Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: motorollin on March 28, 2008, 10:23:05 AM
-
I have become interested in the reasons why people engage in superfluous conversation. I don't mean communicating with others with some intent, such as sharing or requesting information, rather "small-talk". This type of communication is unique to humans, and I'm interested in hearing about the reasons why people do it. I'm not specifically interested in what is actually discussed unless this is pertinent to the reasons for the conversation.
Discuss!
--
moto
-
Social bonding... or perhaps comforting neotenous behaviour, as in children I expect small talk is part of "play" which develops the linguistic skills...
-
I agree, but what purpose does it serve for *you*? Why do you choose to do it rather than doing something else?
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
I agree, but what purpose does it serve for *you*? Why do you choose to do it rather than doing something else?
--
moto
Last Tuesday I went out for a drink with my old friend Lucy... we spoke of nothing important (well maybe some stuff, but mostly not), but the interaction was immensely pleasurable, since it serves to reinforce the bonding. As social animals, we would naturally enjoy social bonding... If it neotonous behavior then it would also provide pleasure, though of a different (comforting) kind.
-
I don't small-talk, unless it's with friends or family.
When strangers try to start a pointless conversation with me, they usually only manage to annoy me (yes, I'm single ;-)).
-
whabang wrote:
I don't small-talk, unless it's with friends or family.
When strangers try to start a pointless conversation with me, they usually only manage to annoy me (yes, I'm single ;-)).
What if they spoke of Amiga?
-
@bloodline
Sounds like what you're saying is that the act of conversing is intrinsically reinforcing, probably due to layers of social conditioning on top of childhood behaviours. Would that be about right?
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
@bloodline
Sounds like what you're saying is that the act of conversing is intrinsically reinforcing,
Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse. If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.
I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.
I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".
probably due to layers of social conditioning on top of childhood behaviours. Would that be about right?
--
moto
Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction. But yes, it's another possibility to suggest that it is just childish behaviour that is carried over into adulthood... since it causes no ill and may even be beneficial, there is no selective pressure to eliminate it
-
bloodline wrote:
Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse.
Pffft... sorry... must maintain some semblance if intellectualism...
bloodline wrote:
If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.
I agree. I really believe that language is the only thing which separates us from apes. Never mind opposable thumbs. With language, we can work out how to do without them.
bloodline wrote:
I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.
So you converse merely for the pleasure of it? What if there were some other behaviour available to you which was more rewarding? Would you do that instead?
bloodline wrote:
I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".
Hmm, as a tool to select a suitable mate perhaps?
bloodline wrote:
Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction.
Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)).
Would be interesting to see how she reacts to attempts at conversation now (she is still alive AFAIK).
--
moto
-
We don't converse here in Groningen.
So, ehm, I don't know why you ppl converse? :-?
-
motorollin wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Yes, I would say so. I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse.
Pffft... sorry... must maintain some semblance if intellectualism...
It was a carefully chosen word!
bloodline wrote:
If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.
I agree. I really believe that language is the only thing which separates us from apes. Never mind opposable thumbs. With language, we can work out how to do without them.
But it is hard to know if language might be dependent upon the evolution of opposable thumbs, for some reason :-)
bloodline wrote:
I enjoy talking with someone, it helps me feel closer to them... which staves off the intrinsic loneliness of life! It's is quite possible to enjoy someone's company without speaking, but then there are plenty of other interactions that people can do.
So you converse merely for the pleasure of it? What if there were some other behaviour available to you which was more rewarding? Would you do that instead?
I can think of many behaviours more rewarding, but none are socially acceptable in many cases.
bloodline wrote:
I am suggesting that small talk is what big brained apes do... where the smaller brained ones pick fleas off each other. It's just intellectual "social grooming".
Hmm, as a tool to select a suitable mate perhaps?
Maybe that would go some way to explain my single status.
bloodline wrote:
Hmmm... it's hard to talk about conditioning here... since you would have to examine a child that has never had any human interaction.
Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)).
Would be interesting to see how she reacts to attempts at conversation now (she is still alive AFAIK).
--
moto
I think you may find answers if you wiki "pit of dispair" :-(
-
I would say people enjoy most forms of intercourse. If you didn't, then you'd probably live in a cave making interesting sculptures with your own faeces.
sounds like the happy life of an artist!
messing about with paint or computers is very much like playing with faeces, so Im happy. I don't need to talk with anyone.
and, strangly, I never feel lonely.
-
bloodline wrote:
But it is hard to know if language might be dependent upon the evolution of opposable thumbs, for some reason :-)
Hmmm true. Thinking about that should keep me occupied for a while!
bloodline wrote:
I can think of many behaviours more rewarding, but none are socially acceptable in many cases.
So we converse at the expense of more pleasurable activities because we are constrained by society to do so...
bloodline wrote:
Maybe that would go some way to explain my single status.
I don't know - you seem quite articulate to me, so either you're an exception to the rule, or your theory doesn't work :-)
bloodline wrote:
I think you may find answers if you wiki "pit of dispair" :-(
I'm utterly speechless after reading that. Harlow should be posthumously discredited. Absolutely disgusting.
--
moto
-
I think it's a way of finding friends. You start a small chat, and try to say something you are interested in. If the other person shares what you think, then you go progressively from there...
If on the other hand you notice that the other person is totally unlike you, you just stop there, and there's no harm done. :-)
-
bloodline wrote:
What if they spoke of Amiga?
That would be a completely different matter, of course.
-
motorollin wrote:
bloodline wrote:
But it is hard to know if language might be dependent upon the evolution of opposable thumbs, for some reason :-)
Hmmm true. Thinking about that should keep me occupied for a while!
The problem with something as complex as human evolution, it's hard to know the sequence of everything... language doesn't fossilise so well....
bloodline wrote:
I can think of many behaviours more rewarding, but none are socially acceptable in many cases.
So we converse at the expense of more pleasurable activities because we are constrained by society to do so...
I sit in a coffee shop and a girl opens a conversation... not really saying much just talking... I think she's rather attractive, and engage her in conversation... in reality I'd rather be pleasuring her in a far more intimate way... We may never get that far, but the small chat we did have would be much more fun than not engaging her at all.
bloodline wrote:
Maybe that would go some way to explain my single status.
I don't know - you seem quite articulate to me, so either you're an exception to the rule, or your theory doesn't work :-)
Well, perhaps it only helps to find a mate... I may not be physically attractive, have undesirable personality traits and the timing could be wrong. But without the small talk I might never have got as far as I did :-)
bloodline wrote:
I think you may find answers if you wiki "pit of dispair" :-(
I'm utterly speechless after reading that. Harlow should be posthumously discredited. Absolutely disgusting.
Fortunately experiments like that are not allowed any more. All I can hope is that we can learn from the study, so the animals did not suffer in vain...
-
whabang wrote:
bloodline wrote:
What if they spoke of Amiga?
That would be a completely different matter, of course.
And without the small talk, you may never know if the person had an Amiga interest.
Again this is a social bonding issue. The more we discuss it, the more I am convinced that is it's main role in society!
-
bloodline wrote:
The problem with something as complex as human evolution, it's hard to know the sequence of everything... language doesn't fossilise so well....
Well the creation of cave paintings would require symbolic thought and thus constitutes a form of language, and IIRC the hominids which created them were pre-speech. Grasping some tool to draw on the cave wall would probably require an opposable thumb, so my guess would be that the opposable thumb allowed drawing which cultivated symbolic thought, which then became the predominant form of language. Speech developed subsequently as a more efficient and flexible means of communication.
bloodline wrote:
I sit in a coffee shop and a girl opens a conversation... not really saying much just talking... I think she's rather attractive, and engage her in conversation... in reality I'd rather be pleasuring her in a far more intimate way... We may never get that far, but the small chat we did have would be much more fun than not engaging her at all.
Sounds like you're using language to coerce women in to some kind of seedy rendezvous. Not a bad use of skill of language if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective ;-)
bloodline wrote:
Well, perhaps it only helps to find a mate... I may not be physically attractive, have undesirable personality traits and the timing could be wrong.
Who says?
bloodline wrote:
But without the small talk I might never have got as far as I did :-)
Well I agree it would be pretty unusual to pull without even talking to your intended partner. Not that I have much experience in that area :roll:
bloodline wrote:
Fortunately experiments like that are not allowed any more. All I can hope is that we can learn from the study, so the animals did not suffer in vain...
Yeah, like how to totally screw up monkey :madashell:
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
bloodline wrote:
The problem with something as complex as human evolution, it's hard to know the sequence of everything... language doesn't fossilise so well....
Well the creation of cave paintings would require symbolic thought and thus constitutes a form of language, and IIRC the hominids which created them were pre-speech.
They might have been pre-speech... I don't know enough about early human evolution to really speak with any authority.
Grasping some tool to draw on the cave wall would probably require an opposable thumb, so my guess would be that the opposable thumb allowed drawing which cultivated symbolic thought, which then became the predominant form of language. Speech developed subsequently as a more efficient and flexible means of communication.
I certainly like that idea! :-) A seemingly unrealted topic, that is very related is the "World Simualtion" model of thought... Wiki "False Awakening" for more info.
bloodline wrote:
I sit in a coffee shop and a girl opens a conversation... not really saying much just talking... I think she's rather attractive, and engage her in conversation... in reality I'd rather be pleasuring her in a far more intimate way... We may never get that far, but the small chat we did have would be much more fun than not engaging her at all.
Sounds like you're using language to coerce women in to some kind of seedy rendezvous. Not a bad use of skill of language if you look at it from an evolutionary perspective ;-)
That was just one example. Imagine I was with a friend/person I was not sexually attracted to, but still wanted to maintain a relationship with... Then I can't really think of a better way to keep the bonding than talking :-)
bloodline wrote:
Well, perhaps it only helps to find a mate... I may not be physically attractive, have undesirable personality traits and the timing could be wrong.
Who says?
The potential mate who has decided that I am not suitable.
bloodline wrote:
But without the small talk I might never have got as far as I did :-)
Well I agree it would be pretty unusual to pull without even talking to your intended partner.
Not that unusual if you are in a band... but that is the an unusual situation I guess :lol:
Yeah, seriously... I think though this is a side track of the topic... Small talk is probably just a social activity that maintains bonds.
Not that I have much experience in that area :roll:
The implication of this line, is that you often pull without talking to your target :-)
bloodline wrote:
Fortunately experiments like that are not allowed any more. All I can hope is that we can learn from the study, so the animals did not suffer in vain...
Yeah, like how to totally screw up monkey :madashell:
Well... yeah that too...
-
motorollin wrote:
I have become interested in the reasons why people engage in superfluous conversation. I don't mean communicating with others with some intent, such as sharing or requesting information, rather "small-talk".
I don't know. What I do know is that I do a lot less of it at the moment and I think it's certainly contributory in part to my current moodiness.
-
Karlos wrote:
motorollin wrote:
I have become interested in the reasons why people engage in superfluous conversation. I don't mean communicating with others with some intent, such as sharing or requesting information, rather "small-talk".
I don't know. What I do know is that I do a lot less of it at the moment and I think it's certainly contributory in part to my current moodiness.
Which is the symptom, which is the cause?
-
bloodline wrote:
Which is the symptom, which is the cause?
I think it's a symptom but it has a feedback effect and thus contributes to the cause.
-
Daft as it may sound, I'm actually making myself take some time to post here in order to counter this very problem...
-
Karlos wrote:
Daft as it may sound, I'm actually making myself take some time to post here in order to counter this very problem...
A.org therapy? Wayne should charge...
-
bloodline wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Daft as it may sound, I'm actually making myself take some time to post here in order to counter this very problem...
A.org therapy? Wayne should charge...
As long as it isn't per post...
-
*sigh*
Pity Fluffy, Kenny, Meerschaum etc aren't here these days. Fun banter was guarenteed :-)
Still, it's good to see that some old faces remain :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
*sigh*
Pity Fluffy, Kenny, Meerschaum etc aren't here these days. Fun banter was guarenteed :-)
Still, it's good to see that some old faces remain :-)
Just a look down the top posters list brings back some memories!
-
I wonder what Kenny's post count would be if he were still around :roflmao:
-
Karlos wrote:
I wonder what Kenny's extrapolated post count would be if he were still around :roflmao:
Should be quite easy to work out! But I'm not going to... I spent enough time figuring out that stupid Paula calibration file :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
*sigh*
Pity Fluffy, Kenny, Meerschaum etc aren't here these days. Fun banter was guarenteed :-)
Still, it's good to see that some old faces remain :-)
Fluffy's still veeeery regularly on Whyzzat...
-
bloodline wrote:
Should be quite easy to work out! But I'm not going to... I spent enough time figuring out that stupid Paula calibration file :-)
Come on, that must have been easier to do than what you originally proposed ;-)
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Karlos wrote:
*sigh*
Pity Fluffy, Kenny, Meerschaum etc aren't here these days. Fun banter was guarenteed :-)
Still, it's good to see that some old faces remain :-)
Fluffy's still veeeery regularly on Whyzzat...
Yeah. Somehow I couldn't get away with the place though. Don't get me wrong, it's nice enough but I guess I got too used to how things work here.
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Should be quite easy to work out! But I'm not going to... I spent enough time figuring out that stupid Paula calibration file :-)
Come on, that must have been easier to do than what you originally proposed ;-)
Infinitely... But less fun... I had no choice but to do it, to prove you wrong... Only to prove you right... real life sucks! If this had been a John Hughes movies, I would have been right, you would have been humiliated in front of the whole school... and for some unaccountable reason the pretty girl would sleep with me... sigh...
-
I didn't say your method wouldn't work. It just might have been more difficult to do and could be more error prone...
Did you do anything with the result yet?
-
Karlos wrote:
I didn't say your method wouldn't work. It just might have been more difficult to do and could be more error prone...
Did you do anything with the result yet?
I tried to build a "Paula Accurate Bitcrusher" Audio Unit for use in MacOS audio applications... while Apple's SDK and IDE are brilliant and I managed to compile it... I can't get MacOS to recognise the AU :-)
-
Is it basically a compander-like curve applied to the input then?
-
Karlos wrote:
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
Karlos wrote:
*sigh*
Pity Fluffy, Kenny, Meerschaum etc aren't here these days. Fun banter was guarenteed :-)
Still, it's good to see that some old faces remain :-)
Fluffy's still veeeery regularly on Whyzzat...
Yeah. Somehow I couldn't get away with the place though. Don't get me wrong, it's nice enough but I guess I got too used to how things work here.
Yeah, I know... and there's waaaay too much annoying political 'debate' over there...
-
Karlos wrote:
Is it basically a compander-like curve applied to the input then?
Err... I simply shifted the orignal 16bit sample right by 8places (actually it is more complicated than that since MacOSX Core Audio is 32bit floats)... then used a lookup table to see what the 8bit value would map to at 16bits... and built a new sample using that data... :-)
For example:
The original 16bit sample: 27900 (input)
The 8bit Bit crushed sample : 109
The Paula non-linear output output: 27933 (output)
(The Paula perfectly linear output: 27904 - for reference)
I can send you my lookup tables if you like :-)
-
I see :-)
The one thing I was never quite sure about was how the non-linearity of paula's audio worked. What I mean is, was it the absolute output voltage that was affected by the curve directly or was it the change in successive sample output voltages that were affected by the curve?
If it's the former, a simple lookup table converting input sample to output sample is fine, but if it's the latter you need to basically keep track of the previous input sample and apply the lookup to the difference between the current sample and the previous sample.
In both cases, the second thing I wondered about was the effect of the inbuilt amplifier, but that's a wee bit beyond the scope of the discussion, unless realtime FIR filtering etc is your bang :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
I see :-)
The one thing I was never quite sure about was how the non-linearity of paula's audio worked. What I mean is, was it the absolute output voltage that was affected by the curve directly or was it the change in successive sample output voltages that were affected by the curve?
If it's the former, a simple lookup table converting input sample to output sample is fine, but if it's the latter you need to basically keep track of the previous input sample and apply the lookup to the difference between the current sample and the previous sample.
From the Calibration Data from the cybersound package, the former has to be assumed... There is no other way to make it meaningful!
-Edit- Also you would need a set of values for ascending and another for descending!
In both cases, the second thing I wondered about was the effect of the inbuilt amplifier, but that's a wee bit beyond the scope of the discussion, unless realtime FIR filtering etc is your bang :-)
It isn't, but I can solve that by using Logic Pro's audio EQ matching features, by running a test tone through the Amiga and letting it match the pitch/dB relationships or whatever it does :-)
-
@Karlos
I think conversation can be quite effective as a form of therapy, though of course it depends who it's with and what you're talking about :-) It's easy to get stuck in a rut of not communicating though. Sometimes I feel really bad it's like my mouth is boarded up, but when I'm forced to communicate I actually start to feel a bit better.
@bloodline
I really wish I understood what you're on about :lol: Can you explain it in layman's terms?
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
@bloodline
I really wish I understood what you're on about :lol: Can you explain it in layman's terms?
--
moto
I guess what Karlos and I are demonstrating is the opposite of small talk :-)
The theory is quite simple actually:
Paula can output 256 discrete voltage levels... which steps from -5 volts to +5 volts... so each level is about 0.039 volts... but due to her design, some levels are a bit larger and some are a bit smaller... this is because the DAC in paula is not perfectly linear (perhaps due to the design or flaws in the manufacturing).
In pure number terms, i.e. the digitized audio sample it looks like this:
-128 to +127 (-5 volts to +5 volts)
Which if the DAC was perfectly linear would look like this:
-2= -0.078 volts
-1= -0.039 volts
0 = 0 volts
1 = 0.039 volts
2 = 0.078 volts
So when we want to pay back the 8bit audio sample on 16bit hardware we need to convert the sample which could be any number from -128 to +127 into any number from (-65536 to +65535)... this is done simply by multiplying the sample by 256... (or we use the logical shift left operation since that is much faster, a good book on Boolean algebra will explain why).
That mean that 1 becomes 256... 2 becomes 512... 3 becomes 768... you get the picture... but that resultant output from the 16bit hardware won't sound like paula, because it is perfectly linear... so instead of multiplying by 256 we can use a lookup table to give the value that paula would have given if her output was sampled at 16bit!
So the value of 1 should have been 256 in a 16bit sample if she was perfectly linear... but Paula would actually give 239 (this isn't the true value since I don't have my tables with me at the moment)!
My plan is to make an Audio Unit, that takes the Audio stream converts it to 8bit, applies this paula derived nonlinear distortion, and than upscales back to the native audio resolution... Eh Viola! Instant Paula Audio from Logic Pro... or Ableton Live... Garage Band... or whatever Audio app you use to make music on your Mac! This is why I love digital music making :-)
Karlos also pointed out that the Amplifiers on the Motherboard colour the audio... But Logic has special EQ software which I should be able to use to match the that... it would be nice to have that as part of the Audio unit... but sadly Fast Fourier Transform isn't my idea of fun.
-
Just to complicate it a little further, do we know exactly how the 6-bit channel volume is applied on Paula?
I've noticed that, with proper amplification of the output, you can still playback an 8-bit sample at a channel volume setting of 1 with much more precision than you'd expect of a simple 8-bit DAC.
So, does the volume premultiply the sample before sending it to a DAC that has 14-bit actual resolution, or is the analogue output of the DAC fed through a particularly stable volume control? If it's the latter, I don't expect the volume control is particularly linear, either.
I got the impression that 14-bit replay tricks play the most significant 8-bit portion of a 16-bit sample word on one channel at full volume then the next 6-bits of the 16-bit sample word on the other channel at minimum volume.
I'll probably have to do some testing of my own now :-D
-edit-
Unfortunately I'm far too busy trying to persuade my crust old FM synth to reproduce the metallic effects from the first half of Hybrid's remix of "Everything in it's right place"...
-
Karlos wrote:
Just to complicate it a little further, do we know exactly how the 6-bit channel volume is applied on Paula?
I've noticed that, with proper amplification of the output, you can still playback an 8-bit sample at a channel volume setting of 1 with much more precision than you'd expect of a simple 8-bit DAC.
This hasn't escaped my notice either... though the noise in the signal might be providing some kind of dithering... increasing the quality of what we perceive...
We would need to engineer specific test tones to really see what's going on...
So, does the volume premultiply the sample before sending it to a DAC that has 14-bit actual resolution, or is the analogue output of the DAC fed through a particularly stable volume control? If it's the latter, I don't expect the volume control is particularly linear, either.
THis has puzzled me for quite a while!!! My initial assumption was that the 8bit sample was divided by the 6bit volume value, digitally before the DAC... but Paula certainly doesn't have 4 Dividers in there!!!! Ok... so maybe the 8bit sample is bit shifted... but I can't make that work and I doubt she has 4 barrel shifters in there either... I can only conclude that the Volume is done after the DAC with an opamp. The 8bit Sample value is converted into an audio signal by an 8bit DAC... The 6bit Volume value is converted into a signal by a 6bit DAC and then the Audio signal is attenuated by the volume signal with the OpAmp... does that make sense?
-Edit- Thinking about it, I expect this is where the nonlinearity of Paula comes from!
I got the impression that 14-bit replay tricks play the most significant 8-bit portion of a 16-bit sample word on one channel at full volume then the next 6-bits of the 16-bit sample word on the other channel at minimum volume.
In my own code, I split the 16bit sample into two bytes. The Most significant byte played at full volume (63) in one channel. The least significant byte played at minimum volume (1) on the other channel. It seemed to work... I didn't realise about the volume thing at first... and the noise was horrible :-)
Perhaps I was supposed to shift the least significant byte by two places... but I didn't...
-Edit- Also, it took me quite a to realise that 16bit Wav files were little endian, and my code was fine... :-)
I'll probably have to do some testing of my own now :-D
Please do... this is fun :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
-edit-
Unfortunately I'm far too busy trying to persuade my crust old FM synth to reproduce the metallic effects from the first half of Hybrid's remix of "Everything in it's right place"...
Poo to the FM synth... The day I sold my DX9 was a happy one :-) Three months studying a badly translated Manual to make a crappy bell sound... that my Amiga and its 8bit sampler could do far better in a matter of seconds...
I really really don't like FM synth :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
I really really don't like FM synth :-D
Trying to recreate natural sounds with FM synthesis is both missing the point and a lost cause. I enjoy it for what it is, a method of producing unnatural sounds that can be realtime controlled in a way no wavetable/sampler can achieve.
-
bloodline wrote:
In my own code, I split the 16bit sample into two bytes. The Most significant byte played at full volume (63) in one channel. The least significant byte played at minimum volume (1) on the other channel. It seemed to work... I didn't realise about the volume thing at first... and the noise was horrible :-)
Perhaps I was supposed to shift the least significant byte by two places... but I didn't...
I'd have thought that's a prerequisite, since you'd need the LSB to be played at 1/256th the level of the MSB for a perfectly linear channel volume. As the real volume level is only 6-bits, the top 2 significant bits of your LSB will basically overlap the 2 least significant bits of your MSB producing quite noticeable noise :-?
Of course, if Paula's volume is some freaky logarithmic scale it's possible that 1/256th of "full" volume is achievable with some low volume setting.
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
I really really don't like FM synth :-D
Trying to recreate natural sounds with FM synthesis is both missing the point and a lost cause. I enjoy it for what it is, a method of producing unnatural sounds that can be realtime controlled in a way no wavetable/sampler can achieve.
You're right of course! The sonic spectrum of the FM synth is vast! It ranges from crappy bell sound, to unpredictable noise vaguely resembling a bell...
For the really skilled, one could create bell like vibes, resonant metallic bells or hollow bell like noises... I even heard of a guy once, who was able to make a hollow resonant metallic bell like vibe sound... but despite being little bit crappy and sounding like a bell, it was a the stuff of legend... probably because he survived the experience...
Poo to the FM synth...
Ok, I'm being a bit facetious, I did manage to create a really dark spiky bass sound with a DX7 in a studio once... which was so good I sampled it on my W-30 so I could use it (Yamaha's MIDI support sucked).
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
In my own code, I split the 16bit sample into two bytes. The Most significant byte played at full volume (63) in one channel. The least significant byte played at minimum volume (1) on the other channel. It seemed to work... I didn't realise about the volume thing at first... and the noise was horrible :-)
Perhaps I was supposed to shift the least significant byte by two places... but I didn't...
I'd have thought that's a prerequisite, since you'd need the LSB to be played at 1/256th the level of the MSB for a perfectly linear channel volume. As the real volume level is only 6-bits, the top 2 significant bits of your LSB will basically overlap the 2 least significant bits of your MSB producing quite noticeable noise :-?
Which goes some way to explaining why I never became a billionaire software engineer... Yeah it was noisy, but I was just happy to get it to work after the not realising about the volume thing, and that all my 16bit samples were little endian... we are taking about weeks of work here! :-)
Of course, if Paula's volume is some freaky logarithmic scale it's possible that 1/256th of "full" volume is achievable with some low volume setting.
I don't think the volume is logarithmic at all. I think I messed up. :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
Poo to the FM synth...
Ok, I'm being a bit facetious, I did manage to create a really dark spiky bass sound with a DX7 in a studio once... which was so good I sampled it on my W-30 so I could use it (Yamaha's MIDI support sucked).
The trick is not necessarily trying to understand how it works (really, it's phase modulation rather than frequency modulation but it amounts to the same thing) and just playing with it.
I've managed to create many interesting pads, effects and bass sounds ranging from basic sinusoidal speaker shakers to deeply resonant and dirty pulses. Unfortunately my kit is limited, getting old and noisy. I'm contemplating getting the DX150 (DX7 on a card) plugin for my MU100 to replace the vocoder I never use :-)
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Poo to the FM synth...
Ok, I'm being a bit facetious, I did manage to create a really dark spiky bass sound with a DX7 in a studio once... which was so good I sampled it on my W-30 so I could use it (Yamaha's MIDI support sucked).
The trick is not necessarily trying to understand how it works (really, it's phase modulation rather than frequency modulation but it amounts to the same thing).
I remember being quite perplexed as to how the engineers had managed to get actually quite a decent set of presets in there (compared to what I could do)... I think there big problem was the interface with required a Phd in Condensed Matter Physics , before you had a clue as to what was going on...
That said, the PPG Wave was a pain to program, but I fell in love with that synth when I got to play with one... The sounds you can make are wonderful... I wish I had one :-)
I've managed to create many interesting pads, effects and bass sounds ranging from basic sinusoidal speaker shakers to deeply resonant and dirty pulses.
Hmmm... I expect you are a bit brighter than me and managed to see into the mind of the engineer who created the concept... I simply couldn't get my head around it... And since I was really into sampling at the time (Yeah, I was listening to industrial music), I didn't bother to waste any more time with the FM idea.
Unfortunately my kit is limited, getting old and noisy. I'm contemplating getting the DX150 (DX7 on a card) plugin for my MU100 to replace the vocoder I never use :-)
Actually, Moto recently made an interesting suggestion regarding a Vocoder... which has made me play with my vocoders... combining them with ringshifters to add some really harsh tones to my work!!! :-D
-
To be fair, all I did was to take the existing presets and then play with their parameters until I got something I liked. I spent a hell of a lot of time doing that until I began to get some subconcious understanding of what to expect. For instance, using modulator frequencies that are 1/2 or 1/4 of the carrier can lead to good bass sounds, or that a particular unison of operators is good for a sweep effect etc.
I don't profess to understand what the engineers were aiming for and I doubt that many of them had any idea what they were aiming for either. They just got a sound and thought about what it sounded most like afterwards :lol:
-
Karlos wrote:
They just got a sound and thought about what it sounded most like afterwards :lol:
:roflmao:
Many a true word said in jest ;-)
-
Karlos wrote:
Hybrid's remix of "Everything in it's right place"...
*vomits*
Turning that song in to a dance track is a sin. In fact, I don't see why anybody would want to remix it in the first place. It's also a really lazy remix, since he seems to have just layered stuff on top of the original track rather than attempting any kind of rearrangement.
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Hybrid's remix of "Everything in it's right place"...
*vomits*
Turning that song in to a dance track is a sin.
I see new Camp challenges :devildance:
-
In the interests of balance I thought I would post here. Whilst I agree that conversation can be enjoyable, I find myself unable to fully enjoy it. The small talk side of conversation, whilst it does serve a purpose, can be something people feel trapped by, not confident in expressing anything deeper. This in turn reduces the perceived value of conversation, discouraging people from breaking free of small talk, and meaning important facets of the person you are speaking to become lost.
I may be an isolated case, but I thought my opinions were worth sharing anyway.
-
:oops: I've just noticed a rather blatant Freudian slip that I made early in my hijacking of this thread :-)
-
motorollin wrote:
Karlos wrote:
Hybrid's remix of "Everything in it's right place"...
*vomits*
Turning that song in to a dance track is a sin. In fact, I don't see why anybody would want to remix it in the first place. It's also a really lazy remix, since he seems to have just layered stuff on top of the original track rather than attempting any kind of rearrangement.
--
moto
As far as hybrid remixes go, it is pretty poor (no doubt due to the fact you can't get an acapella or instrumental version of the original in order to rearrange it) which is probably why this remix has never been released. It does have a very good build and breakdown (from a mixing perspective) which makes it ideal for mixing into other sets and it's rarely played in isolation.
Some of their other remixes are, frankly, awesome. Regardless of the perceived quality of this one, I rather like the synth programming and if that isn't FM I'll eat my hat.
Still, I prefer Hybrid's own work over their remixes and "Wide Angle" remains one of my favourite albums.
-
HenryCase wrote:
In the interests of balance I thought I would post here. Whilst I agree that conversation can be enjoyable, I find myself unable to fully enjoy it. The small talk side of conversation, whilst it does serve a purpose, can be something people feel trapped by, not confident in expressing anything deeper. This in turn reduces the perceived value of conversation, discouraging people from breaking free of small talk, and meaning important facets of the person you are speaking to become lost.
I may be an isolated case, but I thought my opinions were worth sharing anyway.
I wasn't asking only about "small talk", but also about meaningful conversation. Interesting points though! I agree that "small talk" can be inhibiting, but it can also be a good starting point for conversation until people find something more personal in common about which to talk.
--
moto
-
bloodline wrote:
:oops: I've just noticed a rather blatant Freudian slip that I made early in my hijacking of this thread :-)
I can't believe I missed it :inquisitive: You going to tell us or make us trawl through you and Karlos rambling on about numbers? :-P
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
bloodline wrote:
:oops: I've just noticed a rather blatant Freudian slip that I made early in my hijacking of this thread :-)
I can't believe I missed it :inquisitive: You going to tell us or make us trawl through you and Karlos rambling on about numbers? :-P
--
moto
I noticed as I was thinking how to clean up my explaination of paula's non linear nature... To be fair it's only a single letter transposition and only you would get it ;-)
-
Nope, still can't find it :lol: You'll have to quote it since going through those posts word by word is making my eyes go funny.
--
moto
-
@Karlos
That song has a very special place in my heart. Any remix would be a travesty in my eyes :-)
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
@Karlos
That song has a very special place in my heart. Any remix would be a travesty in my eyes :-)
--
moto
Luckily for you then that Radiohead haven't released any acapella versions :-)
-
motorollin wrote:
I wasn't asking only about "small talk", but also about meaningful conversation.
motorollin wrote:
I don't mean communicating with others with some intent, such as sharing or requesting information, rather "small-talk".
Perhaps "small talk" needs a clearer definition. Is "small talk" meaningless conversation or all non-practical conversation?
motorollin wrote:
Interesting points though! I agree that "small talk" can be inhibiting, but it can also be a good starting point for conversation until people find something more personal in common about which to talk.
What if that 'find something more personal' point didn't arrive? Would the "small talk" journey still be worthwhile if it didn't have a deeper conversation conclusion?
-
HenryCase wrote:
What if that 'find something more personal' point didn't arrive? Would the "small talk" journey still be worthwhile if it didn't have a deeper conversation conclusion?
If you expect to gain some enriching experience from everything you do then a spot of quirky chitchat about nothing in particular is going to leave you wanting. I've known a few people like that over the years and all of them had social interaction problems since their inability to engage in smalltalk meant people found them unapproachable.
Personally I don't mind a bit of idle chat. It's usually relaxing and often good fun. That should be reason enough for it :-)
-
HenryCase wrote:
Perhaps "small talk" needs a clearer definition. Is "small talk" meaningless conversation or all non-practical conversation?
Oops, I appear to have contradicted myself. Ok, I'm going to have to get a bit more technical. Roth & Spekman describe communicative intentions, which can be loosely defined as verbal actions such as requesting, rejecting, drawing attention, answering etc. I'm not really interested in these behaviours since they are usually designed to achieve some specific purpose, like asking "Where's the dog?" or telling someone "Stop that". I'm interested more in the conversation which occurs for no pre-defined purpose other than for the sake of talking. This could be defined as small-talk I suppose.
Hope that clears up my earlier contradiction :-)
HenryCase wrote:
What if that 'find something more personal' point didn't arrive? Would the "small talk" journey still be worthwhile if it didn't have a deeper conversation conclusion?
Well there's obviously no right or wrong answer to that. Personally, if I don't have some goal in mind when speaking to somebody and if I don't find anything to talk to them about other than mundane chit-chat like the weather then I usually attempt to politely end the interaction as rapidly as possible.
--
moto
-
Karlos wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
What if that 'find something more personal' point didn't arrive? Would the "small talk" journey still be worthwhile if it didn't have a deeper conversation conclusion?
If you expect to gain some enriching experience from everything you do then a spot of quirky chitchat about nothing in particular is going to leave you wanting. I've known a few people like that over the years and all of them had social interaction problems since their inability to engage in smalltalk meant people found them unapproachable.
Personally I don't mind a bit of idle chat. It's usually relaxing and often good fun. That should be reason enough for it :-)
You misunderstand me. Not wishing to boast but I'm very good at idle chit chat, can start a conversation with absolutely anyone (and do so often, I am frequently the person that breaks the ice).
So it's not a lack of confidence in small talk, but I find as I can completely rely on idle chit chat to get me through social situations I hardly ever get to discuss matters which mean more to me, and lack confidence in opening up.
Does that make sense?
-
HenryCase wrote:
So it's not a lack of confidence in small talk, but I find as I can completely rely on idle chit chat to get me through social situations I hardly ever get to discuss matters which mean more to me, and lack confidence in opening up.
Forgive me for being a little presumptuous, but it sounds to me like you may be using small-talk as a defence mechanism. Small-talk is inconsequential so is easy if you practice it enough, but really opening up is much harder if you lack the confidence to do it.
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
Nope, still can't find it :lol: You'll have to quote it since going through those posts word by word is making my eyes go funny.
--
moto
Never mind... I accidentally corrupted an well known French phrase, while discussing Audio Units... :-)
Anyway, don't you just hate it when a Band ruins an otherwise good song... it's just a travesty:
clickly clickly (http://www.troubled-mind.com/thg_jcg.mp3)
Really shouldn't be allowed.. Eh Karlos ;-)
-
motorollin wrote:
I'm interested more in the conversation which occurs for no pre-defined purpose other than for the sake of talking. This could be defined as small-talk I suppose.
Hope that clears up my earlier contradiction :-)
Yes it does, conversation for conversation's sake, right?! :-)
motorollin wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
What if that 'find something more personal' point didn't arrive? Would the "small talk" journey still be worthwhile if it didn't have a deeper conversation conclusion?
Well there's obviously no right or wrong answer to that. Personally, if I don't have some goal in mind when speaking to somebody and if I don't find anything to talk to them about other than mundane chit-chat like the weather then I usually attempt to politely end the interaction as rapidly as possible.
I wasn't really trying to look for an absolute right or wrong answer, but merely trying to illustrate how those (like myself) who have the skills to engage in idle chit chat do not always enjoy the process as they feel , even though they can make others laugh, etc... that the effort is pointless as they do not get to enjoy more meaningful side of conversation, and therefore start treating all conversation as a chore rather than experiencing the particular type of joy found in trivial conversation.
-
motorollin wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
So it's not a lack of confidence in small talk, but I find as I can completely rely on idle chit chat to get me through social situations I hardly ever get to discuss matters which mean more to me, and lack confidence in opening up.
Forgive me for being a little presumptuous, but it sounds to me like you may be using small-talk as a defence mechanism. Small-talk is inconsequential so is easy if you practice it enough, but really opening up is much harder if you lack the confidence to do it.
Abso-f*cking-lutely, that is exactly what I am trying to say, in that small talk is used for different purposes with different people.
-
HenryCase wrote:
motorollin wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
So it's not a lack of confidence in small talk, but I find as I can completely rely on idle chit chat to get me through social situations I hardly ever get to discuss matters which mean more to me, and lack confidence in opening up.
Forgive me for being a little presumptuous, but it sounds to me like you may be using small-talk as a defence mechanism. Small-talk is inconsequential so is easy if you practice it enough, but really opening up is much harder if you lack the confidence to do it.
Abso-f*cking-lutely, that is exactly what I am trying to say, in that small talk is used for different purposes with different people.
I use it to get laid... doesn't work...
-
bloodline wrote:
Never mind... I accidentally corrupted an well known French phrase, while discussing Audio Units... :-)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Just found it - brilliant! Most Freudian indeed...
bloodline wrote:
Anyway, don't you just hate it when a Band ruins an otherwise good song... it's just a travesty:
Ahh you're alright there - just don't do a bad cover of Everything In Its Right Place ;-)
--
moto
-
HenryCase wrote:
Abso-f*cking-lutely, that is exactly what I am trying to say, in that small talk is used for different purposes with different people.
And it's exactly those purposes I'm trying to understand :-)
--
moto
-
bloodline wrote:
Anyway, don't you just hate it when a Band ruins an otherwise good song... it's just a travesty:
clickly clickly (http://www.troubled-mind.com/thg_jcg.mp3)
Really shouldn't be allowed.. Eh Karlos ;-)
That's canny good. I've been responsible for far worse ;-)
-
bloodline wrote:
I use it to get laid... doesn't work...
In the words of the great poets Aerosmith, "Talk is cheap, shut up and dance!"
--
moto
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Anyway, don't you just hate it when a Band ruins an otherwise good song... it's just a travesty:
clickly clickly (http://www.troubled-mind.com/thg_jcg.mp3)
Really shouldn't be allowed.. Eh Karlos ;-)
That's canny good. I've been responsible for far worse ;-)
We put that song together rather quickly as a special treat for my B'day :-) it is really easy to play and actually rather fun... the crowd, most of whom were around 20... had no idea what was going on :-D
-
They probably don't know what the Tanhauser Gate is either then?
-
Karlos wrote:
They probably don't know what the Tan Hauser Gate is either then?
To be fair... no one does... except a select few si-fi geeks ;-) :-D
-
bloodline wrote:
To be fair... no one does... except a select few si-fi geeks ;-) :-D
So, do you have any glittering C beams for your live light show?
-
Karlos wrote:
bloodline wrote:
To be fair... no one does... except a select few si-fi geeks ;-) :-D
So, do you have any glittering C beams for your live light show?
Actually we do :-D I wish I could show you a DVD of one of our shows... I think the Youtube link in my sig is quite good...
-
motorollin wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
Abso-f*cking-lutely, that is exactly what I am trying to say, in that small talk is used for different purposes with different people.
And it's exactly those purposes I'm trying to understand :-)
So now you know three reasons why people do it, to form a bond with people around them, to get laid, to hide their true personality. Quite varied reasons, right?! :-D
-
HenryCase wrote:
motorollin wrote:
HenryCase wrote:
Abso-f*cking-lutely, that is exactly what I am trying to say, in that small talk is used for different purposes with different people.
And it's exactly those purposes I'm trying to understand :-)
So now you know three reasons why people do it, to form a bond with people around them, to get laid, to hide their true personality. Quite varied reasons, right?! :-D
You forgot, childish behaviour!
-
HenryCase wrote:
So now you know three reasons why people do it, to form a bond with people around them, to get laid, to hide their true personality. Quite varied reasons, right?! :-D
Exactly! And that's why I love language. Once you start exploring people's motives and intentions in conversation it gets really fascinating. You can go so deep in to analysing the simplest piece of conversation! Harvey Sacks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Sacks) is a real hero of mine!
--
moto
-
bloodline wrote:
You forgot, childish behaviour!
Arguably an attempt at bonding :-)
--
moto
-
motorollin wrote:
bloodline wrote:
You forgot, childish behaviour!
Arguably an attempt at bonding :-)
--
moto
No, I think it's part of play to develop linguistic skills... where wolf cubs fight, toddlers chat about pointless things... I believe it could be this behavior that is carried over to adulthood :-)
-
Oh right, you were talking about the behaviour of actual children. When you said "childish" I thought you meant adults behaving childishly :lol:
I agree 100% that infant speech games are roughly equivalent to play-fighting in other animals.
--
moto
-
highly recommended reading for those of you who are wondering about people who do not engage in small-talk for the most part...and what the rest of you put us through...lol
Caring for Your Introvert (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200303/rauch)
:-D
-
bloodline wrote:
Karlos wrote:
They probably don't know what the Tan Hauser Gate is either then?
To be fair... no one does... except a select few si-fi geeks ;-) :-D
too bad most of those SF geeks don't know what Tannhäuser is either.
-
Wain wrote:
bloodline wrote:
Karlos wrote:
They probably don't know what the Tan Hauser Gate is either then?
To be fair... no one does... except a select few si-fi geeks ;-) :-D
too bad most of those SF geeks don't know what Tannhäuser is either.
Indeed, but then maybe they have an excuse? Since the line from the film is clearly TannHauser not TannHäuser :-)
-
Wain wrote:
too bad most of those SF geeks don't know what Tannhäuser is either.
A German poet (possibly legend) from the middle ages, I believe. Didn't Wagner create an opera about him?
-
@Karlos
Yes, botha poet and a legend, the reference as a name is being pulled from the story of a knight who spends a year underground worshipping venus.
Makes a great poetical reference for a name that might be used in the future of some great location..the romantic insinuation being that this "gate" leads to the Venusberg... totally something I could see a scientist or artist referencing when naming some new place in space. Also makes sense from a writers standpoint, what with Baty being the poet of the film after all.
-
Venus?
Btw. I'm now listening to Edda (http://www.amazon.com/Edda-Icelandic-Medieval-Iceland-Sequentia/dp/B00000IFOM), early (non-christion) medieval pieces about Brunhilde, Sigurd, Odin and Attila
-
Actually THG might be able to trace it's name origins to the mysterious tale of Kaspar Hauser... Since even at a young age I was fascinated by the sound of German words and 18 years ago called my cat Kaspar...