Did you really expect him to?
He made the bet, I won, and now he doesn't want to pay up. I'll let others judge if they think Ethan is a man of his word.
Micro and macro dynamics...a discussion.
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
He made the bet, I won, and now he doesn't want to pay up. I'll let others judge if they think Ethan is a man of his word.
Oh really? This is the first definition Google returned:
"The character or quality of a musical sound or voice as distinct from its pitch and intensity."
In other words, frequency spectrum and harmonic content, without relation to intensity (volume).
Here's the second definition I found:
"The combination of qualities of a sound that distinguishes it from other sounds of the same pitch and volume."
I found this one at Wikipedia:
"The American Standards Association definition 12.9 of timbre describes it as "that attribute of sensation in terms of which a listener can judge that two sounds having the same loudness and pitch are dissimilar"
Again dismissing loudness. I did see a mention at Wikipedia of "envelope," but it didn't say the envelope was a volume change. So I'll take that as a change in spectral content, which of course is what good players do routinely as they sustain a note.
As for microdynamics, it's still a made-up word that has no meaning other than what the person using it wants it to mean. If you can give a link to a clear definition, I'll be glad to look at it. Not some article 1,900 words long, but a specific and clear definition.
--Ethan
He's not talking about money Bob, its the principle of the thing, not the money
Whenever someone says it's the principle and not the money, it's always the money. And despite what Ethan says now, I took his bet seriously. He would have too if he had won. And now he wants me to come visit him in person and he says he will pay. Of course if I showed up, he would laugh and say I should have known he was kidding.
Ethan,
Unfortunately google and wiki is far from being a great source for science and engineering when going for details.
You will remember I mentioned the 1st definition for timbre was by Helmoltz with many following after, the next concise definition used for a serious length of time was then from Fourier (the definition was around the frequency context), again many definitions came afterwards and indeed in the last 5 to 10 years the Fourier context has been superceded.
The American Standards Association definition 12.9 was 1960
Maybe you should check out after that researching/describing timbre-etc such as from Plomp, importantly Krumhansl, and ironically both Bregman and Rossing in 1990 that showed what is wrong with the definition with ASA and the ANSI (1960 and 12.9 definition).
Anyway even now it is accepted timbre cannot be described satisfactorily in physics-psychoacoustics-musicology although it is far better understood in the last 10 years and involves what I mentioned in reasonable detail, which is an expansion of the condensed description John McGuire did.
This is why wiki and google is not the most reliable source for information on such scientific subjects.
Edit:
Just to add a caveat, be careful when looking at definitions from these and other researchers due to the fact some have researched and continued to define timbre over many years, for some 20+ years so they can have definitions in the late 70s and also 90s or later.
Orb
Unfortunately google and wiki is far from being a great source for science and engineering when going for details.
You will remember I mentioned the 1st definition for timbre was by Helmoltz with many following after, the next concise definition used for a serious length of time was then from Fourier (the definition was around the frequency context), again many definitions came afterwards and indeed in the last 5 to 10 years the Fourier context has been superceded.
The American Standards Association definition 12.9 was 1960
Maybe you should check out after that researching/describing timbre-etc such as from Plomp, importantly Krumhansl, and ironically both Bregman and Rossing in 1990 that showed what is wrong with the definition with ASA and the ANSI (1960 and 12.9 definition).
Anyway even now it is accepted timbre cannot be described satisfactorily in physics-psychoacoustics-musicology although it is far better understood in the last 10 years and involves what I mentioned in reasonable detail, which is an expansion of the condensed description John McGuire did.
This is why wiki and google is not the most reliable source for information on such scientific subjects.
Edit:
Just to add a caveat, be careful when looking at definitions from these and other researchers due to the fact some have researched and continued to define timbre over many years, for some 20+ years so they can have definitions in the late 70s and also 90s or later.
Orb
Last edited:
If Ethan bet you $100 and you won, you probably wouldn't think it was so silly. Don't open your mouth and make bets on a public forum if you aren't prepared to pay up. And, you are missing the irony here. Ethan is always right and everyone else is always wrong. And if you are an audiophile, you are an "audiophool" as Ethan likes to say. So for Ethan to make a $100 bet that he clearly lost, yeah, I would like to take advantage of it and collect the money he clearly owes me. But like Gregg said, he is a welcher.
