On Mar 28, 11:27 am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote:> On Mar 28, 11:16 am, robert bristow-johnson > > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > On Mar 28, 10:47 am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote: > > ... > > > > I like how the Japanese translate "modulate" as "tickle." So > > > maybe one circuit tickles the next one? > > > so Japanese musicians "tickle" the melody (or whatever part they're > > playing) from one key to another? i wonder what word "modulate" would > > translate to for Japanese musicians doing Western music? maybe it's > > "tickle". > > > ? > > > r b-j > > www.dictionary.com yields > > "1550–60; < Latin modulātus (past participle of modulārī to regulate > (sounds), set to music, play an instrument)." > > I see in science very often where where one wished to describe > something technically where such a precise word did not already exist. > So one picks a "near in meaning" word and adds another definition to > it. "Modulate" seems like such an example. And if different groups do > it with different technical meanings we get confusion.in fact, within the music discipline, they changed the meaning from the original Latin that is quite general: "to regulate (sounds), set to music, play an instrument" to something quite specific regarding changing the key from one to another. i think the most typical example is when, at the end of a song after repeating the refrain a couple of times, they bump the key up by a whole note (2 semitones) and do the refrain again, making it sound somehow more "fresh". but a more sophisticated use of "modulation" in music composition and performance is to change the key *and* change the music (melody and harmony) in such a way that the listener hardly realizes it, but they discover later that they're sitting in a new key from before. i can't think of a *pop* song at the moment that does this (even though i know they exist), but i can think of examples from some off-the-beaten-path musicians that i really like (and know personally). r b-j
semantics...
Started by ●March 26, 2011
Reply by ●March 28, 20112011-03-28
Reply by ●March 28, 20112011-03-28
Sometimes, an extra word or two can do the clarifying. I was asked in a letter, "How much money do you need to retire?" I responded that, as far as I knew, I didn't need to retire any money at all, and that I wasn't aware that money ever needed to be retired. The writer could have made himself impervious to deliberate misconstruction by asking, "How much money do you need in order to retire?" Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
Reply by ●March 28, 20112011-03-28
On Mar 28, 12:33 pm, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:> On Mar 28, 11:27 am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 28, 11:16 am, robert bristow-johnson > > > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 28, 10:47 am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > > > I like how the Japanese translate "modulate" as "tickle." So > > > > maybe one circuit tickles the next one? > > > > so Japanese musicians "tickle" the melody (or whatever part they're > > > playing) from one key to another? i wonder what word "modulate" would > > > translate to for Japanese musicians doing Western music? maybe it's > > > "tickle". > > > > ? > > > > r b-j > > >www.dictionary.com yields > > > "1550–60; < Latin modulātus (past participle of modulārī to regulate > > (sounds), set to music, play an instrument)." > > > I see in science very often where where one wished to describe > > something technically where such a precise word did not already exist. > > So one picks a "near in meaning" word and adds another definition to > > it. "Modulate" seems like such an example. And if different groups do > > it with different technical meanings we get confusion. > > in fact, within the music discipline, they changed the meaning from > the original Latin that is quite general: "to regulate (sounds), set > to music, play an instrument" to something quite specific regarding > changing the key from one to another. i think the most typical > example is when, at the end of a song after repeating the refrain a > couple of times, they bump the key up by a whole note (2 semitones) > and do the refrain again, making it sound somehow more "fresh". but a > more sophisticated use of "modulation" in music composition and > performance is to change the key *and* change the music (melody and > harmony) in such a way that the listener hardly realizes it, but they > discover later that they're sitting in a new key from before. i can't > think of a *pop* song at the moment that does this (even though i know > they exist), but i can think of examples from some off-the-beaten-path > musicians that i really like (and know personally). > > r b-j- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -Here is some interesting commentary on musical modulation http://www.gearchange.org/muso_intro.asp Clay
Reply by ●March 28, 20112011-03-28
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:55:27 -0700 (PDT), Clay <clay@claysturner.com> wrote:>On Mar 28, 12:33=C2=A0pm, robert bristow-johnson ><r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: >> On Mar 28, 11:27=C2=A0am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 28, 11:16=C2=A0am, robert bristow-johnson >> >> > <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote: >> > > On Mar 28, 10:47=C2=A0am, Clay <c...@claysturner.com> wrote: >> > > ... >> >> > > > I like how the Japanese translate "modulate" as "tickle." So >> > > > maybe one circuit tickles the next one? >> >> > > so Japanese musicians "tickle" the melody (or whatever part they're >> > > playing) from one key to another? =C2=A0i wonder what word "modulate"= > would >> > > translate to for Japanese musicians doing Western music? =C2=A0maybe = >it's >> > > "tickle". >> >> > > ? >> >> > > r b-j >> >> >www.dictionary.com=C2=A0yields >> >> > "1550=E2=80=9360; < Latin modul=C4=81tus =C2=A0(past participle of modu= >l=C4=81r=C4=AB =C2=A0to regulate >> > (sounds), set to music, play an instrument)." >> >> > I see in science very often where where one wished to describe >> > something technically where such a precise word did not already exist. >> > So one picks a "near in meaning" word and adds another definition to >> > it. "Modulate" seems like such an example. And if different groups do >> > it with different technical meanings we get confusion. >> >> in fact, within the music discipline, they changed the meaning from >> the original Latin that is quite general: "to regulate (sounds), set >> to music, play an instrument" to something quite specific regarding >> changing the key from one to another. =C2=A0 i think the most typical >> example is when, at the end of a song after repeating the refrain a >> couple of times, they bump the key up by a whole note (2 semitones) >> and do the refrain again, making it sound somehow more "fresh". =C2=A0but= > a >> more sophisticated use of "modulation" in music composition and >> performance is to change the key *and* change the music (melody and >> harmony) in such a way that the listener hardly realizes it, but they >> discover later that they're sitting in a new key from before. =C2=A0i can= >'t >> think of a *pop* song at the moment that does this (even though i know >> they exist), but i can think of examples from some off-the-beaten-path >> musicians that i really like (and know personally). >> >> r b-j- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Here is some interesting commentary on musical modulation > >http://www.gearchange.org/muso_intro.asp > >ClayIn racing we "modulate" brakes, too, in order to balance the car during deceleration and adapt to changing grip levels of the track surface. That just means changing the pressure applied with your foot in order to change the braking torque created by the brakes. I've seen some form of "modulate" used in discussing other topics as well, and most are used reasonably consistently like that. Music seems to be the oddball application of the word. Eric Jacobsen http://www.ericjacobsen.org http://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1//Eric_Jacobsen.php
Reply by ●March 29, 20112011-03-29
On 2011/03/26 22:19, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> well, i have to confess that i didn't read that far (that "ORTF" > precedes "HRTF" by a couple decades). so maybe it's the HRTF folk > publishing stuff in the 70s or 80s that caused me the confusion. it's > a "function" (i guess you don't like that word) of my age but i came > across "HRTF" before i came across "Blumlein". i started reading and > learning about this issue in the early 80s and not the 30s or the 60s.Strange that you should start with this area as a specific example, because I just built a Jecklin disk for recording a string quartet with a matched pair of Earthworks M50 microphones. I read each of the acronyms that you mentioned and was also inclined to attempt to fit some kind of O-Related Transfer Function into ORTF. Speaking of semantics, I hate it when marketing types take words with specific existing meanings and substitute them because they're easier to spell and pronounce than the correct term. Case in point: When the fashion industry decided to popularize fluorescent inks and dyes in clothing, they decided to call it 'neon' (even though you can't make or dye a garment with a gas). What would have been so bad about simply calling it 'fluorescent'? Couldn't anyone in the fashion industry spell the word? ... or pronounce it? Ever since this started bugging me, I've wanted to find some way to make a literal 'neon' shirt. ... probably electrocute myself in the process... Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting
Reply by ●March 29, 20112011-03-29
On Mar 29, 7:35�am, Brian Willoughby <Sound_Consulting-...@Sounds.wa.com> wrote:> On 2011/03/26 22:19, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > well, i have to confess that i didn't read that far (that "ORTF" > > precedes "HRTF" by a couple decades). �so maybe it's the HRTF folk > > publishing stuff in the 70s or 80s that caused me the confusion. �it's > > a "function" (i guess you don't like that word) of my age but i came > > across "HRTF" before i came across "Blumlein". �i started reading and > > learning about this issue in the early 80s and not the 30s or the 60s. > > Strange that you should start with this area as a specific example, > because I just built a Jecklin disk for recording a string quartet with > a matched pair of Earthworks M50 microphones. �I read each of the > acronyms that you mentioned and was also inclined to attempt to fit some > kind of O-Related Transfer Function into ORTF.O is for orifice. it's the Orifice de Radiodiffusion T�l�vision Fran�aise.> Speaking of semantics, I hate it when marketing types take words with > specific existing meanings and substitute them because they're easier to > spell and pronounce than the correct term. �Case in point: When the > fashion industry decided to popularize fluorescent inks and dyes in > clothing, they decided to call it 'neon' (even though you can't make or > dye a garment with a gas). �What would have been so bad about simply > calling it 'fluorescent'? �Couldn't anyone in the fashion industry spell > the word? �... or pronounce it?i think these marketing types chose "neon" because they thought it sounded cool (and, for marketing purposes, something that sounds cool might sell more than something that is accurate). neon lights and these fluorescent inks both "glow" (but for different physical reasons). back to sound synthesis, another annoyance, to me, is what Creative Labs (who made the Sound Blaster) did to usurp the term "Wavetable Synthesis" when what they were really doing was basic PCM sample playback. i got real unhappy about that in the mid 90s and when i first presented the Wavetable Synthesis 101 paper, i meant to make clear the difference in use of the term from the original meaning (what PGM or Waldorf synths or the Prophet VS do) to what the term was evolving to (what sampling playback "synths" like E-mu and Ensoniq and Creative do). i cannot claim it was because of my bitching, but it appears that the term is reverting back in current usage to what it was originally. r b-j
Reply by ●March 30, 20112011-03-30
On 2011/03/29 18:59, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> back to sound synthesis, another annoyance, to me, is what Creative > Labs (who made the Sound Blaster) did to usurp the term "Wavetable > Synthesis" when what they were really doing was basic PCM sample > playback. i got real unhappy about that in the mid 90s and when i > first presented the Wavetable Synthesis 101 paper, i meant to make > clear the difference in use of the term from the original meaning > (what PGM or Waldorf synths or the Prophet VS do) to what the term was > evolving to (what sampling playback "synths" like E-mu and Ensoniq and > Creative do). i cannot claim it was because of my bitching, but it > appears that the term is reverting back in current usage to what it > was originally.Well, that might have something to do with the fact that Creative Labs bought Ensoniq (for their SoundBlaster-killing AudioPCI technology) and ended up with TransWaves and the rest of the EPS/ASR technology. By the way, I was hired by Ensoniq to develop the Windows NT driver for their sound cards, and on my own dollar I developed the Nextstep/Openstep Intel driver for those same cards. It's too bad that Creative Labs basically shut down the 'creative' team at Ensoniq. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting
Reply by ●March 30, 20112011-03-30
On Mar 30, 12:14�am, Brian Willoughby <Sound_Consulting-...@Sounds.wa.com> wrote:> On 2011/03/29 18:59, robert bristow-johnson wrote: > > > back to sound synthesis, another annoyance, to me, is what Creative > > Labs (who made the Sound Blaster) did to usurp the term "Wavetable > > Synthesis" when what they were really doing was basic PCM sample > > playback. �i got real unhappy about that in the mid 90s and when i > > first presented the Wavetable Synthesis 101 paper, i meant to make > > clear the difference in use of the term from the original meaning > > (what PGM or Waldorf synths or the Prophet VS do) to what the term was > > evolving to (what sampling playback "synths" like E-mu and Ensoniq and > > Creative do). �i cannot claim it was because of my bitching, but it > > appears that the term is reverting back in current usage to what it > > was originally. > > Well, that might have something to do with the fact that Creative Labs > bought Ensoniq (for their SoundBlaster-killing AudioPCI technology) and > ended up with TransWaves and the rest of the EPS/ASR technology. �By the > way, I was hired by Ensoniq to develop the Windows NT driver for their > sound cards, and on my own dollar I developed the Nextstep/Openstep > Intel driver for those same cards. �It's too bad that Creative Labs > basically shut down the 'creative' team at Ensoniq. >so did you live down there in east Pennsylvania? i sorta knew (or was acquainted with) Bill Mauchly and Jon Dattorro and knew (a little better) Scott Peer and Merrill Bradshaw. dunno anyone else at Ensoniq. hey, check out what i wrote you about 2's comp numbers in that other thread. i think there is some basic stuff you're overlooking. L8r, r b-j
Reply by ●March 30, 20112011-03-30
On 2011/03/29 21:33, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On Mar 30, 12:14 am, Brian Willoughby <Sound_Consulting-...@Sounds.wa.com> wrote: >> On 2011/03/29 18:59, robert bristow-johnson wrote: >> >>> back to sound synthesis, another annoyance, to me, is what Creative >>> Labs (who made the Sound Blaster) did to usurp the term "Wavetable >>> Synthesis" when what they were really doing was basic PCM sample >>> playback. i got real unhappy about that in the mid 90s and when i >>> first presented the Wavetable Synthesis 101 paper, i meant to make >>> clear the difference in use of the term from the original meaning >>> (what PGM or Waldorf synths or the Prophet VS do) to what the term was >>> evolving to (what sampling playback "synths" like E-mu and Ensoniq and >>> Creative do). i cannot claim it was because of my bitching, but it >>> appears that the term is reverting back in current usage to what it >>> was originally. >> >> Well, that might have something to do with the fact that Creative Labs >> bought Ensoniq (for their SoundBlaster-killing AudioPCI technology) and >> ended up with TransWaves and the rest of the EPS/ASR technology. By the >> way, I was hired by Ensoniq to develop the Windows NT driver for their >> sound cards, and on my own dollar I developed the Nextstep/Openstep >> Intel driver for those same cards. It's too bad that Creative Labs >> basically shut down the 'creative' team at Ensoniq. > > so did you live down there in east Pennsylvania? i sorta knew (or was > acquainted with) Bill Mauchly and Jon Dattorro and knew (a little > better) Scott Peer and Merrill Bradshaw. dunno anyone else at > Ensoniq.No, both projects were handled via telecommuting, although I did spend the better part of a week in Malvern at the height of it. I had the pleasure of meeting Bill Mauchly, and invited him to dinner, which he graciously accepted. In fact, telephone conversations with him supporting my curiosity about the EPS are what led to the NT driver development opportunity in the first place. It was an honor to meet someone from such a family of electronics and computing invention. The bulk of the project was spent in communication with folks from the Soundscape team. Unfortunately for me, given my greater curiosity about the EPS and other music electronics from Ensoniq, everyone I dealt with had no involvement with anything outside the sound card business unit. I'm surprised Creative didn't just split the company, or either that Ensoniq didn't just sell off the audio card division and keep the electronic musical instruments. But that's a highly competitive market, and I guess I don't know anything about how hard it is to stay in business inside the U.S. while competing against the highly successful Japanese. I did meet one fellow who traveled the world sampling exotic acoustic instruments for Ensoniq's sound library. Brian Willoughby Sound Consulting
Reply by ●April 2, 20112011-04-02
"Jerry Avins" wrote in message news:3dca886d-2a90-4cb4-92a7-3e7ee4d6a909@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com... Sometimes, an extra word or two can do the clarifying. I was asked in a letter, "How much money do you need to retire?" I responded that, as far as I knew, I didn't need to retire any money at all, and that I wasn't aware that money ever needed to be retired. The writer could have made himself impervious to deliberate misconstruction by asking, "How much money do you need in order to retire?" Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. This depends on how much confusion there is in the subject. The money does not need to be in order... If by "retire" you mean replacing those things on which your car moves...
