5 Feb
2005
5 Feb
'05
6:37 a.m.
On fre, 2005-02-04 at 22:09 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
[...]
Neither do I .. and I think it would literally take forever. But since
the wigglings and wobblings in the reverb-tail are all slight variations
on a common theme, I might like to try some of the following:
Use a 'wobble-generator' to crossfade between two (or more) samples
taken at different locations.
Cheat and 'Wobble' the input and 'wiggle' the tail slightly.
I think this
method will not catch the mild doppler effect arising
from turbolence? (.. nor the *wild* turbolence, if house is on
fire!)
I guess not, because that's kind of equivalent to the room changing
shape all the time, I think - and you can't capture that without a
constantly "morphing" impulse response. No idea how you would go
about recording something like that, though.
I *do* have an idea about what kind of problems that would pull in,
though: It would be like looping a sampled waveform, except each
sample is an impulse response... So, you need a nice, click free, non
repetitive sounding loop. :-)
Good thinking!
Click free loop can be automated.
Quantifying 'nice' is harder ...
Non repetitive ... Say we morph between two 'nice' loops:
Loop A is 2.00 seconds
Loop B is 2.71 seconds
Crossfade 3.14 seconds (full circle)
... then we would get in the right ballpark for a simulation of the
sameness, though everchanging sound of complex sustained notes.
This is for the sustained part though, and might not translate verbatim
to the decay of a room?
[...]
This is a well known way to "cheat" to save
cycles.
Or perhaps it is:
A simplified model of a rooms characteristic decay combined with a
simplified model of the turbolence, sounds better than without the
simplified turbolence.
In a parallel universe it could argued that, a speech-synthesizer
singing 'Lieder' is much more convincing if you have the appropiate
Bontempi Piano to go along with it.
--
(
)
c[] // Jens M Andreasen