[sdiy] dx, chorus and Spock

[Steve Begin]

I think the point here was not that a perfect wave sounds better, but if you wanted to, it would be pretty easy to get a messy wave out of a perfect wave, but it would be incredibly hard to take a messy wave and clean it up.  
In practice though, if every synth did everything perfectly, they'd all sound the same.  
So...maybe you're stuck with a tradeoff between perfection and character.  

Also, I think I agree with Don's theory.  From what I've learned about the human brain, one of the things it is best at is dividing and separating (or sorting).  Although our unconcious mind may be cutting us out of the loop and preventing us from directly observing these effects, I think the initial sensory input is processed in an extremely sophisticated manner and subtleties which may appear to be inaudible to us may actually be detected and simply sorted and percieved as something other than sound.  

So, as Don said with his analogy

"If there's a bear hunting you down in the forest, the ability to
accurately discern what's causing a funny noise is vital.  Identify
the footsteps, the size of the animal, which direction, how far away,
how fast, on what surface...  In such a situation, the level of the
seventh harmonic is just not important. "

The sound we percieve audibly is just a part (maybe even a small part) of the total amount of information derived from the sensory input to our brain triggered by the actual sound, and a large amount of data just gets routed and interpreted by other parts of the brain.

Who knows?  Probably a lot of us may agree that music is more than the sum of its parts. This would just be a possible explanation as to why that is.

> Steve Begin


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Gravenhorst [mailto:music.maker at gte.net]
Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 1:48 PM
To: synth-diy at dropmix.xs4all.nl
Subject: Re: [sdiy] dx, chorus and Spock


Don Tillman <don at till.com> wrote:
>   > From: Gene Stopp <gene at ixiacom.com>
>   > Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 16:23:52 -0700
>   > 
>   > Do precise waveforms sound better than "sloppy" ones? 
>
>I have a theory about our sense of hearing: I claim that we can't hear
>waveforms or harmonics very accurately at all, but we are remarkably
>sensitive to the subtleties of the *process* that's making the
>waveform.

Using a square wave, without any filtering to isolate them, I hear
quite well and quite distinctly the fundamental AND the 3rd harmonic. 
Higher than that, I can't pick them out, but square waves sound, to me,
very much like a fundamental plus a perfect fifth in the next octave. 
I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but I can hear this.

>Why?  Millions of years of evolution and survival of the species.  If
>there's a bear hunting you down in the forest, the ability to
>accurately discern what's causing a funny noise is vital.  Identify
>the footsteps, the size of the animal, which direction, how far away,
>how fast, on what surface...  In such a situation, the level of the
>seventh harmonic is just not important.
>
>So I'd say that precise oscillator processes sound better than sloppy
>ones. 

If things like *perfect* sawtooth waves sound "better" (highly
subjective statement I think), then why in God's name would we EVER
want to filter?  Using a filter changes the harmonic structure such
that in most cases, the resulting wave is not a perfect anything.  But
we do use filters.  Why?  Because doing so gives us a sound that is
correct for our purpose at the moment.

Waves are waves.  Geometric ones aren't any "better" than ones that
don't look perfect on a scope, they just have names that describe their
shape on a scope screen.  Some waves with warts sound good, others may
not.  I think that what a wave looks like on a screen has nothing to do
with whether it sounds "better" or not.  Harmonic content is what makes
a sound, and only harmonic content.  How many of us sit there and tweak
up a patch while watching a scope?  Special purposes notwithstanding,
I'd say most of us just use our ears and noodle 'til we smile.  I've
looked at waveforms after doing that and honestly, they can look pretty
nasty.  

Perfect waveforms do have their purpose, such as sweep generators, or
slope generation for accurate measuring circuits.  But this is more in
the field of instrumentation, not instruments.

I'd say Gene had a damn nice filter that was doing a great job of
isolating the harmonics.  Other repeating waveforms whether a "perfect"
something or not would still be made up of those same harmonics, just
different levels and phase relationships.  I'd bet that Gene's filter
could have isolated those harmonics in a lumpy weird looking wave too,
as long as it was frequency and phase stable and noise free.

>(And yeah, Spock's Beard is great.  Especially live; they put on a
>wonderful show.)
>
>  -- Don
>
>-- 
>Don Tillman
>Palo Alto, California, USA
>don at till.com
>http://www.till.com
>

=========================================================  
- What good are laws that only lawyers understand?
- Government: The other religion.
- The media's credibility should always be questioned.
- Lambs who lie down with lions are lunch.

-- Scott Gravenhorst | LegoManiac / Lego Trains / RIS 1.5
-- Linux Rex         | RedWebMail by RedStarWare
-- FatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/FatMan/
-- NonFatMan: home1.GTE.NET/res0658s/electronics/