Thanks. If I can hear the difference of one strike on the inside or outside of the same spot live and a system can reproduce that difference then it is highly resolving.
The importance of Resolution
- Thread starter PeterA
- Start date
Thanks. If I can hear the difference of one strike on the inside or outside of the same spot live and a system can reproduce that difference then it is highly resolving.
Well 853, I'm a drummer so the kind of insight on the ride cymbal technique on YYZ is fascinating to me.
But if its part of a sound that is unappealing or non holistic, then its ultimately as uninvolving as a fat smeared sound w restricted detail and resolution.
That's why fascinating as it was to have the soundstage forensically laid out on the Apogee/Spectral system, forensic is indeed the memory I took away. Musical, no.
But if its part of a sound that is unappealing or non holistic, then its ultimately as uninvolving as a fat smeared sound w restricted detail and resolution.
That's why fascinating as it was to have the soundstage forensically laid out on the Apogee/Spectral system, forensic is indeed the memory I took away. Musical, no.
I would have a lot of questions concerning your statement before thinking about answering your question ...
.First - are you able to describe with accuracy the system where you listened to such resolution? Second - did you perceive it in any other system? Third - depending on your previous answers - how can we be sure that it was not your particular listening mood in this moment that allowed you to discover it once? Forth - IMHO resolution is extremely dependent on listening levels. I have found that in collective listening I usually listen at louder levels and sometimes listen to thinks that would not show at lower levels. Did you control listening level at that time?
It took me while to work out Peart's not playing the ride cymbal on snare hits, and playing closer to the bell on the "1" and the "2 &" with the kick for subtle emphasis. I also initially thought he was playing quarter notes on the off beat during the section in which he and Geddy trade fours (and then eights), but realised he's just playing eighth notes and opening the hi-hat on the "&". That little insight was a significant breakthrough for me as a fifteen year old and my Tama Swingstar. And all revealed through a pair of crappy no-name headphones plugged into a Philips double cassette boombox.
I remain in awe of how much expression can be evinced from a piece of wood hitting a disc of bronze and tin. To me, Tony Williams and Elvin Jones remain the masters of this, and I never tire of being humbled by their command of craft.
Be well, Spirit.
853guy
Elvin Jones and the freed slave;Roy Brooks ne'er needed the mighty 5/8 Roach.
Coltrane was average until Monk.
Hyperbole and mysticism in one brief post.
Factually true and logically correct IMHO.
Kindest regards,G.
Coltrane was average until Monk.
Hyperbole and mysticism in one brief post.
Factually true and logically correct IMHO.
Kindest regards,G.
Hey, where else could the merits of drum technique and the cosmic qualities of percussion be held? Twitter? Breitbart? No, good old WBF.
You'll get no argument from me about TWilliams and EJones, too greater purveyors of "elasticity" in time you'd be hard pressed to come up with.
Now, the q is, does knowing Peart's ride cymbal technique in intrinsic detail make for more enjoyment?
Yes and no. Yes because from detail comes meaning. But only when the detail is holistic and natural, contributing to, and arising out of natural tone and timbre.
So when my frustrating Apogees demo presented soundstage detail and resolution that was off the scale and way past what I have st home, it should have been the DNA from which a hugely enjoyable musical experience was had.
However the detail never went past electron microscope scrutiny into a convincing tonal and timbral whole.
I would have probably learnt a whole lot more about Tony W and Elvin J had I heard them that day on the Apogees, but it would have been like audio porn, loads of technique on display LOL, no feeling.
You'll get no argument from me about TWilliams and EJones, too greater purveyors of "elasticity" in time you'd be hard pressed to come up with.
Now, the q is, does knowing Peart's ride cymbal technique in intrinsic detail make for more enjoyment?
Yes and no. Yes because from detail comes meaning. But only when the detail is holistic and natural, contributing to, and arising out of natural tone and timbre.
So when my frustrating Apogees demo presented soundstage detail and resolution that was off the scale and way past what I have st home, it should have been the DNA from which a hugely enjoyable musical experience was had.
However the detail never went past electron microscope scrutiny into a convincing tonal and timbral whole.
I would have probably learnt a whole lot more about Tony W and Elvin J had I heard them that day on the Apogees, but it would have been like audio porn, loads of technique on display LOL, no feeling.
Dear Peter,
Out of respect for you and your thread let me apologise for my lack of discipline in sticking to the topic of your original post.
It appears Spirit, the General and I have areas of common overlap. I will now depart this thread to allow it to return to its intended course.
But before I do, it would be completely remiss of me to not add Paul Motion to the list of those above-mentioned gentlemen who suspended time while articulating it, and understood a ride cymbal was not something to play, but to caress, coax and cajole into layered canvases of sonic pointillism.
Bien cordialement,
853guy
Out of respect for you and your thread let me apologise for my lack of discipline in sticking to the topic of your original post.
It appears Spirit, the General and I have areas of common overlap. I will now depart this thread to allow it to return to its intended course.
But before I do, it would be completely remiss of me to not add Paul Motion to the list of those above-mentioned gentlemen who suspended time while articulating it, and understood a ride cymbal was not something to play, but to caress, coax and cajole into layered canvases of sonic pointillism.
Bien cordialement,
853guy
I would have a lot of questions concerning your statement before thinking about answering your question ...
First - are you able to describe with accuracy the system where you listened to such resolution? Second - did you perceive it in any other system? Third - depending on your previous answers - how can we be sure that it was not your particular listening mood in this moment that allowed you to discover it once? Forth - IMHO resolution is extremely dependent on listening levels. I have found that in collective listening I usually listen at louder levels and sometimes listen to thinks that would not show at lower levels. Did you control listening level at that time?
Pardon me Francisco, I'm thinking you are not taking my question as I intended. The point is not about what system, mood, volume, etc. or your ability to question what I hear or question whether such a system, volume, mood etc is capable of presenting such. The point was about what could count as an example of describing or helping to describe your (one's) use of the word "resolution." The larger point was about the need to provide better communicative value - more details, or better still, examples - of the shorthand word "resolution." While I believe putting statements in context is useful, I don't think you actually need to hear a triangle to accept such an example as one about a system's resolution, or more to the point, to get a better sense of the system than my simply telling you it is highly resolving. On the other hand suppose you were listening blind and thinking to gauge the resolution of whatever you're listening to; you may not get any context, but you could still give examples from what you hear. Of course you might use different examples to give an explaination to bolster your use of "resolution."
Thanks. I was implicitly pointing to a similar direction - how hard is to communicate the notion of "resolution" in a way it can be useful to others, and how examples can be misleading.
Actually it was an example of giving an example to explain what someone might mean by "resolution." The point being that the term "resolution" by itself is, well, insufficently resolved, and warrants further explication or example(s) in order to better communicate what is meant to someone else.
But to try to speak to your curiousity rather than the way it is broached: "how a triangle sounds different depending on whether it is struck on the inside or outside..." I am neither physicist nor perscussionist, though I'm somewhat familiar with the playing of and listening to percussion instruments. I believe how a triangle (or other piece of metal) will sound depends on where on the instrument and how hard it is struck. (If you disbelieve that statement then the example may be moot as a useful example for you.) There is a technique where the instrument is struck on its interior sides in rapid succession. Side one, two, three then repeat and do it quickly. The sound can be different than striking the outside quickly and successively in the same spot. In the former approach - the dinner bell strike as it were - the interior side struck has time to resonate longer before being struck again. The motion of the musician in making the strike, possibly circular on the interior, whether glancing or direct can be a factor. Whether a given person hears it or a given system resolves it is a different matter.
If someone made that statement about hearing the reproduction of a triangle, would you accept it as an example of resolution whether you knew its truth-value or not?
Good morning Tima,
I fully understand the message you wanted to convey on your post. Don’t take my question on strike of a triangle as as challenge. I and may be Peter too are just curious how sound of a triangle differs when strike on inside vs outside. I do have very little experience in orchestra listening unlike you and many people in this forum. You are welcome to stab me on that
. However, I have been to half a dozen percussion practices with triangles to hear my friend’s daughter practice drum (her major) at her university. I just never realize a strike on inside vs outside sound any different given the same spot and same strength of a strike. I am talking strictly inside vs outside nothing else. If the quote doesn’t mention where on the inside the triangle was struck and there is actually no difference between striking inside or out, then it is intended to mislead and exaggerate the hearing ability of the person who said it. Is there more pinggggggg or tingggggg striking outside? My question is also open to everyone not specifically to you Tima.Kind regards,
Tang
Good morning Tima,
I fully understand the message you wanted to convey on your post. Don’t take my question on strike of a triangle as as challenge. I and may be Peter too are just curious how sound of a triangle differs when strike on inside vs outside. I do have very little experience in orchestra listening unlike you and many people in this forum. You are welcome to stab me on that
Kind regards,
Tang
Dear Tang,
Two different items at the start: No references to stabbing, please.
I was fine going along until the ad hominem part. As regards pinggg or tinggg - I take that more about the articulation of the musician and the doing the striking. Among musical instruments, a raw metal on metal sound, to my ear, invariably evinces a hardness in the initial attack. Maybe a leather wrapped striker might give something like a ping versus a ting. I find it very difficult - to the point of avoidance - to replicate the actual sound of instruments verbally or with words. But there may be people who do something like that. I think your question is best answered in practice rather than here. Maybe Ack's video is enough.
Your example of test conditions, as told to Ack, are different than what I talked about for an example explanation of resolution. (Viz. "The system had such resolution I could hear that the percussionist was striking the triangle on its interior, each side in turn.")
Our examples (and our purposes in giving them seem quite different.
I imagine the Triangle before it is bent, as a straight metal rod. With that there is no inside or outside and likely no difference in sound when struck anywhere in the same portion of its circumference. That's only speculation on my part, but I would not bet agaisnt it. (Perhaps the way the rod is held could make a difference?)
The actual instrument is of course a different shape. Why do you think that is? Maybe the triangle is more compact for portability - though that's not a concern for other percussion instruments. I think one reason is that the triangular shape allows use of different techniques in playing it. Why would there be a need different techniques? Could that be possibly to create different sonic effects, i.e. ways of playing a Triangle that sound different? I can imagine the light single touch of the Triangle for accent as used, say, by Tchaikovsky in his 4th Symphony and elsewhere. I can also imagine the rapid striking of the Triangle interior to express Alarm! as in a Shostakovich piece. There may be ways to play the Triangle that lead to different sonics other than differences of tone and timbre, as well as those differences.
From my response to Peter A that you quoted: "...There is a technique where the instrument is struck on its interior sides in rapid succession. Side one, two, three then repeat and do it quickly. The sound can be different than striking the outside quickly and successively in the same spot. In the former approach - the dinner bell strike as it were - the interior side struck has time to resonate longer before being struck again. The motion of the musician in making the strike, possibly circular on the interior, whether glancing or direct can be a factor. ..."
Kind regards,
Tim
I don't know about you guys but for as long as I can remember the only thing that always comes to my mind when I hear a triangle is how long the guy who hit it waits for his parts.
It might actually make for a funny Mr. Bean sketch I bet.
It might actually make for a funny Mr. Bean sketch I bet.
As far as rock drummers go, besides the mighty Peart I am quite fond of Stewart Copeland's work on the cymbals.
For Jazz I would put Jack de Johnette. Listen to his cymbal work on the album Universal Syncopations (ECM). A great album for resolution and musicality evaluation I might add.
Dear Tang,
Two different items at the start: No references to stabbing, please.
As regards pinggg or tinggg - I take that more about the articulation of the musician and the doing the striking. Among musical instruments, a raw metal on metal sound, to my ear, invariably evinces a hardness in the initial attack. Maybe a leather wrapped striker might give something like a ping versus a ting. I find it very difficult - to the point of avoidance - to replicate the actual sound of instruments verbally or with words. But there may be people who do something like that. I think your question is best answered in practice rather than here. Maybe Ack's video is enough.
Your example of test conditions, as told to Ack, are different than what I talked about for an example explanation of resolution. (Viz. "The system had such resolution I could hear that the percussionist was striking the triangle on its interior, each side in turn.")
Our examples (and our purposes in giving them seem quite different.
I imagine the Triangle before it is bent, as a straight metal rod. With that there is no inside or outside and likely no difference in sound when struck anywhere in the same portion of its circumference. That's only speculation on my part, but I would not bet agaisnt it. (Perhaps the way the rod is held could make a difference?)
The actual instrument is of course a different shape. Why do you think that is? Maybe the triangle is more compact for portability - though that's not a concern for other percussion instruments. I think one reason is that the triangular shape allows use of different techniques in playing it. Why would there be a need different techniques? Could that be possibly to create different sonic effects, i.e. ways of playing a Triangle that sound different? I can imagine the light single touch of the Triangle for accent as used, say, by Tchaikovsky in his 4th Symphony and elsewhere. I can also imagine the rapid striking of the Triangle interior to express Alarm! as in a Shostakovich piece. There may be ways to play the Triangle that lead to different sonics other than differences of tone and timbre, as well as those differences.
From my response to Peter A that you quoted: "...There is a technique where the instrument is struck on its interior sides in rapid succession. Side one, two, three then repeat and do it quickly. The sound can be different than striking the outside quickly and successively in the same spot. In the former approach - the dinner bell strike as it were - the interior side struck has time to resonate longer before being struck again. The motion of the musician in making the strike, possibly circular on the interior, whether glancing or direct can be a factor. ..."
Kind regards,
Tim
If you can tell what kind of bow the violinist is using then you REALLY have resolution . I did this experiment with my ex on three different violins (all worth over $1M each) and two bows. Besides the obvious heard difference between combinations (and it was very obvious) I was running a spectrum analyzer so we could SEE the differences as well. Again, very obvious the changes in the harmonics.
Of course, unless you were a violin expert you would know which sound went with which instrument/bow combo. But s highly resolving system should retain these characteristics so hearing two instruments played by the same musician the same way through playback should still be obvious.
However as I and others have pointed out, if these leaves you feeling only a logical analytical appreciation then, IMO this is not true resolution because something is still likely missing (assuming hearing it live doesn't leave you feeling the same way). Apparent detail and true wholistic resolution are often confused.
I don't know about you guys but for as long as I can remember the only thing that always comes to my mind when I hear a triangle is how long the guy who hit it waits for his parts.
It might actually make for a funny Mr. Bean sketch I bet.
Although percussionists will usually play the triangle, among everything else, there is at least one piece - Mahler's 2nd - where the organist must wait 90+ minutes to play a few notes at the very end of the symphony. I always feel for that person, though sometimes they sneak in when the trumpets go off stage toward the end, and the doors have to open.
You and I have similar tastes. Jack de Johnette is my favorite American jazz drummer. My favorite European jazz drummer is Jon Christiansen (ECM), marvelous cymbal work that only the most dynamic systems can reproduce.
In regards to Copland, he appears on several albums with credits for cymbals and hi-hats only.
Similar threads
