The harmonic drone

Hi Jacky, I heard the sound of E_Drone. This was my first ever
exposure to the harmonic drone. I allowed it to grow upon me. It
sounded strange, initially, primarily because there was no "plucked"
sound I am so used to. Then I could hear many colors and hues and
shades and nuances in it. We had "Sa" in three octaves, we got Pa,
and then Re, Ni, also Ga, not to miss komala Ni (Bb) -- what more can
we ask for? Patience more than paid off. During the day, I found
myself listening to it repeatedly. The novelty dissolved into
quality. The pulsating, precessing power.

A few other observations:
(i) Is its "Sa", the note E? To me it sounded like F# [with a few
cents added]. I confirmed that with my keyboard. I do not know how,
if, you convert the .wav file into the mp3 format. I have observed
that the software I use -- Jukebox -- changes the pitch of the
original recording, to my dismay.

(ii) There were beats, in very high octave -- shrill, I thought. I
had to bring down, all the way, the 1K and 3K equalizer pointers of
the WINAMP, to -20dB each, and the shrill was almost gone. This
beats-and-shrill started right on 0 second. It increased upto the
12th second. Even without the equalizer adjustment, it became almost
inaudible between the 13th and the 23rd seconds. Then it grew louder
again from there to the 35th second.

(iii) I found the Sa, F#+, to be a little "coarse", too.

Moreover, this kind of harmonic drone can be a "just" substitute for
the harmonium that we use by way of accompaniment. The use of
harmonium is most regrettable, since the harmonium, even when
specially and carefully tuned for the raga scales, can be used only
for a particular key in which it is tuned. The singers change their
key quite often, rendering the harmonium more than useless. In
addition, the scale may need to be changed from one raga to the
next. Now, the harmonic drone can be an excellent substitute for
harmonium. This is because we can have several different
combinations ready, separately, for several keys, justly. But it
would involve extensive work, including the mapping of the keyboard.

Lastly, I would like to listen to your other harmonic drones, too,
if possible.

Soon I will make available the sound of simultaneously played two
digital drones on my site www.SoundOfIndia.com, in the key of C (or
as close to C as the converting software will permit me to go).

Regards,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@y..., "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
> Hi Jacky, I heard the sound of E_Drone. This was my first ever
> exposure to the harmonic drone. I allowed it to grow upon me. It
> sounded strange, initially, primarily because there was
no "plucked"
> sound I am so used to. Then I could hear many colors and hues and
> shades and nuances in it. We had "Sa" in three octaves, we got Pa,
> and then Re, Ni, also Ga, not to miss komala Ni (Bb) -- what more
can
> we ask for? Patience more than paid off. During the day, I found
> myself listening to it repeatedly. The novelty dissolved into
> quality. The pulsating, precessing power.

Haresh,

Thanks for listening. I found your remarks fascinating too, and
please allow me to comment.

I'm glad that you found it to be something that you could listen to
repeatedly. That was my goal. Sometimes, I'll have these playing in
my house for long periods of time, when I'm not working on music,
which allows me to have a harmonic drone to sing with. I enjoy having
them playing when I practice frame drumming too.

> A few other observations:
> (i) Is its "Sa", the note E? To me it sounded like F# [with a few
> cents added]. I confirmed that with my keyboard. I do not know
how,
> if, you convert the .wav file into the mp3 format. I have observed
> that the software I use -- Jukebox -- changes the pitch of the
> original recording, to my dismay.

Yes, my friend - I did find that I had mislabeled the file. When I
use these I will commonly have several playing together, playing in
select ratios, and this F# was to be played against another Sa.
Forgive the mistake, and I've uploaded this again to the files
section, retuned to Ga (E).

> (ii) There were beats, in very high octave -- shrill, I thought. I
> had to bring down, all the way, the 1K and 3K equalizer pointers of
> the WINAMP, to -20dB each, and the shrill was almost gone. This
> beats-and-shrill started right on 0 second. It increased upto the
> 12th second. Even without the equalizer adjustment, it became
almost
> inaudible between the 13th and the 23rd seconds. Then it grew
louder
> again from there to the 35th second.

Yes, and I should point out a couple of things here about this:

1. The overdubbing of harmonic sweeps and synth drones that I
layer together, will produce a slightly inharmonic drone. I also add
in digital reverberation effects, and speed manipulations, which in
the end, will slightly deviate from a perfect harmonic series. It
might be of interest if I were to do some FFT analysis of some of
these to see how inharmonic they are.

2. The shrill effect comes from the sweeping of the highest
harmonics that I use. These are really the "raw" waveforms, and when
I use them in a final piece of music, I will have them mixed with
other timbres, and will eq them and reverberate them, so they will
blend with the ensembles. To hear them in mono, this way is to hear
them in their most naked form, but when they are used in the music, I
like to have that glimmering effect of the highest harmonics, able to
subtly "cut through" the mix. It is indeed a good idea to use eq,
panning and effects in a final mix of these, where one may be glad
for leaving the original wave a little "bright". Obviously, it would
be difficult to add back as an afterthought.

> (iii) I found the Sa, F#+, to be a little "coarse", too.

I would agree. As above, they are slightly inharmonic, which I feel
gives them character. When I re-tuned this to E, I used a sine wave
to check the results, and found your observation to be true.

> Moreover, this kind of harmonic drone can be a "just" substitute
for
> the harmonium that we use by way of accompaniment. The use of
> harmonium is most regrettable, since the harmonium, even when
> specially and carefully tuned for the raga scales, can be used only
> for a particular key in which it is tuned. The singers change
their
> key quite often, rendering the harmonium more than useless. In
> addition, the scale may need to be changed from one raga to the
> next. Now, the harmonic drone can be an excellent substitute for
> harmonium. This is because we can have several different
> combinations ready, separately, for several keys, justly. But it
> would involve extensive work, including the mapping of the keyboard.

This has been my approach as well. What I do, is build folders in my
PC, where I have many different drones in a variety of keys, as well
as having them arranged so that I can superimpose them against one
another in just ratios. I always like to have them overlapping and
panning, so there is no break in the drone - usually employing at
least 2 distinctly different ones at the same time. Ideally, it would
be nice to have this all set up in a sampler, but for now, the PC
seems to be the solution for me - my sampler only has 32 megs of RAM.

They can be wonderful for practicing singing with, and I've found
them valuable too for developing my throat singing techniques.

> Lastly, I would like to listen to your other harmonic drones, too,
> if possible.

I've uploaded several more examples for you and others to hear, as
well as the E_Drone retuned:

/tuning/files/Ligon%20FFT/

Please let me know what you think, as your opinion is held in highest
regard.

> Soon I will make available the sound of simultaneously played two
> digital drones on my site www.SoundOfIndia.com, in the key of C (or
> as close to C as the converting software will permit me to go).

This will be wonderful! I will be eagerly waiting for this

Best Regards,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20017.html#20036

Hi Jacky!

How, technically, do you do your beautiful "drones" again?? Is the
little TX81Z involved in some way. I believe, at one point, you said
it was...

________ _____ ____
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_20017.html#20036
>
> Hi Jacky!
>
> How, technically, do you do your beautiful "drones" again?? Is the
> little TX81Z involved in some way. I believe, at one point, you
said
> it was...

Joseph,

Glad you've enjoyed them.

Yes, the TX81Z is one of several synths that may come into play in
creating these drones. Obviously, with it's resolution of 1.56 steps,
it will not be able to create a perfect harmonic series. To me
though, this gives them character.

A basic method for using the TX81Z, is to:

1. Create a TX81Z sine wave patch with slow attack and infinite
sustain, with all 8 notes of polyphony given to a single voice.
2. Use Scala to create a Harmonic Series Tuning for your synth, on
middle C, (or your targeted preference).
3. Use your sequencer to create 3 arpeggiated midi tracks (long as
you like), where you use harmonics 1-16 on track 1, 1-8 on track 2, 1-
4 on track 3. (Tip: Use a sustain pedal.). Here you will want to use
your sequencer to draw in velocities to attenuate the desired higher
harmonics.
4. Also record a select patch to use as a pedal tone, which the
harmonic arpeggiations will move against.
5. Record one at a time, all of the above parts as audio.
6. Add to taste, into each part desired DSP - reverbs, delays,
subtle filtering, phase shifting, eq'ing.
7. Use the paste mix function of Sound Forge (or a DAW) to mix all
of the resulting tracks together into a pleasing mix. Alternately,
transpose into other keys if needed, with Sound Forges pitch
transpose function.

This is but one of many schemes for doing this. One can also use
Sound Forge (as Pat P. has said) to generate sines for harmonics.
Granular Synthesis is also highly effective in creating movement in
the harmonics. I haven't tried Glandular Synthesis yet, as I'm
afraid to get icky stuff on my keyboard.

Thanks for your interest,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_20017.html#20045

>
> A basic method for using the TX81Z, is to:
>
> 1. Create a TX81Z sine wave patch with slow attack and infinite
> sustain, with all 8 notes of polyphony given to a single voice.
> 2. Use Scala to create a Harmonic Series Tuning for your synth,
on middle C, (or your targeted preference).
> 3. Use your sequencer to create 3 arpeggiated midi tracks (long
as you like), where you use harmonics 1-16 on track 1, 1-8 on track
2, 1-4 on track 3. (Tip: Use a sustain pedal.). Here you will want to
use your sequencer to draw in velocities to attenuate the desired
higher harmonics.

Hi Jacky...

I'm sorry to say I'm not exactly following you here... Are you saying
to NOT use the TX81Z "multi-tambrally" but to assign all the voices
to a sine patch??

And if so, then why do you break down the harmonics as you do in the
different channels?? Is this so you can give them different
"speeds??"

And should the "upper partials" of an harmonic series be heard
"faster" than the lower partials?? Probably not... I'm a bit
"mystified" here... sorry...

Thanks!

_______ ____ ____ _
Joseph Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:

> 1. The overdubbing of harmonic sweeps and synth drones that I
> layer together, will produce a slightly inharmonic drone. I also
add
> in digital reverberation effects, and speed manipulations, which in
> the end, will slightly deviate from a perfect harmonic series. It
> might be of interest if I were to do some FFT analysis of some of
> these to see how inharmonic they are.
>
These are really the "raw" waveforms, and when
> I use them in a final piece of music, I will have them mixed with
> other timbres, and will eq them and reverberate them, so they will
> blend with the ensembles. To hear them in mono, this way is to
hear
> them in their most naked form, but when they are used in the music,
I
> like to have that glimmering effect of the highest harmonics, able
to
> subtly "cut through" the mix. It is indeed a good idea to use eq,
> panning and effects in a final mix of these, where one may be glad
> for leaving the original wave a little "bright". Obviously, it
would
> be difficult to add back as an afterthought.

Now I realize what you have done. So, it not "coarseness"; You have
introduced certain elements by design. Now, that is interesting,
though smoothness is preferred in Indian music.

The idea of pulsating, gyrating, precessing harmonics must be
acceptable in Indian music, because usually there are two tanpura-s
playing at the same time; they introduce this precession individually
as well as collectively, I believe.

What part does the location of the plucking fingers play? Do they
effectively divide the strings into parts, thus changing the
vibrating length? I do not think so, because the plucking fingers
are there on the strings for only a very short time. What is your
opinion?

Regards,
Haresh.

--- In tuning@y..., jpehrson@r... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., ligonj@n... wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_20017.html#20045
>
> >
> > A basic method for using the TX81Z, is to:
> >
> > 1. Create a TX81Z sine wave patch with slow attack and
infinite
> > sustain, with all 8 notes of polyphony given to a single voice.
> > 2. Use Scala to create a Harmonic Series Tuning for your
synth,
> on middle C, (or your targeted preference).
> > 3. Use your sequencer to create 3 arpeggiated midi tracks
(long
> as you like), where you use harmonics 1-16 on track 1, 1-8 on track
> 2, 1-4 on track 3. (Tip: Use a sustain pedal.). Here you will want
to
> use your sequencer to draw in velocities to attenuate the desired
> higher harmonics.
>
> Hi Jacky...
>
> I'm sorry to say I'm not exactly following you here... Are you
saying
> to NOT use the TX81Z "multi-tambrally" but to assign all the voices
> to a sine patch??

Yes, you'll need to overdubb the synth, so here you'd be giving
yourself 8 sine waves per part. You need this for good "sweeping"
effects and richness.

>
> And if so, then why do you break down the harmonics as you do in
the
> different channels??

You can use the same channel for each track of midi, thereby having 8
sines per track for your final overdubbed drone mix.

Is this so you can give them different
> "speeds??"

Speed manipulation is something I usually do to the final drone, so
the "speeds" of the harmonic movement, is something that you can
either program (step sequencer) or play with your hands. I've did
plenty both ways, and prefer manual control over the speeds, this way
my physical body is in touch with the music. Both can be valuable in
this process - whatever works.

>
> And should the "upper partials" of an harmonic series be heard
> "faster" than the lower partials?? Probably not... I'm a bit
> "mystified" here... sorry...

That is where taste come in, and you could try step writing in a midi
part which made the harmonics durations relative to the harmonic
number, or just play what you feel.

This is a synthesis technique I've been using for my JI work since
the early 1990s, and it took a bit of experimentation to get it right.
The main thing I can recommend is to at every step, be thinking about
the function of the sound is to underpin JI, so it needs to be really
sweet sounding - a sound that one can stand to hear for long periods
of time. This is a sound aesthetic that I like to turn onto many
things, which I feel makes the music endrue repeated listening.

Thanks for your continued interest,

Jacky Ligon

--- In tuning@y..., "Haresh BAKSHI" <hareshbakshi@h...> wrote:
>
> Now I realize what you have done. So, it not "coarseness"; You
have
> introduced certain elements by design. Now, that is interesting,
> though smoothness is preferred in Indian music.

Haresh,

Yes, it was by design, but I can also acheive the opposite if desired
too. Just depending upon what kind of sound is needed for a given
context. Perhaps this connects with my interest in inharmonic
timbres, like bells and gongs.

>
> The idea of pulsating, gyrating, precessing harmonics must be
> acceptable in Indian music, because usually there are two tanpura-s
> playing at the same time; they introduce this precession
individually
> as well as collectively, I believe.

And this is one of the most beautiful sounds I've heard too.

>
> What part does the location of the plucking fingers play? Do they
> effectively divide the strings into parts, thus changing the
> vibrating length? I do not think so, because the plucking fingers
> are there on the strings for only a very short time. What is your
> opinion?

As a guitarist of many years, I can say that one has incredible
control over the harmonic content of sound depending upon where one
picks at the various harmonic nodes.

Thanks,

Jacky Ligon

Well, this discussion got me in the mode for a bit of dronality. Ignoring
Jacky Ligon's advice about strict quality control, I put the results here:

<http://x31eq.com/drone.mp3>

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:
> Well, this discussion got me in the mode for a bit of dronality.
Ignoring
> Jacky Ligon's advice about strict quality control, I put the
results here:
>
> <http://x31eq.com/drone.mp3>
>
>
> Graham

What-chu talking 'bout (?) - man that is beautiful!!

Sweet sounds - like the drone.

Will add to my Graham Collection.

Thanks,

Jacky

P.S. I forgot to mention my interest in the Bladder Horn. Anybody
play on of these?