If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta (sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes - piccolino, ocarina maybe ...) I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are you sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to believe). I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say) is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim; not sure if those have high fundamentals. Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8 kHz fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics). I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a broad-spectrum noise. I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample, I'm pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz! Here is one link: http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle though, or any of the higher tuned percussion. I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to affect the timbre of lower registers. There probably are some pieces of music, though, just to make a point. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a real "instrument"? What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it. (and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake), electronic instruments in there :-). If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line which excludes a lot of music from being "real". I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-) Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available. I have a version - call it an interpretation - of Bach's Toccata (the one that I think in full is "and Fugue in D minor", and starts with that well-known triplet) by the 1970s (I think) British group Sky, which many classical purists would shrink from in horror, but I like to think old JS would approve of. Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three categories. Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean). Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they all really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music, nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time, Helen Forrest does. :-) Ah. Training, to my ears, can cause harm as well as good, where the (female, at least) voice is concerned: it can do some good, but I personally find the sound of the soprano voice rather unpleasant. Which is a pity, as most of the great sopranos that I've actually seen interviewed seem to be rather nice people. I have a CD of Kiri Te Kanawa, for example, from when she was a nightclub singer around New Zealand, before someone told her she could be a soprano - and I much prefer it. (As for the most _beautiful_ voice, the one that just makes me sit with a silly smile is Judith Durham. She probably _is_ trained, but if so, it didn't spoil it.) [] Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often Equally, being old doesn't either (-:. But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know, "new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-) "New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:. [] But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that. Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ... Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always [] THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically better (more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation is only a small part of "construction". [] Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock, both good and bad.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left." [Cambridge University Math Dept.] I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] The usual example quoted is the triangle. I'd add the celeste/celesta (sugarplum fairy instrument), and probably others similar; and getting away from purely percussive instruments, maybe the saw, and I'm pretty certain some of the higher registers of the organ (and other small pipes - piccolino, ocarina maybe ...) I'd have to look those instruments up, including the triangle, but are you sure they don't have any frequency content below 8 kHz? (seems hard to believe). I don't know. The triangle (I just looked on Wiki, but that doesn't say) is basically a bar, just bent into a triangle; it may have some content at low frequencies (especially for the person holding the string), it just _sounds_ high to me. Ditto the celeste, which I think is made of glass. Which reminds me there's the "glass harmonica", a collection of wineglasses (or ... - it's usually described as wineglasses) filled to different amounts, and played by running a damp finger round the rim; not sure if those have high fundamentals. Sounds "high" to me too, but that doesn't preclude stuff below 8 kHz, necessarily. Wait, I just looked some of this up. A pipe organ can almost reach a 8 kHz fundamental. Cymbals go from about 200 Hz to 16 kHz (upper harmonics). I would never have thought of a cymbal as an only-high thing: more a broad-spectrum noise. I was quite surprised to see it go down to 200 Hz, however. Now that really surprised me. I couldn't find anything on a triangle, but when I just heard a sample, I'm pretty sure there is something there below 8 kHz! Here is one link: http://www.independentrecording.net/...in_display.htm Interesting link: at first I thought it was static, didn't realise the boxes change as you move the pointer about. It doesn't include triangle though, or any of the higher tuned percussion. Well, if one of us were willing, we could probably find some recording with a triangle played in it and isolate that one segment, and check out its spectrum. My guess is it, too, is fairly wide in its spectrum content. I don't think the pipes on an organ with the higher fundamentals are often played or written for on their own, more used in ranks/banks to affect the timbre of lower registers. Most likely. There probably are some pieces of music, though, just to make a point. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I've sort of forgotten what your point was. Was it, what constitutes a real "instrument"? What constitutes a "musical instrument", as I see it. (and yes, I was kinda disallowing the artificial, synthetic (fake), electronic instruments in there :-). If so, I'd say it's an endless and eventually pointless discussion - unless one _wants_ to arbitrarily draw some line which excludes a lot of music from being "real". I can, as far as "purity" is concerned. More below :-) Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available. I'd bet only a select few. :-) I have a version - call it an interpretation - of Bach's Toccata (the one that I think in full is "and Fugue in D minor", and starts with that well-known triplet) by the 1970s (I think) British group Sky, which many classical purists would shrink from in horror, but I like to think old JS would approve of. Especially as you've agreed you've enjoyed stuff from all three categories. Yes, but that doesn't make it so ("great" music, I mean). Think of some popular pop singers. Can they truly sing well? Do they all really have great voices? Did Bob Dylan, or Janis Joplin, have a great voice? No, they didn't/don't. But I still like some of their music, nonetheless. But neither one of them has a great or trained voice, nor could they ever. So who does? Well, if you want to go back in time, Helen Forrest does. :-) Ah. Training, to my ears, can cause harm as well as good, where the (female, at least) voice is concerned: it can do some good, but I personally find the sound of the soprano voice rather unpleasant. Which is a pity, as most of the great sopranos that I've actually seen interviewed seem to be rather nice people. I have a CD of Kiri Te Kanawa, for example, from when she was a nightclub singer around New Zealand, before someone told her she could be a soprano - and I much prefer it. (As for the most _beautiful_ voice, the one that just makes me sit with a silly smile is Judith Durham. She probably _is_ trained, but if so, it didn't spoil it.) [] Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often Equally, being old doesn't either (-:. But the premise for the new is it's always supposed to better. You know, "new and improved" - blah blah blah. (I could also give you some examples in software, but you and I both already know about that. :-) "New and improved" is of course a contradiction (-:. [] But a LOT of the current age set doesn't think or know that. Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ... Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often, character. Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always [] THAT part is true. And also the layouts of the rooms are typically better (more functional, more sensible). But that's about it. But insulation is only a small part of "construction". [] Designing down to a budget has always been around: colliery rows date from well before the 1950s! (Of course, a UK viewpoint on this may well differ from a US one, simply because we have more "old" building stock, both good and bad.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "This is a one line proof... if we start sufficiently far to the left." [Cambridge University Math Dept.] I see you're posting with OE; I _think_ one of the things that OE-Quotefix sorts out is stopping it reposting the signature separator and what follows it, but I can't remember for sure. I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply, but not always. Here, I've left some in for you: :-) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Santa's elves are just a bunch of subordinate Clauses. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] Well, I like to think that the better composers of the past, if alive now, would embrace and be writing for some of the sounds now available. I'd bet only a select few. :-) I don't know: the new-fangled pianoforte was eventually accepted by most of them. OK, it took a few years, possibly centuries for some instruments, but a great composer will use everything available, and each sound to take advantage of its particular characteristics. Equally, there have always been some who eschew certain sounds. And finally, some of the best melodies survive the most horrendous things being done to them by rearrangers (and more drastic), and still sound pleasing. [] Ah, well, if you want to get into the (in the end futile, but that doesn't stop us) area of language abuse, I'm with you ... Not only abuse of language. :-) More like a generally increasingly more irresponsible society, and one also lacking in taste and manners, and often, character. Ah, you (and me both) are getting old - that's been the cry for millenia; there's a similar statement to yours above that I see occasionally, attributed to one of the ancient Greeks. (I nearly typed that as Geeks!) [] I'm using OE-QuoteFix, but often just cut off the remainer of the post, like all the signature stuff. I've usually cut it off at my last line of reply, but not always. Here, I've left some in for you: :-) [] Please do cut off my .sig when quoting me - that's why I have the separator line (-:! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand, quoted by Deb Shinder 2012-3-30 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Almost playing MIDIs | [email protected] | Setup & Installation | 2 | May 14th 05 08:37 PM |
help me -no sound when playing dvd but playing music is ok | me_la_urean | Multimedia | 1 | December 10th 04 02:04 PM |
no sound (original ain't it!!) | moonraker | Multimedia | 3 | October 6th 04 02:43 PM |
sound not playing on headphones but on speakers | confused | Hardware | 5 | July 18th 04 02:36 PM |
Copy a CD and no sound when playing the file | Curt | Multimedia | 0 | June 14th 04 06:55 AM |