|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 18:20:46 GMT
The boxing count zero sums, so it's all in center in mono. At least in the US version I examined. But that's exactly the type of reasoning a have towards the UK/US versions... and this is in agreement behind my thoughts on the poster, noted above. Explain zero sums. My recollection is that I could hear 6 more clearly on one channel, and 7 on the other. |
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 18:29:01 GMT
Zero summing is deconstructive wave interference. Basically, a mono signal has equal representation on both the L and R, so it sounds like it is in the middle of the sound stage. If you invert one side and sum it with the other, the two waves sum to zero and, so, cancel.
If you flip the L side of the mix and add it to the R side, all the boxing stuff disappears. So, it is a mono signal in the center of the mix.
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 18:33:00 GMT
Zero summing is deconstructive wave interference. Basically, a mono signal has equal representation on both the L and R, so it sounds like it is in the middle of the sound stage. If you invert one side and sum it with the other, the two waves sum to zero and, so, cancel. If you flip the L side of the mix and add it to the R side, all the boxing stuff disappears. So, it is a mono signal in the center of the mix. And of course, it may be different in different productions of the CD. e.g. US to UK. I am fairly sure that when I listened (very informal methodology to be sure) by changing the balance L to R, I got a different number (6-7). Maybe I'll go back and give that another try. |
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 18:37:32 GMT
Absolutely correct. I did not work on all versions, so they may differ. And, there are a LOAD of versions.
Also, this is why I know that at least one of the versions (US/UK) was mastered to tape, and also why I know the Japanese Mini-album re-release was exactly the same as the Columbia CD version -- only containing new time stamps.
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 18:44:30 GMT
I have a question, which may or may not be relevant to our discussion: Why is there a L and a R channel in stereo (so named)? Why bother to name them as such? Any reason? Why not A and B?
|
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 19:02:28 GMT
A and B could certainly be useable, but I'd reckon most people -- both inside and outside the industry -- wouldn't be very happy about that. Stereo in itself is a relatively new thing, but I do know discussions of, say, how the drums are presented in a stereo mix, with some producers favouring audience perspective and some favouring player perspective. In the former, the ride cymbal (as an example) would be heard in the left speaker, in the latter, on the right -- as it typically exists on the right side of a drumkit. Of course, from a live perspective, it's all moot, as the drums coming through the mains will be presented in mono to avoid phase cancellations in various parts of the room anyways. Ultimately, if you swapped up left and right, or phase inverted the entire mix, there isn't going to be a whole lot of difference in your experience of the sound, but what you are listening to is not *exactly* what the people making the decisions were deciding about. Which it won't be anyways without the same system, speakers, etc. There may be more psycho-acoustic decisions as well, but I haven't heard a lot of talk about it and they are probably way more sophisticated than anybody really cares about.
When it comes to movies, obviously, where the sound is placed is of enormous importance to congruity. Mostly, I understand voicing is still presented in the center, as a mono representation, but you'll want spacial effects and ambiance to match their visual counterpart.
Also, possibly of interest, our ability to locate sound is far more difficult if the sound is low pitched, or coming from behind us.
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 19:12:27 GMT
It was the psycho-acoustics I had in mind, I think.
Just another segue.
|
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 19:27:04 GMT
It's a new field, and those types of things are more likely to be picked up first by movie studios who seem more sophisticated in their treatment of sound-as-experience that music producers who do things so that they "sound good". While it is true that you might expect some very slight degree of difference from a headphone-monitoring environment between ears -- say, the right ear is going to be happier dealing with tonal characteristics and the left ear being happier dealing with rhythmic structures (as an example -- I made that up for illustration purposes) -- I wouldn't rest any weight on the people putting the stuff together today really caring about that, and certainly not in 1994...
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 19:35:17 GMT
I'd like to review, not necessarily for your benefit Phil, but for others... On August 13, 1994 the original "I've been watching your progress" message was sent and received intact and in toto. 18 days later, the three scrambled messages were sent by the Publii, and subsequently dismissed by all 'concerned' (at ampf) as poor transmissions of the same message. That they could not have been the victim of electrical interference or any other form of disruption was not questioned, despite the evidence to the contrary. To this day, no one has made an effort to glean further information from them. If indeed there is any to be gleaned. Anyone who has been through dial-up transmission of data has seen the tell-tale signs of such interference, which results in ASCII symbols from 0-256 based on which of the bits have been scrambled in transmission. There is no such random (fractal) interference here. Makes me wish I had been around at the time. That the scrambled posts came 18 days after the good one should have been enough of an indication that something was up. Inasmuchas three messages were sent, three messages were likely necessary, and were in relation to one another. More opinion than fact... The original message gives clues to the content and relationship of the three to one another and to the Enigma puzzle. "Now, let me impart a word of advice: while each DB component requires its own individual degree of interpretation, carefully take note of those subtle, connecting relationships between seemingly disassociated clues. I emphasize this an essential step in the right direction. Ask yourselves: how do these separate clues that you have been researching and evaluating now find renewed meaning within an overall, more unified theme?" The clues are the scrambled posts themselves, and their relationship points to an overall, more unified theme. Furthermore, the process of establishing relationships, characteristic of synthetic intelligence, is the province, more or less, of the right hemisphere ("an essential step in the right direction"). books.google.com/books?id=p4fNxxuuOgwC&pg=PA479&lpg=PA479&dq=synthetic+right+hemisphere&source=bl&ots=uIAEHoy-S-&sig=LAWHqmVHUbuNMuk4hVnSLklcDiY&hl=en&ei=vQozTuW3CcO3sQL-mvyECw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=synthetic%20right%20hemisphere&f=falseJMO. |
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 19:36:46 GMT
It's a new field, and those types of things are more likely to be picked up first by movie studios who seem more sophisticated in their treatment of sound-as-experience that music producers who do things so that they "sound good". While it is true that you might expect some very slight degree of difference from a headphone-monitoring environment between ears -- say, the right ear is going to be happier dealing with tonal characteristics and the left ear being happier dealing with rhythmic structures (as an example -- I made that up for illustration purposes) -- I wouldn't rest any weight on the people putting the stuff together today really caring about that, and certainly not in 1994... Don't underestimate Brian Eno, or his friends. You might read some of his 'white papers'. JMO. |
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 19:52:39 GMT
I wouldn't overestimate them either. Not that I don't have great respect for people like Eno, Fripp, Carlos, etc.
Neuroimaging was really only ready for the proper persuit of this type of information at the turn of the century. MRI, in the early 90s. I cannot reasonably expect the leap from psychology periodicals to the entertainment industry in a year or two, but, don't let my pessimism stop you...
|
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 20:02:58 GMT
Experiments on hemispheric asymmetry in the brain have been going on for several centuries, without being called neuro-acoustics. The science was not born in a vacuum, but first subsumed findings from a number of fields.
New technology may have informed and refined and subverted expectations but it didn't create what was there in the beginning.
Really, you might benefit from The Origin of Consciousness and its bibliography, if only to get an overview of the history of the brain research which informed the field.
Anyway, I don't want to take too much of your time. Initially, I was interested in finding out what you had made of the scrambled posts.
If I think of anything which might move the decryption forward, I'll post it here, whether or not you do any more on it.
Everything in the Enigma leads to something else and before you know it you're in the drink.
Enjoy! And thanks for the interaction.
|
|
|
|
Post by philtherodent on Jul 29, 2011 20:20:16 GMT
You too.  And, agreed on "Everything in the Enigma leads to something else and before you know it you're in the drink." That's a lot of the reason that I've taken such a great deal of effort to disclude things to focus attention on and cut off areas of investigation that are too far astray. There is simply too much, if you let there be. Maybe I've cut off too much... but, I still think that before you go running off the path, you should have a map, lest you won't find your way back again (if you take my meaning). There is too much that hasn't been dug up in terms of the concrete to go dashing after fancies. Have a great summer. Again, I'll probably be doing some light review a bit later, and certainly after the re-release is out in September. |
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jul 29, 2011 20:28:40 GMT
"I still think that before you go running off the path, you should have a map..." Agreed. My map...  |
|
|
|
Post by myriadsmallcreatur on Jun 12, 2012 23:10:34 GMT
You too. And, agreed on "Everything in the Enigma leads to something else and before you know it you're in the drink." That's a lot of the reason that I've taken such a great deal of effort to disclude things to focus attention on and cut off areas of investigation that are too far astray. There is simply too much, if you let there be. Maybe I've cut off too much... but, I still think that before you go running off the path, you should have a map, lest you won't find your way back again (if you take my meaning). There is too much that hasn't been dug up in terms of the concrete to go dashing after fancies. Have a great summer. Again, I'll probably be doing some light review a bit later, and certainly after the re-release is out in September. Phil, Greetings! Any update on your progress? |
|
And, agreed on "Everything in the Enigma leads to something else and before you know it you're in the drink." That's a lot of the reason that I've taken such a great deal of effort to disclude things to focus attention on and cut off areas of investigation that are too far astray. There is simply too much, if you let there be. Maybe I've cut off too much... but, I still think that before you go running off the path, you should have a map, lest you won't find your way back again (if you take my meaning). There is too much that hasn't been dug up in terms of the concrete to go dashing after fancies.