need for larger velocity scales, 0-128 to small

[jimknopf]

huuh???

My only explanation for the ongoing existence of this thread is the boring time until the Kronos is released.

Now let's go on discussing the necessity of 10000 velocoties.
And of course a new midi system is urgent at least for this very serious reason.

We boldly go where no clumpsy thumb has gone before, do we?

[ozy]

where no clumpsy thumb has gone before

don't mention the unmentionable!

[Akos Janca]

...the boring time until the Kronos is released.

Yes. But maybe we need some rest now. I can already imagine the traffic in the second half of 2011.

[peter_schwartz]

Peter, your way of conducting a discussion is untolerable!

You keep repeating trivial facts,

as if being factually wrong would necessarily change one's mind about perfectly legitimate personal opinions!

That's against forum etiquette.

Never, ever, let reality mess with good theories.

I swear, ozy, I won't let it happen again. EVER. I swear!

[ozy]

I swear, ozy, I won't let it happen again. EVER. I swear!

you better

[peter_schwartz]

Don't worry, I've learned my lesson. If I introduce facts into the conversation then...

• the entire thread comes to a screeching halt, or...
• I'm told I'm wrong, the facts are glossed over completely (other than to dispute them) and then the conversation continues
• the importance of the need for > 127 velocity steps are likened to some kind of really serious disease

It's that last part that really gets to me, but I have to let it go. Just... let... go... MmmmmmPH! So don't worry, next time a discussion comes up where facts might actually be of benefit, I'll just shut up and agree with everyone. But please know in advance that it will be a false front, and that I'll be crying inside.

[jemkeys25]

hey jimknopf,
your just upset cause you didn't think of this topic, maybe cause your just not that intuitive, or you might figure out where keyboards need advancing.

[Scott]

edit:

dupe, sorry

but I'll keep the part that was picked up on...

---

a common reference is that 10x as much amplification results in something subjectively twice as loud... point remains, I don't know how people subjectively determine twice as loud...

[Kayemef]

Holy crap, just took a few days off from the forums and wham, this topic gets 5 more pages !

I was looking for keybeds that feature multiple optical sensors, and apart form the VAX77, I found only 1 company who makes them.

http://www.midi9.com/products.htm

It's some kind of midi recording strip that goes under the keybed of accoustic pianos. Anyone aware if other keybeds on synths have this sort of tech, or maybe ways do DIY it on a standard MIDI controller ?

Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this, but even after reading all the posts on velocity curves, MIDI resolution, I still believe that improvements in the not-so-official field of "accurate quantization of analog phenomenae and/or non-discrete continuous stuff" must start by taking into consideration the actual tools and sensors that collect the data.

In other words, better keybeds and better sensors, then towards a better "understanding" of the player's playing intentions from a software's point of view.

It's sad that even though its possible and quite easy to attain very low midi velocities (for pianissimos), it's kinda hard to do when some notes need to be played very fast. As far as most keyboards go, fast = higher midi = louder. I do happen to think that a set of 127 values is enough to correctly quantize a player's dynamics, problem is that I can't manage to output values lower than 30 or 40 when playing at higher BPMs.

[ozy]

I don't know how people subjectively determine twice as loud...

1) it's scientifically known as the "G factor". G as in "guitar".

"Your guitar is twice as loud as my keyboard" is an objective assesment

"No, my guitar is just as loud as the drums, which are twice as loud as the bass" is on the contrary an arbitrary and ridiculous pretense.

2) on a more jocular tone: "feeling loudness" means "perceiving air pressure on the ear".

This is why it becomes painful above a certain, albeit approximate, treshold.

Low frequencies apply the same pressure as high frequencies, but being the pressure equal, they give less information (you have lesse repetition of the waveform "sampling" by the brain).

This is why you think you "ear" high frequencies "louder" than low frequencies.

You hear them BETTER, not louder.

eg. you ear a violin waveform 2000/4000 times a second, while in the same second you hear a bass 100/400 times. So, the pressure on the hear is the same, but the violin makes itself more easily recognized, then more easily "heard".

The point where they break your tympanus is the same though. And it depends on PRESSURE (at least until you go to frequencies so high that physical resonance damages the ear's tissues).

The point where you DECIDE you want it to stop because you're afraid it will damage you, comes on the violin first, because you perceive better that the sound is getting louder. The danger doesn't change , the alert is more audible. The bullet is the same, but the higher frequency is a "traceable".

This is why a bass can shatter a guitar ampli, and the contary is less easy.

ABOVE a certain frequency this changes. Too long a discussion to post here.

Pardon the funny offtopic.

But from the above one should recognize why ANALOG acoustic content, not midi scale, is paramount to loudness.

[Scott]

I don't know how people subjectively determine twice as loud...

1) it's scientifically known as the "G factor". G as in "guitar".

"Your guitar is twice as loud as my keyboard" is an objective assesment

"No, my guitar is just as loud as the drums, which are twice as loud as the bass" is on the contrary an arbitrary and ridiculous pretense.

2) on a more jocular tone: "feeling loudness" means "perceiving air pressure on the ear".

I think you meant to say "on a less jocular tone..."?

Anyway, my point remains that, I don't know how people come up with subjective assessments of "x is twice as loud as y" -- and I don't think the rest of your post actually addressed that, unless I missed your point.

[ozy]

I think you meant to say "on a less jocular tone..."?

I said what I said

my point remains that, I don't know how people come up with subjective assessments of "x is twice as loud as y" -- and I don't think the rest of your post actually addressed that, unless I missed your point.

oh my god.

You carry a backpack. I put a kilo of metal in it. then I put 2, then 4, then 8.

How do you perceive that I doubled the weight on your shoulders?

Well, the same way you perceive double the air presure on your tympanus.

How are DBs instrumentally measured? By measuring AIR PRESSURE on a membrane.

If I press a finger on your eye, do you feel pressure? Yes. If I double pressure, do you feel double pressure? I think so.

Now if you don't WANT to hear the explanation, that's another story.

But the explanation is there.

[Scott]

I think you meant to say "on a less jocular tone..."?

I said what I said.

Oh, so you were serious when you said:

"Your guitar is twice as loud as my keyboard" is an objective assesment

I thought that was the jocular part because that's the part I don't get. To me, that's a subjective assessment (unless the person is holding a SPL meter). How does someone tell, objectively, that something is twice as loud, without a meter? Do some people just have a good sense of how much is "twice" as loud vs. 50% louder or 150% louder? I know I don't have that sense.

oh my god.

You carry a backpack. I put a kilo of metal in it. then I put 2, then 4, then 8.

How do you perceive that I doubled the weight on your shoulders?

I'm not sure I can. I can perceive it's more, but I'm not sure I could sense that the amount was necessarily "double" if you didn't tell me.

At any rate, an analogy doesn't necessarily equal an explanation. Even if I could sense when something was just about twice as heavy, I'm not sure that's conclusive evidence that I should be able to tell when a light was twice as bright or a sound was twice as loud or a taste was twice as sweet or a smell was twice as strong.

If I press a finger on your eye, do you feel pressure? Yes. If I double pressure, do you feel double pressure? I think so.

Again, I don't have any confidence that, if you were gradually to increase the pressure, that I could tell you with any reliability at what point the pressure reached "double" the original amount. That's the point. (Nor am I certain you could be sure when your finger muscles were applying double the original pressure.)

Now if you don't WANT to hear the explanation, that's another story.

But the explanation is there.

Either I'm dense, or you don't understand my question, or both.

I'm not even sure what twice as loud is. If you double the power, you get a 3 dB increase. So with an SPL meter, I would say a 3 dB increase is twice as loud. But I've seen references that 10x the power is "perceived" as twice as loud. Maybe that reference is wrong, or maybe doubling the power simply doesn't result in something the human ear perceives as twice as loud, I don't know.

edit: I think the root of the issue gets back to my original post on the subject. I will be unable to understand how people can say that something sounds "twice" as loud as something else because it is an ability that I simply don't have. Not having it myself, I'm surprised that other people apparently do... and I'm curious about how reliable/consistent it is. That is, if you played a CD through a stereo, and gradually raised the volume level and asked someone to raise their hand when they felt you had reached double the original volume, I wonder (a) if they would always raise their hand at about the same point, and (b) if most people taking that test would all raise their hand at about the same time as each other.

[peter_schwartz]

To understand what 3dB and 10x and all of the other numbers associated with sound pressure levels are about you just have to do some reading up on the matter. The 10x bit has to do with the logarithmic nature of dB measurements, so it's not wrong. Use Google, get a good book on acoustics... none of it is a mystery. Just takes a little effort.

You can even experiment by yourself and understand it better. Do you have a DAW? If so, take a stereo mix of something ambient or something that doesn't have a lot of dynamics and put it on two stereo tracks. Mute track 2 for a minute. Set your output to 0dBfs. Now set track 1's level so that you're getting a peak of minus 3dBfs as seen on the output meter (not the track's meter) at some point in the song. Now set track 2's level to be the same as track 1, rewind a bit, and play back that point where your output peaked at -3dBfs previously. Voila, your output will peak at 0dBfs.

So there's a very easy experiment you can do at home to ascertain what "twice as loud" is not only from a digital levels point of view (dBfs) but also a purely listening point of view (dB's).

[ozy]

AAAAAGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some BASIC knowledge of how science works, PLEASE!!!!

Human subjective perception cannot be measured from "WITHIN"!

So, when somebody says "I feel double the pressure",

it means

"I feel the sensation that is usually associated with the doubling of the pressure"!!!!

AAAAGHHHH!!!!!!

aaaaaghhhhhh!!!!!! HELP ME!!!!!

When somebody doubles the weight on your shoulder, the difference you perceive is defined "DOUBLE"!!!

Because NOTHING else can be measured!

The internal, subjective response to the doubling of the weight CANNOT be measured!

you said "how do I know that when I feel double it's realy double the weight?". Because that's how "double" is defined!

HOW THE FRIGGING ELSE COULD YOU MEASURE A HUMAN SENSATION BEING "DOUBLE" OR "TREBLE"?!?!?.

Telepathy?!? WHAT ?!?!?

How would you quantify a sensation?

Can you say that you body is working "twice as much" without an ergometer (=external weight measure)?

And could you learn measuring your effort before repeating several time a comparison between your perception and the ergometer result?

Did you stop to think of that before answering in such a pompous and sneering fake-intellectual way?!?

Do you THINK before posting?

Or is this all joke? Anybody posting any bullshit under the pretense of "scientifical" language?

When exactly did our schools go down the drain?!?

"I feel double the heat", "I feeble double the pain", "I feel double the arousal": how do you measure that?

When the external event has a measurable scale (e.g.: noise, which can be translated into measurable pressure), you call the different sensations "double", "treble" BASED ON THE EXTERNAL OBJECTIVE SCALE of the external event!

Of course it's an average response!

When you double the pressure, a DEAF's sensation doesn't "double".