"Bob Ross" wrote in message
om...
"Jayson Peterson" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"U-CDK_CHARLES\Charles" "Charles wrote in message
news:4h6id.6538$o52.820@trndny03...


From what I can tell, the sounds may in fact be something as simple as a
musical instrument "modulated" or combined.

There's a recurring event in a piece from Mike Gibbs _The Only Chrome
Waterfall Orchestra_ album that used to fascinate me for its sonic
complexity & unique timbral signature. Turns out to be a tenor sax & a
flugelhorn playing two notes a half-step apart at the extreme upper
end of their register. Ask an electronic sound designer to recreate
that, and they'd be tweaking knobs & parameters for months, trying to
replicate the intricate twisting mobius strip of harmonics that
results. Ask an arranger to recreate that and they'd reach for their
phonebook & have a couple Local 802 horn players nail it in 5 minutes.

You know, I think that's really the answer, that of having it recreated live
by players, but I can't figure out why that would be so much different than
me creating it by design? I guess the harmonics, etc combine in "live" ways
that you could never achieve in sound design.


I could literally
zero beat every note and then "convolve" the note to sound like it did
in
the original recording, but this takes many months to do properly. One
thing that does seem to help is if I have something generating harmonics
that are somewhat close to the original, then I can start making
progress.


What is this verb "to zero beat" that you're using? I've never heard
that expression.

I guess you could call this phasing or shifting. Certain frequencies of
each sound tend to cancel when they are close/ identical in pitch. Changing
the one sounds phase helps cancelling much better. Once the notes of the
sound I want are matched to the original, I can use whatever notes matched.
Obviously, this is a very slow and tedious process!