What is the proper term for the width/thickness of sound in digital audio?

[Joey222]

No I do not have an example, I do not know anything when it comes to producing sound. I have played around with Ableton but I've come to the conclusion that its just not for me.

I was thinking something along the line with effects. Something like compressing or expanding an audio track. For example, if an engineer was mixing a recording I would assume that the engineer would mix the elements of the song in each perspective frequency. What I am trying to get at, is the spatial element the engineer would give that particular sound. NO I'M NOT TALKING HARMONICS! I'M FULLY AWARE OF THAT! I believe harmonics is more of a 2 dimensional perspective with the spectrograph.

Think about mixing a piano, there is some effect where you can give the piano a wider sound in the recording and an effect that can narrow the spatial width of the piano sound. I'm not sure if my above example with compressing makes sense as again I will state "I'm not a musician"

Harmonics would deal with the overtones produced by an instrument. A pure sine wave has no overtones theoretically but a piano has many as does a guitar and virtually any other instrument. These overtones produce the instrument's timbre and is a large part of what makes the uniqueness of the instrument's sound.

Frequencies would deal with things like filtering and EQ of those overtones. There are many types of filters and EQ's but essentially they are narrowing or widening the frequency range of the instrument. So to make a piano sound narrow you would limit its frequency range and make it tinny. Conversely, to make it wider you would open up the frequency range giving it a fuller, deeper and crisper sound. A graphic equalizer is usually controlling ranges of frequencies that can be opened or closed. Parametric EQ's control even narrower bands. The easiest way to hear what filtering does it to work with white noise which contains all frequencies.

Compressors in their simplest form are dealing with dynamics ensuring that nothing it too soft or too loud.

Please guys, work with me. I'm sorry if I came off as a jerk but I'm honestly here to find answers. I'm just a programmer trying to understand your world.

I think people are. But without knowing the terminology and what comprises the various components of sound makes it difficult for you to express yourself and difficult for us to comprehend what it is you are driving at. You mentioned digital in your first post but these things apply to analog as well. It is just that the technology to reproduce them is different.

Yes Yes, we are on the same page. I just started learning about frequency over time and all that stuff. But I feel like there is something missing, I have been working in labview in case you were wondering what exactly I am trying to do. I'm going to end this topic, because it seems like its going nowhere and quite frankly its getting a little late but before I go I just want to point out that @Shabdahbriah first reply seemed like the person had the right idea with the 3d element and that was pretty much what I was looking for. What lost me was when @Shabdahbriah started mentioning the stereo aspect of sound. I will crawl the web and find the answers I am looking for, Thanks for your answers

[Bobbotov]

I just want to point out that @Shabdahbriah first reply seemed like the person had the right idea with the 3d element and that was pretty much what I was looking for. What lost me was when @Shabdahbriah started mentioning the stereo aspect of sound. I will crawl the web and find the answers I am looking for, Thanks for your answers

Just a suggestion but maybe in your web search you could look at something called psychoacoustics.

It is not only dealing with the actual properties of sound but also our perception of it which may be the missing piece you are looking for.

In any case, good luck.

[Shabdahbriah]

I just want to point out that @Shabdahbriah first reply seemed like the person had the right idea with the 3d element and that was pretty much what I was looking for. What lost me was when @Shabdahbriah started mentioning the stereo aspect of sound. I will crawl the web and find the answers I am looking for, Thanks for your answers

Just a suggestion but maybe in your web search you could look at something called psychoacoustics.

It is not only dealing with the actual properties of sound but also our perception of it which may be the missing piece you are looking for.

In any case, good luck.

+1

[jam92189]

I just want to point out that @Shabdahbriah first reply seemed like the person had the right idea with the 3d element and that was pretty much what I was looking for. What lost me was when @Shabdahbriah started mentioning the stereo aspect of sound. I will crawl the web and find the answers I am looking for, Thanks for your answers

Just a suggestion but maybe in your web search you could look at something called psychoacoustics.

It is not only dealing with the actual properties of sound but also our perception of it which may be the missing piece you are looking for.

In any case, good luck.

yea this really looks like what you are trying to look into. its similar to using reverb and delay to add a sense of space and depth in a mix

[jam92189]

Funny how a programmer knows more about music and how it works then musicians who claim to know everything but yet don't know that there is no stereo field in mono recording!

Now you are saying that this is about music and not a really specific, Really anal term which you want to pull out your arse or wish somebody else would do it for you Joey?

I'll tell you this, Without a monophonic recording there would never be the illusion of a stereophonic recording. If you were not being such a prick I might have answered your question. However you are being a proper Billy Bats.

Buy a few books from amazon dedicated to acoustics and psychoacoustics and do your reading/homework properly programmer


Now go home and get yer fuckin' shine box

I love this movie. i think im going to go grab some beer and watch it right now good stuff.

[aciddose]

Joey222;

I can give you a very quick and concise answer to your question. Neither of these terms have anything to do with a "proper" / "technical" or "scientific" description of absolutely anything in audio.

These are subjective place-holders frequently used because there is no available technical term which is also widely understood.

So, you need to take a lot of context into account and treat any occurrence of these with great suspicion.

The answers you've already received in this thread were examples of contexts in which these terms may occur. They are entirely accurate, even if they only represent a small sample of the potential contexts you may experience.

[jam92189]

Fantastic! Best reply I got. Funny how you say I don't know what I'm talking about but yet you cant even spell. Yes I do know what I am talking about I'm just not a musician and I don't produce or mix music. I didn't say "everyone was wrong" what the hell is wrong with you?? I just said I'm not getting the answers I should be getting. And for your information YES it was something along the line of spectral properties, which is why I said in the first place the answer that I got before wasn't right because mono wave recordings doesn't apply to stereo field. IS THAT STATEMENT NOT RIGHT? Now you tell me who is the one who doesn't know what they are talking about.

I came here to look for answers and got none. I'll try some other forum where people know real answers

sorry joey its been a few years since I took English about ten of em. and im so used to just talking slang to everyone my English is not up to your obviously superior nonsense brain,I kinda would just get drunk have sex and play guiar during high school then became a mixing engineer after so oh well.
you are the one who needs help with some special words. And instead of just learning from advice and just doing it you just start stuff with everyone. so far I have not seen one of the post here that would not have helpful info except yours.

[aciddose]

So, you need to take a lot of context into account and treat any occurrence of these with great suspicion.

For example, in order to measure a "width" or "length" of a vector between two channels you would need to first define their positions in some way.

There is no single "correct" way to do such a thing. There are many different definitions for accomplishing this but the solution to this problem is inherently subjective.

So this means we're unable to define "width" objectively on it's own. Therefore you must be aware of which subjective definition has been selected by the person using the term if you have any chance of understanding what it is they're attempting to use it to convey.

Regarding the issue of a mono channel having no width; This should be obvious. You can not measure a length when you're given only a single point.

Let's say we define that our reference is a null signal. Our measurement for the position of our point in order to form a vector for measurement is that of some standard of RMS amplitude. Now we can define width = RMS amplitude, although I don't see the advantage to doing so, you could in theory argue that in such a case you could say a mono channel has a width.

[Shabdahbriah]

Joey222;

I can give you a very quick and concise answer to your question. Neither of these terms have anything to do with a "proper" / "technical" or "scientific" description of absolutely anything in audio.

These are subjective place-holders frequently used because there is no available technical term which is also widely understood.

So, you need to take a lot of context into account and treat any occurrence of these with great suspicion.

The answers you've already received in this thread were examples of contexts in which these terms may occur. They are entirely accurate, even if they only represent a small sample of the potential contexts you may experience.

Indeed... Well said.

[aciddose]

Oh oh oh more fun.

There are other ways of course. You could define width as being the difference between negative and positive peak amplitudes within a certain window. So let's say you have a pulse waveform. It passes through a high-pass filter which is allowed to stabilize to below our region of concern regarding precision. So, after it's stabilized you should find that the 'width' of this signal is exactly equal to the ratio of the high/low 'duty cycle' or 'pulse width'.

Alternatively, let's define width as the difference between the period of time spent on either side of some level, or in other words the difference between time spent positive vs. negative. We could even take the abs() of our result considering the fact that the harmonics generated are equal regardless of the positive/negative majority of the pulse and simply measure the 'width' from a 50% duty cycle. This would give us some information regarding the balance of even/odd harmonic content combined with phase relationships. This again isn't all that useful, but technically could apply to a mono channel.

So do you want to get technical here or do you just want to accept the concise answer?

[jam92189]

So, you need to take a lot of context into account and treat any occurrence of these with great suspicion.

For example, in order to measure a "width" or "length" of a vector between two channels you would need to first define their positions in some way.

There is no single "correct" way to do such a thing. There are many different definitions for accomplishing this but the solution to this problem is inherently subjective.

So this means we're unable to define "width" objectively on it's own. Therefore you must be aware of which subjective definition has been selected by the person using the term if you have any chance of understanding what it is they're attempting to use it to convey.

Regarding the issue of a mono channel having no width; This should be obvious. You can not measure a length when you're given only a single point.

Let's say we define that our reference is a null signal. Our measurement for the position of our point in order to form a vector for measurement is that of some standard of RMS amplitude. Now we can define width = RMS amplitude, although I don't see the advantage to doing so, you could in theory argue that in such a case you could say a mono channel has a width.

i love this my invisible top hat off to you.

[Shabdahbriah]

Regarding the issue of a mono channel having no width; This should be obvious. You can not measure a length when you're given only a single point.

Let's say we define that our reference is a null signal. Our measurement for the position of our point in order to form a vector for measurement is that of some standard of RMS amplitude. Now we can define width = RMS amplitude, although I don't see the advantage to doing so, you could in theory argue that in such a case you could say a mono channel has a width.

I "see" this as when (for example) one 'pans' a mono channel through a stereo (or other multi-channel) "field", the "perception" is (or can be) that of 'widening' that particular sound(s) *placement* within said field.

I frequently 'split' mono channels into any number of mono and stereo FX channels, which "outputs" are in turn spread throughout any given "composition".

[2c]

[Joey222]

I just want to point out that @Shabdahbriah first reply seemed like the person had the right idea with the 3d element and that was pretty much what I was looking for. What lost me was when @Shabdahbriah started mentioning the stereo aspect of sound. I will crawl the web and find the answers I am looking for, Thanks for your answers

Just a suggestion but maybe in your web search you could look at something called psychoacoustics.

It is not only dealing with the actual properties of sound but also our perception of it which may be the missing piece you are looking for.

In any case, good luck.

Okay I will look into this. @aciddose, taking everything you say into account.

I have just downloaded some pdf files about signal processing and digital audio and acoustics. I will be digging my head through these over the next week or so, and I will probably see what books are out there in Barnes and Noble. I'm a quick learner so this should be a piece of cake for me. Thanks guys

[Joey222]

@jam92189

Whatever bro, go work towards a GED then you can come back and tell me how full of non-sense I am. Remember I am a programmer, which is something that requires full academic skills which you clearly have none of.

[Nighthawk77]

I cannot determine the correct term for the width of a sound. For instance how wide and narrow the sound can be.

Any help?

Frequency Response

Frequency response is the quantitative measure of the output spectrum of a system or device. It is a measure of magnitude and phase of the output as a function of frequency, in comparison to the input. In simplest terms, if a sine wave is injected into a system at a given frequency, a linear system will respond at that same frequency with a certain magnitude and a certain phase angle relative to the input. Also for a linear system, doubling the amplitude of the input will double the amplitude of the output. In addition, if the system is time-invariant, then the frequency response also will not vary with time.