--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, steve parker <swimorsync@n...> wrote: > > This is not the point of having irrational time signatures, > > nothing about 5/5 or 3/5 etc is mathematically "irrational"... > > > and furthermore is an incorrect definition of 5/5. 5/5 does exist (time > > signatures are just simple maths) > > time sigs are •not• maths....the top is a number (granted) but the > bottom is a *name* - like minim or "4 or "8". > these *names* are related to each other by composer direction - a > change from 2/4 to 2/8 does not imply a halving of the length of the > bar. Sorry, missed this is the previous reply. It doesn't imply halving the bar lenght, because it does. best regards, leon www.leonmichener.co.uk (check the clip of xenakis if you want to hear some 5/6 ratios)

>>> leon m wrote: A bar of 3/4 consists of three quarter notes (breve divided by >>> 4). A bar of 3/5 consists of three quarter note quintuplets (breve divided >>> by 5). A bar of 3/5 will therefore be shorter in length than a bar of 3/4. >>> It is an elegant way of modulating tempo. >> >> there inconsistencies in the logic in this. >> > Could you point them out? It is just simple maths. And i did not invent this, > it is an agreed classical practice, although rare. I think I am just confused by the word "Breve"... never heard that one, you must be British or something. So Breve is a bar. ok... I get the whole tempo modulation thing. the inconsistency is that you speak of "quarter note quintuplets" when if you're in 3/5, the 5's are no longer tuplets, they're just quintle notes (or something... what's the old English way to say a fifth?) > >> But some of your points are valid. >> >> question #1: for you, what is a quarter note quintuplet? >> > A breve divided by 5. Ie a note equal to the length of a fith of a breve, in > the same way a quarter note is equal to a fourth of a breve. so let's call it a quintle note. or something that doesn't imply that it is over an even time signature. >> So the resulting accented rhythm is 5/4, but the quarter note is %20 faster >> than the original 4/4. Your 3/5 would be 3 beats of that 5/4. or 3/4 with >> 16th notes %20 faster than the original 4/4. Yes? Are we on the same page? >> That I can understand using, And it does suck that Logic can't do that >> without chaging tempo. >> > You got it. Cut the bar after the fourth quarter quintuplet and you get your > 4/5. As you can see it is far neater to just use an odd time signature rather > than write out all those subdivisions and ratios. Gets worse if you want 11 9 > or 7. yes, especially if you're sequencing. It may be easier to read or play in for an actual performer the other way. >> Similarly a bar of 5/5 would be the same a bar of 4/4 with every 4th >> quintuplet accented. Right? if the piece was soley in that time sig, wouldn't >> 5/4 be just as easy to write since you're accenting every 4th note anyway? >> The 4 accented quintuplets end up just being 4 16th notes in that scenario... >> right? >> > Correct,there would be little ppoint in writing a piece that never changed > from 5/5 3/ 3 etc. The use is in the moving from one to the other well, good. >> so, to sum up... 3/5 I can get with if it's 3 groups of 4 quintuplets >> > NO! > > 3/5 is a bar equal to the length of 3 quarter note quintuplets! sorry, I meant 3 groups of 4 16th note quintuplets (yuch) or 3 quintle notes. > What you put in > that bar is up to you. well, duh... >> in a song based on a 16th note rhythm. There really is no other way to >> express that without changing tempo. >> > Reverse your thinking, we want to change the tempo! The16th note rhythm is > therefore irrelevant oh. I don't want to change the tempo. I'm a groove guy. I'm into swinging my quintuplets. Getting kind of African with it. so there you have it. 2 sides of the coin. Teddy Kumpel

hi teddy. i agree that n-tuplets should be used for stuff like this. i just don't think that time sigs should do it. 3/4 changing to 3/8 could (and frequently does) mean that the bar of 3/8 is the *same* absolute length as the previous 3/4 - not necessarily twice as quick. have a new rule that (for example) going from 4/4 to 4/5 means that the 4/5 is always quicker loses all kinds of musical subtleties. if someone really wants to use equal non-5-tuplet fifths then they should definitely not be called quarter-notes and definitely not look like them either. all the best! steve parker

firstly it is NOT an agreed classical practice - it has been advocated, but always disputed. (along with the representation of stuff like truly irrational note-lengths). > It is maths. > Why is the bottom number called 2? because the breve is divided by 2 > Why is the bottom number called 4? because the breve is divided by 4 > Why is the bottom number called 8? because the breve is divided by 8 > Why is the bottom number called 16? because the breve is divided by 16 > the relationship between the numbers does not mean that those relationships hold in music. if you look at something like pitch-class set theory you find that you have to clearly define which mathematical representations are also valid musical ones. the numbers at the top are numbers. the ones at the bottom are the *names* of particular note pictures - this is far more important than any relationship between say consecutive time sigs. > This is very basic stuff. Take a few music lessons! steady on girl..... steve parker

hi teddy. a breve is the note the length of two whole notes (or semibreves). leon's definition even of "2 because the breve is divided by 2" should actually be "2 because the semibreve is divided by 2" this still makes no more mathematical sense than saying.... "the bottom number is 2 because the *breve* is divided by 4" or "the bottom number is 2 because the crotchet is doubled by 2" these relationships in a piece of music have to be defined to be true (crotchet = quaver, or crotchet = crotchet...whatever). steve parker

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, steve parker <swimorsync@n...> wrote: > firstly it is NOT an agreed classical practice - it has been advocated, > but always disputed. (along with the representation of stuff like truly > irrational note-lengths). > > > It is maths. > > Why is the bottom number called 2? because the breve is divided by 2 > > Why is the bottom number called 4? because the breve is divided by 4 > > Why is the bottom number called 8? because the breve is divided by 8 > > Why is the bottom number called 16? because the breve is divided by 16 > > > > the relationship between the numbers does not mean that those > relationships hold in music. > if you look at something like pitch-class set theory you find that you > have to clearly define which mathematical representations are also > valid musical ones. > the numbers at the top are numbers. > the ones at the bottom are the *names* of particular note pictures - > this is far more important than any relationship between say > consecutive time sigs. > > > This is very basic stuff. Take a few music lessons! > > steady on girl..... > Yeah sorry,uncalled for. Grumpy early morning pre coffee..... The reason however those 'note pictures' are called 'four', 'two' etc is because they are simple divisions of the breve. Note pictures is more poetic tho... apologies. leon m > steve parker

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, steve parker <swimorsync@n...> wrote: > hi teddy. > a breve is the note the length of two whole notes (or semibreves). > leon's definition even of "2 because the breve is divided by 2" should > actually be "2 because the semibreve is divided by 2" > this still makes no more mathematical sense than saying.... > "the bottom number is 2 because the *breve* is divided by 4" > or > "the bottom number is 2 because the crotchet is doubled by 2" > > these relationships in a piece of music have to be defined to be true > (crotchet = quaver, or crotchet = crotchet...whatever). > > > steve parker breve is my short for semibreve. sorry leon

I recently converted an upstairs living room into my studio. I love it, but unfortunately I have a long reverb in the room, due to wood floors. Basically I don't really have anything to "catch" the sound from bouncing around all over the place. I am looking into buying some of the Aurulex [spelling?] foam kits and put on my walls, but I was wondering if anyone had any slightly cheaper ideas. Thanks in advance, Paul

On a fine day, 19-02-2004, logicleon wrote: >breve is my short for semibreve. sorry You mean like 1/4 is my short for 1/5? LOL... :-) -- Hendrik Jan Veenstra h @ k n o w a r e . n l Omega Art: http://www.omega-art.com/

> breve is my short for semibreve. sorry > > leon wow, You're really pushing the envelope on the language. If you're going to talk about this stuff why don't you make sure you're using understandable terminology? I'm going to drop out of this conversation now because I have idea what breve or quaver or crochet mean. enjoy Teddy

> On a fine day, 19-02-2004, logicleon wrote: > > >breve is my short for semibreve. sorry > > You mean like 1/4 is my short for 1/5? LOL... :-) > > -- > Hendrik Jan Veenstra h @ k n o w a r e . n l really good sense of humor Hendrik. You deserve beers for that one. Teddy

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Stephenson" <pauls@p...> wrote: > I recently converted an upstairs living room into my studio. I love it, > but unfortunately I have a long reverb in the room, due to wood floors. > Basically I don't really have anything to "catch" the sound from > bouncing around all over the place. > > I am looking into buying some of the Aurulex [spelling?] foam kits and > put on my walls, but I was wondering if anyone had any slightly cheaper > ideas. hi Paul. Buy a rug. :)

At 9:48 Uhr +0000 20.02.2004, Steve Hillier wrote: >Can anyone on this list recommend a sound proof enclosure/box for my >quicksilver g4? Its getting mighty noisy in here! Ok, not really what you asked, but if you can put it in another room it's the best solution. Trust me. I've been fortunate enough to do that half a year ago. Cost me about 50 Euros for cables and a couple of minutes to drill the hole, but ever since I've been really happy. Cheers Hans

On 2/20/04 2:36 AM, "logic-ot@yahoogroups.com" <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > Original Message: > Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 22:01:51 -0000 > From: "rob" <orbitborn@...> > Subject: Re: Recommendations for fixing acoustics of studio > > --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Stephenson" <pauls@p...> wrote: >> I recently converted an upstairs living room into my studio. I love it, >> but unfortunately I have a long reverb in the room, due to wood floors. >> Basically I don't really have anything to "catch" the sound from >> bouncing around all over the place. >> >> I am looking into buying some of the Aurulex [spelling?] foam kits and >> put on my walls, but I was wondering if anyone had any slightly cheaper >> ideas. > > hi Paul. > > Buy a rug. :) Indeed, almost anything would be cheaper than that stupid foam that breaks down and off-gasses all kinds of poisons. Problem is, a lot of cheap carpet is just as bad. You'd be better off trying to find some used throw or area rugs, and placing furniture to break up the shape of the room. The worst thing is having a perfect square or rectangle to build standing waves and cause nulls in odd places. You can attach several 2'x4' ceiling tiles hanging down from picture hanging cable staggered every 4' or so to baffle the ceiling, too. The idea is to break up the sound, not trap it and not reflect it in on itself, so the more places it has to bounce before it runs into itself, the better. Think of the sound waves coming from your monitors as pool balls and figure out what you need to do to keep them from hitting each other and piling up or never reaching the whole room as they're ejected from the speakers... Best regards, ...z The trouble with idealism is that life gets in the way... Zeek Duff's CDs and mp3 downloads NEW! in progress <http://www.zeekduff.com>; Fingerstyle Jazz Guitar From Beautiful Colorado

> hi Paul. > > Buy a rug. :) Indeed, almost anything would be cheaper than that stupid foam that breaks down and off-gasses all kinds of poisons.  Problem is, a lot of cheap carpet is just as bad.  You'd be better off trying to find some used throw or area rugs, and placing furniture to break up the shape of the room.  The worst thing is having a perfect square or rectangle to build standing waves and cause nulls in odd places.  You can attach several 2'x4' ceiling tiles hanging down from picture hanging cable staggered every 4' or so to baffle the ceiling, too.  The idea is to break up the sound, not trap it and not reflect it in on itself, so the more places it has to bounce before it runs into itself, the better.  Think of the sound waves coming from your monitors as pool balls and figure out what you need to do to keep them from hitting each other and piling up or never reaching the whole room as they're ejected from the speakers... Best regards, ...z Z, Thanks for the comments. I will do something different like you said. Yes, the foam stuff does seem expensive. I like the idea of using the throw rugs. My g/f has been trying to convince me that was the way to go, but I was resisting. After reading your post, I think I will go with your and herideas. Paul pfokus

On 20/02/2004, at 9:01 AM, rob wrote: >> >> I am looking into buying some of the Aurulex [spelling?] foam kits and >> put on my walls, but I was wondering if anyone had any slightly >> cheaper >> ideas. > > hi Paul. > > Buy a rug. :) > > Exactly. And this way you'll be able to roll it up for a more live sound which may be desirable for certain recordings. If you were going to do something for walls on a budget do it a stage at a time. Look at the shape of your room and attend to the paralell surfaces (floor ceiling?) first, to address the main standing wave issues. Then do some recordings and then move onto the next most important whatever you deem that to be. Remember that getting your room to sound right will improve your recordings sound far more than a fancy new compressor etc - and it's worth getting right and maybe even taking some professional help to that end.

On Friday, February 20, 2004, at 04:08 PM, Paul Stephenson wrote: > Indeed, almost anything would be cheaper than that stupid foam that > breaks > down and off-gasses all kinds of poisons.  fwiw on the rug side - you can get good quality sisal rugs that don't have any gassing side effects - with one caveat: I have pets - they puke, poop and pee from time to time and it is HIGHLY recommended that you get sisal that is dyed dark.... let your imagination fly..... I should also mention that horn players spit..... sisal does not clean that readily - so choose a color that won't show stains As for ceilings and walls: I have had very good results with common quilting cotton. takes the ping out of your drywall and is quite easy to tack up with a staple gun. Not exactly the approach you would take to design a room with bass traps and odd angles etc - but both of these are fine for taking excessive bounce out of the room.

mercutio wrote: >I should also mention that horn players spit..... Dude - its only water which has condensed from their breath onto the interior of their horn, not saliva. Regards, M

--- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Stephenson" <pauls@p...> wrote: > > Thanks for the comments. I will do something different like you said. Yes, the foam stuff does seem expensive. I like the idea of using the throw rugs. My g/f has been trying to convince me that was the way to go, but I was resisting. After reading your post, I think I will go with your and her ideas. > Hi Paul I just noticed this thread. You would do well to check out this forum: http://forum.studiotips.com/ It is the "phoenix risen out of the ashes" of the yahoo acoustics group, which just went off line about a month ago. Some very knowledgeable people post here. HTH, kind regards Mark

Thank Mark. I will check it out. Paul ________________________________ From: markdvc2002 [mailto:mark@...] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 3:41 AM To: logic-ot@yahoogroups.com Subject: [L-OT] Re: Re: Recommendations for fixing acoustics of studio --- In logic-ot@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Stephenson" <pauls@p...> wrote: > > Thanks for the comments. I will do something different like you said. Yes, the foam stuff does seem expensive. I like the idea of using the throw rugs. My g/f has been trying to convince me that was the way to go, but I was resisting. After reading your post, I think I will go with your and her ideas. > Hi Paul I just noticed this thread. You would do well to check out this forum: http://forum.studiotips.com/ It is the "phoenix risen out of the ashes" of the yahoo acoustics group, which just went off line about a month ago. Some very knowledgeable people post here. HTH, kind regards Mark ________________________________ Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/logic-ot/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: logic-ot-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <mailto:logic-ot-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>; .

On Friday, February 20, 2004, at 10:48 PM, Murray McDowall wrote: > Dude - its only water which has condensed from their breath onto the > interior of their horn, not saliva. regardless - the effect on the carpet is the same :-)

mercutio wrote: >> Dude - its only water which has condensed from their breath onto the >> interior of their horn, not saliva. > >regardless - the effect on the carpet is the same :-) Mercutio - might I commend you to keep this to yourself? It's hard enough to find a good home for a horn player without this dirty little secret getting out. ;-) Regards, M

On Sunday, February 22, 2004, at 12:30 AM, Murray McDowall wrote: > It's hard enough to find a good home for a horn player without this > dirty > little secret getting out. > > ;-) > not to worry - it has never stopped me from doing horns sessions - just one of those little details that one can overlook when choosing decor...

I am currently a PC user who is about to use MAC primarily for Logic. Can anyone suggest some Soft Synths that work and sound well for BOTH platforms. The ones I'm looking at are: Atmosphere Steinberg Virtual Guitarist - Electric Edition Native Instruments Absynth I want synth sounds as well as real sounds. I already have a Motif 7, but I want to start using some of these VST's. Thanks for any input! Chaz

Has anyone had experience with or taken the musicforthemedia study course? Any comments good or bad? I'm looking at it..... Thanks to all. Michael