Now Artificial Intelligence Is Inventing Sounds That Have Never Been Heard Before

As well as beating us at board games, driving cars, and spotting cancer, artificial intelligence is now generating brand new sounds that have never been heard before, thanks to some advanced maths combined with samples from real instruments.

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Now Artificial Intelligence Is Inventing Sounds That Have Never Been Heard Before

As well as beating us at board games, driving cars, and spotting cancer, artificial intelligence is now generating brand new sounds that have never been heard before, thanks to some advanced maths combined with samples from real instruments.

more…

There was a TV show a couple of years ago (fiction) that suggested that many of today’s pop songs were already composed by an artificial intelligence. Knowing a bit about the first glimmers of computer music in the late 1970s, I can well believe that algorithms that advanced have been written.

Listening to sound samples from link, these aren’t new at all, they’re just two or three conventional instruments playing simultaneously. They sound awful. I wouldn’t be surprised if I could do better just with Audacity.

I’ve occasionally thought of inventing sounds that have never been heard before.

My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve occasionally thought of inventing sounds that have never been heard before.

My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

Around the time I started with SSSF, I wrote a QBasic program to perform Fourier syntheses using random coefficients of the harmonics, but with a general f ^–n with n > 1 profile for the frequency spectrum. To my surprise, all the various waveforms that I synthesised sounded fairly similar to each other, with much less than expected differences between them. The result were tones that were not much more interesting than a sinusoidal waveform.

KJW said:

mollwollfumble said:

I’ve occasionally thought of inventing sounds that have never been heard before.

My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

Around the time I started with SSSF, I wrote a QBasic program to perform Fourier syntheses using random coefficients of the harmonics, but with a general f ^–n with n > 1 profile for the frequency spectrum. To my surprise, all the various waveforms that I synthesised sounded fairly similar to each other, with much less than expected differences between them. The result were tones that were not much more interesting than a sinusoidal waveform.

Our hearing isn’t as clever as we think.

>>My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

An early mistake for young players. The statement is true only in part. If one is considering instruments then not only must the scale of “just intonation” be considered but consideration must be given to whole tone scales, quartertone scales, scales based on differing divisions of the octave eg 15 or 20 divisions to the octave.

It is a fundamental blunder to consider that all instruments are based on Fourier series, The percussion family for example are often based on a Bessel series viz aharmonic.

Construction of “original” sounds is indeed a very complex affair.

macx

roughbarked said:

KJW said:

Around the time I started with SSSF, I wrote a QBasic program to perform Fourier syntheses using random coefficients of the harmonics, but with a general f ^–n with n > 1 profile for the frequency spectrum. To my surprise, all the various waveforms that I synthesised sounded fairly similar to each other, with much less than expected differences between them. The result were tones that were not much more interesting than a sinusoidal waveform.

Our hearing isn’t as clever as we think.

At around the same time, I passed analogue signals through a CMOS analogue switch that was controlled by a digital signal whose frequency was a fraction of that of the analogue signal. The resulting analogue signal sounded much more rich, especially when the frequency of the controlling signal was a little bit off-tuned.

macx said:

>>My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

An early mistake for young players. The statement is true only in part. If one is considering instruments then not only must the scale of “just intonation” be considered but consideration must be given to whole tone scales, quartertone scales, scales based on differing divisions of the octave eg 15 or 20 divisions to the octave.

It is a fundamental blunder to consider that all instruments are based on Fourier series, The percussion family for example are often based on a Bessel series viz aharmonic.

Construction of “original” sounds is indeed a very complex affair.

macx

And I’d imagine that even when it can be done, they may not be of any musical value.

>>At around the same time, I passed analogue signals through a CMOS analogue switch that was controlled by a digital signal whose frequency was a fraction of that of the analogue signal. The resulting analogue signal sounded much more rich, especially when the frequency of the controlling signal was a little bit off-tuned.

Ah ha! introducing phase information and time dislocation. Much more interesting!

macx

>>And I’d imagine that even when it can be done, they may not be of any musical value.

Utterly correct.

macx

sings

…you can call me AI…

macx said:

The percussion family for example are often based on a Bessel series viz aharmonic.

There was a time long ago when I thought that (untuned) percussion sounds were based on noise. This seemed to be supported by ’80s drum machines, but I subsequently realised that 2- or 3-dimensional instruments may have harmonics that are not integer-related to the fundamental.

KJW said:

macx said:

The percussion family for example are often based on a Bessel series viz aharmonic.

There was a time long ago when I thought that (untuned) percussion sounds were based on noise. This seemed to be supported by ’80s drum machines, but I subsequently realised that 2- or 3-dimensional instruments may have harmonics that are not integer-related to the fundamental.

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

> Around the time I started with SSSF, I wrote a QBasic program to perform Fourier syntheses using random coefficients of the harmonics, but with a general f –n with n > 1 profile for the frequency spectrum. To my surprise, all the various waveforms that I synthesised sounded fairly similar to each other, with much less than expected differences between them. The result were tones that were not much more interesting than a sinusoidal waveform.

Now that is very interesting. So a random variation of harmonics doesn’t give much more variation than a single pure frequency. I wonder if care is needed with the starting condition, each harmonic has not just a frequency but a start time. I’ve only played around with sine, square and sawtooth waves, and variations such as ring modulator, as part of an electronic music course I did back in 1979 or so. What you say matches what i remember.

macx said:

>>My starting point would be to build a harmonic series. Each different type of acoustic instrument has a different harmonic series.

An early mistake for young players. The statement is true only in part. If one is considering instruments then not only must the scale of “just intonation” be considered but consideration must be given to whole tone scales, quartertone scales, scales based on differing divisions of the octave eg 15 or 20 divisions to the octave.

It is a fundamental blunder to consider that all instruments are based on Fourier series, The percussion family for example are often based on a Bessel series viz aharmonic.

Construction of “original” sounds is indeed a very complex affair.

macx

> It is a fundamental blunder to consider that all instruments are based on Fourier series.

Quite the opposite, I’d say. A Fourier transform not only converts time-based space into frequency-based space. It also does the opposite and converts frequency-based space back into time-based space. These “quartertone scales, scales based on differing divisions of the octave, and percussion” are still frequency spectra.

Note also that I did say “starting point”, not “finishing point”. Somewhere along the line I’d decompose the sounds from real acoustic instruments in order to put them back together into something quite different – not just a simple superposition as in the link in the OP.

All together, it looks like a very worthwhile project – perhaps.

>> So a random variation of harmonics doesn’t give much more variation than a single pure frequency. I wonder if care is needed with the starting condition, each harmonic has not just a frequency but a start time.

The French horn suppresses the fundamental. The note or pitch is determined almost entirely by the harmonic structure. See “…the missing fundamental…”

The phase (timing) relationship of the harmonics may not play as much an important role as the amplitude of said harmonics.

macx

Here is some good psycho-acoustic fun from the maestro (!) herself.

http://deutsch.ucsd.edu/psychology/pages.php?i=201

macx

Diana Deutsch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diana Deutsch (born February 15, 1938 in London, England) is a British-American perceptual and cognitive psychologist, born in London, England. She is currently Professor of Psychology at the University of California, San Diego, and is a prominent researcher on the psychology of music. She is known for the musical and auditory illusions that she has discovered, which include the octave illusion, the scale illusion, the glissando illusion, the tritone paradox, the phantom words illusion, the speech-to-song illusion and the cambiata illusion, among others. She also studies the cognitive foundation of musical grammars, the ways in which people hold musical pitches in memory, and the ways in which people relate the sounds of music and speech to each other. In addition, she is acclaimed for her work on absolute pitch, or perfect pitch, which she has shown is far more prevalent among speakers of tone language.

Deutsch obtained a First Class Honors B.A. in Psychology, Philosophy and Physiology from the University of Oxford in 1959, and a Ph. D. in Psychology from the University of California, San Diego in 1970. She is Editor of the book The Psychology of Music, Academic Press, 1982, 2nd Edition 1999, 3rd Edition 2013, and author of the compact discs Musical Illusions and Paradoxes (1995) and Phantom Words and Other Curiosities (2003).

Deutsch has been elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Acoustical Society of America, the Audio Engineering Society, the Society of Experimental Psychologists, the American Psychological Society, and the American Psychological Association. She has served as Governor of the Audio Engineering Society, as Chair of the Section on Psychology of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as President of Division 10 of the American Psychological Association, and as Chair of the Society of Experimental Psychologists. In 2004, she was awarded the Rudolf Arnheim Award for Outstanding Achievement in Psychology and the Arts by the American Psychological Association. In 2008, she was awarded the Gustav Theodor Fechner Award for Outstanding Contributions to Empirical Aesthetics by the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics. In 2011 she was awarded the Science Writing Award for Professionals in Acoustics by the Acoustical Society of America. The Audio Engineering Society awarded her the Gold Medal Award for “lifelong contributions to the understanding of the human hearing mechanism and the science of psychoacoustics” in 2016.

<><><><><><><>

macx

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Lithophones are three dimensional.

dv said:

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Lithophones are three dimensional.

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

KJW said:

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Lithophones are three dimensional.

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

Sure

Lithophone melody

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

KJW said:

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Lithophones are three dimensional.

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

Aparrently.

I still say I want to collect together or devise a drum set that covers a much wider tonal range. Think kettle drum plus steel band plus set of wood blocks plus conga drums plus soft leather set plus plastic set etc. to give a wide tonal range. Deliberately excluding the jangling of cymbals or bells and tonelessness of the snare and side drums and rock band drums.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Lithophones are three dimensional.

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

Sure

Lithophone melody

I don’t have a full set but I have a few. I knew an aboriginal man who had a complete glockenspiel of them.

KJW said:

For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

The atomic orbitals of the hydrogen atom (an example of a three-dimensional resonant system) are an example of this. For n=1, there is only the 1s orbital. For n=2, there are the 2s and 2p orbitals. For n=3, there are the 3s, 3p, and 3d orbitals. For n=4, there are the 4s, 4p, 4d, and 4f orbitals. And so on…

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

But we know what was meant. A string has certain harmonics, other dimensions of the instruments surface and volume modify the tone without greatly changing the pitch – we hope.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

And strings and drumheads are actually three dimensional.

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

AwesomeO said:

This might be bleeding obvious and I have missed something but what do you mean 2 or 3D instruments.

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

A drum resonates.

A string is helped by a drum like bit of wood. A guitarist I know used a wooden table to make recordings of deeper resonance from his guitar.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

KJW said:

A string is one-dimensional, a drumhead is two-dimensional (I can’t think of any instrument that is three-dimensional, but I included it for the sake of completeness). In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

And strings and drumheads are actually three dimensional.

Their vibrational modes are such that they can be considered one and two dimensional.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

And strings and drumheads are actually three dimensional.

Their vibrational modes are such that they can be considered one and two dimensional.

Yes, they’re talking mathematical models.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

Sure

Lithophone melody

I don’t have a full set but I have a few. I knew an aboriginal man who had a complete glockenspiel of them.

This man had no training in music from white men. To escape the theft of his children, he took them bush.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

Admittedly, I didn’t search too hard for a three-dimensional instrument. However, I should point out that a bell is essentially a _two_-dimensional instrument, not a three-dimensional instrument, even though its surface has curvature within three-dimensional space.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

And strings and drumheads are actually three dimensional.

Their vibrational modes are such that they can be considered one and two dimensional.

Yes, they’re talking mathematical models.

Whereas the lithophones appear complex and extensive in the 3rd dimension

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Lithophones are three dimensional.

By lithophones are you referring to musical stones?

Sure

Lithophone melody

She’s a pretty nifty lidophonist :)

KJW said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Surely many musical instruments are 3D, since the body of the instrument vibrates, as well as the original sound source.

Admittedly, I didn’t search too hard for a three-dimensional instrument. However, I should point out that a bell is essentially a _two_-dimensional instrument, not a three-dimensional instrument, even though its surface has curvature within three-dimensional space.

In any case, our ears don’t actually encapture all of what actually occurs when we strike a bell. As lovely as it does sound.

Or even a pretty nifty lithophonist.

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

> In any case, our ears don’t actually encapture all of what actually occurs when we strike a bell. As lovely as it does sound.

No?

Because of resonances within the ear or are you thinking of something else?

mollwollfumble said:

> In any case, our ears don’t actually encapture all of what actually occurs when we strike a bell. As lovely as it does sound.

No?

Because of resonances within the ear or are you thinking of something else?

wasn’t really trying to create science but I know that I hear differently to everyone else.

mollwollfumble said:

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

OK. Most of what I hear is transmitted through the bones of my skull.

It probably happens for you too but you don’t need to hear it.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

OK. Most of what I hear is transmitted through the bones of my skull.

It probably happens for you too but you don’t need to hear it.

That’s ridiculous. Why would what I hear be transmitted through the bones of your skull? Your egocentrism is way out of hand.

Until AI can compete with genius…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLV4_xaYynY

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

OK. Most of what I hear is transmitted through the bones of my skull.

It probably happens for you too but you don’t need to hear it.

That’s ridiculous. Why would what I hear be transmitted through the bones of your skull? Your egocentrism is way out of hand.

Fuck off! You are now slated to the back of my memory to be forgotten forever you sanctimonious twit!

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

OK. Most of what I hear is transmitted through the bones of my skull.

It probably happens for you too but you don’t need to hear it.

That’s ridiculous. Why would what I hear be transmitted through the bones of your skull? Your egocentrism is way out of hand.

Fuck off! You are now slated to the back of my memory to be forgotten forever you sanctimonious twit!

An invisible disibility is actually something that can be audibly measured.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

OK. Most of what I hear is transmitted through the bones of my skull.

It probably happens for you too but you don’t need to hear it.

That’s ridiculous. Why would what I hear be transmitted through the bones of your skull? Your egocentrism is way out of hand.

Fuck off! You are now slated to the back of my memory to be forgotten forever you sanctimonious twit!

I was making a silly joke, roughbarked. No offence intended.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

That’s ridiculous. Why would what I hear be transmitted through the bones of your skull? Your egocentrism is way out of hand.

Fuck off! You are now slated to the back of my memory to be forgotten forever you sanctimonious twit!

I was making a silly joke, roughbarked. No offence intended.

I know that but I felt it a good tme to make a sound point.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Fuck off! You are now slated to the back of my memory to be forgotten forever you sanctimonious twit!

I was making a silly joke, roughbarked. No offence intended.

I know that but I felt it a good tme to make a sound point.

zing

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I was making a silly joke, roughbarked. No offence intended.

I know that but I felt it a good tme to make a sound point.

zing

It is a very interesting thing about science and scientists. They are still only utilising a tiny fraction of their consciousness to concentrate upon nitty gritty stuff that may or may not ever have bearing upon their own existence yet by doing so, they miss out on so much about why they are here with the ability to examine what is put before them.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Is the human voice more accurately one dimensional or two?

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

and as I pointed out, sitting the accoustic guitar base on a solid wood table to extend this resonance for recording purposes.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

—

I thought the 3 in 3D was the resonance off their sounding board.

tauto said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

—

I thought the 3 in 3D was the resonance off their sounding board.

You are a numbers man. Apply the numbers to the sounds that come back to you.

tauto said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

—

I thought the 3 in 3D was the resonance off their sounding board.

It’s also the strings themselves. A thick plain nylon string will give a very different sound to a thin wound steel string etc, when playing exactly the same music.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

The vibrational modes of the chords are two dimensional but you raise an interesting point. You need to consider the three dimensional forms of the mouth and throat to predict the final sound … you could probably say the same of any instrument. I mean the vibrational modes of a guitar string is 1 dimensional but to really say how the guitar will sound you need to look at the the 3D shape of the guitar.

Not to mention the 3D properties of the strings, which vary from string to string.

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

indeed

Bubblecar said:

tauto said:

Bubblecar said:

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

—

I thought the 3 in 3D was the resonance off their sounding board.

It’s also the strings themselves. A thick plain nylon string will give a very different sound to a thin wound steel string etc, when playing exactly the same music.

OK the physics of one strand to two wound strands.. where is the third?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

I know that but I felt it a good tme to make a sound point.

zing

It is a very interesting thing about science and scientists. They are still only utilising a tiny fraction of their consciousness to concentrate upon nitty gritty stuff that may or may not ever have bearing upon their own existence yet by doing so, they miss out on so much about why they are here with the ability to examine what is put before them.

awaiting your benificence.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

zing

It is a very interesting thing about science and scientists. They are still only utilising a tiny fraction of their consciousness to concentrate upon nitty gritty stuff that may or may not ever have bearing upon their own existence yet by doing so, they miss out on so much about why they are here with the ability to examine what is put before them.

awaiting your benificence.

well I already said zing

dv said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

It is a very interesting thing about science and scientists. They are still only utilising a tiny fraction of their consciousness to concentrate upon nitty gritty stuff that may or may not ever have bearing upon their own existence yet by doing so, they miss out on so much about why they are here with the ability to examine what is put before them.

awaiting your benificence.

well I already said zing

Not good enough mate. I actually wish science could actually fix what will happen to me before it actually befells me.. It is true that I have actually asked God Why the Fuck he actually saved me from sure death or paraplegicity for whatever farken issue he had in mind, too many times for me to actually relate in terms you or any could actually underconstumble.

I know from pure scientific analysis that goD doesn’t giv3e a flying fuck unless you think his name is tonald drump..

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

awaiting your benificence.

well I already said zing

Not good enough mate. I actually wish science could actually fix what will happen to me before it actually befells me.. It is true that I have actually asked God Why the Fuck he actually saved me from sure death or paraplegicity for whatever farken issue he had in mind, too many times for me to actually relate in terms you or any could actually underconstumble.

I know from pure scientific analysis that goD doesn’t giv3e a flying fuck unless you think his name is tonald drump..

I’m actually offering. To those of you who may call yourselves scientists. to actually study what goes on in the heads of people who actually have a full life of learning how to interpret sounds.

Bubblecar said:

To clarify what I mean: if you want to “really say how the guitar will sound” this will depend on many factors indeed, including the choice of strings (their composition, whether high, low or medium tension set etc) which can make a very obvious difference to the sound that clearly depends on the 3D properties of said strings. And of course regardless of the strings used, the difference in tuning between them depends on their 3D properties.

A string is _one_-dimensional because the displacement from equilibrium that is the vibration of the string varies along the length of the string, a one-dimensional domain. The displacement itself is two-dimensional because it is within a two-dimensional plane that is perpendicular to the string.

KJW said:

In the case of a drumhead, there are two distinct ways in which the first harmonic above the fundamental can vibrate: Either the node (the part of the vibration that does not move) can be a straight line across the surface, or it can be a circle centred around the centre of the drumhead and radius about a half that of the drumhead. These two modes of vibration need not be integer-related in frequency. For higher harmonics, the number of vibration modes increase as there are more nodes that can be arranged in a variety of ways.

Below illustrates the first few vibration modes of a drumhead (the labels 1s, 2s, 3s, 2p, 3p, 4p, 3d, 4d, 5d correspond to the analogous orbitals of the hydrogen atom):

1s 2s 3s

2p 3p 4p

3d 4d 5d

KJW said:

Below illustrates the first few vibration modes of a drumhead (the labels 1s, 2s, 3s, 2p, 3p, 4p, 3d, 4d, 5d correspond to the analogous orbitals of the hydrogen atom):

1s 2s 3s

2p 3p 4p

3d 4d 5d

Good animations. Very worthwhile for understanding quantum orbitals as well.