RE: [tuning] For Gerald Eskelin: Timbre of Singing (was Re: Jerri es: a conclusion or two)

Thanks for your input Jackie

Nevertheless, I do not totally agree with your comment

> The human voice is continuously variable - changing moment to moment.
> One can see this if they record the wave form and "look" at it in an
> audio editor, as compared with a synthesized timbre. It's two
> entirely different sound worlds.

The difference between the synthetized waveform and its original counterpart
is generally irrelevant. It is possible to make "fine synthesis" of short
phrases by making the natural speech and synthesis speech look alike (on
sonogram) and sound alike (to the point that nobody can tell which one is
natural, and to the point that most people can not tell they are different).
Even in this case, the waveforms are totally different. Waveform difference,
in this case, is due too a poor phase modeling in the synthetic speech. This
phase difference between natural and synthesis is not perceptually relevant.

Phase is perceptually relevant for tone with sharp attack such as
percussions or plucked string. Early digital recording material (e.g. Sony's
PCM F1) was poor at phase rendering, thus sharp attacks were downright
hideous in spite of a flat frequency response.

But for continuous sound, or sound with smoother transition (like speech),
phase has little importance.

yours truly

François Laferrière

--- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
wrote:

> But for continuous sound, or sound with smoother transition (like
speech),
> phase has little importance.

this is a very important point. some people spend too much time
looking at waveforms and searching for 'deep meaning' therein.
unfortunately looking at waveforms is a very poor sensory analogy for
how our ears hear sound. i think it's much more important to focus on
what we can actually hear.

On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:54:16 -0000
> From: "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@yahoo.com>
> Subject: For Gerald Eskelin: Timbre of Singing (was Re: Jerri es: a conclusion
> or two)
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>> --- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François <francois.laferriere@c...>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> But for continuous sound, or sound with smoother transition (like speech),
>>> phase has little importance.
>>
>> this is a very important point. some people spend too much time
>> looking at waveforms and searching for 'deep meaning' therein.
>> unfortunately looking at waveforms is a very poor sensory analogy for
>> how our ears hear sound. i think it's much more important to focus on
>> what we can actually hear.
>
> Paul,
>
> If you had logged in as many hundreds of hours as I have over the
> years recording and coaching vocalists in a real world musical
> environment, you would likely not be so presumptuous as to think that
> what I'm saying here is not based on *hearing*. This is not the first
> time that you have made such off the mark assumptions.
>
> As you frequently recommend to others, I suggest for you to go back
> and read what I wrote.
>
> I maintain that from 22 years of experience with sound synthesis and
> vocal recording, that these are two entirely different things.
>
> This "deep meaning" is the voice of experience. I would humbly
> suggest that you might benefit from learning a little bit of respect
> for it - since I'm not convinced that you have logged in the hundreds
> of hours doing it that I have. Obviously if you are getting folks to
> make tuning judgements about singing based on synthesized timbres,
> then it is my feeling that you've got much to learn.
>
> Hearing and making music is what I do much more than hanging out on
> these chat rooms wasting years of valuable time. Join me, and you
> might begin to get some music completed. I know that there's over 580
> folks in this forum that'd like to *hear* your "theory" that we only
> *see*, live in acutal music.
>
> This is the "deep meaning" I hope to one day *hear* from you.
>
> J:L

Jacky, I suggest you take another look at Paul's post. Your thin-skinned
reaction is quite unwarranted, in my opinion. Paul didn't say or imply that
what you had to say is "not based on *hearing*." On the contrary, he is
making the point that focusing on "what we can actually hear" is important.
He appears to be agreeing with you that "phase has little importance." Read
the exchange again. I think you'll agree.

I'm taking the time to respond here because I, too, used to "react" to
Paul's sometimes abrupt and to-the-point comments. Over the months I've
learned to absorb (read: ignore) those impulses. I've found it better to
request clarification (as I did in an earlier post today) instead of blowing
steam. It really works out better for me. Perhaps you will find it does for
you, too.

Cheers,

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:
> On 3/18/02 6:10 PM, "tuning@y..." <tuning@y...> wrote:
>
> > Message: 14
> > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 21:54:16 -0000
> > From: "jacky_ligon" <jacky_ligon@y...>
> > Subject: For Gerald Eskelin: Timbre of Singing (was Re: Jerri es:
a conclusion
> > or two)
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >> --- In tuning@y..., LAFERRIERE François
<francois.laferriere@c...>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> But for continuous sound, or sound with smoother transition
(like speech),
> >>> phase has little importance.
> >>
> >> this is a very important point. some people spend too much time
> >> looking at waveforms and searching for 'deep meaning' therein.
> >> unfortunately looking at waveforms is a very poor sensory
analogy for
> >> how our ears hear sound. i think it's much more important to
focus on
> >> what we can actually hear.
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > If you had logged in as many hundreds of hours as I have over the
> > years recording and coaching vocalists in a real world musical
> > environment, you would likely not be so presumptuous as to think
that
> > what I'm saying here is not based on *hearing*. This is not the
first
> > time that you have made such off the mark assumptions.

who is writing this and what are they talking about? jacky?? how come
i missed this post originally? i would never make such presumptions
about you jacky, i don't know where you're getting this from. i was
merely amplifying françois' point, and had no idea it was going to
have anything to do with *you*.

> > Obviously if you are getting folks to
> > make tuning judgements about singing based on synthesized timbres,
> > then it is my feeling that you've got much to learn.

please -- i am only doing this for jerry's benefit, and if he can pin
down the phenomenon he's talking about using these timbres, then
we've made some progress. that's all -- i'm not claiming anything
else. i fear you're misinterpreting me greatly here.

> > Hearing and making music is what I do much more than hanging out
on
> > these chat rooms wasting years of valuable time.

likewise.