Modartt user forum - Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (scherbakov.al) — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:19:55 +0000

hyper.real wrote:

What is your preferred "speed" when sympathetic resonance is 1.6?

Now 305-315. Cold) The speed of sound at -30 Celsius.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (hyper.real) — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 11:09:45 +0000

scherbakov.al wrote:

I found an answer for myself to set up "sound speed".

What is your preferred "speed" when sympathetic resonance is 1.6?

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (scherbakov.al) — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 16:48:22 +0000

_DJ_, thank you, pleasant execution)
If you need to warm up the audience, do higher speed)))) I still liked the colder ..)
The article (by reference) stated that the speed of sound is independent of frequency. But there is a dispersion of sound .. maybe it manifests itself only at large distances. The article on psychoacoustics, I read that the hearing is very sensitive to phase shifts of harmonics. It allows you to instantly assess the distance to the sound source.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (_DJ_) — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 10:26:14 +0000

scherbakov.al wrote:

I found an answer for myself to set up "sound speed". Pianoteq amazing program.

from some of the figuring i did for the mic setup with the 1835 Pleyel (here ==> http://www.forum-pianoteq.com/uploads.p..._Op_57.mp3 ) ~

speed of sound @24C (ambient temp in the studio) = 345.549m/s [int=346m/s] (http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-speedsound.htm), & @.61m distance (mic separation) = 1.765ms (rounded 1.8ms) delay.

all of which is to say that, yes certainly, speed of sound, stereo width, the very acoustic space that can be created, is incredibly important.
Pianoteq is indeed an amazing program!

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (scherbakov.al) — Sat, 05 Mar 2016 09:19:42 +0000

I found an answer for myself to set up "sound speed". Pianoteq amazing program.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (Jake Johnson) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 18:42:34 +0000

rAC wrote:

Jake Johnson wrote:
I don't understand your question. The words "It is useful to whether such a change?" do not make sense in English.
Jake I think you could have been a little more polite about the way you expressed this, I am (allegedly) a native English speaker - and I see many examples of others like me who mis construct sentences. By all means ask for clarification based on what you think the poster may have meant, but unless you are also fluent in the posters language don't criticise their English.
I'll get off my high horse now.

No offense meant. Sorry if I sounded abrupt. Just wasn't sure what you were asking.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (scherbakov.al) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 11:15:12 +0000

Google translator is improved and sometimes a nonsense. With personal all right)). Another version of the question: "Do changes need to be?". I found that the tool becomes more melodious with increased resonance to about 1.6. Playing with the pedal at the same time becoming more realistic in sensations. But by increasing the resonance amplified volume overtones beat in the frequency range of 15-20hz. The sound gets a little flapping. I can not understand it's not good or I think?

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (SteveLy) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:34:02 +0000

@rAC I disagree. There was nothing impolite about what JJ wrote. He is stating a fact without personal judgement. Note that he criticises the words, not the person who wrote them. My immediate (mental) reaction to the question was the same as JJ's.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (rAC) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 10:02:55 +0000

Jake Johnson wrote:

I don't understand your question. The words "It is useful to whether such a change?" do not make sense in English.

Jake I think you could have been a little more polite about the way you expressed this, I am (allegedly) a native English speaker - and I see many examples of others like me who mis construct sentences. By all means ask for clarification based on what you think the poster may have meant, but unless you are also fluent in the posters language don't criticise their English.

I'll get off my high horse now.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (Jake Johnson) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 05:18:26 +0000

If you meant "Which should be a priority, modelling the cabinet resonance or the sympathetic resonance," I would think that the choice is too constraining. It is not just the vibration of the cabinet that I want to hear. I want to hear the way that the air vibrations, and specific frequencies, are contained, bounced off of, and absorbed by the many surfaces and shapes in the interior of the cabinet, and released, over time, to the player and to people sitting in other positions. I haven't seen any digital emulation of a piano that considers these variables. I'm not sure that the cabinet itself--the rim--vibrates much. My impression that it is constructed so that will not vibrate much.

Re: Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (Jake Johnson) — Fri, 04 Mar 2016 04:38:38 +0000

I don't understand your question. The words "It is useful to whether such a change?" do not make sense in English.

Sympathetic resonance and cabinet.

null@example.com (scherbakov.al) — Thu, 03 Mar 2016 19:59:47 +0000

I noticed that the slider "sympathetic resonance" with the change of the strings and soundboard resonance changes the cabinet resonance. Do not you find that it is more logical to separate the cabinet configuration and transfer it to the screen "sound recording"?
I would, for example, would be able to slightly increase the resonance of the instrument without changing the response of the surrounding space.