems to be quite a bit of the Csound book on the web? I was just googling for any reference as it was such a standard term.

[herodotus]

But "colors" in sound do exist, they can be measured, recorded, synthesized.

Let's see a chart, then, shall we?

I mean, if this is basic stuff, there should be some sort of sound color chart available for those of us who are less....shall we say....synthetically attuned?

I am sure that any such chart that you produce would instantly win universal assent among all educated people, as it is inconceivable that people could have fundamental disagreements about the meanings of such basic terms, is it not?

Are you implying that sound spectra can't be measured, recorded and synthesized? Or are you saying that our subjective perceptions of sound color come from something other than the things we can measure, record and synthesize, such as harmonic partials, amplitude change over time, etc? If our subjective perceptions don't come from, or are triggered by, these things, what do you think they do come from... magic?

If you are one of those who believe that there are right and wrong answers to Rohrschach blot test, you're not going to agree with this, but here it goes, once again more slowly:

We can describe sounds with different parameters, and we can measure, record and synthesize sounds using those very same parameters. The things we perceive about a sound, and the effects we feel from a sound (all somewhat (sometimes a lot) differently of course, we being humans) are caused, or triggered, by those very same things we can measure, record, and synthesize.

The "color" of a sound is found in what we measure/record/synthesize as its partials, their frequency relations to each other, their amplitudes, in the shaped "noise" found in a sound, and so on. One person may perceive a timbre as "blue" and another percieve the same timbre as "phat", but the objective description of that timbre remains the same.

There is an objective Klangfarbe (timbre, tone-color) as well as subjective interpretations of the same. Our subjective interpretations are based on/triggered by that objective thing/event.

OK, but you are sort of highlighting the very problems that you called nuffink an ignorant child for pointing out.

If one person calls timbre X 'blue', while another person refers to the same timbre as 'phat', these words (blue, phat) don't really tell us much, do they?

If people described sounds by their constituent harmonics these issues wouldn't exist, but they don't. They use a bunch of words with no clear objective references, and they use them promiscuously, as if the meanings were both clear and objective.

What nuffink was pointing out, and what I have often pointed out in the past, is that this usage of vague or ambiguous words as if they had clear objective meanings does not further anyone's knowledge. In fact it detracts from the sum total of knowledge by giving people the illusion of it.

Look through this thread, or any thread that features discussions of whether or not this or that synth is 'warm' or 'punchy' or 'phat' and try to extrapolate people's meanings from their usages. I believe you will find not only that people's conceptions of these words are frequently vague, but that different people can use the same word to mean nearly opposite things.

[almostEric]

After living sounds and nuffink settle this 'color' issue once and for all, maybe they could go over to the death metal forums I frequent and help define 'brutal', that discussion has been going on forever.

[vurt]

After living sounds and nuffink settle this 'color' issue once and for all, maybe they could go over to the death metal forums I frequent and help define 'brutal', that discussion has been going on forever.

easy, it aint brutal if it doesnt kill an elderly neighbour.

[Howard]

I believe you will find not only that people's conceptions of these words are frequently vague, but that different people can use the same word to mean nearly opposite things.

Most opinions are wrong

[vurt]

I believe you will find not only that people's conceptions of these words are frequently vague, but that different people can use the same word to mean nearly opposite things.

Most opinions are wrong

which has kind of been our point, opinion isnt fact.

[Aroused by JarJar]

But "colors" in sound do exist, they can be measured, recorded, synthesized.

Let's see a chart, then, shall we?

I mean, if this is basic stuff, there should be some sort of sound color chart available for those of us who are less....shall we say....synthetically attuned?

I am sure that any such chart that you produce would instantly win universal assent among all educated people, as it is inconceivable that people could have fundamental disagreements about the meanings of such basic terms, is it not?

Are you implying that sound spectra can't be measured, recorded and synthesized? Or are you saying that our subjective perceptions of sound color come from something other than the things we can measure, record and synthesize, such as harmonic partials, amplitude change over time, etc? If our subjective perceptions don't come from, or are triggered by, these things, what do you think they do come from... magic?

If you are one of those who believe that there are right and wrong answers to Rohrschach blot test, you're not going to agree with this, but here it goes, once again more slowly:

We can describe sounds with different parameters, and we can measure, record and synthesize sounds using those very same parameters. The things we perceive about a sound, and the effects we feel from a sound (all somewhat (sometimes a lot) differently of course, we being humans) are caused, or triggered, by those very same things we can measure, record, and synthesize.

The "color" of a sound is found in what we measure/record/synthesize as its partials, their frequency relations to each other, their amplitudes, in the shaped "noise" found in a sound, and so on. One person may perceive a timbre as "blue" and another percieve the same timbre as "phat", but the objective description of that timbre remains the same.

There is an objective Klangfarbe (timbre, tone-color) as well as subjective interpretations of the same. Our subjective interpretations are based on/triggered by that objective thing/event.

OK, but you are sort of highlighting the very problems that you called nuffink an ignorant child for pointing out.

I suggest you actually read what I write. I did not call nuffink an ignorant child (I don't really even know if "nuffink" is actually a human being or a robot), what I said was "...you write as an ignorant child".

I am very careful about these things. But anyway to be really honest whatever nuffink is like in real life (s/he/it may be wonderful, probably is, I'm sure the real Jar Jar would toungue him/her/it up with relish), the online nuffink comes across like he's wearing tinfoil on his head and going on about some government plot, a story that sometimes you like to get caught up in for a second, for fun.

If one person calls timbre X 'blue', while another person refers to the same timbre as 'phat', these words (blue, phat) don't really tell us much, do they?

Would you say that, if in your experience many different people over many years call certain very similar sounds "blue" "cold" "pale" "hard" "icy" and "metallic", would you still say that there is no connection between the objective color of the sounds and the subjective color?

If people described sounds by their constituent harmonics these issues wouldn't exist, but they don't. They use a bunch of words with no clear objective references, and they use them promiscuously, as if the meanings were both clear and objective.

Yes, this does happen all the time, "phat" and "analog" being by far the most grevious offenders. I take it you and nuffink have written open letters ridiculing the many developers using these terms in their advertising?

What nuffink was pointing out, and what I have often pointed out in the past, is that this usage of vague or ambiguous words as if they had clear objective meanings does not further anyone's knowledge. In fact it detracts from the sum total of knowledge by giving people the illusion of it.

And so it follows that someone who is specifically, directly (with examples) trying to show or create what they mean by a poetic term, that is, working to clear vagueness or ambiguity in a specific case, is a... stupid asshole or something?

Look through this thread, or any thread that features discussions of whether or not this or that synth is 'warm' or 'punchy' or 'phat' and try to extrapolate people's meanings from their usages. I believe you will find not only that people's conceptions of these words are frequently vague, but that different people can use the same word to mean nearly opposite things.

That's no excuse. Anyone who would bother to actually read what I actually wrote, without prejudice, would have immediately realized that it is not clownish aping of advertising froo-froo.

Now can we get back to the original topic? I have a shitload of FM and PM to do for a show, it's running as I type this, so I'm happy to post more examples.

And bring on the hardware examples, because I haven't heard "orange" from a Yamaha once in my life.

[nuffink]

I suggest you actually read what I write. I did not call nuffink an ignorant child (I don't really even know if "nuffink" is actually a human being or a robot), what I said was "...you write as an ignorant child".

I think the full text of that part of your rant was...

Nuffink, you have a chance to listen and learn here. So stop posing as the "grown up" for you speak as an ignorant child.

[dan_s]

heres an example of orange http://www.box.net/shared/p64vds42d0

[vurt]

And so on... I guess I was sorely mistaken in thinking that all this is a "given" in synthesis discussion, and that it's more, dunno, New Age or something here. Not that there's anything wrong with that! If some people think that the difference between a clarinet tone color and a violin color has nothing at all to do with near-absence of every second overtone in the clarinet spectra and everything to do with phallic shape of one instrument and the Eve shape of the other, more power to them, I respect that too.

are you smokin skunk?
no one is trying to get into mystical linguistics, we're trying to clear up ambiguity in terms being used in different ways by different people. you do see the difference?

[ouroboros]

I'm just saying I was here.

I have always wondered if their are any accessible academic discussions about how people hear this kind of thing.

[brambos]

I have always wondered if their are any accessible academic discussions about how people hear this kind of thing.

Yes, it's called synesthesia and it's an interesting medical condition that's apparently very frequently found with electronic musicians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia

[edit] or more specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesi ... ynesthesia

[living sounds]

The funny thing is that the "deniers" here have no problem accepting that apparently "orange" or "brown" is perceived more or less the same by everyone (it is, there have been studies down using functional MRI scans), but won't accept anything similar for the perception of audio.

[whyterabbyt]

The funny thing is that the "deniers" here have no problem accepting that apparently "orange" or "brown" is perceived more or less the same by everyone (it is, there have been studies down using functional MRI scans), but won't accept anything similar for the perception of audio.

Strange that, isnt it. After all, terms like 'phat' and 'metallic' and 'clean' have been used to describe our synthesisers for hundreds of thousands of years, and so have the same weight of cultural consensus as the colour of certain edible fruits or vegetables.
I certainly remember 'A is for Apple and apples are green', 'B is for Brass sounds and brass sounds are farty' when I was at school.