[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

This is impractical.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/4/2014 6:05 AM, John Williamson wrote:
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.

There is more than a subtle difference between "can" and "consists of",
where the latter defines the composition of such waves, not ways to
emulate them.

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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.
--
best regards,
Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/4/2014 6:30 AM, Trevor wrote:
"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?

The part that conflates emulation with structure.

So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of mastering tweak"
actually mean to you?

To me, it means a misconception about the process of audio mastering.
What does it mean to you?
--
best regards,
Neil

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/4/2014 8:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Square waves aren't actual sounds.

The term is jargon, representing real-world waves of a certain
configuration. As such it communicates effectively and more efficiently
than saying "trapezoidal waves with angles closely approaching 90°" or
"triangle waves with radically different slopes" instead of "sawtooth",
and so forth. The inherent acceptance of the limitations of such
waveforms in the real-world does not alter the fact that they are not
generated from or comprised of sine waves. Of course, the mathematical
emulation of these waveforms using sine waves is convenient because sine
waves contain all of the angular values that other waveforms possess.
But, that construction is what is not in the real-world.

--
best regards,
Neil

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 16:23, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2014 6:05 AM, John Williamson wrote:
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.

There is more than a subtle difference between "can" and "consists of",
where the latter defines the composition of such waves, not ways to
emulate them.

As you claim to understand Fourier analysis, then you know that
statement to be false at a theoretical level. If you understand Fourier
analysis, you will know that it is the process of breaking down complex
waveforms into their component frequencies.

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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

How about a pipe organ? They're not always perfect sine waves, but still....

http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/musica...ter4/04_02.php

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 17:16, John Williamson wrote:
On 04/06/2014 16:23, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2014 6:05 AM, John Williamson wrote:
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.

There is more than a subtle difference between "can" and "consists of",
where the latter defines the composition of such waves, not ways to
emulate them.

As you claim to understand Fourier analysis, then you know that
statement to be false at a theoretical level. If you understand Fourier
analysis, you will know that it is the process of breaking down complex
waveforms into their component frequencies.

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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

How about a pipe organ? They're not always perfect sine waves, but
still....

http://music.columbia.edu/cmc/musica...ter4/04_02.php

I forgot about the Hammond tonewheel organs, too, though the sine wave
from the tonewheel isn't a pure sine wave, they uses the same principle
of mixing harmonics and sub harmonics to make different qualities of
sound. Even the Leslie speakers add a sine wave based frequency and
amplitude modulation to the sound.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 16:27, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2014 6:30 AM, Trevor wrote:
So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of mastering
tweak"
actually mean to you?

To me, it means a misconception about the process of audio mastering.
What does it mean to you?

To me, without further explanation of *how* it is applied, it means
nothing, which is why we've all gone off into Fourier theory.

Is it used to modify the frequency, modulate the amplitude, or just
mixed in either at a single frequency or as a (sub) harmonic of the note
being played?

Or could you be using a very high frequency signal to perform a similar
function to tape bias, where the HF bias remains at a constant
amplitude, with the signal modifying the average deviation from 0 volts?
This *may* reduce some non-linearities in some transformers, although
most decent transformers in good circuits are pretty close to perfect.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 16:46, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2014 8:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Square waves aren't actual sounds.

The term is jargon, representing real-world waves of a certain
configuration. As such it communicates effectively and more efficiently
than saying "trapezoidal waves with angles closely approaching 90°" or
"triangle waves with radically different slopes" instead of "sawtooth",
and so forth. The inherent acceptance of the limitations of such
waveforms in the real-world does not alter the fact that they are not
generated from or comprised of sine waves. Of course, the mathematical
emulation of these waveforms using sine waves is convenient because sine
waves contain all of the angular values that other waveforms possess.
But, that construction is what is not in the real-world.

The difference between theory and practice, then?

The theoretical version is needed to fully understand the practical system.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 04/06/2014 15:42, hank alrich wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

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

This is impractical.

Yes, but the more waves you combine, the closer you get. Stop when you
run out of space, oscillators or money, whichever happens first.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

Neil wrote:
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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

A pipe organ would be a good example.
--scott

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

[PStamler]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 4:30:50 AM UTC-6, Trevor wrote:

So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of mastering tweak"
actually mean to you?

I repeat: it sounds like the original poster has heard something incomplete about dither.

Peace,
Paul

[Neil[_9_]]

On 6/4/2014 12:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

A pipe organ would be a good example.
--scott

Well, it's a good example of an instrument that uses sine waves. But
pipe organs (and the Hammond Tonewheel that was mentioned in another
part of the thread) are not what the term "synthesizer" has referred to
in the last 50 years or so, either in concept or execution.
--
best regards,
Neil

[[email protected]]

Niel,
As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one that is say 55%.

Mark

[[email protected]]

Niel,
As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one that is say 55%.

Mark

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
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.

For a theoretically *perfect* waveform, sure. However what people are happy
to call square, triangle, sawtooth etc. are NEVER perfect, but often good
enough for their purpose. This is easily the case in audio since you can
generate harmonics into the GHz region *if* you really wanted to! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2014 12:42 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

A pipe organ would be a good example.

Well, it's a good example of an instrument that uses sine waves. But pipe
organs (and the Hammond Tonewheel that was mentioned in another part of
the thread) are not what the term "synthesizer" has referred to in the
last 50 years or so, either in concept or execution.

And the original question had *nothing* to do with synths, so no need to
restrict the discussion to them.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2014 6:30 AM, Trevor wrote:
"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?

The part that conflates emulation with structure.

What has either got to do with the original question to which my reply is
still correct?


So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of mastering
tweak"
actually mean to you?

To me, it means a misconception about the process of audio mastering. What
does it mean to you?

Same, as I correctly pointed out already. So why the argument?

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 4/06/2014 11:57 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:


In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite number
of sine waves in the series.
--scott


Only for 'perfect' ones.


geoff

[geoff]

On 5/06/2014 3:23 a.m., Neil wrote:

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

And ?

geoff

[Neil Gould]

John Williamson wrote:
On 04/06/2014 16:46, Neil wrote:
On 6/4/2014 8:02 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Square waves aren't actual sounds.

The term is jargon, representing real-world waves of a certain
configuration. As such it communicates effectively and more
efficiently than saying "trapezoidal waves with angles closely
approaching 90°" or "triangle waves with radically different slopes"
instead of "sawtooth", and so forth. The inherent acceptance of the
limitations of such waveforms in the real-world does not alter the
fact that they are not generated from or comprised of sine waves. Of
course, the mathematical emulation of these waveforms using sine
waves is convenient because sine waves contain all of the angular
values that other waveforms possess. But, that construction is what
is not in the real-world.

The difference between theory and practice, then?

The theoretical version is needed to fully understand the practical
system.

Agreed.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Trevor wrote:
"Neil" wrote in message
...
On 6/4/2014 6:30 AM, Trevor wrote:
"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?

The part that conflates emulation with structure.

What has either got to do with the original question to which my
reply is still correct?

It has nothing to do with the OP's question. It has only to do with the
construction of sound waves.

So what does "applying a sine wave to audio as some sort of
mastering tweak"
actually mean to you?

To me, it means a misconception about the process of audio
mastering. What does it mean to you?

Same, as I correctly pointed out already. So why the argument?

I wasn't arguing your comment about the OP's question. Sorry if that is the
impression you got from my raising questions about the construction of
waveforms.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Mrak,

wrote:
Niel,
As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a
square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one that
is say 55%.

Mark

I've owned, built and used synthesizers since the mid 1960s, and studied
electronic music in college. I really don't require an elementary
introduction to waveform composition at this point. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

geoff wrote:
On 5/06/2014 3:23 a.m., Neil wrote:

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

And ?

Eh?
--
best regards,

Neil

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
Niel,
As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one that is say 55%.

If the duty cycle isn't 50%, it's not a square wave, it's a pulse train.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, June 5, 2014 6:55:48 AM UTC-4, Neil Gould wrote:
Mrak,



wrote:

Niel,

As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a

square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one that

is say 55%.



Mark



I've owned, built and used synthesizers since the mid 1960s, and studied

electronic music in college. I really don't require an elementary

introduction to waveform composition at this point. ;-)

--

best regards,



Neil

You seem to think that just because a waveform was not COMPOSED by using sine wave methods that it can't be DECOMPOSED that way.

A waveform is a waveform and it doesn't matter what method was used to create it.

Any waveform can ALWAYS be decomposed into sine waves.

have a nice day

Mark

[Neil Gould]

wrote:
On Thursday, June 5, 2014 6:55:48 AM UTC-4, Neil Gould wrote:
Mrak,

wrote:

Niel,

As an illustrative example, look up the spectral composition of a

square wave that is exactly 50% duty cycle and compare it to one
that

is say 55%.



Mark



I've owned, built and used synthesizers since the mid 1960s, and
studied electronic music in college. I really don't require an elementary
introduction to waveform composition at this point. ;-)

You seem to think that just because a waveform was not COMPOSED by
using sine wave methods that it can't be DECOMPOSED that way.

From a theoretical POV, I don't think that at all.

A waveform is a waveform and it doesn't matter what method was used
to create it.

If we're talking about the real world, the practical options are rather
limited. So, we can just disagree.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
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


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite number
of sine waves in the series.


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

Thank God! If we had response down to 0 Hz, there could be quarter notes
that would take an infinite amount of time to listen to.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Hank]

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.

Stick around, sonny, and you might actually learn something, whether
you consider it useful to you or not.

[Hank]

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote:
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.

No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

A pipe organ would be a good example.
--scott

Yes. I'm surprised at some of this discussion, all things considered.
Any of the traditional musical instruments produces sounds that have
fundamentals and overtones. The difference in sound coming out of a
trumpet, an oboe, and a violin isn't in the fundamental frequency of
the oscillator (lip-reed, wood-reed, string) but in the higher-than
fundamental frequency content. Harry Olson discussed this in "Musical
Engineering," and that can be viewed as an extrapolation of things in
Helmholtz's "On the Sensations of Tone."

Rodgers Jenkins spent a good deal of time trying to generate organ
pipe sound from analog oscillators ca. 1960, and was fairly
successful. But there were at least two problems: one, that pipes
were cheaper, and two, the radiating area of loudspeakers pales
compared to that of a 16' organ pipe. Olson's discussion, and
Jenkins' work can be summed up as "finding the terms in a Fourier
series that lie on a musical scale" in terms of frequency and
amplitude, and generating them electronically. And, additionally,
keep in mind that pipe organs have mutant ranks and mixtures to
enhance sound at frequencies other than the fundamental.

In terms of audio, we're talking about a fairly narrow range of
frequencies. Use 20Hz to 20Khz as boundaries. That's quite narrow
compared to RF, where we may want to have an amplifier that passes
from near-DC to 100Mhz with near-flat frequency response as well as
constant delay for all frequencies. That's an oscilloscope vertical
amplifier from ca. 1960. Using a square wave as input to the
amplifier is a way to feed it most of the signal information needed to
characterize its performance. A mercury-wetted reed relay used as a
switch does the job adequately for this range. Inclusion of all the
terms in a Fourier series isn't needed; just "enough" to cover the
frequencies involved.

I still remember the relation: bandwith * risetime = .35. Risetime is
measured as 10-90% of the step.

And then there's the principle of operation behind the class C
oscillator and amplifier, where one uses a pulse signal to drive a
tank circuit. Purpose of the tank circuit is to filter out unwanted
terms in the Fourier series contained in the pulse. Just an
electronic version of a schoolgirl's skip rope, where a pulse input
can maintain the energy needed to rotate the rope.

Back to audio: the tonewheel Hammond Organ and its drawbars used the
drawbars to generate a fundamental and overtones that were
(theoretically, at least), terms in a Fourier series and on a musical
scale. We won't get into things like equal temperament tuning vs.
just tuning of intervals.

Hank

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite
number of sine waves in the series.


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

Thank God! If we had response down to 0 Hz, there could be quarter notes
that would take an infinite amount of time to listen to. --scott

Well, are you into the music, or not??

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Sean Conolly]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite
number
of sine waves in the series.


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

Thank God! If we had response down to 0 Hz, there could be quarter notes
that would take an infinite amount of time to listen to.

Hmm, I've heard a few notes that seemed to border on infinity. Like the
singer hanging on to that note they can't quite hit...

Sean

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite number
of sine waves in the series.


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

Thank God! If we had response down to 0 Hz, there could be quarter notes
that would take an infinite amount of time to listen to.
--scott


But there'd probably be a lot less bebop.

It's a trade.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

In the case of squares and triangles, though, they require an infinite
number of sine waves in the series.


That's okay. Our ears are bandwidth-constrained.

Thank God! If we had response down to 0 Hz, there could be quarter
notes that would take an infinite amount of time to listen to. --scott


But there'd probably be a lot less bebop.

It's a trade.

Funny! Thank, Les.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Trevor]

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
...
geoff wrote:
On 5/06/2014 3:23 a.m., Neil wrote:
No synths that I've owned, used or even know of use sine waves to
generate the other standard waveforms that they produce.

And ?

Eh?

He means, SO WHAT?

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:50:56 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

docsavage20 wrote:
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?

The closest thing that I can come up with is the use of a sine wave sweep to
sample the acoustics of an environment to create an impuse response (IR)
reverb image of that environment. That result is applied as a convolution
"map" in an IR utility, rather than as a sine wave applied directly to the
audio. Such utilities are included with some DAWs, and/or are available as
stand-alone plug-ins, and the logical time to use it would be during final
mixing or mastering.

Huh? You create an impulse response with an impulse - something like
an old fashioned kids' cap gun. Or if you want better accuracy, a loud
electric spark discharge.

d

[Neil Gould]

docsavage20 wrote:
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?

The closest thing that I can come up with is the use of a sine wave sweep to
sample the acoustics of an environment to create an impuse response (IR)
reverb image of that environment. That result is applied as a convolution
"map" in an IR utility, rather than as a sine wave applied directly to the
audio. Such utilities are included with some DAWs, and/or are available as
stand-alone plug-ins, and the logical time to use it would be during final
mixing or mastering.
--
best regards,

Neil

[Richard Dobson]

On 08/06/2014 14:16, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:50:56 -0500, "Neil Gould"
...
The closest thing that I can come up with is the use of a sine wave sweep to
sample the acoustics of an environment to create an impuse response (IR)
reverb image of that environment. That result is applied as a convolution
"map" in an IR utility, rather than as a sine wave applied directly to the
audio. Such utilities are included with some DAWs, and/or are available as
stand-alone plug-ins, and the logical time to use it would be during final
mixing or mastering.

Huh? You create an impulse response with an impulse - something like
an old fashioned kids' cap gun. Or if you want better accuracy, a loud
electric spark discharge.


Not if you want best quality and low noise. Swept sine (with
deconvolution) is indeed the recommended technique these days "if you
know how". See he

http://aurora-plugins.forumfree.it/?t=53443032

or he

http://cnx.org/content/m15945/latest/


Richard Dobson

[david gourley[_2_]]

docsavage20 said...news:6c44c547-7df0-41da-b029-
:

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.


Not sure about the mastering, but I've known people that would gate a low-
frequency sine wave to augment the kick drum.

david

[None]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014 08:50:56 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

docsavage20 wrote:
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?

The closest thing that I can come up with is the use of a sine wave
sweep to
sample the acoustics of an environment to create an impuse response
(IR)
reverb image of that environment. That result is applied as a
convolution
"map" in an IR utility, rather than as a sine wave applied directly
to the
audio. Such utilities are included with some DAWs, and/or are
available as
stand-alone plug-ins, and the logical time to use it would be during
final
mixing or mastering.

Huh? You create an impulse response with an impulse - something like
an old fashioned kids' cap gun. Or if you want better accuracy, a
loud
electric spark discharge.

Of if you want even better accuracy, use a swept sine wave to measure
the frequency response, and then use an FFT to derive the impulse
response. That's the way we usually do it around here. I don't know
anyone who uses a spark to measure rooms any more. It's even falling
out of favor for measuring microphones.