That is an interesting approach Victor.

I converted to 8 channels a couple of years ago, I had worked in stereo 
for 30 years. Though I have had satisfactory results I find myself 
struggling with realizing the full potential of 8 channels. So far I 
have had the best results spreading a stereo image out over varying 
combinations of the 8 speakers and then panning between them. So for 
example, for a single event the left channel is on speaker 2 and 4 and 
the right is on 3, 5 and 7. This seems to provide the spatial 
relationships that I am used to but I would like to go beyond that.

Does anyone have suggestions or comments?




On 8/11/11 7:41 AM, Victor Lazzarini wrote:
> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, 
> then adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the 
> sense of space with a single channel, these principles can then be 
> scaled up to more complex setups.


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Ah I mustn't fail to point out to the work that Andrés Cabrera is
doing too, we had some enlightening conversations at the ICMC. There
is a very interesting paper by Andrés and Gary Kendall that was
presented at the ICMC this year that can be found here:
http://www.garykendall.net/publications.html

I'd recommend all of Kendall's writing too, very interesting.

Best,

Peiman


On 11 August 2011 13:19, peiman khosravi  wrote:
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come from an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.
>
> Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself more and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that you think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then take it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the main aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.
>
> Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where spacial forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful in this context:
>
> François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
> Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)
> Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
> Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always slightly repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to ignore it!)
>
> And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley article and is very useful.
>
> The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical thinking is a good way.
>
> Best,
> Peiman
>
> On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>>
>> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to more complex setups.
>> Victor
>> On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.
>>
>> And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training might be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what doesn't.
>> Good.
>>
>> Oeyvind
>>
>> 2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas 
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link Peiman.
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>> ________________________________
>>> De : peiman khosravi 
>>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
>>> Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>>
>>> Hi Oeyvind,
>>>
>>> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this is a brilliant idea.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the [perspectival] image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start. Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences" (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks depth in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks animation.
>>>
>>> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>>>
>>> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>>>
>>> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really liked your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
>>> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced I don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The same goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think of space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in all sounds.
>>>
>>> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>>>
>>> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Peiman,
>>>
>>> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm aware of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really aware how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Oeyvind
>>> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> My response follows below.
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb sounds good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the problem? Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>>>
>>> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the same as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on another environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it as reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to create spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of sounds as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in (use it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to avoid this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the perception of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts your listening focus.
>>>
>>> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'. Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the composer's intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and distracting her from the sounds themselves.
>>>
>>> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant to be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>>>
>>> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in concert electroacoustic music :-)
>>>
>>> I'll shut up now!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> Michael Bechard
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: peiman khosravi 
>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>>>
>>> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>>>
>>> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!] room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a comment about your music at all).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Csounders !
>>> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part, and I am asking me if I should :
>>> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
>>> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>>> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do on the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
>>> Here are the extracts of the work :
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>>> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>> Senior Lecturer
>> Dept. of Music
>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>
>>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Yes indeed.

I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come from an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.

Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself more and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that you think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then take it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the main aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.  

Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where spacial forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful in this context:

François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)      
Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always slightly repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to ignore it!)

And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley article and is very useful.

The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical thinking is a good way.

Best,
Peiman

On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie> wrote:

I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to more complex setups.

Victor

On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:

Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.

 

And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training might be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what doesn't.
Good. 

 

Oeyvind

 

2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas <ndrweski@yahoo.fr>

Thanks for the link Peiman.

 

N. Drweski

acousrama : site web

L'espace acoustique : Les approches

danse acousmatique : esthétique

Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical

---

De : peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com>
À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)

Hi Oeyvind,

I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this is a brilliant idea.

There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the [perspectival] image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start. Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences" (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks depth in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks animation.

Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't listen but hear what we think we should hear.

When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:

"Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really liked your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!  
Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced I don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The same goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think of space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in all sounds.
  
I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic image". It's not an easy read but well worth it. 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja

Best,

Peiman

On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg <oyvind.brandtsegg@ntnu.no> wrote:

Hello Peiman,

 

I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm aware of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really aware how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.

 

best

Oeyvind

2011/8/11 peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com>

Hi Michael,

My response follows below.

On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard <gothmagog@yahoo.com> wrote:

Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb sounds good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the problem? Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls because of the acoustics those spaces offer.

The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the same as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on another environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it as reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to create spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of sounds as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in (use it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to avoid this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the perception of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts your listening focus.

The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'. Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the composer's intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and distracting her from the sounds themselves.      

In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant to be used whenever the occasion calls for it.

Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in concert electroacoustic music :-)

I'll shut up now!

Best,

Peiman

Michael Bechard

---

From: peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com>
To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering

My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push them a bit in the loud climaxes! 

And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!] room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a comment about your music at all).

Best,

Peiman

On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:

Hi Csounders !

I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part, and I am asking me if I should :

1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)

2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.

I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do on the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be. 

Here are the extracts of the work : 

http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie

http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien

http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil

http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3

 

N. Drweski

acousrama : site web

L'espace acoustique : Les approches

danse acousmatique : esthétique

Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical

Dr Victor Lazzarini

Senior Lecturer

Dept. of Music

NUI Maynooth Ireland

tel.: +353 1 708 3545

Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie

Thanks for the pdf Anthony. It is a good idea to compare this with its
later publication in Organised sound:
http://artesonoro.net/artesonoroglobal/Spectromorphology%20Article.pdf

Best,

Peiman

On 11 August 2011 15:06, Anthony Palomba  wrote:
> I think this is a very interesting topic...
>
> Space is a very important component of composition and one should always
> be aware of what purpose it plays. For those composers of electroacoustic
> music,
> it is something that they are very aware of.
>
> Pieman beat me to the Smalley reference. If you are interested in a more
> formal discourse
> on  the role that spatial component plays in musical language, I highly
> recommend
> The Language of Spectromorphology. Unfortunately, it is out of print, but I
> just happen to
> have a pdf of the relevant chapter...
> https://skydrive.live.com/redir.aspx?cid=6a87c436440788c2&resid=6A87C436440788C2!105
>
> It is a great discussion on what the elements of a sonic language are. It
> breaks things
> down to the most basic components, making you aware of how these things can
> be put together
> and how the listener perceives these changes. Once you understand these
> concepts, you
> approach traditional composition in a more discerning way.
>
> Definitely a good read.
>
>
>
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:07 AM, peiman khosravi 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Oeyvind,
>>
>> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this
>> is a brilliant idea.
>>
>> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the
>> [perspectival] image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I
>> would start. Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and
>> "convergences" (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older
>> piece) lacks depth in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or
>> flat and lacks animation.
>>
>> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are
>> diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the
>> likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the
>> faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't
>> listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>>
>> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>>
>> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the
>> listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with
>> the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really liked
>> your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your
>> EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
>> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to
>> highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral
>> motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the
>> listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced I
>> don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The same
>> goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think of
>> space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in
>> all sounds.
>>
>> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic
>> image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Peiman,
>>>
>>> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very
>>> interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to
>>> listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm aware
>>> of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really aware
>>> how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a
>>> course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on
>>> how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Oeyvind
>>> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>>>>
>>>> Hi Michael,
>>>>
>>>> My response follows below.
>>>>
>>>> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound
>>>>> to evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb
>>>>> sounds good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the
>>>>> problem? Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
>>>>> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls
>>>>> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>>>>>
>>>> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the
>>>> same as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on
>>>> another environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear
>>>> it as reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to
>>>> create spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of
>>>> sounds as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
>>>> spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
>>>> listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
>>>> experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in (use
>>>> it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
>>>> end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to avoid
>>>> this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the perception
>>>> of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
>>>> (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts your
>>>> listening focus.
>>>>
>>>> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
>>>> music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
>>>> artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
>>>> reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
>>>> reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
>>>> altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
>>>> composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
>>>> that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
>>>> obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
>>>> Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the composer's
>>>> intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and distracting
>>>> her from the sounds themselves.
>>>>
>>>>> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt,
>>>>> meant to be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>>>>>
>>>> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
>>>> concert electroacoustic music :-)
>>>>
>>>> I'll shut up now!
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bechard
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________
>>>>> From: peiman khosravi 
>>>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>>>>>
>>>>> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
>>>>> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
>>>>> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
>>>>> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
>>>>> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>>>>>
>>>>> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap
>>>>> way to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
>>>>> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!]
>>>>> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
>>>>> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
>>>>> comment about your music at all).
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Csounders !
>>>>> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part,
>>>>> and I am asking me if I should :
>>>>> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
>>>>> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering
>>>>> of it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>>>>> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to
>>>>> do on the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone
>>>>> here that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
>>>>> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
>>>>> Here are the extracts of the work :
>>>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>>>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>>>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>>>>> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>>>>>
>>>>> N. Drweski
>>>>> acousrama : site web
>>>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Hi Nicolas,

Well it depends on the format of the work itself. Obviously with
stereo work you have no choice but to multiply the stereo signal. That
is why I think a piece like Ferrari is really only good for stereo
listening. But with more abstract sounds you can create an enhanced
experience of spatiality not possible with stereo listening. Of course
if done carelessly it can ruin the work too. The misconception is to
think about diffusion as spatialisation, which it is not. What you
want to do is bring out the spaces that are already lurking in the
stereo image and spectral space of the work. I rely heavily on front
orientated perspectival depth, pushing sounds to the distant (taking
them beyond the room) or widening the image and bringing it towards
the listener (Smalley calls these approach and recessions). The stereo
panorama can also grow and surround the audience, but this only works
with certain sounds that already suggest a wide panoramic image. You
will be surprised how much you can get out of diffussion of stereo
works. If your sounds allow it (e.g. textures with internal motion)
then you can sometimes fake a sense of spatial texture by introducing
a jittering motion in the faders. The last thing you want to do is to
"move" sounds around in an arbitrary fashion, largely because it won't
work. And in truth this won't work with multichannel composition
either.

As an example imagine there is a drone that you have spread around the
audience to create a sense of contiguous spatial volume and depth. Now
image a single swelling morphology (like a baroque bowed note) that
emerges out of the drone and disappears. What you could do is to
slightly articulate the rear speakers in synch with the dynamic
profile of the swell (so as the sound grows in energy you bring the
two faders up and take them back to their original position as the
sound disappears). This little articulation then creates the
impression that the sound is coming from the back, it perceptually
segregates it in space from the drone, although in reality it is
coming from all directions (since the mix is stereo). In turn this
creates a more animate and vivid sense of spatiality that could not be
done in stereo listening. So it's about using your ears, extracting
all useful cues from the work and then using your ears again to create
a convincing sense of spatiality guided by these cues. You should also
move around in your rehearsal to make sure that the image is not only
useful in the sweet spot, you want everyone to get a useful (if not
similar) perspective. And make sure that the sides are not
overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
seating on one of the sides.* Overhead speakers can also be very nice
as you can run the signal through a high-pass signal: this exaggerates
the vertical sense of spectral space in the piece and creates a more
unified sense of spatiality for the listener.

Hope it makes sense.

Best,

Peiman



On 12 August 2011 11:34, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
> One question Peiman,
> When you diffuse music, do you duplicate the stereo files or do you separate
> each sound. I guess that when we are speaking about piece by Bayle, Ferrari,
> you have to do it from the "block" that is allready proposed. But speaking
> about your own pieces, do you work on spatialisation as "independant sound
> objects" or as a block too ?
> I personnally never could diffuse a piece in a stereo format on an
> acousmonium having a constructive action on spatiality and spectral states.
> I allways thought that spatialising a block was not satisfactory, and that
> the very few things to act on during a concert kill the " positive stress"
> that provoque you the execution on a instrument that you worked for years.
>
> N. Drweski
> acousrama : site web
> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
> danse acousmatique : esthétique
> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
> ________________________________
> De : peiman khosravi 
> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 14h19
> Objet : Re: Re : [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>
> Yes indeed.
>
> I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the
> spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on
> spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come from
> an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and
> that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that
> spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic
> spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's
> writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.
>
> Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself more
> and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of
> wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel
> composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that you
> think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to
> them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then take
> it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the main
> aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.
>
> Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of
> spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where spacial
> forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally
> collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful in
> this context:
>
> François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
> Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)
> Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
> Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always slightly
> repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to ignore
> it!)
>
> And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley
> article and is very useful.
>
> The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they
> become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical
> thinking is a good way.
>
> Best,
> Peiman
>
> On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini  wrote:
>
> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then
> adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of
> space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to more
> complex setups.
> Victor
> On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>
> Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.
>
> And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training might
> be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what
> doesn't.
> Good.
>
> Oeyvind
>
> 2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas 
>
> Thanks for the link Peiman.
>
> N. Drweski
> acousrama : site web
> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
> danse acousmatique : esthétique
> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
> ________________________________
> De : peiman khosravi 
> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
> Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>
> Hi Oeyvind,
>
> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this is
> a brilliant idea.
>
> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the [perspectival]
> image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start.
> Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences"
> (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks depth
> in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks
> animation.
>
> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are
> diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the
> likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the
> faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't
> listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>
> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>
> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the
> listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with
> the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really liked
> your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your
> EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to
> highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral
> motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the
> listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced I
> don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The same
> goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think of
> space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in
> all sounds.
>
> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic
> image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>
> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
> wrote:
>
> Hello Peiman,
>
> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very
> interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to
> listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm aware
> of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really aware
> how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a
> course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on
> how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>
> best
> Oeyvind
> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> My response follows below.
>
> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>
> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb sounds
> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the problem?
> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert halls
> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>
> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the same
> as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on another
> environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it as
> reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to create
> spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of sounds
> as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
> spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
> listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
> experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in (use
> it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
> end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to avoid
> this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the perception
> of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
> (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts your
> listening focus.
>
> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
> music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
> artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
> reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
> reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
> altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
> composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
> that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
> obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
> Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the composer's
> intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and distracting
> her from the sounds themselves.
>
> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant to
> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>
> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
> concert electroacoustic music :-)
>
> I'll shut up now!
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> Michael Bechard
>
> ________________________________
> From: peiman khosravi 
> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>
> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>
> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way
> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake [sounding!]
> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
> comment about your music at all).
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>
> Hi Csounders !
> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part, and
> I am asking me if I should :
> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do on
> the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
> Here are the extracts of the work :
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>
> N. Drweski
> acousrama : site web
> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
> danse acousmatique : esthétique
> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr Victor Lazzarini
> Senior Lecturer
> Dept. of Music
> NUI Maynooth Ireland
> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>
>
>
>
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

On 12 August 2011 19:17, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>And make sure that the sides are not
> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
> seating on one of the sides.*<
>
> Yes, that is the problem of the acousmonium, the performer have the perfect
> seat (if you are looking to reach a special effect on spatiallity).

Well I never understood that. At my university the performer never
gets the best seat as the desk is intentionally further back.

> I personnally make CD versions which will be finalysed and a concert version
> that will be "neutral", but never in stereo,
> I decided to use randomized algorythm in the act of diffusion to be able to
> "have control " on each sound independantly.

This is a good idea in principle. i.e. bouncing down stems to be
diffused independently, I don't understand the purpose of the random
algorithm though. But to be honest I think of diffusion more as a kind
of opening up of the listener's imagination. It doesn't have to be
literary in order for it to be experienced. As such, stereo diffusion
is perfectly feasible if done well. Problem is that it is rarely done
well, partly because we haven't got the resources to practice it on a
regular basis and partly because of the common misconceptions
regarding space. Much of the contemporary attitude to space seem to be
similar to Schoenberg's attitude towards timbre, as a one dimensional
parameter that can be manipulated in a permutational fashion, which is
of course total non-sense.

Best,

Peiman

> but this method is not suitable for music that is not composed in that
> optic. It doesn't let you perform in a suitable way works that you cited
> before.
>
> Thanks for sharing !
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -
> -
>
> Hi Nicolas,
>
> Well it depends on the format of the work itself. Obviously with
> stereo work you have no choice but to multiply the stereo signal. That
> is why I think a piece like Ferrari is really only good for stereo
> listening. But with more abstract sounds you can create an enhanced
> experience of spatiality not possible with stereo listening. Of course
> if done carelessly it can ruin the work too. The misconception is to
> think about diffusion as spatialisation, which it is not. What you
> want to do is bring out the spaces that are already lurking in the
> stereo image and spectral space of the work. I rely heavily on front
> orientated perspectival depth, pushing sounds to the distant (taking
> them beyond the room) or widening the image and bringing it towards
> the listener (Smalley calls these approach and recessions). The stereo
> panorama can also grow and surround the audience, but this only works
> with certain sounds that already suggest a wide panoramic image. You
> will be surprised how much you can get out of diffussion of stereo
> works. If your sounds allow it (e.g. textures with internal motion)
> then you can sometimes fake a sense of spatial texture by introducing
> a jittering motion in the faders. The last thing you want to do is to
> "move" sounds around in an arbitrary fashion, largely because it won't
> work. And in truth this won't work with multichannel composition
> either.
>
> As an example imagine there is a drone that you have spread around the
> audience to create a sense of contiguous spatial volume and depth. Now
> image a single swelling morphology (like a baroque bowed note) that
> emerges out of the drone and disappears. What you could do is to
> slightly articulate the rear speakers in synch with the dynamic
> profile of the swell (so as the sound grows in energy you bring the
> two faders up and take them back to their original position as the
> sound disappears). This little articulation then creates the
> impression that the sound is coming from the back, it perceptually
> segregates it in space from the drone, although in reality it is
> coming from all directions (since the mix is stereo). In turn this
> creates a more animate and vivid sense of spatiality that could not be
> done in stereo listening. So it's about using your ears, extracting
> all useful cues from the work and then using your ears again to create
> a convincing sense of spatiality guided by these cues. You should also
> move around in your rehearsal to make sure that the image is not only
> useful in the sweet spot, you want everyone to get a useful (if not
> similar) perspective. And make sure that the sides are not
> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
> seating on one of the sides.* Overhead speakers can also be very nice
> as you can run the signal through a high-pass signal: this exaggerates
> the vertical sense of spectral space in the piece and creates a more
> unified sense of spatiality for the listener.
>
> Hope it makes sense.
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
>
>
> On 12 August 2011 11:34, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>> One question Peiman,
>> When you diffuse music, do you duplicate the stereo files or do you
>> separate
>> each sound. I guess that when we are speaking about piece by Bayle,
>> Ferrari,
>> you have to do it from the "block" that is allready proposed. But speaking
>> about your own pieces, do you work on spatialisation as "independant sound
>> objects" or as a block too ?
>> I personnally never could diffuse a piece in a stereo format on an
>> acousmonium having a constructive action on spatiality and spectral
>> states.
>> I allways thought that spatialising a block was not satisfactory, and that
>> the very few things to act on during a concert kill the " positive stress"
>> that provoque you the execution on a instrument that you worked for years.
>>
>> N. Drweski
>> acousrama : site web
>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>> ________________________________
>> De : peiman khosravi 
>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 14h19
>> Objet : Re: Re : [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>
>> Yes indeed.
>>
>> I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the
>> spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on
>> spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come
>> from
>> an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and
>> that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that
>> spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic
>> spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's
>> writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.
>>
>> Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself
>> more
>> and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of
>> wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel
>> composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that
>> you
>> think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to
>> them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then take
>> it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the
>> main
>> aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.
>>
>> Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of
>> spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where
>> spacial
>> forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally
>> collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful
>> in
>> this context:
>>
>> François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
>> Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)
>> Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
>> Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always
>> slightly
>> repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to
>> ignore
>> it!)
>>
>> And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley
>> article and is very useful.
>>
>> The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they
>> become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical
>> thinking is a good way.
>>
>> Best,
>> Peiman
>>
>> On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then
>> adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of
>> space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to
>> more
>> complex setups.
>> Victor
>> On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>>
>> Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.
>>
>> And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training might
>> be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what
>> doesn't.
>> Good.
>>
>> Oeyvind
>>
>> 2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas 
>>
>> Thanks for the link Peiman.
>>
>> N. Drweski
>> acousrama : site web
>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>> ________________________________
>> De : peiman khosravi 
>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
>> Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>
>> Hi Oeyvind,
>>
>> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this
>> is
>> a brilliant idea.
>>
>> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the
>> [perspectival]
>> image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start.
>> Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences"
>> (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks
>> depth
>> in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks
>> animation.
>>
>> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are
>> diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the
>> likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the
>> faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't
>> listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>>
>> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>>
>> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the
>> listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with
>> the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really
>> liked
>> your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your
>> EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
>> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to
>> highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral
>> motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the
>> listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced
>> I
>> don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The
>> same
>> goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think
>> of
>> space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in
>> all sounds.
>>
>> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic
>> image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>>
>>
>> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Peiman,
>>
>> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very
>> interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to
>> listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm
>> aware
>> of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really
>> aware
>> how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a
>> course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts
>> on
>> how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>>
>> best
>> Oeyvind
>> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>>
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> My response follows below.
>>
>> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>>
>> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
>> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb
>> sounds
>> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the
>> problem?
>> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
>> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert
>> halls
>> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>>
>> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the
>> same
>> as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on
>> another
>> environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it as
>> reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to
>> create
>> spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of sounds
>> as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
>> spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
>> listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
>> experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in
>> (use
>> it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
>> end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to
>> avoid
>> this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the
>> perception
>> of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
>> (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts
>> your
>> listening focus.
>>
>> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
>> music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
>> artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
>> reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
>> reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
>> altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
>> composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
>> that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
>> obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
>> Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the
>> composer's
>> intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and
>> distracting
>> her from the sounds themselves.
>>
>> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant
>> to
>> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>>
>> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
>> concert electroacoustic music :-)
>>
>> I'll shut up now!
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>> Michael Bechard
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: peiman khosravi 
>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>>
>> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
>> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
>> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
>> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
>> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>>
>> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way
>> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
>> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake
>> [sounding!]
>> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
>> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
>> comment about your music at all).
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Csounders !
>> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part,
>> and
>> I am asking me if I should :
>> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
>> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
>> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do
>> on
>> the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
>> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
>> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
>> Here are the extracts of the work :
>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>>
>> N. Drweski
>> acousrama : site web
>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>> Senior Lecturer
>> Dept. of Music
>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

"It doesn't have to be
literary 'there' in order for it to be experienced"

On 12 August 2011 22:34, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> On 12 August 2011 19:17, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>And make sure that the sides are not
>> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
>> seating on one of the sides.*<
>>
>> Yes, that is the problem of the acousmonium, the performer have the perfect
>> seat (if you are looking to reach a special effect on spatiallity).
>
> Well I never understood that. At my university the performer never
> gets the best seat as the desk is intentionally further back.
>
>> I personnally make CD versions which will be finalysed and a concert version
>> that will be "neutral", but never in stereo,
>> I decided to use randomized algorythm in the act of diffusion to be able to
>> "have control " on each sound independantly.
>
> This is a good idea in principle. i.e. bouncing down stems to be
> diffused independently, I don't understand the purpose of the random
> algorithm though. But to be honest I think of diffusion more as a kind
> of opening up of the listener's imagination. It doesn't have to be
> literary in order for it to be experienced. As such, stereo diffusion
> is perfectly feasible if done well. Problem is that it is rarely done
> well, partly because we haven't got the resources to practice it on a
> regular basis and partly because of the common misconceptions
> regarding space. Much of the contemporary attitude to space seem to be
> similar to Schoenberg's attitude towards timbre, as a one dimensional
> parameter that can be manipulated in a permutational fashion, which is
> of course total non-sense.
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
>> but this method is not suitable for music that is not composed in that
>> optic. It doesn't let you perform in a suitable way works that you cited
>> before.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing !
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> -
>> -
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Well it depends on the format of the work itself. Obviously with
>> stereo work you have no choice but to multiply the stereo signal. That
>> is why I think a piece like Ferrari is really only good for stereo
>> listening. But with more abstract sounds you can create an enhanced
>> experience of spatiality not possible with stereo listening. Of course
>> if done carelessly it can ruin the work too. The misconception is to
>> think about diffusion as spatialisation, which it is not. What you
>> want to do is bring out the spaces that are already lurking in the
>> stereo image and spectral space of the work. I rely heavily on front
>> orientated perspectival depth, pushing sounds to the distant (taking
>> them beyond the room) or widening the image and bringing it towards
>> the listener (Smalley calls these approach and recessions). The stereo
>> panorama can also grow and surround the audience, but this only works
>> with certain sounds that already suggest a wide panoramic image. You
>> will be surprised how much you can get out of diffussion of stereo
>> works. If your sounds allow it (e.g. textures with internal motion)
>> then you can sometimes fake a sense of spatial texture by introducing
>> a jittering motion in the faders. The last thing you want to do is to
>> "move" sounds around in an arbitrary fashion, largely because it won't
>> work. And in truth this won't work with multichannel composition
>> either.
>>
>> As an example imagine there is a drone that you have spread around the
>> audience to create a sense of contiguous spatial volume and depth. Now
>> image a single swelling morphology (like a baroque bowed note) that
>> emerges out of the drone and disappears. What you could do is to
>> slightly articulate the rear speakers in synch with the dynamic
>> profile of the swell (so as the sound grows in energy you bring the
>> two faders up and take them back to their original position as the
>> sound disappears). This little articulation then creates the
>> impression that the sound is coming from the back, it perceptually
>> segregates it in space from the drone, although in reality it is
>> coming from all directions (since the mix is stereo). In turn this
>> creates a more animate and vivid sense of spatiality that could not be
>> done in stereo listening. So it's about using your ears, extracting
>> all useful cues from the work and then using your ears again to create
>> a convincing sense of spatiality guided by these cues. You should also
>> move around in your rehearsal to make sure that the image is not only
>> useful in the sweet spot, you want everyone to get a useful (if not
>> similar) perspective. And make sure that the sides are not
>> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
>> seating on one of the sides.* Overhead speakers can also be very nice
>> as you can run the signal through a high-pass signal: this exaggerates
>> the vertical sense of spectral space in the piece and creates a more
>> unified sense of spatiality for the listener.
>>
>> Hope it makes sense.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 August 2011 11:34, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>> One question Peiman,
>>> When you diffuse music, do you duplicate the stereo files or do you
>>> separate
>>> each sound. I guess that when we are speaking about piece by Bayle,
>>> Ferrari,
>>> you have to do it from the "block" that is allready proposed. But speaking
>>> about your own pieces, do you work on spatialisation as "independant sound
>>> objects" or as a block too ?
>>> I personnally never could diffuse a piece in a stereo format on an
>>> acousmonium having a constructive action on spatiality and spectral
>>> states.
>>> I allways thought that spatialising a block was not satisfactory, and that
>>> the very few things to act on during a concert kill the " positive stress"
>>> that provoque you the execution on a instrument that you worked for years.
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>> ________________________________
>>> De : peiman khosravi 
>>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 14h19
>>> Objet : Re: Re : [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>>
>>> Yes indeed.
>>>
>>> I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the
>>> spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on
>>> spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come
>>> from
>>> an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and
>>> that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that
>>> spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic
>>> spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's
>>> writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.
>>>
>>> Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself
>>> more
>>> and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of
>>> wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel
>>> composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that
>>> you
>>> think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to
>>> them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then take
>>> it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the
>>> main
>>> aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of
>>> spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where
>>> spacial
>>> forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally
>>> collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful
>>> in
>>> this context:
>>>
>>> François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
>>> Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)
>>> Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
>>> Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always
>>> slightly
>>> repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to
>>> ignore
>>> it!)
>>>
>>> And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley
>>> article and is very useful.
>>>
>>> The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they
>>> become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical
>>> thinking is a good way.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then
>>> adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of
>>> space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to
>>> more
>>> complex setups.
>>> Victor
>>> On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.
>>>
>>> And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training might
>>> be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what
>>> doesn't.
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> Oeyvind
>>>
>>> 2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas 
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link Peiman.
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>> ________________________________
>>> De : peiman khosravi 
>>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
>>> Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>>
>>> Hi Oeyvind,
>>>
>>> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this
>>> is
>>> a brilliant idea.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the
>>> [perspectival]
>>> image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start.
>>> Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences"
>>> (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks
>>> depth
>>> in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks
>>> animation.
>>>
>>> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are
>>> diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the
>>> likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the
>>> faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't
>>> listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>>>
>>> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>>>
>>> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the
>>> listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with
>>> the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really
>>> liked
>>> your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your
>>> EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
>>> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is to
>>> highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral
>>> motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the
>>> listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by enhanced
>>> I
>>> don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The
>>> same
>>> goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think
>>> of
>>> space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in
>>> all sounds.
>>>
>>> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic
>>> image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Peiman,
>>>
>>> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very
>>> interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to
>>> listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm
>>> aware
>>> of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really
>>> aware
>>> how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping a
>>> course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts
>>> on
>>> how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Oeyvind
>>> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> My response follows below.
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
>>> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb
>>> sounds
>>> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the
>>> problem?
>>> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
>>> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert
>>> halls
>>> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>>>
>>> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the
>>> same
>>> as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on
>>> another
>>> environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it as
>>> reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to
>>> create
>>> spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of sounds
>>> as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
>>> spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
>>> listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
>>> experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in
>>> (use
>>> it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
>>> end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to
>>> avoid
>>> this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the
>>> perception
>>> of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
>>> (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts
>>> your
>>> listening focus.
>>>
>>> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
>>> music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
>>> artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
>>> reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
>>> reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
>>> altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
>>> composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
>>> that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
>>> obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
>>> Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the
>>> composer's
>>> intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and
>>> distracting
>>> her from the sounds themselves.
>>>
>>> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant
>>> to
>>> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>>>
>>> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
>>> concert electroacoustic music :-)
>>>
>>> I'll shut up now!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> Michael Bechard
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: peiman khosravi 
>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>>>
>>> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
>>> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
>>> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
>>> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and push
>>> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>>>
>>> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap way
>>> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
>>> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake
>>> [sounding!]
>>> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
>>> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
>>> comment about your music at all).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Csounders !
>>> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part,
>>> and
>>> I am asking me if I should :
>>> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
>>> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
>>> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>>> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do
>>> on
>>> the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
>>> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
>>> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
>>> Here are the extracts of the work :
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>>> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Dept. of Music
>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"

Thanks,

Sounds like you should be working in multichannel. You'll never look back!

Best,

P

On 13 August 2011 01:07, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
> Generally it is said that the performer have to be at the best to hear what
> he is doing. Maybe it's a tradition matter, maybe a dogma too for historic
> reasons :
> acousmatic tradition against electroacoustic tradition.
> Stereo diffusion can be well done, but very few people do it well for the
> matter that you pointed. I personnally got impressed one time (bayle), and
> not necessary by spatiallity, but by the way the movment of the performer
> were in perfet adequation with the music (with is not so evident).
> I use random algorythm because each piece have between 10 and 20 stems
> almost all the time simultanely.
> It is impossible to have a proper action on each stems but by beeing a group
> of performers, so I armed a method of diffusion that use random (more or
> less) data to have an action on each stem, and to move from random movment
> to controlled ones. The interest here is to make an explosion of event and
> spaces (superposing various spaces, and changes of spaces) no matter what
> they do, and other moments more calm where the events and stems are
> controlable (if the word exist???) individually.
>  Working on spatiallity is quite exiting. The problem is that many composers
> think of spatially as an effect  that you put on a finished piece and son't
> include it in the structure of the piece.
> This is personnaly the first aspect I pay attention to when I listen to EA.
> ________________________________
> De : peiman khosravi 
> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
> Envoyé le : Vendredi 12 Août 2011 23h34
> Objet : Re: Re : Re : Re : [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>
> On 12 August 2011 19:17, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>And make sure that the sides are not
>> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
>> seating on one of the sides.*<
>>
>> Yes, that is the problem of the acousmonium, the performer have the
>> perfect
>> seat (if you are looking to reach a special effect on spatiallity).
>
> Well I never understood that. At my university the performer never
> gets the best seat as the desk is intentionally further back.
>
>> I personnally make CD versions which will be finalysed and a concert
>> version
>> that will be "neutral", but never in stereo,
>> I decided to use randomized algorythm in the act of diffusion to be able
>> to
>> "have control " on each sound independantly.
>
> This is a good idea in principle. i.e. bouncing down stems to be
> diffused independently, I don't understand the purpose of the random
> algorithm though. But to be honest I think of diffusion more as a kind
> of opening up of the listener's imagination. It doesn't have to be
> literary in order for it to be experienced. As such, stereo diffusion
> is perfectly feasible if done well. Problem is that it is rarely done
> well, partly because we haven't got the resources to practice it on a
> regular basis and partly because of the common misconceptions
> regarding space. Much of the contemporary attitude to space seem to be
> similar to Schoenberg's attitude towards timbre, as a one dimensional
> parameter that can be manipulated in a permutational fashion, which is
> of course total non-sense.
>
> Best,
>
> Peiman
>
>> but this method is not suitable for music that is not composed in that
>> optic. It doesn't let you perform in a suitable way works that you cited
>> before.
>>
>> Thanks for sharing !
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> -
>> -
>>
>> Hi Nicolas,
>>
>> Well it depends on the format of the work itself. Obviously with
>> stereo work you have no choice but to multiply the stereo signal. That
>> is why I think a piece like Ferrari is really only good for stereo
>> listening. But with more abstract sounds you can create an enhanced
>> experience of spatiality not possible with stereo listening. Of course
>> if done carelessly it can ruin the work too. The misconception is to
>> think about diffusion as spatialisation, which it is not. What you
>> want to do is bring out the spaces that are already lurking in the
>> stereo image and spectral space of the work. I rely heavily on front
>> orientated perspectival depth, pushing sounds to the distant (taking
>> them beyond the room) or widening the image and bringing it towards
>> the listener (Smalley calls these approach and recessions). The stereo
>> panorama can also grow and surround the audience, but this only works
>> with certain sounds that already suggest a wide panoramic image. You
>> will be surprised how much you can get out of diffussion of stereo
>> works. If your sounds allow it (e.g. textures with internal motion)
>> then you can sometimes fake a sense of spatial texture by introducing
>> a jittering motion in the faders. The last thing you want to do is to
>> "move" sounds around in an arbitrary fashion, largely because it won't
>> work. And in truth this won't work with multichannel composition
>> either.
>>
>> As an example imagine there is a drone that you have spread around the
>> audience to create a sense of contiguous spatial volume and depth. Now
>> image a single swelling morphology (like a baroque bowed note) that
>> emerges out of the drone and disappears. What you could do is to
>> slightly articulate the rear speakers in synch with the dynamic
>> profile of the swell (so as the sound grows in energy you bring the
>> two faders up and take them back to their original position as the
>> sound disappears). This little articulation then creates the
>> impression that the sound is coming from the back, it perceptually
>> segregates it in space from the drone, although in reality it is
>> coming from all directions (since the mix is stereo). In turn this
>> creates a more animate and vivid sense of spatiality that could not be
>> done in stereo listening. So it's about using your ears, extracting
>> all useful cues from the work and then using your ears again to create
>> a convincing sense of spatiality guided by these cues. You should also
>> move around in your rehearsal to make sure that the image is not only
>> useful in the sweet spot, you want everyone to get a useful (if not
>> similar) perspective. And make sure that the sides are not
>> overpowering as they can really stick out in your ear if you are
>> seating on one of the sides.* Overhead speakers can also be very nice
>> as you can run the signal through a high-pass signal: this exaggerates
>> the vertical sense of spectral space in the piece and creates a more
>> unified sense of spatiality for the listener.
>>
>> Hope it makes sense.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Peiman
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12 August 2011 11:34, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>> One question Peiman,
>>> When you diffuse music, do you duplicate the stereo files or do you
>>> separate
>>> each sound. I guess that when we are speaking about piece by Bayle,
>>> Ferrari,
>>> you have to do it from the "block" that is allready proposed. But
>>> speaking
>>> about your own pieces, do you work on spatialisation as "independant
>>> sound
>>> objects" or as a block too ?
>>> I personnally never could diffuse a piece in a stereo format on an
>>> acousmonium having a constructive action on spatiality and spectral
>>> states.
>>> I allways thought that spatialising a block was not satisfactory, and
>>> that
>>> the very few things to act on during a concert kill the " positive
>>> stress"
>>> that provoque you the execution on a instrument that you worked for
>>> years.
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>> ________________________________
>>> De : peiman khosravi 
>>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 14h19
>>> Objet : Re: Re : [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>>
>>> Yes indeed.
>>>
>>> I think also that a good way of going about it is to focus on the
>>> spectromorphological aspects of the material itself, rather than on
>>> spatialisation techniques. An understanding of spatiality can only come
>>> from
>>> an understanding of the way in which sounds inherently evoke spaces, and
>>> that is through spectromorphological behaviour. So I'd say that
>>> spectromorphology is at the heart of it, as the study of the intrinsic
>>> spatiality of sounds. Note that spectromorphologies are (in Smalley's
>>> writing) spatial forms or entities that occupy spectral space.
>>>
>>> Another way of going about it could be through diffusion. I find myself
>>> more
>>> and more composing with the idea of diffusion in mind to the point of
>>> wanting to hard-code the diffusion in the piece (with multichannel
>>> composition). So it may be a good idea to get a few pieces (stereo) that
>>> you
>>> think contain spatiality in an explicit way and get student to listen to
>>> them first in stereo, analyse them into a kind of space-form and then
>>> take
>>> it to the next level by trying different diffusion strategies with the
>>> main
>>> aim of enhancing what is already there as opposed to spatialising.
>>>
>>> Right now I'm working on a method of visualising a space-form map of
>>> spectral space states (spectral space identities) in a piece, where
>>> spacial
>>> forms and motions are visualised out of time in a sort of temporally
>>> collapsed form. I have found a few acousmatic pieces particularly useful
>>> in
>>> this context:
>>>
>>> François Bayle's "Grandeur Nature"
>>> Natasha Barrett's "Industrial Revelations" (2001)
>>> Christian Zanési's "Stop! l'horizon" (I'd love to diffuse this one!)
>>> Francis Dhomont's "Chroniques de la lumiere" (although I am always
>>> slightly
>>> repulsed by the Canadian reverb sound and have to try really hard to
>>> ignore
>>> it!)
>>>
>>> And also Luc Ferrari's "Presque Rien No. 1" is mentioned in the Smalley
>>> article and is very useful.
>>>
>>> The strange thing is that you just need to point it to someone and they
>>> become suddenly aware of it so examples coupled with some theoretical
>>> thinking is a good way.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2011 12:41, Victor Lazzarini 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I guess good examples could be created using a single channel first, then
>>> adding a stereo image, then multichannel. If we can create the sense of
>>> space with a single channel, these principles can then be scaled up to
>>> more
>>> complex setups.
>>> Victor
>>> On 11 Aug 2011, at 12:28, Oeyvind Brandtsegg wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, thanks for the reminder, it's good to revisit this one.
>>>
>>> And I also find implicit in your comments that a method for training
>>> might
>>> be using a music example with specific mention of what works and what
>>> doesn't.
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> Oeyvind
>>>
>>> 2011/8/11 Drweski nicolas 
>>>
>>> Thanks for the link Peiman.
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>> ________________________________
>>> De : peiman khosravi 
>>> À : csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Envoyé le : Jeudi 11 Août 2011 13h07
>>> Objet : Re: [Csnd] Listening (was: Mastering)
>>>
>>> Hi Oeyvind,
>>>
>>> I remember you mentioned about your DSP ear-training course, I think this
>>> is
>>> a brilliant idea.
>>>
>>> There seems to be a relative lack of really listening to the
>>> [perspectival]
>>> image so a real understanding of the stereo image is where I would start.
>>> Comparing my two piece for instance "circular ruins" and "convergences"
>>> (both on soundcloud) I realise that the former (an older piece) lacks
>>> depth
>>> in the stereo image. The image is often too narrow or flat and lacks
>>> animation.
>>>
>>> Many times one hears spaces that are not there: tell someone they are
>>> diffusing with all the speakers (but turn off the rear speakers) and the
>>> likelihood is that they will hear the image expanding as they bring the
>>> faders up for the rear speakers! So I think a lot of the time we don't
>>> listen but hear what we think we should hear.
>>>
>>> When it comes to composing my line of thinking is that:
>>>
>>> "Spatialisation" is not the same as spatiality. The latter refers to the
>>> listening experience of space and often does not directly correspond with
>>> the former. I hear people saying after concerts to so and so "I really
>>> liked
>>> your spatialisation", well that's the same as saying "I really liked your
>>> EQ-ing"! Rather offensive!
>>> Sounds suggest certain spatial configurations and the composer's job is
>>> to
>>> highlight these configurations. For example sounds with inherent spectral
>>> motion evoke spatial motion, which can be further enhanced to enrich the
>>> listening experience of the suggested motion in the sound. And by
>>> enhanced
>>> I
>>> don't mean "spatialised", one has to listen and make sure it works. The
>>> same
>>> goes for sounds that evoke more extensive vast spaces. Often people think
>>> of
>>> space as a parameter but it should be though of as a quality, inherent in
>>> all sounds.
>>>
>>> I would really suggest reading Smalley's "Space-form and the acousmatic
>>> image". It's not an easy read but well worth it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww2.ak.tu-berlin.de%2F~wthoben%2FHarrison_Material%2FGeneral%2FSmalley%2520Space-Form.pdf&rct=j&q=space-form%20and%20the%20acousmatic%20image&ei=ULZDTtqjBYeh8QPboszsBQ&usg=AFQjCNEhrebVIO8jkMrekJaKdpEGzDHS8w&cad=rja
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 11 August 2011 07:32, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Peiman,
>>>
>>> I think your thoughts on the inherent spatiality of sounds are very
>>> interesting. And the discussion about this have pointed my attention to
>>> listeing for spatiality in a more conscious manner. I realize that I'm
>>> aware
>>> of the spatiality of sounds when I listen to them, but I'm not really
>>> aware
>>> how I came to posess that ability. As I'm currently working on eveloping
>>> a
>>> course in eartraining DSP, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts
>>> on
>>> how to train our ears to become more aware of this important effect.
>>>
>>> best
>>> Oeyvind
>>> 2011/8/11 peiman khosravi 
>>>
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> My response follows below.
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 21:41, Michael Bechard  wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding reverb, why would you think it is so much better for a sound to
>>> evoke space on its own instead of adding reverb to it? If the reverb
>>> sounds
>>> good and it evokes the exact feel you want from it, then what's the
>>> problem?
>>> Reverb has been used to great effect by a great many producers and
>>> musicians. Hell, even orchestras choose to play in particular concert
>>> halls
>>> because of the acoustics those spaces offer.
>>>
>>> The experience of the inherent spatiality of a sonic context is not the
>>> same
>>> as recreating an acoustic environment and essentially imposing it on
>>> another
>>> environment, because the buttom line is you are always going to hear it
>>> as
>>> reverb. For me at least one of the skills of mixing is the ability to
>>> create
>>> spaces in a sophisticated way. And as soon as you begin to think of
>>> sounds
>>> as being inherently spatial then your ears no longer hear reverb as
>>> spatiality but as a distracting peripheral artifact. It is a shift of
>>> listening consciousness from thinking what you hear is space to actually
>>> experiencing space. And I am not just saying don't use a reverb plug-in
>>> (use
>>> it but not as reverb). Some spectral processes (e.g. blurring) can easily
>>> end up sounding like reverb if one is not careful, and I do my best to
>>> avoid
>>> this too. My problem is not with reverb tools themselves but the
>>> perception
>>> of reverb, because it immediately kills the magic by revealing the trick
>>> (same can be said with arbitrary dynamic panning of sounds). It shifts
>>> your
>>> listening focus.
>>>
>>> The situation is quite different with instrumental concert music and pop
>>> music production where reverbration (real or fake) becomes a cultural
>>> artifact, part of the package or 'timbre' of the music. My point is use
>>> reverb but only if you actually want the "experienced" listener to hear
>>> reverb because it will not sound ecologically coherent. Hearing space is
>>> altogether another thing and I think should be tackled during the
>>> composition process (not as a final add-on) in a deep and complex manner
>>> that it deserves. And to expand I think there is a similar issue with
>>> obvious close-miked sounds that literally evoke the 'microphone space'.
>>> Unless used consciously and carefully this can so easily ruin the
>>> composer's
>>> intended effect by putting the listener in the studio space and
>>> distracting
>>> her from the sounds themselves.
>>>
>>> In the end, reverb is just another tool in our acoustic tool-belt, meant
>>> to
>>> be used whenever the occasion calls for it.
>>>
>>> Then yes I agree on this one, I just don't think it should be used in
>>> concert electroacoustic music :-)
>>>
>>> I'll shut up now!
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> Michael Bechard
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> From: peiman khosravi 
>>> To: csound@lists.bath.ac.uk
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 1:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] Mastering
>>>
>>> My answer to all your questions would be no. I may compress individual
>>> sounds but never a whole track. You don't want to flatten the dynamics in
>>> your piece. In a diffusion context the first rule is not to 'fight' your
>>> dynamics but exaggerate them: lower the levels in a quite section and
>>> push
>>> them a bit in the loud climaxes!
>>>
>>> And the same goes for reverb. I just think that reverb is such a cheap
>>> way
>>> to 'evoke' space. Your sounds will [should] naturally create their own
>>> spaces and should not need extra 'spatiality' injected by a fake
>>> [sounding!]
>>> room acoustics . If they do then there is something missing in the mix in
>>> the first place (I have not listened to your tracks so I am not making a
>>> comment about your music at all).
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Peiman
>>>
>>> On 10 August 2011 19:24, Drweski nicolas  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Csounders !
>>> I am finishing a project with voice and "tape". I am in the final part,
>>> and
>>> I am asking me if I should :
>>> 1 - Put reverb on the voice (actually it have a little an a compressor)
>>> 2 - compress the voice and the tape audio together (doing a mastering of
>>> it). And in that case, what opcode would you advice me.
>>> I would like to have your feedback. What do you think would be good to do
>>> on
>>> the the sound aspect ? On the voice, the tape or both ? Does anyone here
>>> that, composing an ensemble of electroacoustic pieces, are making a
>>> mastering (equalisation, compression, reverb), as it will be.
>>> Here are the extracts of the work :
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/1-coeur-rouge-australie
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/5-murmure-indien
>>> http://soundcloud.com/acousrama/6-coucher-de-soleil
>>> http://www.acousrama.net/le-petit-prince.mp3
>>>
>>> N. Drweski
>>> acousrama : site web
>>> L'espace acoustique : Les approches
>>> danse acousmatique : esthétique
>>> Les mamelons de Vénus : instrument musical
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr Victor Lazzarini
>>> Senior Lecturer
>>> Dept. of Music
>>> NUI Maynooth Ireland
>>> tel.: +353 1 708 3545
>>> Victor dot Lazzarini AT nuim dot ie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
>> csound"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
>             https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
> To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe
> csound"
>
>
>
>


Send bugs reports to the Sourceforge bug tracker
            https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?group_id=81968&atid=564599
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
To unsubscribe, send email sympa@lists.bath.ac.uk with body "unsubscribe csound"