On 30/01/2010, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Just to be clear I have verified that Will's short snippet which he > converted to mp3 just to be sure is what I have presented. Right. In that case, your description is somewhat subjective, to say the least. > BTW, Bengt comment was that it sounded like a heartbeat through a > stethoscope. I will admit that I took him literally and didn't get the > reference to an ultrasound. You are the first person to mention > ultrasound. I get that reference. That's why I am asking what people out > there would do to make it sound cleaner. Well, that's the problem with experimental work. It's hard to know what's intentional glitchiness / hypnotic noise and what's a mixer malfunction, and as a result difficult to offer any kind of constructive criticism. It might have been better if you'd presented some kind of source file - either a sequence or a multitrack recording, depending on how you captured it. Then (a) we wouldn't all have been standing round saying "is this broken?" and (b) we would have been able to do the tweaking you requested (and at sensible volumes; I was listening at 5am, and I doubt my neighbour would have appreciated me jacking up 100 watts of anyone's experiment). I did try to have a fiddle with my OGG player's graphic EQ, but it didn't make a whole lot of difference. Of course, if you basically recorded a stereo capture, then... sorry. > 1: No one has bothered to tweak the levels of the raw material I have > presented to try to get it to sound cleaner and more musical. An hour long OGG doesn't count as "raw material", however unprocessed it is. > 2: The soundscape is overwhelmingly complex for most people to recognise > a Tech House rhythm/bassline Or possibly, you're too close to the material. You've had 48 hours (plus all the time since then) and knowledge of what you were doing to hear all of its intricacies and really get inside it. Expecting a stranger to do that cold from a misdescribed OGG is a bit of a reach. There were bits at the end where I thought I could hear a little of what you were talking about... but I have a feeling I'd also have to spend somewhere approaching 48 hours on it to hear everything you're hearing, and as I say, I'm well-disposed towards experimentalism anyway. And on that subject - you mentioned doing this for 48 hours straight. Now, for most people, that (a) will make their perceptions somewhat unreliable anyway - mine start to get woozy after about 15; and (b) isn't possible without some form of chemical assistance, which again has perception altering effects. So I think we're not entirely out of bounds calling into question the reliability of your perception - although if you mean "48 hours divided into 10-hour sessions, with copious sleep in between", I do apologise and retract. > 3: The sound that has been presented is more industrial than musical Yes, that is true; however, as I've said previously, I don't see these qualities as being in opposition. > 4: Everyone who has responded here thinks I am mad describing the track > as music. Even worse is that I attempted to reference it to a specific > genre of dance music. You might have been on safer ground if you'd namedropped "recent Autechre" (or something a bit more obscure, like Nurse With Wound or something). And to clarify, I don't think you're mad describing it as music. Music is anything which sounds like music to the listener, after all - as far as birds are concerned, they're just bragging about their willies; it's us who hear song. No, the problem with your description was that it was subjective, way too close, and done from the wrong side of the accessibility barrier - unintentionally, I'm positive. > BTW, I have 10 of them so I hope at least one of them will get a > positive response... Asking people to listen to an hour at a stretch is a BIG ask, even if you're giving them an hour of Mozart. You might be better advised to trim out some highlights first - and as I say, if you're looking for in depth tweaking, source material might be a better offer anyway. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
