Playing MIDIs with Win98's original SB16 OPL3 sound card

wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I guess
so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
guess
I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)

A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
gender.

True.

Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%
of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:

Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often
may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
today, for just one stellar example. :-)

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I guess
so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an acoustic
instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
guess
I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)

A little over-so, I think. At what level of technology do you draw the
line - the addition of a resonating chamber to a vibrating string, which
goes back into time immemorial and reached sophistication in the middle
of the last millennium (some say peaking in Cremona; I'd say still
developing); or where the vibrations are sensed electrically (the
electric guitar); or where they're _created_ in electronics? I think you
mean the last of these, but since some of those have produced things I
like, I'm not agin' 'em.

A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
gender.

True.

Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%

Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
plasma isn't massless!]

of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

(-: It's abstract ("virtual") to at least a third level.

I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:

Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

Ditto.

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Ah, conceptual art. The first to do it _may_ arguably be art, in that
it's something no-one has done before - though people can (and do!)
endlessly debate whether the novel action is sufficiently noteworthy. I
think the shark might be; I doubt the bed is. Sometimes it's a
performance rather than a piece of art as such, and you then have to
argue about whether performance is art (again, I'd say it can be, but
certainly isn't always).

Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it often

Equally, being old doesn't either (-:.

may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
today, for just one stellar example. :-)


Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
been with us. It could equally be argued that modern regulations mean
that at least some aspects of construction (e. g. levels of thermal
insulation, assorted safety and accessibility aspects) are better than
they once were. (Of course, some constructors may not build to the rules
- but it was ever thus ... [there are just more rules now {which itself
of course is not _always_ a good thing ...}])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... now that television history is simply /The One Show/ in doublet and hose.
Alison Graham, Radio Times 14-20 July 2012

On Mar 2, 1:11*am, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? * I
sure don't. *It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
past still produced today? Depends, I listen to anything with a good
beat. I rarely listen to anything slow, though. As a kid I liked that
Hungarian Rhapsody by Liszt which was included as a sample MIDI with
Voyetra AudioStation (how the hell do you even play that on a piano?)

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? * I don't, for the most part. *I
don't even think it's art. *(e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board, and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? *:-).

Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, ****
the 'New Age' crap.

Anyone seen any Demos? http://awards.scene.org/archive.php
There's some modern art for you.

Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. *In fact, it often
may be worse. *Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new homes
today, for just one stellar example. *:-)

What's wrong with the design of modern homes? Are you talking about
the ones with paper-thin walls?

On Mar 2, 12:58*am, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:32 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:06 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
I doubt anyone cares but I thought I'd state for the record that I did
a double-blind frequency response test and I can just barely hear up
to 19kHz with 40/60 correct trials (not sure what the confidence
interval of that is). I can't hear 19.2 or above. Haven't tried 19.1
and don't want to, my head hurts.
So it appears I do indeed have superhuman hearing after all. Yeehaw!

Really good for now, so enjoy it!
It falls off with age, however (a condition known as presbycusis). I
think
by age 60 or so it's down to about 10 kHz or so, so enjoy it while you
can!

Thanks, I'll try. Last test, I used cut-off frequency shelves of music
instead of tones so I didn't think I could hear more than 16. It's
good to know I'm not deteriorating THAT fast.
I still can't hear below 40 Hz though and it says people with normal
hearing should sense 15-20. I happen to like very loud low bass in
music so it would suck if my low-shelf hearing would also deteriorate..

So by 2050 I won't be able to hear cymbals anymore eh? Meh, we'll have
cyborg ear implants by then.

No, I can still hear cymbals, but probably not to the full "depth" you
can.

Presbycuspis results in a slow decline in hearing with age, so don't
worry.
(The high frequency loss is slow, unless you go to a very loud rock
concert,
which can do permanent and instantaneous (and non-reversible) damage).

http://www.sendspace.com/file/67hx54
Can you hear the high crystalline notes from 1.85 to 3 seconds of the
clip? They are above 10 kHz. If you can't, all you'll hear is the
accordion in that part.

I can hear them. *I can actually hear up to about 11 kHz.

Good. Out of curiosity, what's it like to not hear above that? I mean,
for me when I hear a sine sweep the tone gets so thin at 19khz that it
fades and I can't imagine the possibility of hearing above that much
like discerning something half as thin as a hair. So what exactly
happens when a sine sweep goes above 11khz for you? If I generated a
11khz tone which I can hear clearly and did an audio fadeout, would
this be how you perceive it?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:03 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Does an electronic synthesizer constitute a "musical instrument"? I
guess
so, at least in one sense. For me, musical instrument implies an
acoustic
instrument - something natural, not artificial or synthesized. But I
guess I'm somewhat a purist for feeling that way. :-)

A little over-so, I think. At what level of technology do you draw the
line - the addition of a resonating chamber to a vibrating string, which
goes back into time immemorial and reached sophistication in the middle
of the last millennium (some say peaking in Cremona; I'd say still
developing);

That's still acoustical, so it's great. :-)

or where the vibrations are sensed electrically (the
electric guitar);

Is borderline. :-)

or where they're _created_ in electronics?

Is now over the line. :-) (and I'm an EE, so go figure)

I think you
mean the last of these, but since some of those have produced things I
like, I'm not agin' 'em.

Well, actually they've all produced things I like too. But whether I like
it or not is really tangential to my point.

I mean, some of the most popular stuff on TV, or in movies, or in music, for
that matter, is really crap (like some singers who really can't sing, but
think they can), from a purely artistic point of view. But the stuff sells.
So is that all that matters? I don't think so, anyways.

A little close-minded, no? Change does not mean linear advancement, it
means change and things take on new forms. We're conversing, learning
and transforming on here yet we exist without nationality, age or
gender.

True.

Plasma speakers are massless yet produce coherent sound. 99.9%

Not totally (-:. [They don't have a permanent solid moving part. But the
plasma isn't massless!]

I always thought electrostatic speakers were supposed to be the "ne plus
ultra", but maybe that's considered old technology nowadays.

of today's currency doesn't physically exist yet it births millions,
kills billions and makes the earth rotate.

(-: It's abstract ("virtual") to at least a third level.

I'm still using Acoustic Research AR-3 speakers, so, no comment. :-)
So ... perhaps a bit close minded. But, OTOH:

Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)?
I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

Ditto.

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board,
and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Ah, conceptual art. The first to do it _may_ arguably be art, in that
it's something no-one has done before - though people can (and do!)
endlessly debate whether the novel action is sufficiently noteworthy.

Just by that very nature, no, I sure don't. :-)

I think the shark might be; I doubt the bed is. Sometimes it's a
performance rather than a piece of art as such, and you then have to
argue about whether performance is art (again, I'd say it can be, but
certainly isn't always).

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. :-)

may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new
homes today, for just one stellar example. :-)


Shoddy construction, to meet ridiculous budget constraints, has always
been with us. It could equally be argued that modern regulations mean
that at least some aspects of construction (e. g. levels of thermal
insulation, assorted safety and accessibility aspects) are better than
they once were.

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".

(Of course, some constructors may not build to the rules
- but it was ever thus ... [there are just more rules now {which itself
of course is not _always_ a good thing ...}])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... now that television history is simply /The One Show/ in doublet and
hose.
Alison Graham, Radio Times 14-20 July 2012

wrote:
On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
past still produced today?

Yes, I meant the real classical music, which is indeed old: Bach,
Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Liszt, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Schumann,
Tchaikovsky, etc. Although admitedly, I haven't been listening to them as
much as R&R and some blues folk music, and classical rock these days.
(yes, I know, 80's rock and classical rock deviates from my purity thing :-)

Depends, I listen to anything with a good
beat. I rarely listen to anything slow, though. As a kid I liked that
Hungarian Rhapsody by Liszt which was included as a sample MIDI with
Voyetra AudioStation (how the hell do you even play that on a piano?)

Or do you like so-called "modern art"? I don't, for the most part. I
don't even think it's art. (e..g: some modern "art" might arise from a
painter just arbitrarily throwing some random paint splashes at a board,
and
that's supposed to pass for "art"? :-).

Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, ****
the 'New Age' crap.

Exactly.

Anyone seen any Demos? http://awards.scene.org/archive.php
There's some modern art for you.

Just because something is modern doesn't make it better. In fact, it
often
may be worse. Consider the "quality" (cough) of construction of new
homes today, for just one stellar example. :-)

What's wrong with the design of modern homes? Are you talking about
the ones with paper-thin walls?

Yup, and the overall tacky construction (i.e.: "just throw the boxes up and
mass produce them as fast as possible"). Check out some of the older homes
(pre-1950's), and see the care that was taken in their construction.
(Granted, their outside wall insulation sucked, however).

wrote:
On Mar 2, 12:58 am, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 4:32 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 1, 3:06 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
I doubt anyone cares but I thought I'd state for the record that I
did
a double-blind frequency response test and I can just barely hear up
to 19kHz with 40/60 correct trials (not sure what the confidence
interval of that is). I can't hear 19.2 or above. Haven't tried 19.1
and don't want to, my head hurts.
So it appears I do indeed have superhuman hearing after all. Yeehaw!

Really good for now, so enjoy it!
It falls off with age, however (a condition known as presbycusis). I
think
by age 60 or so it's down to about 10 kHz or so, so enjoy it while
you
can!

Thanks, I'll try. Last test, I used cut-off frequency shelves of music
instead of tones so I didn't think I could hear more than 16. It's
good to know I'm not deteriorating THAT fast.
I still can't hear below 40 Hz though and it says people with normal
hearing should sense 15-20. I happen to like very loud low bass in
music so it would suck if my low-shelf hearing would also deteriorate.

So by 2050 I won't be able to hear cymbals anymore eh? Meh, we'll have
cyborg ear implants by then.

No, I can still hear cymbals, but probably not to the full "depth" you
can.

Presbycuspis results in a slow decline in hearing with age, so don't
worry.
(The high frequency loss is slow, unless you go to a very loud rock
concert,
which can do permanent and instantaneous (and non-reversible) damage).

http://www.sendspace.com/file/67hx54
Can you hear the high crystalline notes from 1.85 to 3 seconds of the
clip? They are above 10 kHz. If you can't, all you'll hear is the
accordion in that part.

I can hear them. I can actually hear up to about 11 kHz.

Good. Out of curiosity, what's it like to not hear above that? I mean,
for me when I hear a sine sweep the tone gets so thin at 19khz that it
fades and I can't imagine the possibility of hearing above that much
like discerning something half as thin as a hair. So what exactly
happens when a sine sweep goes above 11khz for you? If I generated a
11khz tone which I can hear clearly and did an audio fadeout, would
this be how you perceive it?

In terms of music, and especially cymbals, you miss some of the upper
harmonics, so the sound is dulled.

For example, cymbals have tons of harmonics (as I recall), spanning most of
the audible frequency range, so if you cut off the high frequencies, they
sound dulled. You can hear it for yourself by running music thru a low pass
filter (or with treble cut).

If I use a test signal generator, I can easily hear the tone until I
increase the frequency above around 10 kHz, at which point it starts getting
much weaker, so when I get it to 12 kHz, I hear nothing. But it's not a
straight line response, as the ear (for all of us) is most sensitive in the
mid frequency range, and thus it's a curve, peaking in the mid frequency
range (a few kHz, as I recall)

On Mar 2, 6:27*pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 2, 1:11 am, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
Do you like modern classical music (a lot of stuff from this century)? I
sure don't. It's way too dissonant for my tastes.

I love Trance which may be considered the classical music of the 21st
century, but you probably mean the same classical music of 5 centuries
past still produced today?

Yes, I meant the real classical music, which is indeed old: * Bach,
Beethoven, Chopin, Dvorak, Liszt, Mozart, Rossini, Schubert, Schumann,
Tchaikovsky, etc. * Although admitedly, I haven't been listening to them as
much as R&R and some blues folk music, and classical rock these days.
(yes, I know, 80's rock and classical rock deviates from my purity thing :-)

I listen to all genres except country, if it has a good beat to it.
There are covers today that produce upbeat forms of classical using
the same instruments and getup from 400 years ago. The new Starcraft
game coming out will feature a piece by Banya I heard. She's awesome.

Actual modern art or arbitrarily-named "postmodernist" art? No, ****
the 'New Age' crap.

Exactly.

The postmodernist movement has been nothing but a giant ****up, a
failure. And not just in the art business but other fields as well,
like psychology, which brought more bull**** and misery than religion
has.

Yup, and the overall tacky construction (i.e.: "just throw the boxes up and
mass produce them as fast as possible"). *Check out some of the older homes
(pre-1950's), and see the care that was taken in their construction.
(Granted, their outside wall insulation sucked, however).

Gotcha, but you see this happening because of the transition to
automation. They were built with care because it was built by people,
now we're ATTEMPTING to have infant machines automate it who are not
yet fully capable and limited to simpler, crappy designs. Not to
mention the costs are pushed to an absolute minimum. People want
wealth, they don't wanna earn it.
In a few decades 3D printing will take on unprecedented forms and be
able to build anything by itself given proper instructions.

On Mar 2, 6:36*pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
In terms of music, and especially cymbals, you miss some of the upper
harmonics, so the sound is dulled.

For example, cymbals have tons of harmonics (as I recall), spanning most of
the audible frequency range, so if you cut off the high frequencies, they
sound dulled. *You can hear it for yourself by running music thru a low pass
filter (or with treble cut).

How would you know this? Do you even remember what higher pitches
sounded like?

wrote:
On Mar 2, 6:36 pm, "Bill in Co"
wrote:
In terms of music, and especially cymbals, you miss some of the upper
harmonics, so the sound is dulled.

For example, cymbals have tons of harmonics (as I recall), spanning most
of
the audible frequency range, so if you cut off the high frequencies, they
sound dulled. You can hear it for yourself by running music thru a low
pass
filter (or with treble cut).

How would you know this? Do you even remember what higher pitches
sounded like?

You can see it by using a spectrum analysis module in a good audio editor
program. So if you have a good audio editor, it will include a spectrum
analysis module (like in Sound Forge), or have a frequency domain window in
it (like in Cool Edit or Adobe Audition), where you can see the frequencies
present on the vertical axis vs time, instead of the waveform vs time (you
can switch between them). As to the second question, I think so, but
obviously I'm not certain. :-)