On 07/18/2011 04:02 AM, pshirkey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> On 07/17/2011 10:41 AM, Rustom Mody wrote: >>> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Philipp Überbacher >>> <hollunder@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: >>> >>>> Excerpts from Rustom Mody's message of 2011-07-17 05:33:44 +0200: >>>>> I am preparing to give a talk on the wider ramifications of music. >>>>> One of the things I wish to demonstrate is that things that look >>>> different >>>>> are merely analogs but at different scales. >>>>> >>>>> eg if something vibrates at 400Hz we hear a sound of A-flat. If it >>>>> 'vibrates' at 4 Hz we hear a beat. >>>>> In the same analogy a 2 vs 3 poly-rhythm (should?) change to a do-so >>>> chord. >>>>> And so on. >>>> >>>> I suggest you do some experiments before you give a talk. At 4 Hz you >>>> won't be able to hear anything, you won't even be able to reproduce a >>>> 4 Hz sound with common speakers. >>>> >>> >>> You took me quite literally, [I did put the vibrate into quotes :-) ] >>> Let me spell out the experiment in more detail: >>> Say I have a rhythm in 4/4 time -- 4 even quarter notes, bar repeating >>> every >>> second played by say a click. [What kind of click I am not very sure; >>> sharp >>> with few harmonics would be best I expect] >> >> Exactly. Just take a short audio-sample (aka grain) and trigger it >> repeatedly. Increase the trigger freq. (aka grain-speed) from 4 Hz -> >> 400Hz. >> >> Search the net for granular-synthesis. Your use-case is not the typical >> grain-synth application, but the principle is the same. >> >>> Now if there were some (realtime) way of sliding the tempo from 1 sec to >>> millisec I expect the separate clicks would vanish into a hum at some >>> stage. >>> >>> This (and other such experiments) is what I want to demo. >>> Ive started looking at chuck. >>> How does it compare with puredata? >>> >> >> It's a bit of an apples vs oranges question. >> >> the main difference: Chuck you program in text, pure-data you >> graphically connect "objects" (if you know Max/MSP: pure-data is similar). >> >> AFAIK, Chuck does not offer GUI elements - you'll need to implement the >> slider via OSC or use a "text slider". >> >>>>> Is there some kind of software where I can make a 4 Hz beat and pull a >>>>> slider or a freq text box entry until it sound like a A-flat note? >>>> >>>> puredata springs to mind, it's easy to use and has everything you need. >> >> Indeed. Though chuck, supercollider, csound,... could all do the trick. >> >> If you know neither of those. Pure-data is probably the easiest to get >> started with. >> >> http://www.timvets.net/video/grains.php will do what you want with Pd. >> > > > I'm not sure that does what he wants. He asked for a tool that takes an > existing signal/tone and then down tunes it. What you are suggesting > creates an emulation of that process but generates a completely new > signal/tone. > > It would achieve a similar sound but is functionally quite a different > process. You are right or course. It's not modeling the desired effect correctly; Yet it's close enough and much more robust and convicing for a Demo. Actually http://www.sonicvisualiser.org/ may be the tool of choice. Here's a video where it is used to slow down some Bach so that you can hear the "beating/pulsing" introduce by equal-temperament tuning: http://www.youtube.com/user/mcldx#p/a/u/0/uOOhvw89jc4 ciao, robin _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
