Again - comments below - this time indicated by ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Absolutely. However, the FFT is graphed on a bi-axis graph (amplitude > and frequency at a given time). Then you don't get the development of sound over time. The way it goes over time is perhaps the most important aspect; e.g., the beginning, middle, and end of a note are not single points in time. It is thus important for us to map the development of overtones, of pitch, etc. This is why spectrographs (while perhaps conveying less precise amplitude data) are more valuable for the kind of work I do with my computer. What would you use an FFT to evaluate, other than tone at one moment? Which moment would you choose? It might tell you as much as a 1-ms clip of me playing the mozart concerto! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Agreed...however, the spectrograph is still far too inaccurate for this type of critical measurement. Perhaps the standard waveform view in a quality DAW is best. It is, by its very nature, a FFT displayed over a timeline (although, I still find these to be quite inaccurate. A waterfall plot would probably be best of all.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Nope, I won't bend on that one. Visual feedback is one thing, aural > feedback is another. Listening to your sound over computer speakers > and making adjustments to your tone is absurd. To assume that the > crappy little 2" paper cones can do justice to a horns rich and > complex overtones is absurd. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please see that there is room for debate on this. I very much enjoy my Vienna Philharmonic recordings, for example. I grew up on Mahler 3, listening on crappy speakers, and they sound beautiful and rich. I grew up in a rural town in Florida with no great horn players to listen to, no symphonies to listen to, never heard a live performer until college. Maybe it is impossible to develop one's sense of tone from recordings. To all on the list: Who are your major influences on tone, and did you get it from recording or live or what mixture? Perhaps some of my issues as a player come from trying to emulate the recorded tones I heard, e.g., of the Vienna Phil horns? (or maybe not?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I do see some wiggle room despite my stubborn convictions. However, the poorer the monitoring system (speakers) the less accurate and thus the less capable of conveying the horns sound. Granted, as you mention, there is a degree of correction that our ear automatically applies, but it does have its limitations. Believe me, if I, as a professional recording engineer stated that recordings and playback systems are incapable of true, accurate and beautiful sound, I wouldn't likely have a lot of clients. However, I stand firm that computer speakers are not the preferred medium (no matter how "expensive" those computer speakers are.) The vast majority of individuals who will be recording into Cubase or Audacity do not have advanced monitoring systems with sophisticated computer-recording interfaces. They probably have a microphone (computer variety) going into a PC with $29 speakers hooked up as their means of playback. Making critical decisions regarding tone in this matter is foolish at best. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Do you listen to CDs of horn players? Do they sound right? Where > does most of your idea about horn tone come from? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes I do. No they don't. > My idea of horn tone comes from live performances and the fact that I > have studied with individuals with amazing and confident sounds. If I > were to try to emulate what I hear on recordings, I shutter to think > of the sound I might have. I believe there must be room for differences here. I've heard many stories of people learning what the horn should sound like from recordings. Maybe your tone is more wonderful than all of them.. who knows, as I haven't heard you.... We pick up all these skills of "filtering", e.g., figuring out how to listen to ourselves in all sorts of situations, bad acoustics, sick with the flu, sitting with someone else's bell in our left ear, etc. Are you saying it's impossible to get the relevant important information about our tone in the situation that it is coming through speakers? (Particularly if one heard what went into the computer, and are now hearing what went out, one develops a sense of the transformation and how to get the most out of their second listening) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not saying it's not possible. However, I do think it is not ideal. Again, a poor playback environment can emphasize higher overtones or deaden them altering the perception of the tone significantly. Most of the recordings are done phenomenally. The weakest link is usually the home stereo (or the dreaded iPod...) Oh...and my tone is nothing spectacular. Personally, I feel as though I lean towards the bright side of the sound. However, here's the big kicker... I used to be obsessed with my tone. One day, I don't even know when, I stopped obsessing and just played. No one has complained about my tone, so I don't really think about it. It frees me up to worry about other things - like intonation and accuracy and styling...etc. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Probably not. Unless you can perform in a wonderful hall which is > where these folks were recorded. It's not too hard in university, actually. I was in the audio program so had access to the matched pair of Schoeps, mounted in ORTF at exactly the right place in a beautiful hall. (Indiana University's Auer hall is a marvelous place). So, I could get in the hall any time it was open and use their mics with their Hardy pre-amps ($1000 per channel) and record either straight to CD or patch it through to my computer for multitracking with Pro Tools. So, pardon my geekout fest for a moment, but all of that was free for the 2 years I was a student there. I did not use it nearly as regularly as I wish, but did make some successful audition tapes and a couple cool multitrack things. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ No apologies needed. Geekouts are part of my life! I'm actually quite familiar with Auer Hall and you're right, it is marvelous. I would say, however, that it's far less common to have that kind of hall and recording equipment and ready access to them then to have a quality horn player in the area that you could listen to. One of the most defining sounds I've heard in a while was when Baltimore Symphony played Mahler 5. Phil Munds played principal and his treatment of the solo both with tone and styling were phenomenal. Just observing from some good seats in the house had a profound affect on my own tone production and styling. If one good performance is capable of that much, just think what several could do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Peace, Jeremy _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
