something in never noticed in GX1 solo

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

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.

Shouldn't you be studying for your semiotics 101 final coming up?

Personally I appreciate the knowledge that elusive4 has shared in this thread. As someone who takes audio seriously, I think that this is a very interesting distinction. Splitting hairs? Maybe to a casual person, but it doesn't seem that what he's saying is really up for debate. Why is everyone attacking him? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks for the knowledge, I'm looking over that book link now.

It's not the content of elusive4's argument that's the problem, it's the presentation and the attitude. I don't have a problem with what he's saying at all, on the contrary - some who know me would probably say that I'm as pedantic as they come when the discussion involves technical information. What people are targeting is the aggression and the implication that the contracted and semantically different form of "reverberation", "reverb", is unacceptable. To be honest, the second half of the debate consisted mostly of some sort of personal linguistic epiphany, which may have been better suited to a good old fashioned introspective musing, rather than consecutive and disjointed posts.

Anyway; bygones and all that. The reason we're all here [should be] GX1 Solo, the interesting compositional implications of the shift in timbre after 00:08, the wonderful recording, the exciting use of stereo width and the well balanced mix, not to mention the lovely transparent mastering job.

Exactly. it's a great and varied spatial recording that defies any one perspective and is super technical and specific and lovely. We're not talking about what the idea of what "reverb" or "sound resonating of walls in an acoustic space" means. We're just talking about how it makes us feel coming out of our speakers, in our houses, in our rooms. This is the most important end result.

  On 6/1/2012 at 5:50 AM, Breakmelouis said:

It's not the content of elusive4's argument that's the problem, it's the presentation and the attitude. I don't have a problem with what he's saying at all, on the contrary - some who know me would probably say that I'm as pedantic as they come when the discussion involves technical information. What people are targeting is the aggression and the implication that the contracted and semantically different form of "reverberation", "reverb", is unacceptable. To be honest, the second half of the debate consisted mostly of some sort of personal linguistic epiphany, which may have been better suited to a good old fashioned introspective musing, rather than consecutive and disjointed posts.

 

Anyway; bygones and all that. The reason we're all here [should be] GX1 Solo, the interesting compositional implications of the shift in timbre after 00:08, the wonderful recording, the exciting use of stereo width and the well balanced mix, not to mention the lovely transparent mastering job.

this guy is definitely richard d. james. i unmasked you

  On 6/1/2012 at 5:50 AM, Breakmelouis said:

It's not the content of elusive4's argument that's the problem, it's the presentation and the attitude.

Two posts, two completely spot on responses. I'm glad you broke your lurking spell man !

nuff. Stop sublimenting sexual energy into intellectual, someone needs to touch his wiener

  On 6/1/2012 at 3:20 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

  On 6/1/2012 at 5:50 AM, Breakmelouis said:

It's not the content of elusive4's argument that's the problem, it's the presentation and the attitude. I don't have a problem with what he's saying at all, on the contrary - some who know me would probably say that I'm as pedantic as they come when the discussion involves technical information. What people are targeting is the aggression and the implication that the contracted and semantically different form of "reverberation", "reverb", is unacceptable. To be honest, the second half of the debate consisted mostly of some sort of personal linguistic epiphany, which may have been better suited to a good old fashioned introspective musing, rather than consecutive and disjointed posts.

 

Anyway; bygones and all that. The reason we're all here [should be] GX1 Solo, the interesting compositional implications of the shift in timbre after 00:08, the wonderful recording, the exciting use of stereo width and the well balanced mix, not to mention the lovely transparent mastering job.

 

this guy is definitely richard d. james. i unmasked you

I agree, he could not refrain from it... it's stronger than him & he intervened here without thinking too much... You were revealed! & U're welcome!

but he called this recording "wonderful". rich wouldn't use such a wanky self-love implying adjective

but yeah, hi Richard

  On 6/1/2012 at 3:47 PM, schlucharski said:

but he called this recording "wonderful". rich wouldn't use such a wanky self-love implying adjective

oh yes he would, and already did in the past.

  On 6/1/2012 at 3:56 PM, Brian Tregaskin said:

  On 6/1/2012 at 3:47 PM, schlucharski said:

but he called this recording "wonderful". rich wouldn't use such a wanky self-love implying adjective

 

oh yes he would, and already did in the past.

Well he would be right on this one

c here : http://web.archive.org/web/20070224101811/http://forums.planet-mu.com/communicate/read.php?f=1&i=166092&t=165057

author : Analord is Aphex Twin!

  On 5/26/2012 at 10:19 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:35 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:29 PM, oscillik said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:27 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 5/26/2012 at 9:24 PM, oscillik said:

Walter Murch disagrees with you

 

then manfred schroeder disagrees with walter murch.

 

this is basic physics. there is no debate.

 

you even admit in your post above that there is such a thing as room reverb, to dogs, bats, UHF engineer, etc.

 

unless in a large acoustical space (yes, that is not a casual term and does indeed have definition), there is no appreciable reverberant sound-field at any frequency we are concerned with. what little reverb exists is above our hearing range and below the ambient noise floor. this is precisely the acoustical behavior distinction that separates (transition) a small acoustcal space (SAS) from a large acoustical space (LAS). reverb is a statistical behavior.

 

what is your contention with such basic physics.

 

I have no contention with basic physics, but with your wholly inaccurate claim that there is no reverb in a room.

That's pretty much what I gathered from this attempt to baffle with bullshit. Not even in a room but below an overpass, in an alley or tunnel, etc. Reverb is like love and poop, it's everywhere.

EDIT: Derp, should have read the rest of the thread, missed some lulz between then and now.

  On 6/1/2012 at 5:05 AM, Deepex said:

Personally I appreciate the knowledge that elusive4 has shared in this thread. As someone who takes audio seriously, I think that this is a very

 

interesting distinction. Splitting hairs? Maybe to a casual person, but it doesn't seem that what he's saying is really up for debate. Why is everyone

 

attacking him? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks for the knowledge, I'm looking over that book link now.

ya. it's not girlie at all it`s entirely different acoustical behavior. large space reverberant sound-field becomes the effective noise floor, whereas with SAS one has local areas of variable pressure with respect to the ambient noise floor (superposition in 3 (4) dimensions). the way you modify the room to

atteain a particulard acoustical response (time/freq domains) is entirely different approach based on such distinction. reverb is reverb i guess. reflections are reflections are reflectinos. and lakes steam rivers snow icebergs are all just rwater.

and yes the davis/pratronis book a requirement for anyone curious and enthusiastic towards the subject . SSE vol2 is more than sufficient but vol3 has all the DSP goodies if tha`ts your thing. especially on acoustic measurements and LAS/SAS sections. very in formative. check your local library or intra-library loan program if you are unable to find a reasonably priced copy. .and importantly it will go into detail regarding the envelope time curve (ETC) response (of which the crucial inventment necessary for the quantum leap of acoustics via the invention of the TEF by dick heyser at the jet prop labs)). we now have the time-domain tools to accurately and properly measure how specular energy impedes the listening position and the rate-of-decay (room decay) of the specular region (and work to achieve a linear schroeder integral) in SAS. the evnelope time curve response (impulse + doublet (real+imaginary)) is the acoustic measurement one can use to identify how aLL Of the specular energy impedes the listening position - from the very direct signal (straight vector,shortest path w/ speed of sound a constant with respect to the medium of your room), to the early arrivinhg sparse, hot (high-gain) indirect specular reflections, to the later arriving reflections, to the eventual decay of the energy,until the last of the energy is damped below ambient noise floor. so it's clear plane as day you can see that there is no 'reverberation'in such a SAS - as it is doninated by focused specular reflections and response varies greatly as you move about the acoustical space. the energy is NOT well mixed. and when modifications to the SAS are made in an effort to achieve a desired end-state response (time&freq), you would utilizet the ETC to isolate the particular spike of energy measured back to it's incident boundary (since you know total delta time from direct signal, and speed of sound, you can calc total indirect reflection flight path - and then you can identify actual boundary source incident of such energy that impedes listening position). vs in a large acoustiacl space where absorption or diffusion is applied randomly to coat %s of surface area of the LAS - because the reverberant sound-field is random-incidence diffuse-field with no resolved magnitude, time arrival, direction, etc (equal/probablabe in any/all directions)). there is no particular indirect energy to resolve back to aparticular boundary source - completely oppositing of small acoustical space. that's just further example of just how different things can become since you seemed slightly interested/

releavnt sse chapter 6: http://www.focalpres...80240808307.pdf for info on ETC/heyser spiral/domain mapping etc/

and also too those hot/high-gain focused specular reflections in SAS that bounce around like laserbeams - so one can take take effeorts to construct particular reflective complex shaped objects (large with respect to wavelength) in order to break apart those sparse specular wavelets and scatter them

into many directions of lower gain back into the room (regardeless of angle of incidence). so you might think of maybe like those polycindrical collumsn which yes offer good even spatial dispersion but when used in repeated fashion can cause more problems than worth. diffraction gratings (e,g reflection phase grating diffusers) can be used to achieve not only good spatial dispersion but also temporal dispersion as well due to varying depths of the wells. they can be constructed based on quadratic residue or primitive roots number theory (thx again dr. manfred schroeder; r u seeing a pattern here yet?), with anyon into rsa-encryption probably seeing the beauty in PRDs). so we can apply these complex shaped reflective devices into small acoustical space in an attempt to mimick the natural acoustical response of a larger acoustical space via well mixed energies. unfort this also has limits as shown in ambechoic control room acoustical model - as with such large (high prime N) primitive root diffusers comes high absorption coefficient due to 1/4wav resonaces, viscous losses, and edge diffraction. so while very semi-diffuse field is produced, the ETC shows first-order reflected energies already -30dB down --- which is esssentially effectively anehocic. a semi-diffuse field/decay but no longlasting reverb. look up images of blackbird studio C if curious. you should be. so there are certainly ways to modify the room to achieve the subjective perceived size of a larger room - with an exponentially decaying (schroeder integral) semi-diffuse soundfield for spaciousness(binaural dissimilarity) which mimicks that of a natural random-

incidence diffuse-field. but the behaviors are quite wildly different - if your going to use as slang, just atake a moment to appreciate the differences :)

BLABLA WALL O TXT edit SERIOUSLY no-one is gonna read that.

you are the definition of own worst enemy, fuck get some adderall.

i also know how to copy and paste i just don't/

jesus fuckin wept.

lol

the thing that got me in that last elusive post was when he suggested using a library if a reasonably priced copy of a book could not be found. thanks, bro.

elusive, as you are a considerable pedant you might want to put aside saying foolish things like "the jet prop labs" and take up the standard "JPL." but if you're really looking to come across like a fucking idiot you should try "the nat aero and space ad" instead of nasa.

even better "the we r the mus maks" might sound even stupider than "watmm."

  On 6/1/2012 at 11:44 PM, elusive4 said:

  On 6/1/2012 at 5:05 AM, Deepex said:

Personally I appreciate the knowledge that elusive4 has shared in this thread. As someone who takes audio seriously, I think that this is a very

 

interesting distinction. Splitting hairs? Maybe to a casual person, but it doesn't seem that what he's saying is really up for debate. Why is everyone

 

attacking him? Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks for the knowledge, I'm looking over that book link now.

 

ya. it's not girlie at all it`s entirely different acoustical behavior. large space reverberant sound-field becomes the effective noise floor, whereas with SAS one has local areas of variable pressure with respect to the ambient noise floor (superposition in 3 (4) dimensions). the way you modify the room to

atteain a particulard acoustical response (time/freq domains) is entirely different approach based on such distinction. reverb is reverb i guess. reflections are reflections are reflectinos. and lakes steam rivers snow icebergs are all just rwater.

 

and yes the davis/pratronis book a requirement for anyone curious and enthusiastic towards the subject . SSE vol2 is more than sufficient but vol3 has all the DSP goodies if tha`ts your thing. especially on acoustic measurements and LAS/SAS sections. very in formative. check your local library or intra-library loan program if you are unable to find a reasonably priced copy. .and importantly it will go into detail regarding the envelope time curve (ETC) response (of which the crucial inventment necessary for the quantum leap of acoustics via the invention of the TEF by dick heyser at the jet prop labs)). we now have the time-domain tools to accurately and properly measure how specular energy impedes the listening position and the rate-of-decay (room decay) of the specular region (and work to achieve a linear schroeder integral) in SAS. the evnelope time curve response (impulse + doublet (real+imaginary)) is the acoustic measurement one can use to identify how aLL Of the specular energy impedes the listening position - from the very direct signal (straight vector,shortest path w/ speed of sound a constant with respect to the medium of your room), to the early arrivinhg sparse, hot (high-gain) indirect specular reflections, to the later arriving reflections, to the eventual decay of the energy,until the last of the energy is damped below ambient noise floor. so it's clear plane as day you can see that there is no 'reverberation'in such a SAS - as it is doninated by focused specular reflections and response varies greatly as you move about the acoustical space. the energy is NOT well mixed. and when modifications to the SAS are made in an effort to achieve a desired end-state response (time&freq), you would utilizet the ETC to isolate the particular spike of energy measured back to it's incident boundary (since you know total delta time from direct signal, and speed of sound, you can calc total indirect reflection flight path - and then you can identify actual boundary source incident of such energy that impedes listening position). vs in a large acoustiacl space where absorption or diffusion is applied randomly to coat %s of surface area of the LAS - because the reverberant sound-field is random-incidence diffuse-field with no resolved magnitude, time arrival, direction, etc (equal/probablabe in any/all directions)). there is no particular indirect energy to resolve back to aparticular boundary source - completely oppositing of small acoustical space. that's just further example of just how different things can become since you seemed slightly interested/

releavnt sse chapter 6: http://www.focalpres...80240808307.pdf for info on ETC/heyser spiral/domain mapping etc/

 

and also too those hot/high-gain focused specular reflections in SAS that bounce around like laserbeams - so one can take take effeorts to construct particular reflective complex shaped objects (large with respect to wavelength) in order to break apart those sparse specular wavelets and scatter them

into many directions of lower gain back into the room (regardeless of angle of incidence). so you might think of maybe like those polycindrical collumsn which yes offer good even spatial dispersion but when used in repeated fashion can cause more problems than worth. diffraction gratings (e,g reflection phase grating diffusers) can be used to achieve not only good spatial dispersion but also temporal dispersion as well due to varying depths of the wells. they can be constructed based on quadratic residue or primitive roots number theory (thx again dr. manfred schroeder; r u seeing a pattern here yet?), with anyon into rsa-encryption probably seeing the beauty in PRDs). so we can apply these complex shaped reflective devices into small acoustical space in an attempt to mimick the natural acoustical response of a larger acoustical space via well mixed energies. unfort this also has limits as shown in ambechoic control room acoustical model - as with such large (high prime N) primitive root diffusers comes high absorption coefficient due to 1/4wav resonaces, viscous losses, and edge diffraction. so while very semi-diffuse field is produced, the ETC shows first-order reflected energies already -30dB down --- which is esssentially effectively anehocic. a semi-diffuse field/decay but no longlasting reverb. look up images of blackbird studio C if curious. you should be. so there are certainly ways to modify the room to achieve the subjective perceived size of a larger room - with an exponentially decaying (schroeder integral) semi-diffuse soundfield for spaciousness(binaural dissimilarity) which mimicks that of a natural random-

incidence diffuse-field. but the behaviors are quite wildly different - if your going to use as slang, just atake a moment to appreciate the differences :)

christ. lol!!

  On 6/2/2012 at 5:23 PM, Alcofribas said:

the thing that got me in that last elusive post was when he suggested using a library if a reasonably priced copy of a book could not be found. thanks, bro.

 

elusive, as you are a considerable pedant you might want to put aside saying foolish things like "the jet prop labs" and take up the standard "JPL." but if you're really looking to come across like a fucking idiot you should try "the nat aero and space ad" instead of nasa.

truth bullets.

Right, well... All I feel that people should be aware of is the basic generalisation of RT60, which can be expressed very simply as the amount of time [quantified in seconds] that true reverberation (that is to say, reflections that have experienced diffusion to the point where direct vectorised logarithmic equations are implausible to calculate, so they become statistical in terms that relate in a mathematically relevant way) takes to drop 60dB below the level of incidence. If we ignore the Fletcher-Munson curves and the generally logarithmic nature of human hearing, this can be considered to be approximately half of the human range of hearing - taking 48dB of difference to be negligible attention-wise; within the Haas-effect, our brains even consider around 10dB within 1/10th of an 8ve frequency-wise to be the same sound!

These are the sort’s of things you should be trying to say succinctly, elusive4.

... But anyway, as much as it is tempting to ignore, I am just a very patient and trusting fan of the bloke. Also - thanks for the welcoming everyone :)

for entertainment purposes, i have made adjustments

  Quote

ya. it's not girlie at all it`s entirely different acoustical behavior. large space buttsexerant sound-field becomes the effective lube floor, whereas with SAS one has local areas of variable pressure with respect to the ambient lube floor (superposition in 3 (4) dimensions). the way you modify the room to

atteain a particulard acoustical response (time/freq domains) is entirely different approach based on such distinction. buttsex is buttsex i guess. rectumwrecking are rectumwrecking are reflectinos. and lakes steam rivers snow icebergs are all just rwater.

 

and yes the davis/pratronis book a requirement for anyone curious and enthusiastic towards the subject . SSE vol2 is more than sufficient but vol3 has all the BUM goodies if tha`ts your thing. especially on acoustic measurements and LAS/SAS sections. very in formative. check your local library or intra-library loan program if you are unable to find a reasonably priced copy. .and importantly it will go into detail regarding the envelope time curve (ETC) response (of which the crucial inventment necessary for the quantum leap of acoustics via the invention of the TEF by dick heyser at the jet prop labs)). we now have the time-domain tools to accurately and properly measure how specular energy impedes the listening position and the rate-of-decay (room decay) of the specular region (and work to achieve a linear schroeder integral) in SAS. the evnelope time curve response (impulse + doublet (real+imaginary)) is the acoustic measurement one can use to identify how aLL Of the specular energy impedes the listening position - from the very direct signal (straight vector,shortest path w/ speed of sound a constant with respect to the medium of your room), to the early arrivinhg sparse, hot (high-gain) indirect specular rectumwrecking, to the later arriving rectumwrecking, to the eventual decay of the energy,until the last of the energy is damped below ambient lube floor. so it's clear plane as day you can see that there is no 'buttsexeration'in such a SAS - as it is doninated by focused specular rectumwrecking and response varies greatly as you move about the acoustical space. the energy is NOT well mixed. and when modifications to the SAS are made in an effort to achieve a desired end-state response (time&freq), you would utilizet the ETC to isolate the particular spike of energy measured back to it's incident rimming (since you know total delta time from direct signal, and speed of sound, you can calc total indirect reflection flight path - and then you can identify actual rimming source incident of such energy that impedes listening position). vs in a large acoustiacl space where absorption or diffusion is applied randomly to coat %s of surface area of the LAS - because the buttsexerant sound-field is random-incidence diffuse-field with no resolved magnitude, time arrival, direction, etc (equal/probablabe in any/all directions)). there is no particular indirect energy to resolve back to aparticular rimming source - completely oppositing of small acoustical space. that's just further example of just how different things can become since you seemed slightly interested/

releavnt sse chapter 6: http://www.focalpres...80240808307.pdf for info on ETC/heyser spiral/domain mapping etc/

 

and also too those hot/high-gain focused specular rectumwrecking in SAS that bounce around like laserbeams - so one can take take effeorts to construct particular reflective complex shaped objects (large with respect to wavelength) in order to break apart those sparse specular wavelets and scatter them

into many directions of lower gain back into the room (regardeless of angle of incidence). so you might think of maybe like those polycindrical collumsn which yes offer good even spatial dispersion but when used in repeated fashion can cause more problems than worth. diffraction gratings (e,g reflection phase grating diffusers) can be used to achieve not only good spatial dispersion but also temporal dispersion as well due to varying depths of the wells. they can be constructed based on quadratic residue or anal roots number theory (thx again dr. manfred schroeder; r u seeing a pattern here yet?), with anyon into rsa-encryption probably seeing the beauty in PRDs). so we can apply these complex shaped reflective devices into small acoustical space in an attempt to mimick the natural acoustical response of a larger acoustical space via well mixed energies. unfort this also has limits as shown in ambechoic control room acoustical model - as with such large (high prime N) anal root diffusers comes high absorption coefficient due to 1/4wav resonaces, viscous losses, and edge diffraction. so while very semi-diffuse field is produced, the ETC shows first-order reflected energies already -30dB down --- which is esssentially effectively anehocic. a semi-diffuse field/decay but no longlasting buttsex. look up images of blackbird studio C if curious. you should be. so there are certainly ways to modify the room to achieve the subjective perceived size of a larger room - with an exponentially decaying (schroeder integral) semi-diffuse soundfield for spaciousness(binaural dissimilarity) which mimicks that of a natural random-

incidence diffuse-field. but the behaviors are quite wildly different - if your going to use as slang, just atake a moment to appreciate the differences :)

"Right, well... All I feel that people should be aware of is the basic generalisation of RT60, which can be expressed very simply as the amount of time [quantified in seconds] that true reverberation "

lol "true reverb". tell me more about this true reverberation vs whatever it was you were making attempt to refer to before. true up -

and why base commentary off on about rt60? rt60 isn't the focus of the discussion - it was about reverberation with respect to large vs small acoustical spaces. that was any and that was all.

what'is funny is those that make attempt to apply rt60 in small spaces - lol sure, i mean...i guess - i compute average weather across united states before determining if i need umbrella here in my town. lol.

rt60 is relevant in small acoustical space as soon as you show me past Dc. and you are for sure using a dodec, yes?