Version 7.0

[John Harrison]

Another comment now that I have looked at it:

M.6 - Requires electronically generated sound to be declared.

Should a performance rung with Seage's apparatus (or the Whitechapel
equivalent) also be declared?

- If so, then 'electronic' is not the right discriminator.

- If not, then it could be argued perverse since most simulators produce a
far more realistic sound, and could therefore be argued as closer to the
norm.

In both cases the timing is a function of position rather than bell
dynamics as with a normal clapper so it could be argued that there is a
different ringing technique. (However, John Norris's measurements suggest
that the difference is too small to have much practical significance.)

--
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

Should a performance rung with Seage's apparatus (or the Whitechapel
equivalent) also be declared?

A good question, and I see the problem either way.  Perhaps the distinction between mechanical sound and electronically-generated sound is the most interesting / useful to readers of performance reports, so performances on ting-tangs wouldn't warrant separate disclosure.  (Of course bands wishing to disclose such a performance would be free to do so.)  But I'd be interested to hear any arguments the other way, and in particular how a disclosure clause covering ting-tang performances might be worded.

Tim

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEfck56nYum7p965-DF5...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But I'd be interested to hear any arguments the other way, and in
> particular how a disclosure clause covering ting-tang performances might
> be worded.

My reason for asking the question wasn't so much that I think ting tangs
are abnormal enough to need declaring but that although they are mechanical
(and steel on bronze, which seems to excite some people) the experience of
a performance with them is less like normal bells than it would be with
most modern simulators.

Assuming that with external audibility condition has been removed, the
sound of the performance will be what is heard by the ringers (and any
other observers) in the ringing room. If the performance was rung by a
visiting band, the bells were up and the sound was generated from above by
a good audio system, if no one told them the sound was simulated they might
ring the whole performance unaware of that fact.

If performance reports are expected to split hairs that the performers were
unaware of, is there not something wrong. Should performance reports
declare whether any bells have clappers with wooden shafts, which I
understand usually improve both the sound (and can improve the handling)?

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 12:55 PM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk>
wrote:
> ... If the performance was rung by a

> visiting band, the bells were up and the sound was generated from above by
> a good audio system, if no one told them the sound was simulated they might
> ring the whole performance unaware of that fact.
>
> If performance reports are expected to split hairs that the performers were
> unaware of, is there not something wrong.

I'm planning a project to develop a full-scale visual ringing simulator (so that learners can be taught, including ropesight, without the need for a band around them), where one of the goals is to have an audio system of the quality you describe.  While that's a whole other topic, I hope to contribute to creating the issue you describe!

We originally included the electronically-generated sound disclosure (M.6) because we recognized some people wouldn't want to count, for their own purposes, performances on simulators.  I think this remains a helpful disclosure, even if occasionally it isn't followed simply because the band wasn't aware.

Similarly, whether there should be a ting-tang disclosure probably comes down to whether there are enough people who would object to these being called peals, etc, and would want the disclosure in order to be able to exclude them for their own purposes.  I don't have a good enough sense of how controversial or otherwise ting-tang peals would be to have a view on whether a separate disclosure is warranted.  I'm fairly sure a wooden clapper disclosure isn't warranted!

Tim

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEfQ0dssL6DNWgnZ9cCdb9Dm+6_=Cw29eqyW_...@mail.gmail.com>,
Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm planning a project ...where one of the goals is to have an audio

> system of the quality you describe.

My point was that the quality required was pretty easy to achieve, and
therefore hardly significant. There is far more variation between the
sound of different rings conventionally sounded than any deviation due to
electronics. So picking out this feature is idiosyncratic

> We originally included the electronically-generated sound disclosure
> (M.6) because we recognized some people wouldn't want to count, for
> their own purposes, performances on simulators.

What people count in their own records is up to them. If they were in the
performance they presumably know how the sound was generated (and if they
don't, that really enforces the irrationality of highlighting it). The
Decisions are not about what people include in their personal records they
are about what people should tell others about their performances. I can
think of some bells where the sound is so awful I would decry performances
on them but if a performance was rung on them my preferences would not
alter the fact, and there is no requirement to report the awful sound.

> I think this remains a helpful disclosure,

Why?

Ringing performances are primarily published for the interest of the
ringing community, and most published performances are rung primarily for
the satisfaction of the performers. That satisfaction relates to what is
experienced in the ringing room Why should others be interested inm
engineering details of parts of the mechanism that did't affect that
experience of the performers?

> ... whether there are enough people who would object to these being

> called peals, etc, and would want the disclosure in order to be able to
> exclude them for their own purposes.

I thought we agreed a peal was ringing of a certain length, without
imposing additional arbitrary constraints.

Disclosure of variation from norms should to enable others to judge the
merits of the performance, not the details of the technology. Plain
bearings, long draughts, drawn ropes, swaying towers are all more relevant
to judging the achievement of the performers than how the sound was
generated.

> I don't have a good enough sense of how controversial or otherwise
> ting-tang peals would be to have a view on whether a separate disclosure
> is warranted.

If I rang one I would declare it because it was interesting that we used a
piece of rare historic equipment, but I wouldn't expect it to be a
requirement and I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to say that it wasn't a
proper peal because the clapper wasn't swinging and hitting opposite sides
of the swinging bells. If I rang a peal with simulated sound I would not
expect to declare it because it is of no historic interest - the technology
is routine and likely to become more so.

[Tim Barnes]

On Sat, Apr 16, 2016 at 5:37 AM, John Harrison <deci...@jaharrison.me.uk> wrote:

If I rang a peal with simulated sound I would not

expect to declare it because it is of no historic interest - the technology
is routine and likely to become more so.

Aside from the question of whether the technology is routine (simulating the sound of a ring of bells that produces 125-130 dB SPL so that ringers can't tell the difference is not trivial in my view, and as far as I know, this hasn't yet been done), isn't the main purpose of the norms regime to relax the rules for what constitutes a peal, but then add disclosures so that readers of peal reports can individually decide what they want to personally recognize as a peal based on their own criteria?

We know it will be hard for some on the CC to vote in favor of peals being able to include performances on simulators.  I thought the electronically-generated sound disclosure was intended to reassure people in this camp that they would be able to identify such performances in the peal reports, so they can discount them if they wish.

Tim

[Don Morrison]

This does not affect the main thrust of your argument, but still:

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> simulating the sound of a ring of bells that produces 125-130 dB SPL

> so that ringers can't tell the difference

Even in as badly botched an installation as Pittsburgh the SPL in the ringing room does not reach 125 dB. And, apart from a small but important character in _The Nine Tailors_, it would seem unlikely for anyone to be up amongst the bells during a peal.

While I doubt anyone can currently simulate the sound, or more importantly, the total experience including sound, well enough to fool the ringers, I don't think getting an appropriate volume is the impediment. And even if it were, the technology exists to blast simulated sounds at that volume, though I don't recommend it.

Eh? What did you say?

-- 

Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org>

"As far as I'm concerned, there won't be a Beatles reunion as long as

John Lennon remains dead."

  -- the late George Harrison, statement to _The New York Times_,

       1 December 1989.

[Tim Barnes]

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Don Morrison <d...@ringing.org> wrote:

Even in as badly botched an installation as Pittsburgh the SPL in the ringing room does not reach 125 dB. And, apart from a small but important character in _The Nine Tailors_, it would seem unlikely for anyone to be up amongst the bells during a peal.

While I doubt anyone can currently simulate the sound, or more importantly, the total experience including sound, well enough to fool the ringers, I don't think getting an appropriate volume is the impediment. And even if it were, the technology exists to blast simulated sounds at that volume, though I don't recommend it.

I'll continue as it's an interesting digression:

My thinking is that if you want to simulate bell sound in the ringing room with enough accuracy so that a band can't tell the difference in a blind A/B test vs. the real bells, you'll need to have speakers up in the bell chamber that can generate output levels that match the bells.  I've rung in towers with simulated sound from smaller speakers on the ringing room walls, and while these speakers can match the volume of the bells *in the ringing room*, the placement of the speakers seems to instantly give away that the sound isn't real.  For maximum realism, I think the simulated sound would have to originate from the same location as the bells, and therefore would have to match the volume of the bells in that location (i.e. the bell chamber).

SPL's in the range of 125-130 db probably require about 2,000 W of power - the technology certainly exists, but would be a specialist installation.  It's also possible that a lesser sound system in the intermediate chamber might be sufficient to pass an A/B test.

 

[John Harrison]

In article
<CA+16xEff9a4i_MxMCSU+=pMTHmrkneZVSwq=1y0woTX...@mail.gmail.com>,

Tim Barnes <tjbar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> it's an interesting digression:

> ... if you want to simulate bell sound in the ringing room with enough

> accuracy so that a band can't tell the difference in a blind A/B test
> vs. the real bells,

That is an unfair test. Ringers go into an unknown tower and hear the
bells. The range of sound tone, clarity, loudness varies enormously. I
contend that it isn't hard to get an acceptable sound well within this
variability.

> you'll need to have speakers up in the bell chamber that can generate
> output levels that match the bells

That doesn't follow. You only have to replicate the sound in the ringing
chamber.

> I've rung in towers with simulated sound from smaller speakers on the

> ringing room walls ...

If you wanted to create realism, you would obviously have the speakers
above, and you would use substantial speakers capable of creating a full
sound.