[docsavage20]

I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

Thanks.

[Trevor]

"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some kind of
mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a term/technique you're
familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)
Who knows what you possibly thought you heard, or what that "someones"
qualifications are, or indeed what drugs they were possibly on. (assuming
you weren't :-)

Trevor.

[Sean Conolly]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

A pure sine wave is nothing more than a waveform with a single frequncy
component. By combining multiple frequencies, with the correct phase and
amplitude you can create any repeating waveform - even a square wave.

Sean

[John Williamson]

On 02/06/2014 15:32, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships to
the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection. Back in the days before digital waveform synthesis by
replaying samples, you often started by using a square wave and applying
filters to remove certain harmonics.

Many of the distortions you get in the analogue world when trying to
reproduce these waves are due to the partial or complete removal and
time shifting of these harmonics.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2014 15:32, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't
be reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships to
the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection.

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that sine
waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other waveforms.
However, due to the inherent complexity of that process, that isn't how
those waveforms have typically been generated in electronic gear, so I
wonder whether such generated signals are identical to analog sound events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

Hmm... food for thought, at least. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[John Williamson]

On 02/06/2014 17:19, Neil Gould wrote:
John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2014 15:32, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't
be reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships to
the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection.

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that sine
waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other waveforms.
However, due to the inherent complexity of that process, that isn't how
those waveforms have typically been generated in electronic gear, so I
wonder whether such generated signals are identical to analog sound events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

Hmm... food for thought, at least. ;-)

Well, given half a dozen signal generators at school mumble years ago,
we managed to get a fair approximation to most of 'em. To be honest,
though, it was more of a demonstration of the theory than a practical
way to do the job.

It's always been easier to start with a square wave and apply some
filtering. To get back to the original post, it might make sense to add
a low subharmonic of the fundamental frequency to a signal lacking the
bottom octave or two, if the intention was to play it back using a
system with a *really* good low bass response, as used in some dance
halls or cars, which have been known to couple a mass driver to the
dancefloor or cabin floor respectively. You'd then be hoping for a high
pass filter in most gear not to pass the damaging lows to the output
devices and power amps.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

They are mathematical abstractions that don't exist in the real world.
All we have here in reality are finite-bandwidth signals.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

When this idea was rediscovered by Oliver Heaviside around 1905 it totally
revolutionized signals theory.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 2 Jun 2014 13:59:25 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

When this idea was rediscovered by Oliver Heaviside around 1905 it totally
revolutionized signals theory.
--scott

Fourier synthesis of music works 100% if the whole tune repeats
forever. A single rendition is compromised by the temporal truncation,
which necessarily means that the frequency domain is also changed - it
get's sidebands like the FFT of an impulse. The shorter the piece, the
further they stretch. So a Fourier representation of a real, finite
piece of music is an approximation.


A really good one.

d

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/2/2014 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

Representations of phenomena can be comprised of many things, but is
there not a definable difference between such representations and the
actual phenomena? IOW, how does any representation absolutely define the
construction of a dissimilar phenomenon?

==
best regards,
Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/2/2014 1:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

They are mathematical abstractions that don't exist in the real world.
All we have here in reality are finite-bandwidth signals.
--scott

Perhaps therein lies the rub, from both constructive and representative
perspectives.

--
best regards,
Neil

[John Williamson]

On 02/06/2014 20:40, Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms
are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group
theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

Representations of phenomena can be comprised of many things, but is
there not a definable difference between such representations and the
actual phenomena? IOW, how does any representation absolutely define the
construction of a dissimilar phenomenon?

It can't, but the representation can be made as good as you have time
and facilities for.

In video, for example, a very good representation of windblown hair can
be made entirely from mathematical constructs, and this can be shown as
a solid form (Assuming normal eye separation and a fixed viewing angle)
if enough effort is made. Just ask, among others, Pixar.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

Representations of phenomena can be comprised of many things, but is
there not a definable difference between such representations and the
actual phenomena? IOW, how does any representation absolutely define the
construction of a dissimilar phenomenon?

The transformation from time domain to frequency domain and back again is
not lossy. You can go in either direction without losing anything, that is
the point of the Fourier proof.

Now, going from a wave in free air to an electrical representation and
back, THAT is hard.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

They are mathematical abstractions that don't exist in the real world.
All we have here in reality are finite-bandwidth signals.

Perhaps therein lies the rub, from both constructive and representative
perspectives.

Not at all, squares and triangles are not things you'll encounter from real
sources. Imagine trying to create a real square wave from an instrument,
you'd have to move air back and forth instantaneously with no time lag
involved.

It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

It's possible to mathematically model all possible waveforms, whether or
not those waveforms can be made real or not. Mathematicians would argue
this is why math is better than the real world. Physicists would argue
the opposite for the same reasons.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all
waveforms are solely the result of additive synthesis using sine
waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group
theory which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as
accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented
as the sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

Representations of phenomena can be comprised of many things, but is
there not a definable difference between such representations and the
actual phenomena? IOW, how does any representation absolutely define
the construction of a dissimilar phenomenon?

The transformation from time domain to frequency domain and back
again is not lossy. You can go in either direction without losing
anything, that is the point of the Fourier proof.

Now, going from a wave in free air to an electrical representation and
back, THAT is hard.

Math is like that in many ways. But, is that not what we are faced with when
creating or reproducing music? ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/2/2014 3:49 PM, John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2014 20:40, Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:59 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms
are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

There's a proof by induction done by Fourier in 1811 but it has some
handwaving in it. There is a more modern proof that involves group
theory
which I don't understand but I'm willing to accept as accurate.

Any arbitrary function, periodic or aperiodic, can be represented as the
sum of sine functions with varying frequency and phase.

Representations of phenomena can be comprised of many things, but is
there not a definable difference between such representations and the
actual phenomena? IOW, how does any representation absolutely define the
construction of a dissimilar phenomenon?

It can't, but the representation can be made as good as you have time
and facilities for.

Agreed. The salient points being "as good as" differentiated from "is"
in the real world.
--
best regards,
Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 1:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

They are mathematical abstractions that don't exist in the real world.
All we have here in reality are finite-bandwidth signals.

Perhaps therein lies the rub, from both constructive and representative
perspectives.

Not at all, squares and triangles are not things you'll encounter from real
sources. Imagine trying to create a real square wave from an instrument,
you'd have to move air back and forth instantaneously with no time lag
involved.

It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an accurate
recording process (and is greatly complicated by reproduction processes)
unless the inherent imperfections are taken for granted.

But, if we can accept such imperfections, then one can accept that some
electronic instruments can easily create square and sawtooth waves,
though I know of none that do so by additive synthesis using sine waves.

It's possible to mathematically model all possible waveforms, whether or
not those waveforms can be made real or not. Mathematicians would argue
this is why math is better than the real world. Physicists would argue
the opposite for the same reasons.

Math is like that, and the beauty of it is that it doesn't bother either
mathematicians or physicists that the circumference of a circle can't be
specified, since that requires the expressed intersection of zero and
infinity at the same location. By comparison, square waves are simple. ;-)

--
best regards,
Neil

[[email protected]]

Niel,

there is reality and there are representations of reality.

You can view reality from the time domain and view triangle and square waves signals on an o scope.

You can view reality from the frequency domain and view a series of frequencies on a spectrum analyzer.

BOTH views are equally valid!

Depending on what you want to accomplish, there may be advantages to using one view or the other, but both are equally valid representations of reality.

You are probably more accustomed to thinking in the time domain, the frequency domain is equally valid and sometimes has advantages.

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an accurate
recording process (and is greatly complicated by reproduction processes)
unless the inherent imperfections are taken for granted.

No, not at all. There is no need to be able to reproduce signals that can't
exist as sounds.

The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals that can.

But, if we can accept such imperfections, then one can accept that some
electronic instruments can easily create square and sawtooth waves,
though I know of none that do so by additive synthesis using sine waves.

No, they can't create square or sawtooth waves. The "square wave" coming out
of a synthesizer looks like a square wave on a scope if you don't look at it
too hard, but the closer you look the more you'll find that it isn't a real
square wave; the edges are not completely parallel because it's not possible
to instantaneously change the voltage.

What you get out of the synthesizer is only a rough approximation of the
archetypical square wave. Real, perfect square waves require infinite
bandwidth and therefore cannot exist in the real world.

For similar reasons we don't have real op-amps in the real world. We have
very high gain chips that say "op-amp" on the datasheet, but when you actually
put them in a circuit you can run into situations where they don't behave like
op-amps at all. That's just how the real world is.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

I had no intention of entering this discussion. But I have to ask the question
I thought someone else would have gotten around to by now...

What, exactly, does the OP's question //mean//? How can you answer a question
you don't understand?

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/3/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an accurate
recording process (and is greatly complicated by reproduction processes)
unless the inherent imperfections are taken for granted.

No, not at all. There is no need to be able to reproduce signals that can't
exist as sounds.

The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals that can.

I was referring to the physical limitations of mechanical and electronic
processes that prevent the precise reproduction of signals that *are*
sounds. So, it seems that we may be speaking of the same thing, here.

But, if we can accept such imperfections, then one can accept that some
electronic instruments can easily create square and sawtooth waves,
though I know of none that do so by additive synthesis using sine waves.

No, they can't create square or sawtooth waves. The "square wave" coming out
of a synthesizer looks like a square wave on a scope if you don't look at it
too hard, but the closer you look the more you'll find that it isn't a real
square wave; the edges are not completely parallel because it's not possible
to instantaneously change the voltage.

What you get out of the synthesizer is only a rough approximation of the
archetypical square wave. Real, perfect square waves require infinite
bandwidth and therefore cannot exist in the real world.

Yes, we are in agreement that synthesizers produce distorted
representations of the archetypical waveforms. Neither can real, perfect
reproductions of acoustic events. The caveat was the acceptance of those
imperfections, which IMO do not amount to more than the distortions
involved in any other part of the sound creation, recording or
reproduction processes. Synths are better at creating these waveforms
than trying to achieve the same through additive synthesis using sine
waves in the real world. So those waveforms which are not comprised of
sine waves should be considered "sounds", IMO.
--
best regards,
Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
On 6/3/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an accurate
recording process (and is greatly complicated by reproduction processes)
unless the inherent imperfections are taken for granted.

No, not at all. There is no need to be able to reproduce signals that can't
exist as sounds.

The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals that can.

I was referring to the physical limitations of mechanical and electronic
processes that prevent the precise reproduction of signals that *are*
sounds. So, it seems that we may be speaking of the same thing, here.

I know you were, and I am NOT talking about that at all. That is a
different issue altogether. Go back and read what I wrote.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
For similar reasons we don't have real op-amps in the real world.

Of course we do. Your very narrow theoretical definition is not the
only definition of "op-amp". Other, more practical, definitions exist,
are valid definitions, and are much more practical in real-world
situations.

[None]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Go back and read what I wrote.

Now who does that remind me of?

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

Go back and read what I wrote.

Now who does that remind me of?

Someone a lot brighter than you.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

For similar reasons we don't have real op-amps in the real world.

Of course we do. Your very narrow theoretical definition is not the only
definition of "op-amp". Other, more practical, definitions exist, are valid
definitions, and are much more practical in real-world situations.

If you design without paying attention to an op-amp's practical limitations
(especially gain-BW), you can wind up with circuits that don't work the way
you expect.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"None" wrote in message
m...
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

For similar reasons we don't have real op-amps in the real world.

Of course we do. Your very narrow theoretical definition is not the
only definition of "op-amp". Other, more practical, definitions
exist, are valid definitions, and are much more practical in
real-world situations.

If you design without paying attention to an op-amp's practical
limitations (especially gain-BW), you can wind up with circuits that
don't work the way you expect.

Of course. You need to know both its capabilities and limitations.
That doesn't mean it's not a real op-amp, if you use the most
widespread, almost universal, dictionary definition.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Oh yes they can. As I said, they are simply sine waves and harmonics. Do
what I suggested and look up fourier analysis.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2014 15:32, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't
be reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships to
the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection.

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that sine
waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other waveforms.
However, due to the inherent complexity of that process, that isn't how
those waveforms have typically been generated in electronic gear, so I
wonder whether such generated signals are identical to analog sound
events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all waveforms are
solely the result of additive synthesis using sine waves.

Nobody said any such thing . How they are physically generated is
irrelevant.


Hmm... food for thought, at least. ;-)

Nope, physical reality has little interst in ones thoughts.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It's possible to mathematically model all possible waveforms, whether or
not those waveforms can be made real or not. Mathematicians would argue
this is why math is better than the real world. Physicists would argue
the opposite for the same reasons.

So true :-)

Trevor.

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 11:56, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that
sine waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other
waveforms. However, due to the inherent complexity of that process,
that isn't how those waveforms have typically been generated in
electronic gear, so I wonder whether such generated signals are
identical to analog sound events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all
waveforms are solely the result of additive synthesis using sine
waves.

Nobody said any such thing . How they are physically generated is
irrelevant.

That may not be what you meant, but your statement that " ALL sound consists
of sine waves" was pretty unambiguous.

And accurate. All repeating sound waves *can* be made by adding
sinusoidal harmonics to a sinusoidal fundamental.

This does not mean that it is the *only* way such waveforms can be
generated. FM synths use a totally different method, for instance, and a
lot of synths are subtractive, starting with all the harmonics in the
signal, and removing or reducing the ones that aren't wanted.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that
can't be reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships
to the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection.

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that
sine waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other
waveforms. However, due to the inherent complexity of that process,
that isn't how those waveforms have typically been generated in
electronic gear, so I wonder whether such generated signals are
identical to analog sound events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all
waveforms are solely the result of additive synthesis using sine
waves.

Nobody said any such thing . How they are physically generated is
irrelevant.

That may not be what you meant, but your statement that " ALL sound
consists
of sine waves" was pretty unambiguous.

Yes, and it is, regardless of how it's generated. I'm not sure what part you
don't get?
So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of mastering tweak"
actually mean to you?

Trevor.

[Sean Conolly]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a thing you
can
represent mathematically but from the standpoint of recording sounds
from
the real world, they are all going to be bandlimited in some fashion
because
we can't move things at infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an accurate
recording process (and is greatly complicated by reproduction processes)
unless the inherent imperfections are taken for granted.

No, not at all. There is no need to be able to reproduce signals that
can't
exist as sounds.

The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals that can.

But, if we can accept such imperfections, then one can accept that some
electronic instruments can easily create square and sawtooth waves,
though I know of none that do so by additive synthesis using sine waves.

No, they can't create square or sawtooth waves. The "square wave" coming
out
of a synthesizer looks like a square wave on a scope if you don't look at
it
too hard, but the closer you look the more you'll find that it isn't a
real
square wave; the edges are not completely parallel because it's not
possible
to instantaneously change the voltage.

What you get out of the synthesizer is only a rough approximation of the
archetypical square wave. Real, perfect square waves require infinite
bandwidth and therefore cannot exist in the real world.


Forget how it looks on the wire, how do you get air to move like that? Play
a square wave through any device you choose, and I believe the resulting
*sound* would be a lot simpler to replicate with additive synthesis from
sine waves.

Sean

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
John Williamson wrote:
On 02/06/2014 15:32, Neil Gould wrote:
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that
can't be reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Square, triangle and sawtooth waves can all be synthesised by adding
sine waves having the appropriate harmonic and phase relationships
to the base note. The more harmonics you add, the closer they get to
perfection.

Thanks... I understand Fourier's synthesis concepts, and know that
sine waves can be used via additive synthesis to approximate other
waveforms. However, due to the inherent complexity of that process,
that isn't how those waveforms have typically been generated in
electronic gear, so I wonder whether such generated signals are
identical to analog sound events.
More to the point, I've not seen a clear statement that all
waveforms are solely the result of additive synthesis using sine
waves.

Nobody said any such thing . How they are physically generated is
irrelevant.

That may not be what you meant, but your statement that " ALL sound consists
of sine waves" was pretty unambiguous.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/3/2014 11:07 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
On 6/2/2014 4:12 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's not a thing you can create in the real world.... it's a
thing you can represent mathematically but from the standpoint of
recording sounds from the real world, they are all going to be
bandlimited in some fashion because we can't move things at
infinite speeds.

Again, therein lies the rub, making it impossible to create an
accurate recording process (and is greatly complicated by
reproduction processes) unless the inherent imperfections are
taken for granted.

No, not at all. There is no need to be able to reproduce signals
that can't exist as sounds.

The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals
that can.

I was referring to the physical limitations of mechanical and
electronic processes that prevent the precise reproduction of
signals that *are* sounds. So, it seems that we may be speaking of
the same thing, here.

I know you were, and I am NOT talking about that at all. That is a
different issue altogether. Go back and read what I wrote.

What you wrote was:
"The problems all have to do with being able to reproduce signals that can
(exist as sounds)".

How does my statement disagree with that?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Luxey]

I've heard about it along time ago. Can't say I really understood it, even if I did back then, I forgot about it, completely, until your post. It was supposed to work as some kind of bias, but was it aimed at equipment, or hearing apparatus in humans, I don't know.

Chances are,
- in order to have effect it should be strong enough
- in order not to be distract it should be above, below, or at the very edge of
hearing range
- If below, it could generate harmonics within the range. Might serve good, but probably not.
- If above, it would not have any influence, since equipment would not be able to reproduce it, and we would not be able to hear it.

in all cases, various electronic stages would filter it all out before getting to reproduction stage.

Maybe it was some early form of dither?

[William Sommerwerck]

This has to rank as one of the most useless discussions I have seen in any
UseNet group.

The OP asked an incomprehensible question about -- who knows what? -- that has
provoked a trivial and unnecessary discussion about waveform analysis and
synthesis -- to no end (in both senses of no end).

Maybe we can try to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
Trevor wrote:
"docsavage20" wrote in message
...
I heard someone talk about applying a sine wave to audio as some
kind of mastering tweak. I've never heard of this, is this a
term/technique you're familiar with? If so how does it work?

ALL sound consists of sine waves (look up fourier analysis)

So... square, triangle, and sawtooth waves (to name a few that can't be
reconciled as sine waves) are what, if not sound? ;-)

Oh yes they can. As I said, they are simply sine waves and harmonics. Do
what I suggested and look up fourier analysis.

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite number
of sine waves in the series.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly wrote:

What you get out of the synthesizer is only a rough approximation of the
archetypical square wave. Real, perfect square waves require infinite
bandwidth and therefore cannot exist in the real world.


Forget how it looks on the wire, how do you get air to move like that? Play
a square wave through any device you choose, and I believe the resulting
*sound* would be a lot simpler to replicate with additive synthesis from
sine waves.

Right! Actual sounds are bandlimited signals, and can be represented as a
finite series of summed sine waves.

Square waves aren't actual sounds.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."