Re: Le mat?riau Sonore, hidden place


Subject: Re: Le mat?riau Sonore, hidden place
From: Morgan Sutherland (skiptracer@gmail.com)
Date: Fri Sep 16 2005 - 15:19:14 EDT


How could we improve how we program then? Keyboard and mouse cannot be
the most efficient.

On 9/16/05, Philippe-Aubert Gauthier
<Philippe-Aubert.Gauthier@usherbrooke.ca> wrote:
> Tassman includes the possiblity to combine Mallet to tube resonance (replacind a
> membrane), etc. So that you can create things that connot exist.
>
> http://www.applied-acoustics.com/tassman.htm
>
> (Also note that many composers interested by physical model are often using it
> to make publicity so that it save money (you don't need the musician) and
> nobodies can make the difference in a 30 seconds publicity using simple melody
> and a full quality compressed master ... in a reality show. Its also used a lot
> for gaming to create "real sound", see Perry Cook's book. Maybay more than for
> composer in research of innovation or fresh sounds)
>
> Interestingly, it still sound quite "natural" (mallet and tube) and your are not
> really surprised by such combination. Since most of the physical governing laws
> of oscillation are often the same (optics, electromagnetics, acoustics,
> vibration, non-linear oscillations, dispersion, etc.), its not, on physical or
> sytem basis producing so much different or new sounds. We already know all
> (really) possible sound out from physical law, either if this a real physical
> law or even a theoretical modelling (including analytic, symbolic or numerical
> (digital if you like)). I can work on a computer station next door in our
> computer labs to create the most incredible physical objects including pipes,
> air cavities, different materials: homogeneous, hetereogenous, porous,
> impossible materials with no damping, couple this with a uge room. And then
> make this finite-element software work for age and, month laters, get a nice
> impulse response of this incredibly complex object and you probably won't get
> too much surprise from this sound ... since again belong to the physical law
> domain.
>
> I think that a very thrilling part of complex modelling using computer might
> come from the invention of "physical laws", constraints and laws that must be
> respected.
>
>
> Selon Morgan Sutherland <skiptracer@gmail.com>:
>
> > I can't wait for the time when we will cease trying to recreate pianos
> > in complexity and start making new instruments with such complexity.
> > Physical modelilng of things that cannot exist.
> >
> > On 9/16/05, Michael Gogins <gogins@pipeline.com> wrote:
> > > Until recently, computers have not been fast enough to simulate the
> > complexity of the grand piano.
> > >
> > > This will change. A Linux cluster should now be capable of modelling all
> > the strings, the soundboard, and some of the hammer striking sounds, and of
> > course the recital hall -- not in real time of course, but in a usable time.
> > Probably do several live notes per workstation in the cluster, or something
> > like that.
> > >
> > > To get a picture of what this might mean, check out the analogous software
> > for the pipe organ, Aeolus (of course the pipe organ is much easier to model
> > than the grand piano). This software presents a good model of an 18th century
> > pipe organ. Like many accurate digital simulations, it is "hyper-real", it
> > has all the features of the real thing but in a pristine, noiseless space,
> > and with less "movement" within the sound.
> > >
> > > One wouldn't mistake Aeolus for a real organ, at least not if one had
> > recently HEARD a real organ, but one can probably use Aeolus to make a
> > musically interesting rendering of Bach or Franck or whatever, which would
> > have been impossible before. I would say it is much better than an electronic
> > church organ.
> > >
> > > It would in fact be challenging to render some Bach or Franck or Messien by
> > taking complete control over dynamics, phrasing, registration, etc. in ways
> > that would not be possible for a live player.
> > >
> > > I think it would be possible to get the movement within the sound with some
> > additional work, also, perhaps convolving with a changing impulse response.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Wentk <richard@skydancer.com>
> > > Sent: Sep 16, 2005 9:13 AM
> > > To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> > > Subject: Re: Le mat?riau Sonore, hidden place
> > >
> > > At 01:35 16/09/2005, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >well, it's not a contest right? and it depends on what
> > > >you mean by 'broader' and 'pallet'. i think what
> > > >ned's talking about is how complex, say the sound of a
> > > >piano note is when you play a key and listen to the
> > > >sound of it decay...the sound is incredibly complex,
> > > >resonates with the other strings, different harmonics
> > > >(or partials, or overtones, whatever) reinforce and/or
> > > >cancel each other, and this all occurs over a period
> > > >of time and is influenced by how well it's tuned, how
> > > >hard you hit the key, the temperature in the room,
> > > >etc.
> > >
> > > I listened to someone performing professionally on a top of the line
> > > Bosendorfer recently, and it was *the* most amazing thing. The initial half
> > > second or so of each chord was perfectly in tune (or as in tune as anything
> > > can be in 12ET), and then all the partials seemed to decorrelate
> > > simultaneously to produce a fantastic chorus and bloom.
> > >
> > > I've listened to quite a few pianos over the decades, and it's the first
> > > time I've ever heard a sound quite like that.
> > >
> > > > to try to do that with a computer, well, we're
> > > >not there yet. and i'm not sure i'd want to be..there
> > > >are plenty of things a computer can do that a piano
> > > >can't...
> > >
> > > But there's always the issue of quality versus quantity. Begin able to make
> > > an endless variety of sounds becomes less interesting if few are musically
> > > worthwhile. Or if they're less musically worthwhile and satisfying than
> > > acoustic instruments.
> > >
> > > There's a *huge* amount still to find out about the intricacies and nuances
> > > of acoustic instruments, both as sound generators and as performance tools.
> > > I think it's a shame to concentrate on virtual experiences so much when
> > > acoustic experiences still remain richer and more interesting.
> > >
> > > Bridging the gap is a good thing to aim for, but I think that's going to
> > > need much better tools and more imaginative thinking about synthesis than
> > > we seem to have available today.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> %====================================================================
> % Philippe-Aubert Gauthier, ing. jr , M.Sc.
> % Étudiant au doctorat en reproduction de champs acoustiques
> %
> % GAUS (Groupe d'Acoustique et de vibrations de l'Université de
> % [ Sherbrooke)
> % CIRMMT (Centre for Interdisciplinary research in Music, Media
> % [ and Technology)
> %
> % http://pagauthier.go.dyndns.org
> %====================================================================
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:11 EST