Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

I keep running into dead ends here. I have a modern i7 machine with
Windows XP and Microsoft's GS Wavetable SW for MIDI which sounds
different than the one I remember in Win95/98 when I used Voyetra
AudioStation to mess with MIDIs.

I tried Virtualbox which doesn't simulate the old OPL3 MIDI device, I
tried Microsoft's VirtualPC 2007 which simulates it horribly to the
point that it's unlistenable.

I was hoping you guys could help me out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ome3vfadYvs That's how the MIDIs are
supposed to sound like.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID

[Auric__]

Have you considered buying some midi-specific hardware?

--
- You're such a pig-fucker, Philip!
- Terence, why would you call me a pig fucker?
- Well, let's see... First of all, you fuck pigs.
- Oh, yeah.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 8:39 am, "Auric__" <not.my.r...@email.address> wrote:
> zarlox_670 wrote:
> > I keep running into dead ends here. I have a modern i7 machine with
> > Windows XP and Microsoft's GS Wavetable SW for MIDI which sounds
> > different than the one I remember in Win95/98 when I used Voyetra
> > AudioStation to mess with MIDIs.
>
> > I tried Virtualbox which doesn't simulate the old OPL3 MIDI device, I
> > tried Microsoft's VirtualPC 2007 which simulates it horribly to the
> > point that it's unlistenable.
>
> > I was hoping you guys could help me out.
>

> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ome3vfadYvsThat's how the MIDIs are

> > supposed to sound like.
> >http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID
>
> Have you considered buying some midi-specific hardware?
>
> --
> - You're such a pig-fucker, Philip!
>   - Terence, why would you call me a pig fucker?
> - Well, let's see... First of all, you fuck pigs.
>   - Oh, yeah.

Like what? And no, not really. 'Was hoping it could be properly
virtualized or if an OPL3 soundfont existed.

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I tried Virtualbox which doesn't simulate the old OPL3 MIDI device,

As I read from here:

https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?t=9918

============
2. Sound /Audio Integration.

In VirtualBox, you must enable Sound, and use "Sound Blaster 16".
It is available since VBox 1.6.0.

The procedure for installation is rather simple:
NOTE: The procedure below is only needed if you switch from AC'97 to
SB16.
It is not needed, if you create new VM with SB16, then install Win98 on
it.

2.1. Delete your sound card device and all unknown devices from "Device
Manager".
2.2 Add New Hardware (from Control Panel).
==============

Now I don't know if Virtualbox will emulate AC97 sound when running
Win-98, but even if it can't (did you try?) I would have thought that
"Sound Blaster 16" device would have had midi functionality.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 9:18 am, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

> I would have thought that "Sound Blaster 16" device would have had midi functionality.

It doesn't.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=52843

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I have a modern i7 machine with Windows XP and Microsoft's
> GS Wavetable SW for MIDI which sounds different than the
> one I remember in Win95/98 when I used Voyetra AudioStation
> to mess with MIDIs.

Just in case you're interested, I played your sample midi file:

http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID

On my win-98 system (with on-board AC-97 audio) and while it was
playing, I used sndrec32.exe to record it to a wav file. If you want to
hear what this midi file sounds like, here's the wav file:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove.wav

The file is about 10 mb in size.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 11:27 am, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

Your system is using the GS Wavetable SW MIDI device, the same as
mine. All computers made after 2000 come with AC'97 cards. There's
nothing wrong with the new MIDI device, but MIDIs sequenced and
intended to be listened with the old OPL3 MIDI device don't sound as
good on the more modern ones.

As a Win98 purist, you should be apalled that you don't have a genuine
Win98 environment. See the YouTube link for how groove.mid should
really sound like.

Also, next time you upload audio, consider compressing with MP3, make
sure its not clipped (lower your volume, god), if you refuse to
compress then use a 22 khz samplerate as MIDIs are not sampled above
that anyway.

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ome3vfadYvs
> >
> > http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID
> >
> > http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove.wav

>
> Your system is using the GS Wavetable SW MIDI device, the same as
> mine. All computers made after 2000 come with AC'97 cards. There's
> nothing wrong with the new MIDI device, but MIDIs sequenced and
> intended to be listened with the old OPL3 MIDI device don't sound
> as good on the more modern ones.

Well, I beg to disagree.

I have listened to both my .wav recording and your version on youtube,
and hands down I think the musical quality (instrument quality) of my
.wav file is superior.

I clearly hear the aliasing in the youtube version when the high-hat is
tapped. It sounds awful.

You might want to read this, particularly the last sentence in the first
paragraph:

http://www.schristiancollins.com/generaluser.php

====================
About GeneralUser GS

GeneralUser GS is a GM and GS compatible SoundFont bank for composing or
playing MIDI files. There are currently versions for use with FluidSynth
(or Qsynth), MuseScore, Sound Blaster Live!/Audigy/X-fi sound cards, and
other SoundFont-compatible hardware and software synthesizers. For
owners of Sound Blaster audio cards, GeneralUser GS can greatly enhance
the sound quality of GM/GS compatible MIDI files when loaded into the
sound card's RAM. Compared with the default SoundFonts that Creative
Labs ships with their sound cards, the instrument sounds in GeneralUser
GS are far more realistic.

Although GeneralUser GS was originally designed for use with Sound
Blaster audio cards, most recent development has been for the excellent
FluidSynth, the best software SoundFont player available, in my opinion.
It also sounds quite good on many other softsynths, although not all are
guaranteed to sound fully correct.
=====================

I went out and downloaded the GeneralUser_GS_1.44 sound-font file and
installed it in my VLC player (it uses fluidsynth), so now VLC can play
midi files. The wav file that I recorded earlier was played by Windows
Media Player 9. I don't know what sound-font WMP is using - if any.

I've played the mid file with both WMP and VLC and I can't hear any
difference.

For those that are interested, here's the link to the sound-font file:

http://www.schristiancollins.com/soundfonts/GeneralUser_GS_1.44-FluidSynth.zip

> As a Win98 purist, you should be apalled that you don't have a
> genuine Win98 environment.

I don't see how having AC-97 audio hardware (not the inferior SB16 sound
card) makes my system any less of a "pure" win-98 system. By late 1999
or early 2000, many win-98se systems came from the factory with
motherboards that had on-board AC-97 hardware.

> See the YouTube link for how groove.mid should really sound like.

Yes, and as I've said, it sounds awful compared to my version. I
welcome others to weigh in with their opinions.

On a tangent, I found this in the wikipedia entry for Sound card:

--------------
Crippling of features

Most new soundcards no longer have the audio loopback device commonly
called "Stereo Mix"/"Wave out mix"/"Mono Mix"/"What U Hear" that was
once very prevalent and that allows users to digitally record speaker
output to the microphone input. Many users suspect the RIAA is
responsible for colluding with or pressuring computer and soundcard
manufacturers to disable this and other features because of their
ability to be used for copyright infringement (although many legitimate
uses exist for this feature), but no proof of this currently exists.

However, virtually no other answers exist as to why computer and
soundcard manufacturers have been discontinuing this feature. No notice
or information is usually given to consumers of the exclusion or
inclusion of the feature when purchasing or in specifications. Lenovo
and other manufacturers fail to implement the chipset feature in
hardware, while other manufacturers disable the driver from supporting
it.

In some cases loopback can be reinstated with driver updates (as in the
case of some Dell computers); alternatively software (Total Recorder)
can be purchased to enable the functionality.

According to Microsoft, the functionality was hidden by default in
Windows Vista (to reduce user confusion), but is still available, as
long as the underlying sound card drivers and hardware support it.
----------------

This is what allowed me to easily record to wav file the audio signal
why the midi file was being played. I have used this sound-recording
feature a few other times when recording music being played (streamed)
from various web sites.

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I was hoping you guys could help me out.

I have no idea how far you'll get with this:

TiMidity++ Windows Synthesizer

http://en.sourceforge.jp/projects/twsynth/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twsynth/
http://twsynth.sourceforge.net/

===========
What's TWSYNTH

TWSYNTH is a TiMidity++'s synthesizer engine which has Windows Midi
Input feature. Use it with an Midi loopback device, it works like a
Windows Midi Output device. So all softs with Midi Output feture can
acess TiMIdity++ synthesizer engine!! Enjoy !! exellent TiMidity++ MIDI
sound!!
===========

It might run on win-98, or you might need to also install KernelEx.

Have a look at this thread:

http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopic.php?p=213314

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 4:01 pm, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

> zarlox_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ome3vfadYvs
>
> > >http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID
>
> > >http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove.wav
>
> > Your system is using the GS Wavetable SW MIDI device, the same as
> > mine. All computers made after 2000 come with AC'97 cards. There's
> > nothing wrong with the new MIDI device, but MIDIs sequenced and
> > intended to be listened with the old OPL3 MIDI device don't sound
> > as good on the more modern ones.
>
> Well, I beg to disagree.
>
> I have listened to both my .wav recording and your version on youtube,
> and hands down I think the musical quality (instrument quality) of my
> .wav file is superior.

It doesn't matter what you think is superior, it was intended to sound
exactly the way it did in the time it was authored. The flute in the
MIDI device you and I use has too much timbre and sounds nothing like
a flute.

> I clearly hear the aliasing in the youtube version when the high-hat is
> tapped. It sounds awful.

I heard aliasing in your recording too, dude. The YouTube guy must've
also used a crappy recording program like Sndrec32.

> You might want to read this, particularly the last sentence in the first
> paragraph:
>
> http://www.schristiancollins.com/generaluser.php

It talks about "realistic". Realistic my ass. Listen to the Squarewave
instrument in MS GS Wavetable SW, that's not what squarewaves sound
like.
Are you gonna play the notes of NES tracks with a soundfont that plays
squarewaves like piano because its more "realistic"? It might sound
better to you because its not a series of beeps anymore but the fact
is that is not how the song was intended to sound or be listened to.
Your "realistic" song is the fake one. Get what I'm saying?

> I went out and downloaded the GeneralUser_GS_1.44 sound-font file and
> installed it in my VLC player (it uses fluidsynth), so now VLC can play
> midi files. The wav file that I recorded earlier was played by Windows
> Media Player 9. I don't know what sound-font WMP is using - if any.
>
> I've played the mid file with both WMP and VLC and I can't hear any
> difference.

Wait you lost me, they both resemble the wav you sent me, you say? In
that case, you have failed to utilize that new soundfont you
downloaded or that soundfont is exactly the same soundbank as the one
already on your soundcard. I'm looking for the OPL3 'soundfont'.

> I don't see how having AC-97 audio hardware (not the inferior SB16 sound
> card) makes my system any less of a "pure" win-98 system. By late 1999
> or early 2000, many win-98se systems came from the factory with
> motherboards that had on-board AC-97 hardware.

Well you use an inferior OS so I'd assume you all jump on the
bandwagon to trip on memory lane. That's what it is to me and what I'm
here for, to relive my very earliest days of messing with MIDIs on
Windows 95 even, not just 98. I'd love to get a chance to use Voyetra
AudioStation again, it's been almost 20 years. But what can I say, it
won't be the same without the same MIDI device.

Thanks for Timidity but it doesn't simulate OPL3. I've tried flipping
thru different modules to emulate but the MIDI I was playing kept
sounding the same.

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> It doesn't matter what you think is superior, it was intended to
> sound exactly the way it did in the time it was authored.

They were using what-ever hardware was available at the time -
FM-modulated audio synthesis, not wave-table synthesis.

> The flute in the MIDI device you and I use has too much timbre
> and sounds nothing like a flute.

It's midi. You want real-sounding instruments, get a human to play one.

> > I clearly hear the aliasing in the youtube version when the
> > high-hat is tapped. It sounds awful.
>
> I heard aliasing in your recording too, dude.

You want to explain how you heard ailiasing in a 44.1 khz sampled 16-bit
PCM audio stream?

> > You might want to read this, particularly the last sentence in
> > the first paragraph:
> >
> > http://www.schristiancollins.com/generaluser.php
>
> It talks about "realistic". Realistic my ass. Listen to the
> Squarewave instrument in MS GS Wavetable SW, that's not what
> squarewaves sound like.

WFT is a square wave?

The only place I like to see square waves is in my oscilloscope.

> Are you gonna play the notes of NES tracks with a soundfont that
> plays squarewaves like piano because its more "realistic"?

How many composers or transcribers _really_ want to create music that
sounds like it's being played on an Atari 800?

> It might sound better to you because its not a series of beeps
> anymore but the fact is that is not how the song was intended
> to sound or be listened to.

Intended my ass.

It was all they had available at the time.

Your argument is like saying that back when music came on vinyl records,
the needle skipped and there were pops and clicks in the music - because
that's what they intended. And then when the same music was later
pressed onto CD's, there were no skips or click or pops, which was
inferior because the music was intended to have clicks and pops and
skips.

> Your "realistic" song is the fake one. Get what I'm saying?

If you want to hear it today in exactly the same way you heard it 15
years ago, that's your choice.

But you can't say that the way it sounded 15 years ago was *exactly* the
way that the people that created the midi files wanted, or desired, or
intended it to sound at the time. How can you argue that they would
have wanted anything other than realistic-sounding musical instrument
sound?

> Wait you lost me, they both resemble the wav you sent me, you say?

Yes.

> In that case, you have failed to utilize that new soundfont you
> downloaded

No, because VLC won't play midi files unless it has a soundfont, and it
didn't have a soundfont file until I downloaded the GeneralUser_GS_1.4
file.

> or that soundfont is exactly the same soundbank as the one
> already on your soundcard.

My soundcard = C-Media AC97 Audio Device

> I'm looking for the OPL3 'soundfont'.

Have you seen this:

http://www3.telus.net/anapan8/oldscardemu.htm

Or this:

http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/46440-getting-a-classic-opl3-sound-via-windows..

I downloaded what I think is an OPL3 soundfont from here:

http://mscore.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mscore/trunk/mscore/share/sound/TimGM6mb.sf2

And told VLC to use it. I then had VLC play your groove.mid file, and
recorded it. Here's the link:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove2.wav

It sounds different than the version using the GS wavetable soundfont.
Does it sound more like you think it should?

If all you want to do is play midi files that *sound* like they were
being played through an FM-synthesis OPL3 sound card, then just go out
and get VLC and tell it to use the TimGM6mb.sf2 sound font and play your
midi files through VLC. It won't matter what OS you have.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <5129868C...@Guy.com>, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> writes:
>zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> It doesn't matter what you think is superior, it was intended to
>> sound exactly the way it did in the time it was authored.

zrlox: That may or may not be true. If they'd wanted a particular sound,
they'd have used .wav; .mid is the computer equivalent of sheet music
rather than a record/CD.

Of course, they may have had to use .mid because .wav took up too much
space at the time.

98 Guy: on the other hand, it _is_ possible that they composed the piece
(I haven't heard it: I'm offline at the moment) taking particular regard
to the midi hardware they had. This is not good practice, but is very
common in computing, and can be done without realizing: it's like
writing web pages that only display as intended if viewed with the same
browser the writer is using; the author/composer doesn't realise that
what they are creating can be displayed/played on different
software/hardware and might look/sound different. (Plenty of other
examples - word processor documents, ...)
[]

>> > I clearly hear the aliasing in the youtube version when the
>> > high-hat is tapped. It sounds awful.
>>
>> I heard aliasing in your recording too, dude.
>
>You want to explain how you heard ailiasing in a 44.1 khz sampled 16-bit
>PCM audio stream?

Depends what it was sampling; if it was something synthesized at, say,
22.05 kHz, I would definitely expect to hear some aliasing, especially
if the two were from non-locked clocks.
[]

>> It talks about "realistic". Realistic my ass. Listen to the
>> Squarewave instrument in MS GS Wavetable SW, that's not what

(I'm a little surprised at the mention of a "Squarewave instrument".)

>> squarewaves sound like.
>
>WFT is a square wave?

(Did you mean WTF?)

>
>The only place I like to see square waves is in my oscilloscope.

(I like the "in".) A square wave is what you get from the simplest
electronic oscillator you can build; it sounds harsh through a speaker
as it is full of harmonics (IIRR it contains third harmonic at one-third
level, fifth at one-fifth, seventh at one-seventh, and so on). I _think_
the "Stylophone" which is currently back as a novelty made square waves.

>
>> Are you gonna play the notes of NES tracks with a soundfont that
>> plays squarewaves like piano because its more "realistic"?
>
>How many composers or transcribers _really_ want to create music that
>sounds like it's being played on an Atari 800?

Some do, for retro purposes or just 'cos they like the sound (-:!

>
>> It might sound better to you because its not a series of beeps
>> anymore but the fact is that is not how the song was intended
>> to sound or be listened to.
>
>Intended my ass.
>
>It was all they had available at the time.

You may both be right. It _could_ be that the original composer would
have liked better what is available now; we can't know without asking
him/her. However, if z wants to hear the file as it was originally
_heard_ around the time of its composition, he has a right to want that,
too.

>
>Your argument is like saying that back when music came on vinyl records,
>the needle skipped and there were pops and clicks in the music - because
>that's what they intended. And then when the same music was later
>pressed onto CD's, there were no skips or click or pops, which was
>inferior because the music was intended to have clicks and pops and
>skips.

Alternatively, see the "original instruments" movement in classical
music. People get quite heated on both sides of that one! (On the
_whole_, I prefer most of the classics I like - which is mostly limited
to the popular and light end of the spectrum - on modern instruments,
especially pianos, though I have heard live Mozart's "Turkish Rondo" on
a "Turkish" piano of the type current in Vienna when he wrote it, and
that's a great novelty, but more because of the attachments it had
rather than the basic sound.)

>
>> Your "realistic" song is the fake one. Get what I'm saying?

I do (-:. It all depends on whether the composer _preferred_ what he had
then, or just had no choice, which as I say you'll not know without
asking him/her.

>
>If you want to hear it today in exactly the same way you heard it 15
>years ago, that's your choice.
>
>But you can't say that the way it sounded 15 years ago was *exactly* the
>way that the people that created the midi files wanted, or desired, or
>intended it to sound at the time. How can you argue that they would
>have wanted anything other than realistic-sounding musical instrument
>sound?

Depends what they were trying to do. The electric guitar, for example,
does not sound like the acoustic one: however, most players of it have
developed techniques (not to mention processing, such as effects pedals)
that take advantage of its particular sound.
[]

>> I'm looking for the OPL3 'soundfont'.
>
>Have you seen this:
>
>http://www3.telus.net/anapan8/oldscardemu.htm
>
>Or this:
>
>http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/46440-getting-a-classic-opl3
>-sound-via-windows..
>
>I downloaded what I think is an OPL3 soundfont from here:
>
>http://mscore.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mscore/trunk/mscore/share/sound
>/TimGM6mb.sf2
>
>And told VLC to use it. I then had VLC play your groove.mid file, and
>recorded it. Here's the link:
>
>http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove2.wav
>
>It sounds different than the version using the GS wavetable soundfont.
>Does it sound more like you think it should?
>
>If all you want to do is play midi files that *sound* like they were
>being played through an FM-synthesis OPL3 sound card, then just go out
>and get VLC and tell it to use the TimGM6mb.sf2 sound font and play your
>midi files through VLC. It won't matter what OS you have.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later) - Mik from S+AS
Limited (m...@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 23, 8:18 pm, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

> zarlox_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > It doesn't matter what you think is superior, it was intended to
> > sound exactly the way it did in the time it was authored.
>
> They were using what-ever hardware was available at the time -
> FM-modulated audio synthesis, not wave-table synthesis.

Yes and they thought their music sounded aesthetic enough otherwise
they would've used WAV.

I've been sequencing MIDIs since forever, my first few when we still
had the old Win95 machine. When I wrote music with an OPL3 playback
device, I liked how my music sounded and designed it with the
intention of it being listened to on that MIDI device only.

When we got our new computer with the AC'97 sound card that had the
onboard MS GS Wavetable, I hated how my old MIDIs sounded on it and
was depressed at the change in general but eventually got used to it
and wrote more MIDIs which would end up being a collection of 800+ in
the next few years. When I wrote them, I wrote them in a way that
sounded good with the new soundcard I had available and I'm sure they
would sound like shit if played back with OPL3 or any other MIDI
device that I did not design them for.

So, I don't get your point. Yes, they used what they had available to
them, but when someone uses something you authored in an unforseeable
way that you didn't intend nor had control over, how do you
erroneously assume it's for the better? Your logic is laughable.

> It's midi. You want real-sounding instruments, get a human to play one.

Um, the flute sounds how it should with OPL3 playback. A flute is
naturally soft and has little to no timbre. How do you assume the
author of GROOVE.MID intended to use a timbred woodwind instrument,
btw? Are you sure he chose the instrument because OPL3 does not have a
timbred woodwind instrument or because he wanted it to sound that way?

> You want to explain how you heard ailiasing in a 44.1 khz sampled 16-bit
> PCM audio stream?

You sampled a 22khz audio stream with twice the sampling rate with a
shitty recorder like Sndrec32 that does not feature anti-aliasing and
the clipping just augmented the artifacts. A spectrograph confirmed
what I heard. It's above the 22khz shelf, maybe you can't hear it
because you're old. At my age, I can hear up to 32.

> WFT is a square wave?

http://www.sendspace.com/file/y4v9k9
First half is real squarewaves from the real device, second is how you
hear them with this crappy MS GS Wavetable MIDI.

> How many composers or transcribers _really_ want to create music that
> sounds like it's being played on an Atari 800?

Look around, there's plenty. Why do you think old videogame music from
8-bit and 16-bit eras have such a large fanbase and many bands,
symphonies play the pieces in organized events that get crammed with
fans?

Why do you think Jean Michel Jarre is so successful, who by the way
created music out of "beeps and bloops" from electronic devices since
the 60s?

It's possible to create aesthetics and beauty with classic electronic
equipment.

> > It might sound better to you because its not a series of beeps
> > anymore but the fact is that is not how the song was intended
> > to sound or be listened to.
>
> Intended my ass.
>
> It was all they had available at the time.

And they still went on with it anyways. They could've just used WAV
which many companies went for, like Sony for their PS1 which by the
way had shittier music than its competitor N64 that still used a
limited, custom MIDI device.

> If you want to hear it today in exactly the same way you heard it 15
> years ago, that's your choice.

In this specific case, I want to re-live old memories. I was 6 years
old last time I played around with Voyetra AudioStation and listened
to the sample MIDIs with the old hardware. All other kind of music I
have the proper methods to play them the way they were meant to be
played.

> But you can't say that the way it sounded 15 years ago was *exactly* the
> way that the people that created the midi files wanted, or desired, or
> intended it to sound at the time. How can you argue that they would
> have wanted anything other than realistic-sounding musical instrument
> sound?

Is a timbred-flute realistic? Do squarewaves really sound like a
trumpet clogged with an elephant testicle?

> No, because VLC won't play midi files unless it has a soundfont, and it
> didn't have a soundfont file until I downloaded the GeneralUser_GS_1.4
> file.

You should be able to play MIDIs with any player you want but change
the MIDI device in Windows sound settings. I have a few, MS GS
Wavetable SW being the default.

> > or that soundfont is exactly the same soundbank as the one
> > already on your soundcard.
>
> My soundcard = C-Media AC97 Audio Device

Your soundcard is irrelevant, the MIDI synth can be onboard but not
always. But the key here is the MIDI device, and we both have the same
one.

> Have you seen this:
>
> http://www3.telus.net/anapan8/oldscardemu.htm
>
> Or this:
>

> http://www.doomworld.com/vb/everything-else/46440-getting-a-classic-o.....

Yes, old page. All links are dead.

> I downloaded what I think is an OPL3 soundfont from here:
>

> http://mscore.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/mscore/trunk/mscore/share/so...

It isn't.

> And told VLC to use it. I then had VLC play your groove.mid file, and
> recorded it. Here's the link:
>
> http://www.fileden.com/files/2012/6/15/3316408/groove2.wav

Bad boy, I pointed out your flaws last time you did this and you
didn't listen to a word I said. Lower your goddamn volume, your sample
is CLIPPED. This one at least didn't sound aliased, whether or not it
really was.

I appreciate the help and all, but would it kill you to encode to MP3
so I don't have to wait 5 minutes downloading?

> It sounds different than the version using the GS wavetable soundfont.
> Does it sound more like you think it should?

You have the YouTube link to know how its supposed to sound like. And
no, the flute still sounds like a timbred mess of shit.

> If all you want to do is play midi files that *sound* like they were
> being played through an FM-synthesis OPL3 sound card, then just go out
> and get VLC and tell it to use the TimGM6mb.sf2 sound font and play your
> midi files through VLC. It won't matter what OS you have.

Didn't need VLC, I loaded TimGM6mb.sf2 with Synthfont and it sounds
nothing like OPL3.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 24, 1:42 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Of course, they may have had to use .mid because .wav took up too much
> space at the time.

WAVs with lower samplerates and bit depths didn't sound too bad and
had bitrates comparable to MP3s and many people did use them all the
time.

> (I'm a little surprised at the mention of a "Squarewave instrument".)

It's the most standing-out example I could think off the top of my
head. Older MIDI synths properly reproduced the Squarewave instrument
and then the onboard MS GS with the AC'97s fucked this up. On the
other hand, I vaguely remember a different, irrelevant instrument (FX4
Atmosphere) sounding like squarewaves on OPL3 instead of Lead1 Square
which ironically sounded like the FX4 Atmosphere instrument. Unnoticed
fuckup on the part of the developers? Who knows.

> Alternatively, see the "original instruments" movement in classical
> music. People get quite heated on both sides of that one! (On the
> _whole_, I prefer most of the classics I like - which is mostly limited
> to the popular and light end of the spectrum - on modern instruments,
> especially pianos, though I have heard live Mozart's "Turkish Rondo" on
> a "Turkish" piano of the type current in Vienna when he wrote it, and
> that's a great novelty, but more because of the attachments it had
> rather than the basic sound.)

As a fan of diversity, I personally don't mind remixing or
reconstructing literature to adopt modern times as long as it's
properly presented as being a remix.
Disrespecting the original and all the traditional effort plus
revolutionary breakthroughs it made in its time is equivalent to book-
burning in my opinion. Artists like Mozart have died in poverty and
ridicule to create the revolutionary beauty of their time that only a
century after their deaths the idiot masses recognized... only to have
their works butchered in a way they could not forsee a couple
centuries later and soon never remembered for the original, genuine
revolutionary tune that made history.

Replicating their music in any other way than the original is an
insult to all those classical artists that never got to live to see
their works gain worldwide avid listeners and generate so much wealth.
They got shit on for being ahead of their time, and now they get to be
shit on for not being alive to defend their art.

> I do (-:. It all depends on whether the composer _preferred_ what he had
> then, or just had no choice, which as I say you'll not know without
> asking him/her.

As a MIDI sequencer myself, I know that I have no opportunity to
intend what soundfont I want my music to be listened on without
knowing it a priori. When I wrote MIDIs with OPL3 soundfont I wrote
what sounded good on that and wouldn't have an idea how it would sound
on future soundfonts. When I did, I had to edit the notes, add some
modulation, change instruments or add transpositional harmonics to get
it to sound as good as the other soundfont.

> Depends what they were trying to do. The electric guitar, for example,
> does not sound like the acoustic one: however, most players of it have
> developed techniques (not to mention processing, such as effects pedals)
> that take advantage of its particular sound.

Thank you. Should've thought of this earlier.

[98 Guy]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > They were using what-ever hardware was available at the time -
> > FM-modulated audio synthesis, not wave-table synthesis.
>
> Yes and they thought their music sounded aesthetic enough otherwise
> they would've used WAV.

No they wouldn't, because back then disk space was at a premium, and
they weren't going to distribute music that took 10 mb per minute in wav
format.

> I've been sequencing MIDIs since forever

Good for you. I pat you on the head little boi.

> When I wrote music with an OPL3 playback device, I liked how my
> music sounded and designed it with the intention of it being
> listened to on that MIDI device only.

And if FM synthesis never existed in the first place - if wave-table
sound cards existed right-off-the-bat on day one, you would have liked
it then instead of pissing on it today.

> So, I don't get your point. Yes, they used what they had available
> to them, but when someone uses something you authored in an
> unforseeable way that you didn't intend nor had control over,
> how do you erroneously assume it's for the better?

I don't listen to midi music at all. So I give a rat's ass about midi
music and midi technology.

Speaking as an engineer, FM sound synthesis was a technological crutch
for computer sound generation until technology allowed for wavetable
synthesis. Wavetable synthesis is a superior method to generate music
and sound effects. It is more capable at accurately reproducing the
sounds of real musical instruments.

If you want to cry like a baby because your midi files don't sound right
when played on a GS synth, that's your problem.

> Your logic is laughable.

Your goals and arguments are infantile.

> > You want to explain how you heard ailiasing in a 44.1 khz sampled
> > 16-bit PCM audio stream?
>
> You sampled a 22khz audio stream with twice the sampling rate

Yes I did, and by that method I satisfied the nyquist criteria for
correct digital audio sampling.

> With a shitty recorder like Sndrec32

And by what technical basis can you claim that SNDrec32 is a "shitty"
recorder?

> that does not feature anti-aliasing

How do you know that the sampled output hasn't been properly filtered at
22 khz so that it contains no content above that?

> and the clipping just augmented the artifacts.

Yea well so I admit that I didn't putz with the sound levels before
recording those samples.

> At my age, I can hear up to 32.

Oh, so you have super-human hearing eh?

> > I downloaded what I think is an OPL3 soundfont from here:
>

> It isn't.

Well if OPL3 was so god-damn important for your people who think that FM
synthesis is the kick-ass way to synthesize music, then why hasn't
anyone created an OPL3 sound-font then?

> I appreciate the help and all, but would it kill you to encode
> to MP3 so I don't have to wait 5 minutes downloading?

What - 10 mb takes you 5 minutes to download?

Do you have a dial-up connection to the internet?

Maybe that should tell you why music wasn't distributed in wav (or even
mp3) format 15 years ago.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

98 guy, y u so mad bro? Calm down.

On Feb 24, 9:30 am, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

> zarlox_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > They were using what-ever hardware was available at the time -
> > > FM-modulated audio synthesis, not wave-table synthesis.
>
> > Yes and they thought their music sounded aesthetic enough otherwise
> > they would've used WAV.
>
> No they wouldn't, because back then disk space was at a premium, and
> they weren't going to distribute music that took 10 mb per minute in wav
> format.

See above post.

"WAVs with lower samplerates and bit depths didn't sound too bad and
had bitrates comparable to MP3s and many people did use them all the
time."

I still have a CD backup of our HDD back when we had Win95 and WAVs
were all over the place, for both apps and games and they were hardly
noticeable in terms of space, not any more than GIFs or BMPs.

> And if FM synthesis never existed in the first place - if wave-table
> sound cards existed right-off-the-bat on day one, you would have liked
> it then instead of pissing on it today.

I'm not pissing on anything, I just like to listen to music as it was
intended to be listened to. As I said, I created only maybe 10 MIDIs
while we had the old hardware and made 800+ for MS GS. Most of them
would likely sound horrid on OPL3 since they weren't written for it.

> I don't listen to midi music at all. So I give a rat's ass about midi
> music and midi technology.

You listen to it all the time, the authors just mix it with separate
chords/ambience/vocals and ship as CD/MP3 so you have no idea which
synthesizer was used.

> Speaking as an engineer, FM sound synthesis was a technological crutch
> for computer sound generation until technology allowed for wavetable
> synthesis. Wavetable synthesis is a superior method to generate music
> and sound effects. It is more capable at accurately reproducing the
> sounds of real musical instruments.

So why does the flute sound like a clarinet and Lead 1 (Square) just
wrong?
Realistic my ass. I have to use the ocarina instead of the flute when
I need the flute, and there's no alternative for Squarewaves. The
choice of guitars are limited and sound rather wrong. I could go on
and on.

> If you want to cry like a baby because your midi files don't sound right
> when played on a GS synth, that's your problem.

u mad brah.

> Your goals and arguments are infantile.

The goal I have right here at this minute, maybe. Wanting to relive
childhood memories. But fact is the majority prefer original
recordings to butchered remixes.

> > You sampled a 22khz audio stream with twice the sampling rate
>
> Yes I did, and by that method I satisfied the nyquist criteria for
> correct digital audio sampling.

*facepalm* You realize digital audio is ALREADY sampled that way by
default? Samplerate =/= hertz frequency. A samplerate of 44 reproduces
a maximum audio frequency of 22 kHz as it is known in real, non-
digital audio and a samplerate of 22 captures only a 11kHz pitch. The
Nyquist criteria requires two samples per hertz. It's confusing to
newbs, shouldn't be to engineers like you.

When I said MS GS MIDIs don't have content above a samplerate of
22,050, that's exactly what I meant, nothing above 11,025 hz. So no
need to record at twice that, especially with a recorder with no anti-
alias feature that ended up resampling a 22khz audio stream to 44 with
aliasing artifacts.

> > With a shitty recorder like Sndrec32
>
> And by what technical basis can you claim that SNDrec32 is a "shitty"
> recorder?

See above.

> > that does not feature anti-aliasing
>
> How do you know that the sampled output hasn't been properly filtered at
> 22 khz so that it contains no content above that?

Because I could hear aliasing above that. If you're as familiar with
aliasing as I am, you'll know that when upscaling from 22 to 44, the
lowest frequencies from the original become the highest in the new
upper shelf and the highest become lowest. From a spectrographic point
of view, the new extra 22khz shelf becomes a mirror view of the
bottom.
It's a neat way to brighten up dull recordings with very low
samplerates, in a way restoring the upper frequencies.

> > and the clipping just augmented the artifacts.
>
> Yea well so I admit that I didn't putz with the sound levels before
> recording those samples.
>
> > At my age, I can hear up to 32.
>
> Oh, so you have super-human hearing eh?

Nope, just young. I think I actually have worse hearing than most
people my age. My 18-year-old girlfriend can hear up to 19khz (38khz
sampling rate), while I could only go up to 17khz at that age. I also
have rather defective hearing on the low frequencies because I can't
hear below 45hz, while my girl can go as low as 15.

> > > I downloaded what I think is an OPL3 soundfont from here:
>
> > It isn't.
>
> Well if OPL3 was so god-damn important for your people who think that FM
> synthesis is the kick-ass way to synthesize music, then why hasn't
> anyone created an OPL3 sound-font then?

Don't know, I'm not active in the emulation community. That's why I
came here.

> What - 10 mb takes you 5 minutes to download?
>
> Do you have a dial-up connection to the internet?

No, and that's not the point. I don't wanna deal with waiting as much
time as it took me in the past to download an MP3 as now just because
some people think compression isn't necessary anymore. I offered
enough courtesy and uploaded my MP3 at the max quality which ended
being less than 500KB and took a few seconds to transfer, not a few
minutes.

> Maybe that should tell you why music wasn't distributed in wav (or even
> mp3) format 15 years ago.

I did request you use a lower sampling rate if you couldn't be assed
to encode to MP3. That's what people did in the past to make WAVs less
burdensome, and were usually in mono.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<48117269-d636-4675...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>On Feb 24, 1:42 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Of course, they may have had to use .mid because .wav took up too much
>> space at the time.
>
>WAVs with lower samplerates and bit depths didn't sound too bad and
>had bitrates comparable to MP3s and many people did use them all the
>time.
>
>> (I'm a little surprised at the mention of a "Squarewave instrument".)
>
>It's the most standing-out example I could think off the top of my
>head. Older MIDI synths properly reproduced the Squarewave instrument

What is this "Squarewave instrument"? Is it just a squarewave?
[]

>> Alternatively, see the "original instruments" movement in classical
>> music. People get quite heated on both sides of that one! (On the

[]

>As a fan of diversity, I personally don't mind remixing or
>reconstructing literature to adopt modern times as long as it's
>properly presented as being a remix.
>Disrespecting the original and all the traditional effort plus
>revolutionary breakthroughs it made in its time is equivalent to book-
>burning in my opinion. Artists like Mozart have died in poverty and
>ridicule to create the revolutionary beauty of their time that only a
>century after their deaths the idiot masses recognized... only to have
>their works butchered in a way they could not forsee a couple
>centuries later and soon never remembered for the original, genuine
>revolutionary tune that made history.

I wasn't talking about deliberate remixes and rearrangements, I was
talking about the difference between a performance on a piano of the
time versus a performance still on a piano, but a modern one (iron
frame, different mechanism, possibly different tuning - but still a
piano). But this is probably getting off-topic for the current
discussion.
[]

>> I do (-:. It all depends on whether the composer _preferred_ what he had
>> then, or just had no choice, which as I say you'll not know without
>> asking him/her.
>
>As a MIDI sequencer myself, I know that I have no opportunity to
>intend what soundfont I want my music to be listened on without
>knowing it a priori. When I wrote MIDIs with OPL3 soundfont I wrote
>what sounded good on that and wouldn't have an idea how it would sound
>on future soundfonts. When I did, I had to edit the notes, add some
>modulation, change instruments or add transpositional harmonics to get
>it to sound as good as the other soundfont.

When you write a MIDI file, you have no control over what it is played
on - the player can even switch the instruments around if he/she wants
to. If you really want to fix how it sounds, you shouldn't release it as
a MIDI, but as a WAV (or, these days, MP3, AAC, or some other recording
format).
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

What would be unusual would be if there weren't any coincidences at all for
several days in a row. Andy Roberts (UMRAt), 23rd. October 1998.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> What is this "Squarewave instrument"?

Lead 1 (Square)

> Is it just a squarewave?

Yes. There are stylized versions but they sound nothing like the
bullshit by the MS GS synth.

> When you write a MIDI file, you have no control over what it is played
> on - the player can even switch the instruments around if he/she wants
> to. If you really want to fix how it sounds, you shouldn't release it as
> a MIDI, but as a WAV (or, these days, MP3, AAC, or some other recording
> format).

I knew jack shit about any of that in first grade when I began messing
with digital music. But even now, I'm not gonna convert 800 MIDIs to
MP3s especially since the process is not automated and the process
time would be the length of all the MIDIs combined since the only way
to convert is to intercept sound going out of the sound card. But I've
largely given up music altogether so it's not that important. I'm
impressed at how long the MS GS MIDI device has survived, though. It
came with my latest i7 PC even.

[98 Guy]

Look at these:

http://woolyss.com/chipmusic/chipmusic-soundfonts/OPL-3_FM_128M.zip

http://www.pokipoki.org/dsa/index.php?EMU%20de%20MIDI

http://milkpot.sakura.ne.jp/fmmidi/

http://www.pokipoki.org/dsa/index.php?EMU%20de%20MIDI

http://soundshock.se/phpBB2/index.php

[philo]

On 02/23/2013 09:30 AM, zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Voyetra
> AudioStation to mess with MIDIs.

According to this
http://download.cnet.com/AudioStation/3000-2139_4-10070509.html

It will run in XP

so there should be no need for you to install Win98 in a virtual machine


--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

Thanks a lot 98 guy! That OPL3 soundfont isn't it but it's close
enough. It felt really weird hearing the pieces again after 15 years.
Now if there were only such thing as mindfonts...

I'll still be on the lookout for a more genuine synthesis, I'll ask
those guys at soundshock later.

Thanks again.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<0b27b064-df0a-465b...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>On Feb 24, 3:13�pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> What is this "Squarewave instrument"?
>
>Lead 1 (Square)
>
>> Is it just a squarewave?
>
>Yes. There are stylized versions but they sound nothing like the
>bullshit by the MS GS synth.

I'm very surprised if something is being presented as a squarewave but
isn't, as it must be the simplest of all sounds!

>
>> When you write a MIDI file, you have no control over what it is played
>> on - the player can even switch the instruments around if he/she wants
>> to. If you really want to fix how it sounds, you shouldn't release it as
>> a MIDI, but as a WAV (or, these days, MP3, AAC, or some other recording
>> format).
>
>I knew jack shit about any of that in first grade when I began messing
>with digital music. But even now, I'm not gonna convert 800 MIDIs to
>MP3s especially since the process is not automated and the process
>time would be the length of all the MIDIs combined since the only way
>to convert is to intercept sound going out of the sound card. But I've

I'll be surprised if there is no MIDI-to-WAV converter out there. Hang
on: googling the phrase comes up with about 411,000 hits:

http://download.cnet.com/MIDI-To-WAV-Converter/3000-2170_4-10833627.html
says it uses SoundFonts by default making it quicker than "the other
method"; http://www.hamienet.com/midi2mp3 is an online one; and so on.
Some are commercial, and some of the links just tell you how to do what
you know already, but I am sure some are free.

>largely given up music altogether so it's not that important. I'm
>impressed at how long the MS GS MIDI device has survived, though. It
>came with my latest i7 PC even.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Look out for #1. Don't step in #2 either.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 26, 12:26 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <0b27b064-df0a-465b-b80c-62b336a64...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

>
> zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
> >On Feb 24, 3:13 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> ><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> What is this "Squarewave instrument"?
>
> >Lead 1 (Square)
>
> >> Is it just a squarewave?
>
> >Yes. There are stylized versions but they sound nothing like the
> >bullshit by the MS GS synth.
>
> I'm very surprised if something is being presented as a squarewave but
> isn't, as it must be the simplest of all sounds!

The very earliest synths did it correctly but time went on and they
thought they'd be cute by stylizing it into something more complex
until it resembled less and less what it's supposed to. I guess they
wanted it to sound less like a cellphone beep as it would sound by
itself. Even the OPL3's synth of Squarewaves look more like rounded
rectangle waves when viewed in an editor, yet the strike of the notes
are more sharp. And just as I vaguely remembered, the FX4 (Atmosphere)
instrument sounds closer to a squarewave than Lead 1 (Square) which
sound something in between a sine and square.

Professional soundcards (non-onboard) like the later generations of
Soundblaster have much smoother and realistic instruments including
for Squarewave. I noticed OPL3 has no synth for half the guitars and
its synth for Sawwaves sucks as bad as MS GS wavetable.

> I'll be surprised if there is no MIDI-to-WAV converter out there. Hang
> on: googling the phrase comes up with about 411,000 hits:
>
> http://download.cnet.com/MIDI-To-WAV-Converter/3000-2170_4-10833627.html
> says it uses SoundFonts by default making it quicker than "the other

> method";http://www.hamienet.com/midi2mp3is an online one; and so on.

> Some are commercial, and some of the links just tell you how to do what
> you know already, but I am sure some are free.

Lol! Hamienet. The site I uploaded some of my stuff on back in the
day. I wonder if they're still up there.
And there's an intelligent method to quickly convert MIDIs?
Interesting. I've really gotten behind the tech. Gotta catch up.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<14c1cbfd-254f-4e09...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
[]

>The very earliest synths did it correctly but time went on and they
>thought they'd be cute by stylizing it into something more complex
>until it resembled less and less what it's supposed to. I guess they
>wanted it to sound less like a cellphone beep as it would sound by
>itself. Even the OPL3's synth of Squarewaves look more like rounded
>rectangle waves when viewed in an editor, yet the strike of the notes

It's just that I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually
_synthesizing_ a square wave.
[]

>Soundblaster have much smoother and realistic instruments including
>for Squarewave. I noticed OPL3 has no synth for half the guitars and
>its synth for Sawwaves sucks as bad as MS GS wavetable.

I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
squarewave.
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"... four Oscars, and two further nominations ... On these criteria, he's
Britain's most successful film director." Powell or Pressburger? no; Richard
Attenborough? no; Nick Park!

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 26, 4:00 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <14c1cbfd-254f-4e09-8f49-76de2c78e...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
>
> []
>
> >The very earliest synths did it correctly but time went on and they
> >thought they'd be cute by stylizing it into something more complex
> >until it resembled less and less what it's supposed to. I guess they
> >wanted it to sound less like a cellphone beep as it would sound by
> >itself. Even the OPL3's synth of Squarewaves look more like rounded
> >rectangle waves when viewed in an editor, yet the strike of the notes
>
> It's just that I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually
> _synthesizing_ a square wave.
> []
>
> >Soundblaster have much smoother and realistic instruments including
> >for Squarewave. I noticed OPL3 has no synth for half the guitars and
> >its synth for Sawwaves sucks as bad as MS GS wavetable.
>
> I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
> squarewave.

Obviously you've never listened to JMJ, Complex Numbers or played any
8-bit consoles that use Square, Saw and Triangle waves exclusively
with much of the music being pleasant on the ears.
Complex Numbers song with extensive use of Squarewave:
http://mp3.music.lib.ru/mp3/c/complex_num/complex_num-2029_ad-2.mp3

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message
> <14c1cbfd-254f-4e09...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
> []
>> The very earliest synths did it correctly but time went on and they
>> thought they'd be cute by stylizing it into something more complex
>> until it resembled less and less what it's supposed to. I guess they
>> wanted it to sound less like a cellphone beep as it would sound by
>> itself. Even the OPL3's synth of Squarewaves look more like rounded
>> rectangle waves when viewed in an editor, yet the strike of the notes
>
> It's just that I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually
> _synthesizing_ a square wave.
> []
>> Soundblaster have much smoother and realistic instruments including
>> for Squarewave. I noticed OPL3 has no synth for half the guitars and
>> its synth for Sawwaves sucks as bad as MS GS wavetable.
>
> I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
> squarewave.

Agreed.
How could a square wave be an instrument? Ditto for a pure sinewave, for
that matter.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 12:12 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>
>
> > In message

> > <14c1cbfd-254f-4e09-8f49-76de2c78e...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

> > zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
> > []
> >> The very earliest synths did it correctly but time went on and they
> >> thought they'd be cute by stylizing it into something more complex
> >> until it resembled less and less what it's supposed to. I guess they
> >> wanted it to sound less like a cellphone beep as it would sound by
> >> itself. Even the OPL3's synth of Squarewaves look more like rounded
> >> rectangle waves when viewed in an editor, yet the strike of the notes
>
> > It's just that I find it difficult to imagine anyone actually
> > _synthesizing_ a square wave.
> > []
> >> Soundblaster have much smoother and realistic instruments including
> >> for Squarewave. I noticed OPL3 has no synth for half the guitars and
> >> its synth for Sawwaves sucks as bad as MS GS wavetable.
>
> > I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
> > squarewave.
>
> Agreed.
> How could a square wave be an instrument?   Ditto for a pure sinewave, for
> that matter.

Ask Jean Michel Jarre, he's probably the first to make use of it in
music and gain international commendation.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<25ca2063-659d-48c8...@f5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>On Feb 27, 12:12�am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> > I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
>> > squarewave.
>>
>> Agreed.
>> How could a square wave be an instrument? � Ditto for a pure sinewave, for
>> that matter.

I'm glad someone agrees with me, and sees what I'm getting at.

>
>Ask Jean Michel Jarre, he's probably the first to make use of it in
>music and gain international commendation.

I doubt he was the first, actually (I think Rolf Harris might have beat
him by a decade or so); but whether he did or didn't, it's not an
instrument, it's a waveform.

It's like saying red is art. Red is a colour. It can be _used_ in art.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"So, I take it you've ... been with a man before?" "I'm a virgin. I'm just not
very good at it." Topper Harley & Ramada Thompson (Charlie Sheen & Valeria
Golino), in "Hot Shots!" (1991).

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 4:12 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <25ca2063-659d-48c8-8e4f-2dd7bac0e...@f5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,

>
> zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
> >On Feb 27, 12:12 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> >wrote:
> >> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
> >> > I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
> >> > squarewave.
>
> >> Agreed.
> >> How could a square wave be an instrument? Ditto for a pure sinewave, for
> >> that matter.
>
> I'm glad someone agrees with me, and sees what I'm getting at.
>
>
>
> >Ask Jean Michel Jarre, he's probably the first to make use of it in
> >music and gain international commendation.
>
> I doubt he was the first, actually (I think Rolf Harris might have beat
> him by a decade or so); but whether he did or didn't, it's not an
> instrument, it's a waveform.
>
> It's like saying red is art. Red is a colour. It can be _used_ in art.

It's equipped into many guitars and keyboards who may or may not
reproduce it perfectly.
We obviously disagree on the definition of an instrument but in this
digital age, many have ceased to be in the physical form we're used
to. As squarewaves are a distinct sound which can be used as legit
musical notes, I think it qualifies as an instrument.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

Btw, do you have samples of Rolf Harris' electronic song? JMJ released
his first album in 1969 but I haven't listened to his earliest.

[Bill in Co]

But the logic is wrong. A square wave, triangle wave, and sine wave each
produce a distinct sound (when fed to an amplifier and heard from the
loudspeaker), but that has nothing to do with whether they qualify as a
musical instrument. A waveform is not an instrument.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<19da5ff5-6219-4b26...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>Btw, do you have samples of Rolf Harris' electronic song? JMJ released
>his first album in 1969 but I haven't listened to his earliest.

I was referring, rather tongue-in-cheek, to his having been employed to
market the Stylophone; however, I do have some feeling that he did do
some impromptu things with it outside the actual ad.s. But I could be
wrong about that. Whether released commercially or just appearing during
his TV shows again I'm not sure.

I didn't know JMJ was _that_ early - what was it? I think I first became
aware of him for Oxygene, which I place in the 1970s.

Earlier users of the output of electronic oscillators (though I can't
name individual waveforms!) include the Tornados (Telstar), the BBC
Radiophonic Workshop of course (especially Delia Derbyshire [sp?]), and
the Musique Concrete movement in France. Plus I believe Stockhausen.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A bird in the hand makes it hard to blow your nose.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 27, 8:41 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> zarlox_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Feb 27, 4:12 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

> > <G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <25ca2063-659d-48c8-8e4f-2dd7bac0e...@f5g2000pbs.googlegroups.com>,
>

> >> zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
> >>> On Feb 27, 12:12 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> >> []
> >>>>> I just can't think of a squarewave as an _instrument_. It's just - a
> >>>>> squarewave.
>
> >>>> Agreed.
> >>>> How could a square wave be an instrument? Ditto for a pure sinewave,
> >>>> for
> >>>> that matter.
>
> >> I'm glad someone agrees with me, and sees what I'm getting at.
>
> >>> Ask Jean Michel Jarre, he's probably the first to make use of it in
> >>> music and gain international commendation.
>
> >> I doubt he was the first, actually (I think Rolf Harris might have beat
> >> him by a decade or so); but whether he did or didn't, it's not an
> >> instrument, it's a waveform.
>
> >> It's like saying red is art. Red is a colour. It can be _used_ in art.
>

> > It's equipped into many guitars and keyboards who may or may not
> > reproduce it perfectly.
> > We obviously disagree on the definition of an instrument but in this
> > digital age, many have ceased to be in the physical form we're used
> > to. As squarewaves are a distinct sound which can be used as legit
> > musical notes, I think it qualifies as an instrument.
>
> But the logic is wrong. A square wave, triangle wave, and sine wave each
> produce a distinct sound (when fed to an amplifier and heard from the
> loudspeaker), but that has nothing to do with whether they qualify as a
> musical instrument. A waveform is not an instrument.

All instruments produce waveforms, a piano looks like a triangle with
stairs, a trumpet looks like jaguar teeth. And a sinewave can be
produced non-digitally with an actual physical instrument, so YOUR
logic is wrong.

On Feb 28, 12:13 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <19da5ff5-6219-4b26-afab-9ef4c884d...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

>
> zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
> >Btw, do you have samples of Rolf Harris' electronic song? JMJ released
> >his first album in 1969 but I haven't listened to his earliest.
>

> I didn't know JMJ was _that_ early - what was it? I think I first became
> aware of him for Oxygene, which I place in the 1970s.

His first officially released album is Deserted Palace released around
1971 but he played the Moog Synthesizer for other bands years before
he got his own label. The Wikipedia page features an early sample in
1969 that sounds like a Sawwave.

> Earlier users of the output of electronic oscillators (though I can't
> name individual waveforms!) include the Tornados (Telstar), the BBC
> Radiophonic Workshop of course (especially Delia Derbyshire [sp?]), and
> the Musique Concrete movement in France. Plus I believe Stockhausen.

Good to know. The 8-bit music fanboy community would be especially
interested in this. They get rather lonely when mocked for listening
to cell phone beeps and chirps and need a grandfather figure to look
up to. :P

[Bill in Co]

WHAT musical instruments can produce a pure sinewave, squarewave, triangle
wave, or sawtooth waveform?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<8cae056a-dc06-44fe...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>On Feb 27, 8:41 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:

[]

>> But the logic is wrong. A square wave, triangle wave, and sine wave each
>> produce a distinct sound (when fed to an amplifier and heard from the
>> loudspeaker), but that has nothing to do with whether they qualify as a
>> musical instrument. A waveform is not an instrument.
>
>All instruments produce waveforms, a piano looks like a triangle with
>stairs, a trumpet looks like jaguar teeth. And a sinewave can be
>produced non-digitally with an actual physical instrument, so YOUR
>logic is wrong.

Piano and guitar produce decaying waveforms, by the nature of their
construction - not just diminishing in amplitude, either.

But just because instruments produce waveforms, does not mean waveforms
are necessarily instruments. (Actually I do not know of any instrument
that produces a pure sinewave, though some come close.)

>
>On Feb 28, 12:13 am, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
><G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <19da5ff5-6219-4b26-afab-9ef4c884d...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> zarlox_...@hotmail.com writes:
>> >Btw, do you have samples of Rolf Harris' electronic song? JMJ released
>> >his first album in 1969 but I haven't listened to his earliest.
>>
>> I didn't know JMJ was _that_ early - what was it? I think I first became
>> aware of him for Oxygene, which I place in the 1970s.
>
>His first officially released album is Deserted Palace released around
>1971 but he played the Moog Synthesizer for other bands years before

Interesting, I didn't know that.
[]

>> Earlier users of the output of electronic oscillators (though I can't
>> name individual waveforms!) include the Tornados (Telstar), the BBC
>> Radiophonic Workshop of course (especially Delia Derbyshire [sp?]), and
>> the Musique Concrete movement in France. Plus I believe Stockhausen.
>
>Good to know. The 8-bit music fanboy community would be especially
>interested in this. They get rather lonely when mocked for listening
>to cell phone beeps and chirps and need a grandfather figure to look
>up to. :P

Some links - Telstar (1962):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telstar_%28song%29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrEPzsx1gQ&feature=fvwrel
Delia Derbyshire (1937-2001: best known work her realisation, using
lengths of tape and other things, of Ron Grainer's score for a certain
TV programme): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delia_Derbyshire
BBCRW (1958-1998 and 2012-):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophonic_Workshop
musique concrčte (194x-):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musique_concr%C3%A8te
Stockhausen (1928-2007): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockhausen

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... her greatest triumph to date has been doggy-paddling to each area of the
shipping forecast. - Eddie Mair (on Charlotte Green), Radio Times 13-19
October 2012

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 4:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>

A tuning fork produces a perfect sinewave. A hammond organ can produce
a near-perfect sinewave but it might need some specific tuning to
control harmonics. I don't know of any acoustic instrument that can
reproduce the other ones perfectly, but I always thought a clarinet
sounded very close to a squarewave minus the sharp edges, call it a
rounded-square wave. And there has to be woodwind instruments that
sound like trianglewaves. I've played old games with triangle tunes
that intended to mimic a flute/ocarina and did a damn good job of it.

But since you didn't say the instrument had to be acoustic: many
electric guitars and keyboards come equipped with it, but most of them
intentionally don't produce perfect forms of the wave for stylistic
purposes. I like Soundblaster pro's synth of Sawwaves than real
sawwaves themselves.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<d5dda009-18e8-4b9b...@rq16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>On Feb 28, 4:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:

[]

>> WHAT musical instruments can produce a pure sinewave, squarewave, triangle
>> wave, or sawtooth waveform?
>
>A tuning fork produces a perfect sinewave. A hammond organ can produce

Yes, a tuning fork is probably the closest.

>a near-perfect sinewave but it might need some specific tuning to
>control harmonics. I don't know of any acoustic instrument that can
>reproduce the other ones perfectly, but I always thought a clarinet
>sounded very close to a squarewave minus the sharp edges, call it a
>rounded-square wave. And there has to be woodwind instruments that

If it's rounded, it's not a squarewave (-:!

>sound like trianglewaves. I've played old games with triangle tunes
>that intended to mimic a flute/ocarina and did a damn good job of it.

Something with a reed is probably closest to a triangle, or at least
sawtooth, wave. Especially if just the mouthpiece (with reed) is played;
once the sound resonates in the body, this modifies it. I've always
thought a flute has very _few_ harmonics, which I wouldn't think is
characteristic of either square or triangle.

>
>But since you didn't say the instrument had to be acoustic: many
>electric guitars and keyboards come equipped with it, but most of them
>intentionally don't produce perfect forms of the wave for stylistic
>purposes. I like Soundblaster pro's synth of Sawwaves than real
>sawwaves themselves.

Fair enough, as long as you know they're not the pure waveform. (Note
I'm not saying the pure waveform is necessarily pleasant to listen to.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Galbraith's Law of Human Nature: Faced with the choice between changing one's
mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on
the proof." - John Kenneth Galbraith

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Feb 28, 5:13 pm, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> If it's rounded, it's not a squarewave (-:!

A rounded-square I said -.- A square without the sharp edges.

> Something with a reed is probably closest to a triangle, or at least
> sawtooth, wave. Especially if just the mouthpiece (with reed) is played;
> once the sound resonates in the body, this modifies it. I've always
> thought a flute has very _few_ harmonics, which I wouldn't think is
> characteristic of either square or triangle.

No, square has a shitload of harmonics, sawtooth is even worse.
Triangle doesn't have too many and it does resemble many woodwind
instruments minus the breath noise.

> Fair enough, as long as you know they're not the pure waveform. (Note
> I'm not saying the pure waveform is necessarily pleasant to listen to.)

Some are but the pure waveforms are not considered aesthetic enough by
the mainstream so few are designed such.

[Bill in Co]

I don't consider a tuning fork a "musical instrument" (it's just a test
instrument).

And for that matter, I'm not even sure if it produces a pure sinewave (and
NO harmonics, whatsover). (a pure sinewave only has a fundamental
frequency and no harmonics).

> A hammond organ can produce
> a near-perfect sinewave but it might need some specific tuning to
> control harmonics. I don't know of any acoustic instrument that can
> reproduce the other ones perfectly, but I always thought a clarinet
> sounded very close to a squarewave minus the sharp edges, call it a
> rounded-square wave. And there has to be woodwind instruments that
> sound like trianglewaves. I've played old games with triangle tunes
> that intended to mimic a flute/ocarina and did a damn good job of it.
>
> But since you didn't say the instrument had to be acoustic: many

> electric guitars and keyboards come equipped with it, ...

I guess I'm too much of a purist to consider a "keyboard", and its
electronically generated (artificial) waveforms, a real music instrument.
:-)

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message
> <8cae056a-dc06-44fe...@q8g2000pbn.googlegroups.com>,
> zarlo...@hotmail.com writes:
>> On Feb 27, 8:41 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
> []
>>> But the logic is wrong. A square wave, triangle wave, and sine wave
>>> each
>>> produce a distinct sound (when fed to an amplifier and heard from the
>>> loudspeaker), but that has nothing to do with whether they qualify as a
>>> musical instrument. A waveform is not an instrument.
>>
>> All instruments produce waveforms, a piano looks like a triangle with
>> stairs, a trumpet looks like jaguar teeth. And a sinewave can be
>> produced non-digitally with an actual physical instrument, so YOUR
>> logic is wrong.
>
> Piano and guitar produce decaying waveforms, by the nature of their
> construction - not just diminishing in amplitude, either.
>
> But just because instruments produce waveforms, does not mean waveforms
> are necessarily instruments. (Actually I do not know of any instrument
> that produces a pure sinewave, though some come close.)

Both points above are well taken.

[Tim Slattery]

"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:


>>> WHAT musical instruments can produce a pure sinewave, squarewave,
>>> triangle wave, or sawtooth waveform?

>> A tuning fork produces a perfect sinewave.

>I don't consider a tuning fork a "musical instrument" (it's just a test
>instrument).

OK...other than that, a flute with the player maintaining a constant
air pressure probably comes closest.

>And for that matter, I'm not even sure if it produces a pure sinewave (and
>NO harmonics, whatsover). (a pure sinewave only has a fundamental
>frequency and no harmonics).

Yeah well...nobody's perfect. I expect that the only way to get a
perfect sine wave would be some kind of electronic synthesizer. And if
you looked closely enough, you'd find imperfections there too.

--
Tim Slattery
Slatt...@bls.gov

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

I doubt anyone cares but I thought I'd state for the record that I did
a double-blind frequency response test and I can just barely hear up
to 19kHz with 40/60 correct trials (not sure what the confidence
interval of that is). I can't hear 19.2 or above. Haven't tried 19.1
and don't want to, my head hurts.
So it appears I do indeed have superhuman hearing after all. Yeehaw!

[Bill in Co]

Tim Slattery wrote:
> "Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>> WHAT musical instruments can produce a pure sinewave, squarewave,
>>>> triangle wave, or sawtooth waveform?
>
>>> A tuning fork produces a perfect sinewave.
>
>> I don't consider a tuning fork a "musical instrument" (it's just a test
>> instrument).
>
> OK...other than that, a flute with the player maintaining a constant
> air pressure probably comes closest.

In reality, I don't think there is anything in nature that produces a pure
sine, square, triangle, sawtooth, or whatever waveform.

>> And for that matter, I'm not even sure if it produces a pure sinewave
>> (and
>> NO harmonics, whatsover). (a pure sinewave only has a fundamental
>> frequency and no harmonics).
>
> Yeah well...nobody's perfect. I expect that the only way to get a
> perfect sine wave would be some kind of electronic synthesizer. And if
> you looked closely enough, you'd find imperfections there too.

Yes, a sinewave oscillator can produce a sinewave, although as you said,
there will still be some imperfections. But nothing in nature can, to my
knowledge.

And nobody would want to listen to it anyway (sounds without harmonics are
pretty boring!).

Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I guess
so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I guess
I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)

[Bill in Co]

Really good for now, so enjoy it!
It falls off with age, however (a condition known as presbycusis). I think
by age 60 or so it's down to about 10 kHz or so, so enjoy it while you can!

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 1, 3:06 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Thanks, I'll try. Last test, I used cut-off frequency shelves of music
instead of tones so I didn't think I could hear more than 16. It's
good to know I'm not deteriorating THAT fast.
I still can't hear below 40 Hz though and it says people with normal
hearing should sense 15-20. I happen to like very loud low bass in
music so it would suck if my low-shelf hearing would also deteriorate.

So by 2050 I won't be able to hear cymbals anymore eh? Meh, we'll have
cyborg ear implants by then.

[Bill in Co]

No, I can still hear cymbals, but probably not to the full "depth" you can.

Presbycuspis results in a slow decline in hearing with age, so don't worry.
(The high frequency loss is slow, unless you go to a very loud rock concert,
which can do permanent and instantaneous (and non-reversible) damage).

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"?    I guess
> so, at least in one sense.   For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
> instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized.  But I guess
> I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way.  :-)

A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
gender. Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

And my favorite, EverQuest! The 77th richest country in the world and
it doesn't even exist. http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/info_and_tech/game_theories.htm

So, just because squarewaves don't exist doesn't mean it's not an
instrument. ;)

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 1, 4:32 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>

http://www.sendspace.com/file/67hx54
Can you hear the high crystalline notes from 1.85 to 3 seconds of the
clip? They are above 10 kHz. If you can't, all you'll hear is the
accordion in that part.

[Bill in Co]

I can hear them. I can actually hear up to about 11 kHz.

[Bill in Co]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I guess
>> so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
>> instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
>> guess
>> I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)
>
> A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
> means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
> and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
> gender.

True.

> Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
> of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
> kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:

Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often
may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
today, for just one stellar example. :-)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <_9ydncIYFdK-KazM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I guess
>>> so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
>>> instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
>>> guess
>>> I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)

A little over-so, I think. At what level of technology do you draw the
line - the addition of a resonating chamber to a vibrating string, which
goes back into time immemorial and reached sophistication in the middle
of the last millennium (some say peaking in Cremona; I'd say still
developing); or where the vibrations are sensed electrically (the
electric guitar); or where they're _created_ in electronics? I think you
mean the last of these, but since some of those have produced things I
like, I'm not agin' 'em.

>>
>> A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
>> means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
>> and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
>> gender.
>
>True.
>
>> Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%

Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
plasma isn't massless!]

>> of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
>> kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

(-: It's abstract ("virtual") to at least a third level.

>
>I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
>So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:
>
>Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
>sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

Ditto.

>
>Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
>don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
>painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
>that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Ah, conceptual art. The first to do it _may_ arguably be art, in that
it's something no-one has done before - though people can (and do!)
endlessly debate whether the novel action is sufficiently noteworthy. I
think the shark might be; I doubt the bed is. Sometimes it's a
performance rather than a piece of art as such, and you then have to
argue about whether performance is art (again, I'd say it can be, but
certainly isn't always).

>
>Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often

Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.

>may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
>today, for just one stellar example. :-)
>
>

Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
been with us. It could equally be argued that modern regulations mean
that at least some aspects of construction (e. g. levels of thermal
insulation, assorted safety and accessibility aspects) are better than
they once were. (Of course, some constructors may not build to the rules
- but it was ever thus ... [there are just more rules now {which itself
of course is not _always_ a good thing ...}])

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... now that television history is simply /The One Show/ in doublet and hose.
Alison Graham, Radio Times 14-20 July 2012

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)?   I
> sure don't.  It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
past still produced today? Depends, I listen to anything with a good
beat. I rarely listen to anything slow, though. As a kid I liked that
Hungarian Rhapsody by Liszt which was included as a sample MIDI with
Voyetra AudioStation (how the hell do you even play that on a piano?)

> Or do you like so-called "modern art"?   I don't, for the most part.  I
> don't even think it's art.  (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
> painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
> that's supposed to pass for "art"?  :-).

Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, fuck
the 'New Age' crap.

Anyone seen any Demos? http://awards.scene.org/archive.php
There's some modern art for you.

> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better.  In fact, it often
> may be worse.  Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
> today, for just one stellar example.  :-)

What's wrong with the design of modern homes? Are you talking about
the ones with paper-thin walls?

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 2, 12:58 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>

Good. Out of curiosity, what's it like to not hear above that? I mean,
for me when I hear a sine sweep the tone gets so thin at 19khz that it
fades and I can't imagine the possibility of hearing above that much
like discerning something half as thin as a hair. So what exactly
happens when a sine sweep goes above 11khz for you? If I generated a
11khz tone which I can hear clearly and did an audio fadeout, would
this be how you perceive it?

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <_9ydncIYFdK-KazM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I
>>>> guess
>>>> so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an
>>>> acoustic
>>>> instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
>>>> guess I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)
>
> A little over-so, I think. At what level of technology do you draw the
> line - the addition of a resonating chamber to a vibrating string, which
> goes back into time immemorial and reached sophistication in the middle
> of the last millennium (some say peaking in Cremona; I'd say still
> developing);

That's still acoustical, so it's great. :-)

> or where the vibrations are sensed electrically (the
> electric guitar);

Is borderline. :-)

> or where they're _created_ in electronics?

Is now over the line. :-) (and I'm an EE, so go figure)

> I think you
> mean the last of these, but since some of those have produced things I
> like, I'm not agin' 'em.

Well, actually they've all produced things I like too. But whether I like
it or not is really tangential to my point.

I mean, some of the most popular stuff on TV, or in movies, or in music, for
that matter, is really crap (like some singers who really can't sing, but
think they can), from a purely artistic point of view. But the stuff sells.
So is that all that matters? I don't think so, anyways.

>>> A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
>>> means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
>>> and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
>>> gender.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
>
> Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
> plasma isn't massless!]

I always thought electrostatic speakers were supposed to be the "ne plus
ultra", but maybe that's considered old technology nowadays.

>>> of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
>>> kills billions and makes the earth rotate.
>
> (-: It's abstract ("virtual") to at least a third level.
>>
>> I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
>> So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:
>>
>> Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)?
>> I
>> sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.
>
> Ditto.
>>
>> Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
>> don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
>> painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board,
>> and
>> that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).
>
> Ah, conceptual art. The first to do it _may_ arguably be art, in that
> it's something no-one has done before - though people can (and do!)
> endlessly debate whether the novel action is sufficiently noteworthy.

Just by that very nature, no, I sure don't. :-)

> I think the shark might be; I doubt the bed is. Sometimes it's a
> performance rather than a piece of art as such, and you then have to
> argue about whether performance is art (again, I'd say it can be, but
> certainly isn't always).
>>
>> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
>> often
>
> Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.

But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know,
"new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some examples
in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)

>> may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new
>> homes today, for just one stellar example. :-)
>>
>>
> Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
> been with us. It could equally be argued that modern regulations mean
> that at least some aspects of construction (e. g. levels of thermal
> insulation, assorted safety and accessibility aspects) are better than
> they once were.

THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically better
(more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation is
only a small part of "construction".

[Bill in Co]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
>> sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.
>
> I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
> century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
> past still produced today?

Yes, I meant the real classical music, which is indeed old: Bach,
Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Liszt, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Schumann,
Tchaikovsky, etc. Although admitedly, I haven't been listening to them as
much as R&R and some blues folk music, and classical rock these days.
(yes, I know, 80's rock and classical rock deviates from my purity thing :-)

> Depends, I listen to anything with a good
> beat. I rarely listen to anything slow, though. As a kid I liked that
> Hungarian Rhapsody by Liszt which was included as a sample MIDI with
> Voyetra AudioStation (how the hell do you even play that on a piano?)
>
>> Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
>> don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
>> painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board,
>> and
>> that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).
>
> Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, fuck
> the 'New Age' crap.

Exactly.

> Anyone seen any Demos? http://awards.scene.org/archive.php
> There's some modern art for you.
>
>> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
>> often
>> may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new
>> homes today, for just one stellar example. :-)
>
> What's wrong with the design of modern homes? Are you talking about
> the ones with paper-thin walls?

Yup, and the overall tacky construction (i.e.: "just throw the boxes up and
mass produce them as fast as possible"). Check out some of the older homes
(pre-1950's), and see the care that was taken in their construction.
(Granted, their outside wall insulation sucked, however).

[Bill in Co]

In terms of music, and especially cymbals, you miss some of the upper
harmonics, so the sound is dulled.

For example, cymbals have tons of harmonics (as I recall), spanning most of
the audible frequency range, so if you cut off the high frequencies, they
sound dulled. You can hear it for yourself by running music thru a low pass
filter (or with treble cut).

If I use a test signal generator, I can easily hear the tone until I
increase the frequency above around 10 kHz, at which point it starts getting
much weaker, so when I get it to 12 kHz, I hear nothing. But it's not a
straight line response, as the ear (for all of us) is most sensitive in the
mid frequency range, and thus it's a curve, peaking in the mid frequency
range (a few kHz, as I recall)

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 2, 6:27 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> zarlox_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
> >> sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.
>
> > I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
> > century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
> > past still produced today?
>
> Yes, I meant the real classical music, which is indeed old:   Bach,
> Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Liszt, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Schumann,
> Tchaikovsky, etc.   Although admitedly, I haven't been listening to them as
> much as R&R and some blues folk music, and classical rock these days.
> (yes, I know, 80's rock and classical rock deviates from my purity thing :-)

I listen to all genres except country, if it has a good beat to it.
There are covers today that produce upbeat forms of classical using
the same instruments and getup from 400 years ago. The new Starcraft
game coming out will feature a piece by Banya I heard. She's awesome.

> > Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, fuck
> > the 'New Age' crap.
>
> Exactly.

The postmodernist movement has been nothing but a giant fuckup, a
failure. And not just in the art business but other fields as well,
like psychology, which brought more bullshit and misery than religion
has.

> Yup, and the overall tacky construction (i.e.: "just throw the boxes up and
> mass produce them as fast as possible").  Check out some of the older homes
> (pre-1950's), and see the care that was taken in their construction.
> (Granted, their outside wall insulation sucked, however).

Gotcha, but you see this happening because of the transition to
automation. They were built with care because it was built by people,
now we're ATTEMPTING to have infant machines automate it who are not
yet fully capable and limited to simpler, crappy designs. Not to
mention the costs are pushed to an absolute minimum. People want
wealth, they don't wanna earn it.
In a few decades 3D printing will take on unprecedented forms and be
able to build anything by itself given proper instructions.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> In terms of music, and especially cymbals, you miss some of the upper
> harmonics, so the sound is dulled.
>
> For example, cymbals have tons of harmonics (as I recall), spanning most of
> the audible frequency range, so if you cut off the high frequencies, they
> sound dulled.  You can hear it for yourself by running music thru a low pass
> filter (or with treble cut).

How would you know this? Do you even remember what higher pitches
sounded like?

[Bill in Co]

You can see it by using a spectrum analysis module in a good audio editor
program. So if you have a good audio editor, it will include a spectrum
analysis module (like in Sound Forge), or have a frequency domain window in
it (like in Cool Edit or Adobe Audition), where you can see the frequencies
present on the vertical axis vs time, instead of the waveform vs time (you
can switch between them). As to the second question, I think so, but
obviously I'm not certain. :-)

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 3, 2:35 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

Yes but you describe as it as if you can hear it (or remember it). How
do you know something's dull if you can't hear the upper shelf? A
spectrograph means nothing to me if it's displaying an upper shelf I
can't perceive and thus can't relate to. 44khz doesn't sound dull to
me because I can't hear 88 for example. :P

[Bill in Co]

Think of listening to something with cymbals in it, and using a low pass
filter to cut off the high frequencies. Actually, a good audio editor will
have a low pass filter, where you can adjust the cutoff frequency in real
time and hear the results. Try it! You'll notice it just dulls the sound,
as you lower the cutoff frequency of the filter.

Also, I should have mentioned that I don't think there is any musical
instrument (I mean real ones, i.e. acoustic) that produces sounds *only* in
the high frequency range (like say 8 kHz, and above). Again, cymbals cover
a broad and wide frequency spectrum. So again, it's not like I'm missing
hearing an instrument. (Now if you say "yeah, but you can't hear a 15 khz
note", that is true. But musical instruments don't produce purely 15 kHz
notes, and listening to a sinewave oscillator doesn't constitute music. :-)

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 3, 6:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> Think of listening to something with cymbals in it, and using a low pass
> filter to cut off the high frequencies. Actually, a good audio editor will
> have a low pass filter, where you can adjust the cutoff frequency in real
> time and hear the results. Try it! You'll notice it just dulls the sound,
> as you lower the cutoff frequency of the filter.

I know, I've tried that before which is how I came to the erroneous
conclusion that I could only hear up to 16. It's easier to discern a
19khz sinewave at full volume than some vague, quiet top-shelf spikes
of cymbals.

I viewed 96khz audio samples on a spectrograph that had real
legitimate content above 40khz which of course I couldn't hear even
when deleting frequencies below 40khz and normalizing the volume (does
give you a headache though). It just didn't look right for you to call
something dull when you don't even remember what not-dull sounds like,
same as how I can't imagine what anything above 19khz is. :P

> Also, I should have mentioned that I don't think there is any musical
> instrument (I mean real ones, i.e. acoustic) that produces sounds *only* in
> the high frequency range (like say 8 kHz, and above). Again, cymbals cover
> a broad and wide frequency spectrum. So again, it's not like I'm missing
> hearing an instrument. (Now if you say "yeah, but you can't hear a 15 khz
> note", that is true. But musical instruments don't produce purely 15 kHz
> notes, and listening to a sinewave oscillator doesn't constitute music. :-)

Actually, that piece I sent you had high crystalline notes which
didn't occupy broad frequencies and could be as high as they wanted to
be. You said you were barely able to hear the highest 11khz crystal
notes. It would suck to lose that in a couple years.

You're right about the rest though. There is nothing special about
hearing above 11k, you aren't missing much.

[Bill in Co]

zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:37 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Think of listening to something with cymbals in it, and using a low pass
>> filter to cut off the high frequencies. Actually, a good audio editor
>> will
>> have a low pass filter, where you can adjust the cutoff frequency in real
>> time and hear the results. Try it! You'll notice it just dulls the
>> sound,
>> as you lower the cutoff frequency of the filter.
>
> I know, I've tried that before which is how I came to the erroneous
> conclusion that I could only hear up to 16. It's easier to discern a
> 19khz sinewave at full volume than some vague, quiet top-shelf spikes
> of cymbals.

And again, cymbals cover such a wide and broad frequency spectrum.

> I viewed 96khz audio samples on a spectrograph that had real
> legitimate content above 40khz which of course I couldn't hear even
> when deleting frequencies below 40khz and normalizing the volume (does
> give you a headache though). It just didn't look right for you to call
> something dull when you don't even remember what not-dull sounds like,
> same as how I can't imagine what anything above 19khz is. :P

But I think I might remember that the sound of cymbals was slightly more
rich with more of the upper harmonics being preserved. That they had a
somewhat lighter or brighter sound. How much so I can't recall, however.
:-)

>> Also, I should have mentioned that I don't think there is any musical
>> instrument (I mean real ones, i.e. acoustic) that produces sounds *only*
>> in
>> the high frequency range (like say 8 kHz, and above). Again, cymbals
>> cover
>> a broad and wide frequency spectrum. So again, it's not like I'm missing
>> hearing an instrument. (Now if you say "yeah, but you can't hear a 15
>> khz
>> note", that is true. But musical instruments don't produce purely 15 kHz
>> notes, and listening to a sinewave oscillator doesn't constitute music.
>> :-)
>
> Actually, that piece I sent you had high crystalline notes which
> didn't occupy broad frequencies and could be as high as they wanted to
> be. You said you were barely able to hear the highest 11khz crystal
> notes. It would suck to lose that in a couple years.

Not a couple of years for you, I expect. Because it's a gradual loss with
time.

But are you saying that those crystalline notes had nothing at all present
in the frequency spectrum below, say, 10 kHz? Of course, if it came out of
a "synthesizer", and it's *fundamental* frequency was 10 kHz (or above), I
guess that's possible. But no such natural (acoustic) musical instrument
exists that I'm aware of. :-)

> You're right about the rest though. There is nothing special about
> hearing above 11k, you aren't missing much.

Just some "lightness" or "increased transparency", I think.

[zarlo...@hotmail.com]

On Mar 4, 1:42 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> And again, cymbals cover such a wide and broad frequency spectrum.

They are smothered in the lower frequencies by the other instruments,
thus most audible in the upper frequencies where nothing else occupies
it.

> But I think I might remember that the sound of cymbals was slightly more
> rich with more of the upper harmonics being preserved.  That they had a
> somewhat lighter or brighter sound.  How much so I can't recall, however.
> :-)

I see.

> Not a couple of years for you, I expect.  Because it's a gradual loss with
> time.

I know, I was saying it would suck for you if your frequency response
was lower than it was. Not hearing above 11khz is tolerable as you
aren't missing much, anything below and I'd be pissed.

> But are you saying that those crystalline notes had nothing at all present
> in the frequency spectrum below, say, 10 kHz?  Of course, if it came out of

Correct. All you hear below is the accordion.

> a "synthesizer", and it's *fundamental* frequency was 10 kHz (or above), I
> guess that's possible.  But no such natural (acoustic) musical instrument
> exists that I'm aware of.  :-)

This music is from an old game but I think any high note on a
glockenspiel or triangle would surely not produce anything below a
high frequency, its lowest harmonic would still be at 11khz and the
rest of them even higher.

> Just some "lightness" or "increased transparency", I think.

In the piece I sent you, I deleted the 0-11khz shelf and all I could
hear was a few clicks that were the upper harmonics of the crystalline
notes and vague high-pitched shuffles of the cymbals that are barely
audible. So yeah, you're not missing much. But as I said, in a few
years you'll probably lose the ability to hear the actual legit high
notes that are in the 10-11khz shelf and that would suck.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <deydnZ6wYMc6Oa_M...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <_9ydncIYFdK-KazM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
>> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>> zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>>>> wrote:

[]

>>>>> instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
>>>>> guess I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)
>>
>> A little over-so, I think. At what level of technology do you draw the
>> line - the addition of a resonating chamber to a vibrating string, which

[]

>That's still acoustical, so it's great. :-)
>
>> or where the vibrations are sensed electrically (the
>> electric guitar);
>
>Is borderline. :-)

But is _such_ a unique sound! And, to me, definitely conveys the nature
of the string. (OK, it's a metal "string", but so are the ones in a
piano.)

>
>> or where they're _created_ in electronics?
>
>Is now over the line. :-) (and I'm an EE, so go figure)

(Me too.) Some of those have their own characteristic sounds, too,
though.
[]

>Well, actually they've all produced things I like too. But whether I like
>it or not is really tangential to my point.

I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a
real "instrument"? If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
which excludes a lot of music from being "real". Especially as you've
agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three categories. (Though I think
we're both on agreement that the phrase "the square wave instrument"
rather startled us.)
[]

>>>> Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
>>
>> Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
>> plasma isn't massless!]
>
>I always thought electrostatic speakers were supposed to be the "ne plus
>ultra", but maybe that's considered old technology nowadays.

Yes, you don't hear about those any more, do you! (Mind you, I'm out of
touch with the hi-fi world in general: as an EE, I sort of stopped
paying a lot of attention when CDs came in, and so much of the hi-fi
world/media started to witter on about unmeasurables.)
[]

>>> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
>>> often
>>
>> Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.
>
>But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know,
>"new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some examples
>in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)

"New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:.
[]

>> Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always

[]

>THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically better
>(more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation is
>only a small part of "construction".

[]
Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date
from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well
differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock,
both good and bad.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
[Cambridge University Math Dept.]

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <Z7idnb7PwbtoO6_M...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co" <surly_curmudg...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>> Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
>>> sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.
>>
>> I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
>> century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
>> past still produced today?
>
>Yes, I meant the real classical music, which is indeed old: Bach,
>Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Liszt, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Schumann,
>Tchaikovsky, etc. Although admitedly, I haven't been listening to them as

How about Stravinsky? Then Gershwin, Joplin, Rodgers and
Hammerstein/Hart, Hazlehurst, Goodwin, Coates, Lloyd Webber, McCartney,
Andersson/Ulvvaeus ... all great tunesmiths.

>much as R&R and some blues folk music, and classical rock these days.
>(yes, I know, 80's rock and classical rock deviates from my purity thing :-)

(-:
[]

>> What's wrong with the design of modern homes? Are you talking about
>> the ones with paper-thin walls?
>
>Yup, and the overall tacky construction (i.e.: "just throw the boxes up and
>mass produce them as fast as possible"). Check out some of the older homes

Ah, Jake Thackeray ...

>(pre-1950's), and see the care that was taken in their construction.
>(Granted, their outside wall insulation sucked, however).
>
>

(See US/UK viewpoint earlier.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And if you kill Judi Dench, you can't go back home. - Bill Nighy (on learning
to ride a motorbike [on which she would be side-saddle] for "The Best Exotic
Marigold Hotel"), quoted in Radio Times 18-24 February 2012.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <Wpqdna3WwP18Z67M...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
[]

>Also, I should have mentioned that I don't think there is any musical
>instrument (I mean real ones, i.e. acoustic) that produces sounds *only* in
>the high frequency range (like say 8 kHz, and above). Again, cymbals cover

[]
The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
(sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
- piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)

[Bill in Co]

What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it.
(and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake),
electronic instruments in there :-).

> If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
> pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
> which excludes a lot of music from being "real".

I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-)

> Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three
> categories.

Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean).
Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they all
really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great
voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music,
nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor
could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time, Helen
Forrest does. :-)

> (Though I think
> we're both on agreement that the phrase "the square wave instrument"
> rather startled us.)
> []
>>>>> Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
>>>
>>> Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
>>> plasma isn't massless!]
>>
>> I always thought electrostatic speakers were supposed to be the "ne plus
>> ultra", but maybe that's considered old technology nowadays.
>
> Yes, you don't hear about those any more, do you!

I don't know, because I don't keep track anymore.

>(Mind you, I'm out of
> touch with the hi-fi world in general: as an EE, I sort of stopped
> paying a lot of attention when CDs came in, and so much of the hi-fi
> world/media started to witter on about unmeasurables.)
> []

Same here. :-)

>>>> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
>>>> often
>>>
>>> Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.
>>
>> But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know,
>> "new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some
>> examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)
>
> "New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:.
> []

But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that.

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> In message <Wpqdna3WwP18Z67M...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
> []
>> Also, I should have mentioned that I don't think there is any musical
>> instrument (I mean real ones, i.e. acoustic) that produces sounds *only*
>> in
>> the high frequency range (like say 8 kHz, and above). Again, cymbals
>> cover
> []
> The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
> (sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
> away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
> certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
> - piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)

I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are you
sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to
believe).

Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8 kHz
fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics).

I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample, I'm
pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz!

Here is one link:
http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qtKdnW7yj6MkL6jM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]
>> The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
>> (sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
>> away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
>> certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
>> - piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)
>
>I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are you
>sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to
>believe).

I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say)
is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content
at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it
just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of
glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of
wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to
different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim;
not sure if those have high fundamentals.

>
>Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8 kHz
>fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics).

I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a
broad-spectrum noise.

>
>I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample, I'm
>pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz!
>
>Here is one link:
>http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
>
>

Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the
boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle
though, or any of the higher tuned percussion.

I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are
often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to
affect the timbre of lower registers. There probably are some pieces of
music, though, just to make a point.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <Er2dna7RZNnjNKjM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

[]

>> I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a
>> real "instrument"?
>
>What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it.
>(and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake),
>electronic instruments in there :-).
>
>> If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
>> pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
>> which excludes a lot of music from being "real".
>
>I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-)

Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.
I have a version - call it an interpretation - of Bach's Toccata (the
one that I think in full is "and Fugue in D minor", and starts with that
well-known triplet) by the 1970s (I think) British group Sky, which many
classical purists would shrink from in horror, but I like to think old
JS would approve of.

>
>> Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three
>> categories.
>
>Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean).
>Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they all
>really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great
>voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music,
>nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor
>could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time, Helen
>Forrest does. :-)

Ah. Training, to my ears, can cause harm as well as good, where the
(female, at least) voice is concerned: it can do some good, but I
personally find the sound of the soprano voice rather unpleasant. Which
is a pity, as most of the great sopranos that I've actually seen
interviewed seem to be rather nice people. I have a CD of Kiri Te
Kanawa, for example, from when she was a nightclub singer around New
Zealand, before someone told her she could be a soprano - and I much
prefer it. (As for the most _beautiful_ voice, the one that just makes
me sit with a silly smile is Judith Durham. She probably _is_ trained,
but if so, it didn't spoil it.)
[]

>>>>> Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
>>>>> often
>>>>
>>>> Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.
>>>
>>> But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know,
>>> "new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some
>>> examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-)
>>
>> "New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:.
>> []
>
>But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that.

Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that
doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ...

>
>>>> Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
>> []
>>> THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically
>>> better
>>> (more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation
>>> is
>>> only a small part of "construction".
>> []
>> Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date
>> from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well
>> differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock,
>> both good and bad.)
>> --
>> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>>
>> "This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
>> [Cambridge University Math Dept.]
>
>

I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that
OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator
and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <qtKdnW7yj6MkL6jM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta
>>> (sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting
>>> away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty
>>> certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes
>>> - piccolino, ocarina maybe ...)
>>
>> I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are
>> you
>> sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to
>> believe).
>
> I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say)
> is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content
> at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it
> just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of
> glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of
> wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to
> different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim;
> not sure if those have high fundamentals.

Sounds "high" to me too, but that doesn't preclude stuff below 8 kHz,
necessarily.

>> Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8
>> kHz
>> fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics).
>
> I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a
> broad-spectrum noise.

I was quite surprised to see it go down to 200 Hz, however. Now that really
surprised me.

>> I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample,
>> I'm
>> pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz!
>>
>> Here is one link:
>> http://www.independentrecording.net/irn/resources/freqchart/main_display.htm
>>
>>
> Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the
> boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle
> though, or any of the higher tuned percussion.

Well, if one of us were willing, we could probably find some recording with
a triangle played in it and isolate that one segment, and check out its
spectrum. My guess is it, too, is fairly wide in its spectrum content.

> I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are
> often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to
> affect the timbre of lower registers.

Most likely.

[Bill in Co]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <Er2dna7RZNnjNKjM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
> <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> []
>>> I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a
>>> real "instrument"?
>>
>> What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it.
>> (and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake),
>> electronic instruments in there :-).
>>
>>> If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually
>>> pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line
>>> which excludes a lot of music from being "real".
>>
>> I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-)
>
> Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
> now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.

I'd bet only a select few. :-)

Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more
irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often,
character.

>>>>> Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
>>> []
>>>> THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically
>>>> better
>>>> (more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But
>>>> insulation
>>>> is only a small part of "construction".
>>> []
>>> Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date
>>> from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well
>>> differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock,
>>> both good and bad.)
>>> --
>>> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>>>
>>> "This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left."
>>> [Cambridge University Math Dept.]
>>
>>
> I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that
> OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator
> and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure.

I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like
all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply,
but not always.
Here, I've left some in for you: :-)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <aOWdnTE_66ct-KTM...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co

<surly_cu...@earthlink.net> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[]

>> Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive
>> now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available.
>
>I'd bet only a select few. :-)

I don't know: the new-fangled pianoforte was eventually accepted by most
of them. OK, it took a few years, possibly centuries for some
instruments, but a great composer will use everything available, and
each sound to take advantage of its particular characteristics. Equally,
there have always been some who eschew certain sounds. And finally, some
of the best melodies survive the most horrendous things being done to
them by rearrangers (and more drastic), and still sound pleasing.
[]

>> Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that
>> doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ...
>
>Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more
>irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often,
>character.

Ah, you (and me both) are getting old - that's been the cry for
millenia; there's a similar statement to yours above that I see
occasionally, attributed to one of the ancient Greeks. (I nearly typed
that as Geeks!)
[]

>I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like
>all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply,
>but not always.
>Here, I've left some in for you: :-)

[]
Please do cut off my .sig when quoting me - that's why I have the
separator line (-:!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual
rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand, quoted by Deb
Shinder 2012-3-30

[erwin...@aol.com]

On Saturday, February 23, 2013 9:30:03 AM UTC-6, zarlo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I keep running into dead ends here. I have a modern i7 machine with
>
> Windows XP and Microsoft's GS Wavetable SW for MIDI which sounds
>
> different than the one I remember in Win95/98 when I used Voyetra
>
> AudioStation to mess with MIDIs.
>
>
>
> I tried Virtualbox which doesn't simulate the old OPL3 MIDI device, I
>
> tried Microsoft's VirtualPC 2007 which simulates it horribly to the
>
> point that it's unlistenable.
>
>
>
> I was hoping you guys could help me out.
>
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ome3vfadYvs That's how the MIDIs are
>
> supposed to sound like.
>
> http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/midi/GROOVE.MID

I was in the same boat for a long time. My Gateway 2000 with Windows 95 had a 16bit sound card and the Voyetra AudioStation program on it and the midis sounded perfect. When I changed PC's my newer one had a different soundcard and software and the midis sounded terrible in comparison. I tried several soundcards from various manufacturers until I took the plunge and bought a SoundBlaster Live. Wow! SoundBlaster must use some great midi soundbanks because the midi tracks sounded just like they did in my old GateWay. Since then I've moved on to a Windows 7 PC with a Creative X-Fi soundcard and still have great sounding Midis. It appears that Creative (SoundBlaster) cards give great midi playback while some others don't.