Re: [ARSCLIST] Haas effect

[Don Cox <doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/03/07, George Brock-Nannestad wrote:


> 
> ----- all strings have partials (harmonics, i.e. 2x, 3x, 4x, etc), and
> in a chord there are shared partials. The partials in the later struck
> strings that have already been perceived due to the first will not be
> perceived in the window we have been discussing. I'm quite convinced
> that this is the real basis for the counterpoint that we know in
> classical western art music.

Could be. However, the various keys will probably be out of phase with
each other.
> 

>> This has implications for the recording of a performance. If timing
>> is all that matters within a chord, then a piano roll or MIDI can
>> give an adequate recording. If the notes vary in volume and if this
>> matters, then a roll cannot record the voicing properly.
> 
> ----- but that was precisely my point: the piano roll (so-called
> "artist roll", not the cheap note-by-note) gives a surprisingly good
> illusion, and I hypothesize that it could be because timing is the
> most important.

However, musicians don't seem to find rolls at all satisfactory.
> 
>> 
>> The timing of notes in an _orchestral_ chord will vary depending on
>> where in the audience you are sitting, because of the speed (or
>> slowness) of sound.
> 
> ----- well, it is a matter of distance to the sources. Benade does
> discuss auditorium acoustics quite a lot.
> 
> I believe that most of our musical practice has been developed on the
> basis of what can be heard, not on various systems that are thought
> out.
> 
> The Beament book is published by a relatively small publishing house,
> but it is well worth while getting it. 

I'll try.


> Some features of our hearing
> are so basic that even a dog has them, 

"Even"? Dogs have better hearing than we do.



> and they are so well understood
> now that it has become possible to make data reduction and still make
> intelligible sound (speech) out of the merest skeleton of what we know
> as linear sound. I detest the artefacts I perceive. Beament is a hard
> hitter, just a small quote: (on what people think they can hear): "In
> almost every case the belief is based either on something they have
> been told by someone else who so believes, or something they have read
> and misunderstood. There doesn't seem to be an exact parallel in any
> of our other senses. If people continue to believe that they can hear
> things after one has explained to them why they can't, all one can say
> is so did Joan of Arc, and look what happend to her." (p. 154).

Likewise about things people believe they can't hear.
> 
> Ah, another long post. But the apology at the beginning should have
> warned people.

Good points, though.

Regards
-- 
Don Cox
doncox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx