something in never noticed in GX1 solo

  On 5/27/2012 at 3:24 AM, elusive4 said:

what were the first n9ne words of me in this thread, oscillik - and what, precisely, is the contention?

 

spill it. spill it in front of all of your peers. let's see what you've got.

you must be fun at parties

  On 5/26/2012 at 4:04 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

also, does anyone know what the recurrent paper-like sound effect is?

The Tuss ripping a massive cone?

  On 5/27/2012 at 12:20 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/27/2012 at 11:40 AM, BCM said:

B: I gots mad reverb in my bathroom.

 

negative.

 

you do not have a developed statistically random incidence homogenous (diffuse) sound-field of which the reflections are equal and probable in any and all directions at any frequency we are concerned with here within the acoustical space that is your "bathroom" - that is, unless you shower in an auditorium. you're confusing reverb (a characteristic of a large acoustical space of which you will also find a critical-distance, Dc) with specular room decay (of which the specular energy's magnitude (gain), time-arrival delta, and vector (direction) can all be resolved. reverb is statistical. we do not have statistical energy flows in small acoustical spaces. this is the very distinction that separates small from large acoustical space, as stated earlier. these are not casual terms. this is also why rt60 (or sabine's equations) are not applicable or relevant in small acoustical space - due to lack of said statistical reverberant sound-field.

Don't forget language has evolved. Whilst reverberation is a phonemena only audible to humans in larger spaces, the term reverb has undergone semantic widening over the last 30 or so years and is now synonymous with room decay.

Stop trolling, the original usage was fine.

  On 5/30/2012 at 4:45 AM, Hey Dancer said:

 

Don't forget language has evolved. Whilst reverberation is a phonemena only audible to humans in larger spaces, the term reverb has undergone semantic widening over the last 30 or so years and is now synonymous with room decay.

 

Stop trolling, the original usage was fine.

All right! 6 post-er coming out for the elusive4 SLAM. Love it! Oh and by the way:

  On 5/30/2012 at 4:45 AM, Hey Dancer said:

Don't forget language has evolved. Whilst reverberation is a phonemena only audible to humans in larger spaces, the term reverb has undergone semantic widening over the last 30 or so years and is now synonymous with room decay.

 

Stop trolling, the original usage was fine.

oh i see now sure ya. synonomously. synomous just just like you could that oceans rain ice lakes rivers and snow,, are all water. sure.

if it became so obviously snyytnommous with room decay, then why so many still incorrectly reference and measure or make attempt to apply equations regarding rt60 in small acoustical spaces? or is that what is called lost i n translation?

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics. Coming from the perspective of a sound engineer and a native English speaker, it is most definitely acceptable to refer to any effect or inherent property of a sound recording that implies a space to the listener as "reverb". It's common practice - no-one asks for more "spring based small space sound field approximation", they ask for more "spring reverb". As Hey Dancer pointed out, decades of this usage have made this perfectly correct; all language undergoes changes such as these constantly. Would you refute a referral to a "bug" in a computer program?

Whether or not people mistake this for the scientific usage of the word is quite beside the point - why should one avoid a word just because some people may not be aware of all of it's meanings? Brian Tregaskin made no mention of acoustics in a scientific sense, but of the mixing of the track, possible edits or discontinuities, and quite simply asked for some explanation of what he was hearing. All you've succeeded doing is taking a legitimate statement out of context and then proving a point, that although correct, had no relevance to the original meaning of the wording in context, or this thread. That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

Lol I like you. Post more.

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

 

 

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics. Coming from the perspective of a sound engineer and a native English speaker, it is most definitely acceptable to refer to any effect or inherent property of a sound recording that implies a space to the listener as "reverb". It's common practice - no-one asks for more "spring based small space sound field approximation", they ask for more "spring reverb". As Hey Dancer pointed out, decades of this usage have made this perfectly correct; all language undergoes changes such as these constantly. Would you refute a referral to a "bug" in a computer program?

 

 

Whether or not people mistake this for the scientific usage of the word is quite beside the point - why should one avoid a word just because some people may not be aware of all of it's meanings? Brian Tregaskin made no mention of acoustics in a scientific sense, but of the mixing of the track, possible edits or discontinuities, and quite simply asked for some explanation of what he was hearing. All you've succeeded doing is taking a legitimate statement out of context and then proving a point, that although correct, had no relevance to the original meaning of the wording in context, or this thread. That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

*golf clap*

  On 5/31/2012 at 12:34 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

 

 

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics. Coming from the perspective of a sound engineer and a native English speaker, it is most definitely acceptable to refer to any effect or inherent property of a sound recording that implies a space to the listener as "reverb". It's common practice - no-one asks for more "spring based small space sound field approximation", they ask for more "spring reverb". As Hey Dancer pointed out, decades of this usage have made this perfectly correct; all language undergoes changes such as these constantly. Would you refute a referral to a "bug" in a computer program?

 

 

Whether or not people mistake this for the scientific usage of the word is quite beside the point - why should one avoid a word just because some people may not be aware of all of it's meanings? Brian Tregaskin made no mention of acoustics in a scientific sense, but of the mixing of the track, possible edits or discontinuities, and quite simply asked for some explanation of what he was hearing. All you've succeeded doing is taking a legitimate statement out of context and then proving a point, that although correct, had no relevance to the original meaning of the wording in context, or this thread. That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

 

*golf clap*

Serious or sarcastic golf clap?

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

 

 

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics. Coming from the perspective of a sound engineer and a native English speaker, it is most definitely acceptable to refer to any effect or inherent property of a sound recording that implies a space to the listener as "reverb". It's common practice - no-one asks for more "spring based small space sound field approximation", they ask for more "spring reverb". As Hey Dancer pointed out, decades of this usage have made this perfectly correct; all language undergoes changes such as these constantly. Would you refute a referral to a "bug" in a computer program?

 

 

Whether or not people mistake this for the scientific usage of the word is quite beside the point - why should one avoid a word just because some people may not be aware of all of it's meanings? Brian Tregaskin made no mention of acoustics in a scientific sense, but of the mixing of the track, possible edits or discontinuities, and quite simply asked for some explanation of what he was hearing. All you've succeeded doing is taking a legitimate statement out of context and then proving a point, that although correct, had no relevance to the original meaning of the wording in context, or this thread. That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

You'll do fine in this place. Nice work

yeah! ;-) good post!

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

 

 

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics.

ah, so nowit's all about slang.

http://forum.watmm.com/topic/73918-something-in-never-noticed-in-gx1-solo/#entry1824544

reverb implies reverberant sound-field. those that use it really do not seem aware of the difference - while those who do sometimes do use it as slang.

and your refer to "spring reverb" or any other "FX generator" is most certainly NOT the same as true reverberant sound-field of large acostical space room ambience. the word was poorly chosen for such FX. this is likely the resultant of all of the confusion of the term in the acoustical sense.

Your typing is pretty shit for someone as pedantic as you.

  On 5/31/2012 at 1:38 PM, elusive4 said:

theeeee worddddd wasssss poorlyyyyy chosennnnn forrrrr suchhhhh FXXXXX

I added some reverb to your post elusive, to make it more lush

  On 5/31/2012 at 12:43 PM, mcglockers said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 12:34 PM, BCM said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 8:13 AM, Breakmelouis said:

I hate to break my lurking streak, but...

 

 

Your argument, which can only be gleaned from what you've posted, was that the use of the word "reverb" was incorrect. What he described is done in studios around the world - capturing the ambient sound of a room with additional mics. Coming from the perspective of a sound engineer and a native English speaker, it is most definitely acceptable to refer to any effect or inherent property of a sound recording that implies a space to the listener as "reverb". It's common practice - no-one asks for more "spring based small space sound field approximation", they ask for more "spring reverb". As Hey Dancer pointed out, decades of this usage have made this perfectly correct; all language undergoes changes such as these constantly. Would you refute a referral to a "bug" in a computer program?

 

 

Whether or not people mistake this for the scientific usage of the word is quite beside the point - why should one avoid a word just because some people may not be aware of all of it's meanings? Brian Tregaskin made no mention of acoustics in a scientific sense, but of the mixing of the track, possible edits or discontinuities, and quite simply asked for some explanation of what he was hearing. All you've succeeded doing is taking a legitimate statement out of context and then proving a point, that although correct, had no relevance to the original meaning of the wording in context, or this thread. That's nearly akin to someone asking me to load some gear into the boot of a car, and me then turning around and explaining that my shoe size is far too small to permit such a feat.

 

*golf clap*

 

Serious or sarcastic golf clap?

serious

Ha! Good.

  On 5/31/2012 at 3:55 PM, Cryptowen said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 1:38 PM, elusive4 said:

theeeee worddddd wasssss poorlyyyyy chosennnnn forrrrr suchhhhh FXXXXX

I added some reverb to your post elusive, to make it more lush

lol

  On 5/31/2012 at 3:55 PM, Cryptowen said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 1:38 PM, elusive4 said:

theeeee worddddd wasssss poorlyyyyy chosennnnn forrrrr suchhhhh FXXXXX

I added some reverb to your post elusive, to make it more lush

  On 5/31/2012 at 3:55 PM, Cryptowen said:

  On 5/31/2012 at 1:38 PM, elusive4 said:

theeeee worddddd wasssss poorlyyyyy chosennnnn forrrrr suchhhhh FXXXXX

I added some reverb to your post elusive, to make it more lush

This is rapidly becoming my favorite current thread on watmm. And well done to Breakmelouis as well.

EDIT: Oh dear rich text clipboard carnage. Fuck this