The Logic Off Topic list

In the old IBM PC's and Macs, you used to be able to write a little 
program that would make the computer generate tones. You could make the 
pitch change or whatever. I think this is the simple beginnings of the 
digital analog creation.

Isn't a square save essentiall 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,? 
(scaled)
A saw wave would be something like 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9, 
1, 0, .1, .2, ....

That matheamtics can be represented by a graph if sent to a plotting 
device and interpretted properly. In the same, it can be represented by a 
sound by sending to a digital to analog converter and interpreting and 
processing it.

Real analog devices are pretty noisy actually. I remember when i 
multitracked the memorymoog (using tape multitracks since it was 
un-midied at first), that hum built up from all the tracks - kind of a 
wash - not really a hum - it had some higher frequencies in it - but I 
remember when I would listen to a mix down tape, you could tell where the 
song was about to start a few seconds early because you heard that noise 
wash start up before a single note was hit. 

Theoretically, AFAIK, the digital models should be essentially noise 
free. I'm certainly happy with my Nova in that regard.

Regarding, Kool's assertion that Peter Gabriel's time stretched pieces 
had never seen the light of day, I disagree. If you record any thing that 
occurs as sound - whether it comes from a human voice or analog 
oscillator - it has existed as a sound before. You can warp it in any way 
to sound radically different (not just time stretch, why not use some 
granular synthesis on it). The digital analog synths sound source was 
purely mathematical. The first time these ever occur as sound (or 
electrical signals which would represent sound if played through a 
stereo) is when they are output.

GA Moore wrote:

>In the old IBM PC's and Macs, you used to be able to write a little
>program that would make the computer generate tones. You could make the
>pitch change or whatever. I think this is the simple beginnings of the
>digital analog creation.
OK.

>Isn't a square save essentiall 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,?
>(scaled)
"Essentially", yes.
So ... "all" you have to do now is navigate those sharp corners. Shouldn't 
be much of a challenge. Except that ... a lot of Field- and/or near-Field- 
and Nobel- and/or near-Nobel-prize winning types have written lots of 
papers on exactly how one is supposed to navigate those corners. Apart from 
that, it's pretty easy!!!

>A saw wave would be something like 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9,
>1, 0, .1, .2, ....
No.

>That matheamtics can be represented by a graph if sent to a plotting
>device and interpretted properly. In the same, it can be represented by a
>sound by sending to a digital to analog converter and interpreting and
>processing it.
No.

"All" you have to do is find some way of, for example, representing pi 
accurately in a digital filter ... which by its very definition is going to 
be somewhat limited in its capabilities given that the synthesizer with the 
ability to represent pi accurately has yet to be created (far as I know 
none of them have the infinite memory required to represent pi with the 
required degree of accuracy).

>Real analog devices are pretty noisy actually.
So are digital ones. Lots of squealing and stuff. Then you've got all that 
Nyquist palaver. Etc etc etc. No Shangri-La there, sadly. Pretty good though.

>Theoretically, AFAIK, the digital models should be essentially noise
>free. I'm certainly happy with my Nova in that regard.
"Theoretically", yes.
"Should be", yes.
The Nova is a good machine.

>Regarding, Kool's assertion that Peter Gabriel's time stretched pieces
>had never seen the light of day, I disagree.
OK.

>If you record any thing that
>occurs as sound - whether it comes from a human voice or analog
>oscillator - it has existed as a sound before.
Depends what you mean by 'record'. You seem to mean one thing. Me another. 
That's OK, though.

>The digital analog synths sound source was
>purely mathematical.
And ... so was the sample purely mathematical. A sample is not a real 
recording, it is merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
represent a wave form. But ... so also is 'a sine wave', within the same 
digital domain, merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
represent a waveform. Both are thrown at converters in order to produce a 
sound. Can't see the difference myself. But I accept that you do.

>The first time these ever occur as sound (or
>electrical signals which would represent sound if played through a
>stereo) is when they are output.
The bit inside the brackets is I agree with. The bit outside the brackets I 
still consider dubious in the extreme.
But ... that's just me.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>"All" you have to do is find some way of, for example, representing pi 
>accurately in a digital filter ... which by its very definition is going to 
>be somewhat limited in its capabilities given that the synthesizer with the 
>ability to represent pi accurately has yet to be created (far as I know 
>none of them have the infinite memory required to represent pi with the 
>required degree of accuracy).

Thats what double precision floating point is for. 64 bits or 128 bits 
will get you pretty accurate estimate - certainly good enough so no one 
can hear any difference. I have the Maple program on my computer and I 
can give you as many digits of Pi as you like. You want 1,000 digits of 
Pi? (it only takes a second) - if you want 5 or 10,000 digits, just le me 
know
 
Pi == 
3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062
862089986280348253421170679821480865132823066470938446095505822317253594081
284811174502841027019385211055596446229489549303819644288109756659334461284
756482337867831652712019091456485669234603486104543266482133936072602491412
737245870066063155881748815209209628292540917153643678925903600113305305488
204665213841469519415116094330572703657595919530921861173819326117931051185
480744623799627495673518857527248912279381830119491298336733624406566430860
213949463952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051
320005681271452635608277857713427577896091736371787214684409012249534301465
495853710507922796892589235420199561121290219608640344181598136297747713099
605187072113499999983729780499510597317328160963185950244594553469083026425
223082533446850352619311881710100031378387528865875332083814206171776691473
035982534904287554687311595628638823537875937519577818577805321712268066130
01927876611195909216420199

>>Real analog devices are pretty noisy actually.
>So are digital ones. Lots of squealing and stuff. Then you've got all that 
>Nyquist palaver. Etc etc etc. No Shangri-La there, sadly. Pretty good though.

There is a simple point which you keep avoiding.

Case 1.
Peter Gabriel sings 
 ----> mic -> preamp -> A/D converter -> digital file

Play back 
digital file ---> D/A converter ---> amplifier ---> speakers


Case 2
Mathematical numbers are used to create a sound
 .......  digital file

Play back 
digital file ---> D/A converter ---> amplifier ---> speakers

There may be noise going out in both cases, but there is bunch of noise 
going on the first case only. And analog synths produce a lot of noise!!!




>>The digital analog synths sound source was
>>purely mathematical.
>And ... so was the sample purely mathematical. A sample is not a real 
>recording, it is merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
>represent a wave form. But ... so also is 'a sine wave', within the same 
>digital domain, merely a collection of numbers that is supposed to 
>represent a waveform. Both are thrown at converters in order to produce a 
>sound. Can't see the difference myself. But I accept that you do.


Do you like to argue just for the sake of arguing or do you actually 
believe this?

> From: GAmoore@...
> 
> Isn't a square save essentiall 0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,?
> (scaled)

With this type of series, you're already aliased!


> A saw wave would be something like 0, .1, .2, .3, .4, .5, .6, .7, .8, .9,
> 1, 0, .1, .2, ....

Again, aliased already.

Stilson and Smith did a nice paper which you should read, it will clear this
point up:  www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~stilti/papers/blit.pdf


> Theoretically, AFAIK, the digital models should be essentially noise
> free. I'm certainly happy with my Nova in that regard.

Why would a D/A converter and output amplifier be less prone to hum than the
VCA and output amplifier of the moog?

> From: GAmoore@...

> 
> Case 2
> Mathematical numbers are used to create a sound
> .......  digital file
> 
> Play back 
> digital file ---> D/A converter ---> amplifier ---> speakers
> 
> There may be noise going out in both cases, but there is bunch of noise
> going on the first case only. And analog synths produce a lot of noise!!!

What about:

Case 3:

file generated as case 2.

playback

digital file ---> add some noise and hum *mathematically* ---> D/A --->
amplifier ---> speakers


what's the diff?  For example, Steinberg's loveley 'Grungelizer' plugin.
Makes the cleanest VSTi sound like it was sampled from a wire recording from
the '20s!

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 07-11-2001:

>"All" you have to do is find some way of, for example, representing pi
>accurately in a digital filter ... which by its very definition is going to
>be somewhat limited in its capabilities given that the synthesizer with the
>ability to represent pi accurately has yet to be created (far as I know
>none of them have the infinite memory required to represent pi with the
>required degree of accuracy).

Guys, guys, aren't you all getting a little bit overboard in this 
discussion??  Having a complete representation of pi is useless, in 
any sense and in any context.  Period.  Exercise: how many decimals 
of pi do you need to calculate the circumference of a circle with 
diameter 1 billion lightyears, with a precision of 0.1 mm?  The 
answer may surprise you, and puts a nice upper boundary on the 
"sensible number of decimals of pi you'll ever need".


phew...
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

GA Moore wrote:
Lotsa stuff!!

Hi,
Just got your emails.
Thanks.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>The answer may surprise you, and puts a nice upper
>boundary on the "sensible number of decimals of pi
>you'll ever need".

But how many decimals do you need? Just interested... You know, nice thing to know when you check up girls or things like that...! It's Wednesday, but still...


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:

>Guys, guys, aren't you all getting
>a little bit overboard in this discussion??
Yes. You are perfectly correct. I apologise.

>Exercise: how many decimals
>of pi do you need to calculate the circumference of a circle with
>diameter 1 billion lightyears, with a precision of 0.1 mm?  The
>answer may surprise you, and puts a nice upper boundary on the
>"sensible number of decimals of pi you'll ever need".

Is the brain contemplating the matter inside or outside the same universe?!!
Silly I know.
Either way, more than my brain could hold for I seem to be down to my last 
functioning neuron to be honest.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Thoughts from the mind of Lars Vik, 08-11-2001:

>  >The answer may surprise you, and puts a nice upper
>>boundary on the "sensible number of decimals of pi
>>you'll ever need".
>
>But how many decimals do you need? Just interested... You know, nice 
>thing to know when you check up girls or things like that...! It's 
>Wednesday, but still...

Let's suppose the speed of light is 3 * 10^8 m/s (it's actually a bit 
less, but that doesn't matter for the outcome).
So in one year light travels

3 * 10^8 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 meters = 9.4608 * 10^15 m = 1 lightyear (approx)

So 1 billion lightyears is times 10^9: 9.4608 * 10^24 m

Expressed in 0.1 mm units (i.e. times 10^4) gives 9.4608 * 10^28.

So the diameter of the proposed circle is 9.4608 * 10^28, where the 
unit is 0.1 mm -- a 29-digit number.  Let's call this number A.

The circumference of a circle is pi*diameter.

Now suppose we knew pi in zero decimal places -- i.e. pi = 3.
Then A*pi = 2.838.. * 10^29

Now we take pi with 1 decimal place: pi=3.1
Then A*pi = 2.932.. * 10^29

Now we take pi with 2 decimal place: pi=3.14
Then A*pi = 2.970.. * 10^29

Ditto, 3 places (3.142) gives 2.97258... * 10^29
With pi=3.1415 we get 2.97211...  * 10^29

So with 0 decimals, we see that the "2" part is OK but the rest is 
wrong (as can be seen from the following calculations which give 
2.9... instead of 2.8...).  With 1 decimal we get 2.9, but the rest 
is still wrong (ditto: it should be 2.97... instead of 2.93... as cab 
be seen from subsequent calculations).

Etcetera: each time we add a decimal in pi, we gain (not 
surprisingly) 1 position of accuracy.
0 decimals: 1 digit of accuracy. 1 decimal: 2 digits of accuracy. 
Etc.  So in order to get 29 digits of accuracy (since our unit was 
already 0.1 mm) we need 28 decimals of pi.  To be on the safe side, 
we simply take 30 decimals and all will be well.  Besides, 30 is 
easier to remember :-).

Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar conversation with 
girls.  Let me know if it works :-).


cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

HJ sez:
> Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar conversation with
> girls.  Let me know if it works :-).

LOL! I love it...

They say that academic tiffs are so vicious because the stakes are so
low...... ;-P

--
Mark Lennox
Consultant

ENDUSER
Guinness Enterprise Centre
Taylor's Lane
Dublin 8
Ireland
--
e-mail : mark@...
phone  : (+353 1) 4100 665
direct : (+353 1) 4100 707
fax : (+353 1) 4100 985
web    : http://www.enduser.ie
--

In a message dated 11/8/01 8:21:57 AM, h@... writes:
>Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar conversation with 
>girls.  Let me know if it works :-).


The way you get laid with this info, is that you get a high paying job, drive 
a nice car, and look like 'a good catch'... then the girls really get 
excited. Musicians, despite their artistic merits, are often looked at as 
dreamers with little potential for the basic bread-winning .... you know 
expensive jewelery, clothes, cars, expensive foreign vacations.

I know I sound cyncial, but I see the younger girls more this way, rather 
than less.

>Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar
>conversation with girls.  Let me know if it works :-).

Thanks man!

With this info I just can't go wrong! I'll bring your e-mail in case I get stuck or too drunk or something...! ;-) Yeah!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 08-11-2001:

>In a message dated 11/8/01 8:21:57 AM, h@... writes:
>>Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar conversation with
>  >girls.  Let me know if it works :-).
>
>The way you get laid with this info, is that you get a high paying job,

I have a horribly under-paid job...

>drive a nice car,

... and a 10 year old car (which my girlfriend drives since I don't 
have a license).

>and look like 'a good catch'...

Well, that's _one_ quality I have,. at least :-).


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of Lars Vik, 08-11-2001:

>  >Now you try to get laid by using this in a bar
>>conversation with girls.  Let me know if it works :-).
>
>Thanks man!
>
>With this info I just can't go wrong! I'll bring your e-mail in case 
>I get stuck or too drunk or something...! ;-) Yeah!

In that case you're always welcome to pass my email address along to 
every good looking, and young (& desperate) enough looking girl you 
happen to meet...

O, wait, I already got a girlfriend...  Bummer...

tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html