Csound Csound-dev Csound-tekno Search About

[Csnd] new work 'Vertex'

Date2012-12-03 15:34
Frompeiman khosravi
Subject[Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'. The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.   

http://soundcloud.com/peimankh/vertex_stereo-mix

Best,
Peiman

Date2012-12-03 16:00
FromRichard Dobson
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>

Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither 
Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 
99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)

It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny 
though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every 
sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra 
speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not 
think the stereo "nasty" at all!

Richard Dobson




Date2012-12-03 16:07
FromSteven Yi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Peiman,

Listening to it now: very, very nice piece!  I'd love to know more
about the technical details of the piece if you're willing to discuss
it. (Sounds used/synthesized, how you mixed down to stereo, etc.)
Otherwise, love the pulsing rhythms, the delicacy, the sounds.  I wish
I could hear the 6-channel version now... :)

Thanks very much for sharing!
steven

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, peiman khosravi
 wrote:
> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'. The
> mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an idea of the
> sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>
> http://soundcloud.com/peimankh/vertex_stereo-mix
>
> Best,
> Peiman

Date2012-12-03 16:17
FromDave Phillips
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
On 12/03/12 11:00, Richard Dobson wrote:

> ...
> ... once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound 
> and understands how, of course, it needs those extra 
> speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not 
> think the stereo "nasty" at all!

Definitely not nasty here, but I agree, the sounds want more dispersion 
than stereo offers.

Once again, excellent work, Peiman. I'd love to hear it in multiple 
channels.

Best,

dp


Date2012-12-03 16:31
FromRory Walsh
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Looking forward to listening. I get to leave work in 27 minutes...

On 3 December 2012 16:17, Dave Phillips  wrote:
> On 12/03/12 11:00, Richard Dobson wrote:
>
>> ...
>> ... once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and
>> understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not
>> knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at
>> all!
>
>
> Definitely not nasty here, but I agree, the sounds want more dispersion than
> stereo offers.
>
> Once again, excellent work, Peiman. I'd love to hear it in multiple
> channels.
>
> Best,
>
> dp
>
>
>
>
> 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"
>

Date2012-12-03 16:44
FromNicolas Drweski
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle. 
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson  a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>> 
> 
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
> 
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
> 
> Richard Dobson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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"
> 


Date2012-12-03 17:28
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'


On 3 December 2012 16:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.


Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)

Haha! OK, here is more detail. It was mixed exclusively in Protools. all of the material is synthesised with Csound, only pvs opcodes, for and partikkel. That one percent is just there for safety in case I have forgotten something! Possibly a little bit of audio sculpt here and there. A bit of EQ, gating and transposition in protools. And a couple of sounds were processed with a 'decorrelator' that Andres Cabrera has made for his PhD thesis, but that is not relevant to the stereo mix.      
 

It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!

I wouldn't spend too much time on it since I think, even though it is not immediately audible, the multichannel version includes elements that are missing here. Each grain and each spectral element is 'positioned' differently and there is a lot of spatial counterpoint, motion, and shifts in vantage point that one can only image in the stereo mix down. More importantly there is a sense of contiguous overhead canopy in the 6 channel version (to which the title refers) which cannot be reproduced in simple stereo playback. 

All the best,
Peiman  
  

Richard Dobson





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"



Date2012-12-03 17:32
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Steven,

Thanks very much! 

As I mentioned to my reply to Richard (above), the synthesis was done either with fof or particle. The processing was done entirely (as far as I remember) in FFTools.

I will be happy to answer any questions. And if you have access to a multichannel studio I'd be happy to send you a copy. 

all the best,
Peiman

On 3 December 2012 16:07, Steven Yi <stevenyi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peiman,

Listening to it now: very, very nice piece!  I'd love to know more
about the technical details of the piece if you're willing to discuss
it. (Sounds used/synthesized, how you mixed down to stereo, etc.)
Otherwise, love the pulsing rhythms, the delicacy, the sounds.  I wish
I could hear the 6-channel version now... :)

Thanks very much for sharing!
steven

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, peiman khosravi
<peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'. The
> mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an idea of the
> sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>
> http://soundcloud.com/peimankh/vertex_stereo-mix
>
> Best,
> Peiman


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"



Date2012-12-03 17:39
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"



Date2012-12-03 17:40
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Steven,

I should say that the stereo mix down is just that, nothing fancy. Just mixing all the stereo pairs into two channels and normalising the output! 

P

On 3 December 2012 16:07, Steven Yi <stevenyi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Peiman,

Listening to it now: very, very nice piece!  I'd love to know more
about the technical details of the piece if you're willing to discuss
it. (Sounds used/synthesized, how you mixed down to stereo, etc.)
Otherwise, love the pulsing rhythms, the delicacy, the sounds.  I wish
I could hear the 6-channel version now... :)

Thanks very much for sharing!
steven

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, peiman khosravi
<peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'. The
> mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an idea of the
> sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>
> http://soundcloud.com/peimankh/vertex_stereo-mix
>
> Best,
> Peiman


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"



Date2012-12-03 17:41
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Thank you very much Dave! Yes, dispersion! 

Again, if you do have a system I'll be happy to send you the original version. 

All the best,
Peiman

On 3 December 2012 16:17, Dave Phillips <dlphillips@woh.rr.com> wrote:
On 12/03/12 11:00, Richard Dobson wrote:

...
... once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!

Definitely not nasty here, but I agree, the sounds want more dispersion than stereo offers.

Once again, excellent work, Peiman. I'd love to hear it in multiple channels.

Best,

dp




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"



Date2012-12-03 17:48
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
For example, what appears to be texturally dense in stereo, may not be that saturated in surround where different textural elements can be positions differently, in such a way that they don't impinge on each other's space (even if they overlap spectrally). You can carefully design different spatial zones and textures that are just not possible in stereo. 

In relation to this piece, for instance, the pulse section is perceived completely differently because of the way in which the different layers and pulses are spatial articulated. 

all the best,
Peiman

        

On 3 December 2012 17:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"




Date2012-12-03 17:52
FromNicolas Drweski
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"



Date2012-12-03 17:55
FromNicolas Drweski
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
I agree with everything you say ( putting in comparaison piece i have done in surround and reducted in stereo) but the change that spaciality can (could) bring in nature is not yet discovered.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:48, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

For example, what appears to be texturally dense in stereo, may not be that saturated in surround where different textural elements can be positions differently, in such a way that they don't impinge on each other's space (even if they overlap spectrally). You can carefully design different spatial zones and textures that are just not possible in stereo. 

In relation to this piece, for instance, the pulse section is perceived completely differently because of the way in which the different layers and pulses are spatial articulated. 

all the best,
Peiman

        

On 3 December 2012 17:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"




Date2012-12-03 17:59
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
I was going to say the following: 

OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano transcription of an orchestral piece. 

Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?

But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'. 

P    

On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"




Date2012-12-03 18:01
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
What do you mean by nature? 

Listening to a midi version of a Beethoven symphony does change the nature of the work. 

On 3 December 2012 17:55, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I agree with everything you say ( putting in comparaison piece i have done in surround and reducted in stereo) but the change that spaciality can (could) bring in nature is not yet discovered.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:48, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

For example, what appears to be texturally dense in stereo, may not be that saturated in surround where different textural elements can be positions differently, in such a way that they don't impinge on each other's space (even if they overlap spectrally). You can carefully design different spatial zones and textures that are just not possible in stereo. 

In relation to this piece, for instance, the pulse section is perceived completely differently because of the way in which the different layers and pulses are spatial articulated. 

all the best,
Peiman

        

On 3 December 2012 17:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"





Date2012-12-03 18:25
FromNicolas Drweski
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
we had exactly the same example in mind : the orchestration of bach work. But it doesn't bring a change in the sense that no matter how you orchestrate it will have the same result, just bring another color. on the other hand, Xenakis and Grisey have brang a change of nature, probably influenced by their work on electroaoustic. I think that probably we don't have the same definition of "by nature". by this i mean that basiclly, it is possible to downmix a work in surround to stereo. You'll loose, but the structure will be conserved. in that sense the surround doesn't bring a change in nature. on the other hand you cannot arrange a xenakis or grisey orchestral work for piano let's say, because the orchestra have element that cannot be reducted for the piano (glissandis, quater tones, various dynamics at the same time) If you do, you miss the structure of the original piece. Hope i am clear...

Peiman, I hope you don't take it as a critic, because it is not, i was talking about the point were we all (composer that have a particular attention on space) are at this point that cannot permit us to fully take advantage artisticlly of spatiallity, but that it is certainly one aspect to be considered in the future. Hope to not be misunderstood.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:59, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

I was going to say the following: 

OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano transcription of an orchestral piece. 

Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?

But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'. 

P    

On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"




Date2012-12-03 18:40
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Nicolas,

Sure the form of the piece remain more or less intact, although this is open to debate in that some formal articulation may be lost. But music is about the whole experience rather than the 'nature' or essence of a work. That's too metaphysical for me! Just because the work remains recognisable and its form (say, sonata) remains intact it doesn't mean that the meaningful experience of the work remains the same. In orchestrating piano works Ravel doesn't simply add colour.  

Of course I don't take it personally, and I have no problems with criticism anyway and welcome it. But I'm not defending my work here, which is far less than perfect or exhaustive. I am just saying that perspectival configurations in a multichannel piece can be essential to musical form. I've heard many examples, even if I haven't managed to achieve it myself. 

P
 

On 3 December 2012 18:25, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
we had exactly the same example in mind : the orchestration of bach work. But it doesn't bring a change in the sense that no matter how you orchestrate it will have the same result, just bring another color. on the other hand, Xenakis and Grisey have brang a change of nature, probably influenced by their work on electroaoustic. I think that probably we don't have the same definition of "by nature". by this i mean that basiclly, it is possible to downmix a work in surround to stereo. You'll loose, but the structure will be conserved. in that sense the surround doesn't bring a change in nature. on the other hand you cannot arrange a xenakis or grisey orchestral work for piano let's say, because the orchestra have element that cannot be reducted for the piano (glissandis, quater tones, various dynamics at the same time) If you do, you miss the structure of the original piece. Hope i am clear...

Peiman, I hope you don't take it as a critic, because it is not, i was talking about the point were we all (composer that have a particular attention on space) are at this point that cannot permit us to fully take advantage artisticlly of spatiallity, but that it is certainly one aspect to be considered in the future. Hope to not be misunderstood.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:59, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

I was going to say the following: 

OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano transcription of an orchestral piece. 

Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?

But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'. 

P    

On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"





Date2012-12-04 08:25
FromOeyvind Brandtsegg
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Peiman,
Thanks so much for the piece. It was indeed interesting to hear the stereo reduction, and compare to the multichannel version. I experience the music of it completely different. It appears to me you are a master of spatial composition and you have a strong point when you claim that the spatial characteristics should be composed as part of the sound from the start, not added as coloration (freely rephrased). The density is obviously different in stereo than in multichannel, as there is simply less space to hold the same elements, but in my opinion something happens to the manner time passes too. I don't have a clear theory about this, but it is something I experience quite clearly.
Thanks again, both for the nice music, and for an interesting study.
best
Oeyvind


2012/12/3 peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com>
Hi Nicolas,

Sure the form of the piece remain more or less intact, although this is open to debate in that some formal articulation may be lost. But music is about the whole experience rather than the 'nature' or essence of a work. That's too metaphysical for me! Just because the work remains recognisable and its form (say, sonata) remains intact it doesn't mean that the meaningful experience of the work remains the same. In orchestrating piano works Ravel doesn't simply add colour.  

Of course I don't take it personally, and I have no problems with criticism anyway and welcome it. But I'm not defending my work here, which is far less than perfect or exhaustive. I am just saying that perspectival configurations in a multichannel piece can be essential to musical form. I've heard many examples, even if I haven't managed to achieve it myself. 

P
 

On 3 December 2012 18:25, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
we had exactly the same example in mind : the orchestration of bach work. But it doesn't bring a change in the sense that no matter how you orchestrate it will have the same result, just bring another color. on the other hand, Xenakis and Grisey have brang a change of nature, probably influenced by their work on electroaoustic. I think that probably we don't have the same definition of "by nature". by this i mean that basiclly, it is possible to downmix a work in surround to stereo. You'll loose, but the structure will be conserved. in that sense the surround doesn't bring a change in nature. on the other hand you cannot arrange a xenakis or grisey orchestral work for piano let's say, because the orchestra have element that cannot be reducted for the piano (glissandis, quater tones, various dynamics at the same time) If you do, you miss the structure of the original piece. Hope i am clear...

Peiman, I hope you don't take it as a critic, because it is not, i was talking about the point were we all (composer that have a particular attention on space) are at this point that cannot permit us to fully take advantage artisticlly of spatiallity, but that it is certainly one aspect to be considered in the future. Hope to not be misunderstood.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:59, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

I was going to say the following: 

OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano transcription of an orchestral piece. 

Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?

But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'. 

P    

On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"







--

Oeyvind Brandtsegg
Professor of Music Technology
NTNU
7491 Trondheim
Norway
Cell: +47 92 203 205

http://flyndresang.no/
http://www.partikkelaudio.com/
http://soundcloud.com/brandtsegg
http://soundcloud.com/t-emp

Date2012-12-04 09:17
Frompeiman khosravi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Oeyvind,

Thanks very much indeed for listening again and for the comments. For me this is very very interesting to hear. And your comment about the passing of time is something I have not thought about but now I think I should! Very interesting.

All the best,
Peiman 

On 4 December 2012 08:25, Oeyvind Brandtsegg <oyvind.brandtsegg@ntnu.no> wrote:
Peiman,
Thanks so much for the piece. It was indeed interesting to hear the stereo reduction, and compare to the multichannel version. I experience the music of it completely different. It appears to me you are a master of spatial composition and you have a strong point when you claim that the spatial characteristics should be composed as part of the sound from the start, not added as coloration (freely rephrased). The density is obviously different in stereo than in multichannel, as there is simply less space to hold the same elements, but in my opinion something happens to the manner time passes too. I don't have a clear theory about this, but it is something I experience quite clearly.
Thanks again, both for the nice music, and for an interesting study.
best
Oeyvind


2012/12/3 peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com>
Hi Nicolas,

Sure the form of the piece remain more or less intact, although this is open to debate in that some formal articulation may be lost. But music is about the whole experience rather than the 'nature' or essence of a work. That's too metaphysical for me! Just because the work remains recognisable and its form (say, sonata) remains intact it doesn't mean that the meaningful experience of the work remains the same. In orchestrating piano works Ravel doesn't simply add colour.  

Of course I don't take it personally, and I have no problems with criticism anyway and welcome it. But I'm not defending my work here, which is far less than perfect or exhaustive. I am just saying that perspectival configurations in a multichannel piece can be essential to musical form. I've heard many examples, even if I haven't managed to achieve it myself. 

P
 

On 3 December 2012 18:25, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
we had exactly the same example in mind : the orchestration of bach work. But it doesn't bring a change in the sense that no matter how you orchestrate it will have the same result, just bring another color. on the other hand, Xenakis and Grisey have brang a change of nature, probably influenced by their work on electroaoustic. I think that probably we don't have the same definition of "by nature". by this i mean that basiclly, it is possible to downmix a work in surround to stereo. You'll loose, but the structure will be conserved. in that sense the surround doesn't bring a change in nature. on the other hand you cannot arrange a xenakis or grisey orchestral work for piano let's say, because the orchestra have element that cannot be reducted for the piano (glissandis, quater tones, various dynamics at the same time) If you do, you miss the structure of the original piece. Hope i am clear...

Peiman, I hope you don't take it as a critic, because it is not, i was talking about the point were we all (composer that have a particular attention on space) are at this point that cannot permit us to fully take advantage artisticlly of spatiallity, but that it is certainly one aspect to be considered in the future. Hope to not be misunderstood.

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:59, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

I was going to say the following: 

OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano transcription of an orchestral piece. 

Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?

But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'. 

P    

On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...

Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to... but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven, then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and tecnologies.

50% it would be 50% of another 100% ! 

keep your work in that direction !

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi <peimankhosravi@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi Nicolas,

Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed diffusion.    

to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).

Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely lost with the stereo mix down! 

I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance. 

Best,
Peiman

   

On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski <ndrweski@yahoo.fr> wrote:
Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among others François Bayle.
Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.

If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment. Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise so that there contrast of spaces.

p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?


Nicolas

Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> a écrit :

> On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an
>> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>
>
> Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>
> It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on. Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think the stereo "nasty" at all!
>
> Richard Dobson
>
>
>
>
>
> 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"







--

Oeyvind Brandtsegg
Professor of Music Technology
NTNU
7491 Trondheim
Norway
Cell: +47 92 203 205

http://flyndresang.no/
http://www.partikkelaudio.com/
http://soundcloud.com/brandtsegg
http://soundcloud.com/t-emp


Date2012-12-04 11:36
FromRory Walsh
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
I look forward to hearing it in its full glory at some stage. I'd say
it's quite a cinematic experience. Really fires up the imagination.



On 4 December 2012 09:17, peiman khosravi  wrote:
> Hi Oeyvind,
>
> Thanks very much indeed for listening again and for the comments. For me
> this is very very interesting to hear. And your comment about the passing of
> time is something I have not thought about but now I think I should! Very
> interesting.
>
> All the best,
> Peiman
>
>
> On 4 December 2012 08:25, Oeyvind Brandtsegg 
> wrote:
>>
>> Peiman,
>> Thanks so much for the piece. It was indeed interesting to hear the stereo
>> reduction, and compare to the multichannel version. I experience the music
>> of it completely different. It appears to me you are a master of spatial
>> composition and you have a strong point when you claim that the spatial
>> characteristics should be composed as part of the sound from the start, not
>> added as coloration (freely rephrased). The density is obviously different
>> in stereo than in multichannel, as there is simply less space to hold the
>> same elements, but in my opinion something happens to the manner time passes
>> too. I don't have a clear theory about this, but it is something I
>> experience quite clearly.
>> Thanks again, both for the nice music, and for an interesting study.
>> best
>> Oeyvind
>>
>>
>> 2012/12/3 peiman khosravi 
>>>
>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>
>>> Sure the form of the piece remain more or less intact, although this is
>>> open to debate in that some formal articulation may be lost. But music is
>>> about the whole experience rather than the 'nature' or essence of a work.
>>> That's too metaphysical for me! Just because the work remains recognisable
>>> and its form (say, sonata) remains intact it doesn't mean that the
>>> meaningful experience of the work remains the same. In orchestrating piano
>>> works Ravel doesn't simply add colour.
>>>
>>> Of course I don't take it personally, and I have no problems with
>>> criticism anyway and welcome it. But I'm not defending my work here, which
>>> is far less than perfect or exhaustive. I am just saying that perspectival
>>> configurations in a multichannel piece can be essential to musical form.
>>> I've heard many examples, even if I haven't managed to achieve it myself.
>>>
>>> P
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3 December 2012 18:25, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> we had exactly the same example in mind : the orchestration of bach
>>>> work. But it doesn't bring a change in the sense that no matter how you
>>>> orchestrate it will have the same result, just bring another color. on the
>>>> other hand, Xenakis and Grisey have brang a change of nature, probably
>>>> influenced by their work on electroaoustic. I think that probably we don't
>>>> have the same definition of "by nature". by this i mean that basiclly, it is
>>>> possible to downmix a work in surround to stereo. You'll loose, but the
>>>> structure will be conserved. in that sense the surround doesn't bring a
>>>> change in nature. on the other hand you cannot arrange a xenakis or grisey
>>>> orchestral work for piano let's say, because the orchestra have element that
>>>> cannot be reducted for the piano (glissandis, quater tones, various dynamics
>>>> at the same time) If you do, you miss the structure of the original piece.
>>>> Hope i am clear...
>>>>
>>>> Peiman, I hope you don't take it as a critic, because it is not, i was
>>>> talking about the point were we all (composer that have a particular
>>>> attention on space) are at this point that cannot permit us to fully take
>>>> advantage artisticlly of spatiallity, but that it is certainly one aspect to
>>>> be considered in the future. Hope to not be misunderstood.
>>>>
>>>> Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:59, peiman khosravi  a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>> I was going to say the following:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, but I think in this case the comparison should be more like a piano
>>>> transcription of an orchestral piece.
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, you could argue that the orchestration of Webern does
>>>> introduce a change of nature, as his arrangement of Bach suggests to me. And
>>>> what about Grisey or Xenakis' orchestration?
>>>>
>>>> But instead I'm going to say, that depends on what you mean by 'nature'.
>>>>
>>>> P
>>>>
>>>> On 3 December 2012 17:52, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I wish that to but i've only listened to. Those kind of dispositive are
>>>>> "reserved" due to the prixe of it, and the cpu required...
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, on the other topic, if weconsider that Webern offers new
>>>>> possibilities to the orchestration since beethoven, than surround do to...
>>>>> but if we consider that the orchestration of webern doesn't bring a change
>>>>> in nature, than it is not that much different from the one of beethoven,
>>>>> then i wouldn't say that suround sound offer new possibilities. I would say
>>>>> that we almost didn't begin to work on space due to knowledge maters and
>>>>> tecnologies.
>>>>>
>>>>> 50% it would be 50% of another 100% !
>>>>>
>>>>> keep your work in that direction !
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 3 déc. 2012 à 18:39, peiman khosravi  a
>>>>> écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Nicolas,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the comments. I think multichannel audio offers new
>>>>> possibilities that are beyond stereo composition. And I think that we have
>>>>> only just begun to explore these possibilities. Once we deal with the
>>>>> novelty of 'joysticking' sounds around the audience, we start to deal with
>>>>> spatiality in a more mature and imaginative way. Working with multichannel
>>>>> audio requires one to think in a different way and hard-code the spatial
>>>>> element in the sounds form the start, rather than just as a kind of fixed
>>>>> diffusion.
>>>>>
>>>>> to me this stereo mix only provides 50% of the actual experience of the
>>>>> work (maybe less, but these things are so subjective anyway).
>>>>>
>>>>> Having said that, I'm glad that you don't think the piece is completely
>>>>> lost with the stereo mix down!
>>>>>
>>>>> I would love to try Wfs but have never had a chance.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Peiman
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 3 December 2012 16:44, Nicolas Drweski  wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good work Peiman, definitly good control of frequencies, which is the
>>>>>> key to understand space obviously, although (is it a proper use of that
>>>>>> word?) beiing in stereo or surround doesn't make much diference to me, in
>>>>>> general. I would say that surround sound, however (? is it a good use of the
>>>>>> word...) you use it, doesn't seems to be perceved as a change of nature. i
>>>>>> would translate the comparaison between stereo and surround in the
>>>>>> orchestration field  ( which work on spaciality could be compared too ), as
>>>>>> the diference between Bartok, Debussy or stravinsky and webern, which is not
>>>>>> perceived by the ears as a change of nature in orchestration. The change of
>>>>>> nature would be the diference between, webern or so and let's say one among
>>>>>> others François Bayle.
>>>>>> Like Richard said I can "easely" imagine it in surround.
>>>>>> The technology ( or the knowledge or understanding of space) is not
>>>>>> nowadays enough to provoque a change of nature coming from it's spatial
>>>>>> aspect, like recorded sounds was in electroacoustic music, but Peiman, you
>>>>>> definitly contribute to make the music progress in that domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you permit me, I would suggest that you economize the spaces you
>>>>>> are creating so that each time it happens it will be an unique moment.
>>>>>> Creating contrast between moment spacially precise, and moment les precise
>>>>>> so that there contrast of spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p.s Have you had the oportunity to listen to a Wfs system ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nicolas
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 3 déc. 2012 à 17:00, Richard Dobson
>>>>>>  a écrit :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > On 03/12/2012 15:34, peiman khosravi wrote:
>>>>>> >> Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work
>>>>>> >> 'Vertex'.
>>>>>> >> The mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give
>>>>>> >> an
>>>>>> >> idea of the sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Oh now, I think that that means that there is still 1% which is
>>>>>> > neither Csound nor mixing. Or, that the mixing is Csound but specifically
>>>>>> > not 99% of it. I think we need to know.:-)
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It needs deep listening, which I will have to defer to later on.
>>>>>> > Funny though how, once one knows the original is in surround, one hears
>>>>>> > every sound and understands how, of course, it needs those extra
>>>>>> > speakers...whereas not knowing  that, I would guess that one would not think
>>>>>> > the stereo "nasty" at all!
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Richard Dobson
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 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"
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Oeyvind Brandtsegg
>> Professor of Music Technology
>> NTNU
>> 7491 Trondheim
>> Norway
>> Cell: +47 92 203 205
>>
>> http://flyndresang.no/
>> http://www.partikkelaudio.com/
>> http://soundcloud.com/brandtsegg
>> http://soundcloud.com/t-emp
>
>


Date2012-12-04 11:46
FromSteven Yi
SubjectRe: [Csnd] new work 'Vertex'
Hi Peiman,

Thanks for discussing the work in all the emails in this thread.
Enjoyed this very much!

steven

On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 5:40 PM, peiman khosravi
 wrote:
> Steven,
>
> I should say that the stereo mix down is just that, nothing fancy. Just
> mixing all the stereo pairs into two channels and normalising the output!
>
> P
>
> On 3 December 2012 16:07, Steven Yi  wrote:
>>
>> Hi Peiman,
>>
>> Listening to it now: very, very nice piece!  I'd love to know more
>> about the technical details of the piece if you're willing to discuss
>> it. (Sounds used/synthesized, how you mixed down to stereo, etc.)
>> Otherwise, love the pulsing rhythms, the delicacy, the sounds.  I wish
>> I could hear the 6-channel version now... :)
>>
>> Thanks very much for sharing!
>> steven
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM, peiman khosravi
>>  wrote:
>> > Here is a silly stereo reduction of my recent 6 channel work 'Vertex'.
>> > The
>> > mp3 quality and stereo reduction are nasty but it should give an idea of
>> > the
>> > sound-world. Other than the mixing it is 99% Csound.
>> >
>> > http://soundcloud.com/peimankh/vertex_stereo-mix
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Peiman
>>
>>
>> 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"
>>
>