|
|
Guitar Discussions -> Tone definition
There are 34 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 10.
|
Tone definition - Jon Slaughter - 18:20 07-11-05
|
|
Here is my definition of tone. This is much more unambiguous definition that
most of you seem to use and hopefully it will clear up all the
misconceptions.
Lets suppose we have a theoretically perfect "tone" generator that produces
a
pure sinusoidal(and can reproduce this exactly at any point in time).
We have some amp, cables, and a speaker cab.
We plug in our tone generator into the amp and the result is the "tone" of
the amplifier. Every amp will "color" our original tone to some degree. To
compare two amps we just have to compare the two different outputs.
Technically a perfect amplifier will produce the exact same signal on input
to output. But every amp is not perfect and most are not even close to
being perfect.
Now, in reality we couldn't just compare the sine waves as its possible for
non-linearities to creap in and make it much more complex... hence we use
the best tool we have!! OUR EARS!!!
i.e., we could get the total frequency response of the amp by sweeping over
all the frequencies with different amplitudes... but since amps tend to have
non-linear distortions along with many other types of distortions(clip,
thermonic, etc...). So hence the amp's tone will depend on many factors such
as temperature, electronic components, input signals, etc... Thats why we
should use the ear because it is much better to grasp the overall tonal
characteristics of the amp than trying to analyze the tone(since the tone
depends on so many variables).
The idea is simply that if we have two different amps we can use our ears
with our "tone" generator(hell, we could just record a guitar signal and
play it to both of them) and compare the output. They will be different.
Better ears will be more sensitive to those differences than others.
The point is that we have an input that doesn't depend on phrasing... which
I will list some to avoid more confusion:
Phrasing =
timing, dynamics, agogic, psycholgocal, etc..
For guitar these could be:
artifical harmonics, palm muting, bends, slides, trills, using different
picks/fingers, vibrato, whammy bar, different strings, etc...
now, in my definition one might want to include the guitar in the part of
the "gear" so one can get the tone of the guitar included. The reason I left
htis out is cause most people seemed to get confused by adding it. If you
think in theorical terms(Which seems to be hard for most of you) then adding
the guitar and having some mechnical device pick the strings perfectly and
consistently will not be any different han using a tone generator except now
our tone definition includes the guitar(which includes the pu's and
strings)... it also makes the definition a little more ambiguous but it
should still be much clearer.
Now, all that said it might be that most amps tone(remember, tone depends on
a lot of variables... its like a 100 dimension object. Its just not one
thing) my overlap to a great degree and I might just have to figure out why
my amp sounds strang in tone to me... it could be simply that the settings
I'm using are not producing the "tone" I'm after because I'm not using the
right settings.
Note that tone in the above definition is a partially continuous and
partialy discrete function. It depends on things such as Tubes, EQ
settings, Drive/Gain settings, Volumn settings, Capacitor type, etc... Some
of these variables are more inportant than others. Surely changing your
Cpacitor isn't going to change the tone as much as changing the tubes. So,
while you might think that if I change the EQ of the amp I change the tone
of the amp(so as from thin to heavy by adding bass)... in all actuality in
my definition the tone doesn't change... the tone of the amp includes all
the possible EQ settings. Though sometimes I might, as I'm sure many do,
say something like "If you roll of the highs on your am it will make make
your amp tone sound dark". It really doesn't mean the tone of the amp
changes. Just that you have changed the frequency response(which is
different than tone but sometimes used interchangble for convenience).
Anyways, I hope that clears up some of the issues.
Jon
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - ~R - 18:56 07-11-05
|
|
if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does
it make a tone?
~R
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11mvo90j8p7g808@corp.supernews.com...
:
: Here is my definition of tone. This is much more unambiguous
definition that
: most of you seem to use and hopefully it will clear up all the
: misconceptions.
:
:
: Lets suppose we have a theoretically perfect "tone" generator
that produces
: a
: pure sinusoidal(and can reproduce this exactly at any point in
time).
:
: We have some amp, cables, and a speaker cab.
:
: We plug in our tone generator into the amp and the result is
the "tone" of
: the amplifier. Every amp will "color" our original tone to
some degree. To
: compare two amps we just have to compare the two different
outputs.
:
: Technically a perfect amplifier will produce the exact same
signal on input
: to output. But every amp is not perfect and most are not even
close to
: being perfect.
:
: Now, in reality we couldn't just compare the sine waves as its
possible for
: non-linearities to creap in and make it much more complex...
hence we use
: the best tool we have!! OUR EARS!!!
:
: i.e., we could get the total frequency response of the amp by
sweeping over
: all the frequencies with different amplitudes... but since amps
tend to have
: non-linear distortions along with many other types of
distortions(clip,
: thermonic, etc...). So hence the amp's tone will depend on many
factors such
: as temperature, electronic components, input signals, etc...
Thats why we
: should use the ear because it is much better to grasp the
overall tonal
: characteristics of the amp than trying to analyze the
tone(since the tone
: depends on so many variables).
:
: The idea is simply that if we have two different amps we can
use our ears
: with our "tone" generator(hell, we could just record a guitar
signal and
: play it to both of them) and compare the output. They will be
different.
: Better ears will be more sensitive to those differences than
others.
:
: The point is that we have an input that doesn't depend on
phrasing... which
: I will list some to avoid more confusion:
:
: Phrasing =
: timing, dynamics, agogic, psycholgocal, etc..
:
: For guitar these could be:
: artifical harmonics, palm muting, bends, slides, trills, using
different
: picks/fingers, vibrato, whammy bar, different strings, etc...
:
:
: now, in my definition one might want to include the guitar in
the part of
: the "gear" so one can get the tone of the guitar included. The
reason I left
: htis out is cause most people seemed to get confused by adding
it. If you
: think in theorical terms(Which seems to be hard for most of
you) then adding
: the guitar and having some mechnical device pick the strings
perfectly and
: consistently will not be any different han using a tone
generator except now
: our tone definition includes the guitar(which includes the pu's
and
: strings)... it also makes the definition a little more
ambiguous but it
: should still be much clearer.
:
:
:
:
: Now, all that said it might be that most amps tone(remember,
tone depends on
: a lot of variables... its like a 100 dimension object. Its just
not one
: thing) my overlap to a great degree and I might just have to
figure out why
: my amp sounds strang in tone to me... it could be simply that
the settings
: I'm using are not producing the "tone" I'm after because I'm
not using the
: right settings.
:
: Note that tone in the above definition is a partially
continuous and
: partialy discrete function. It depends on things such as
Tubes, EQ
: settings, Drive/Gain settings, Volumn settings, Capacitor type,
etc... Some
: of these variables are more inportant than others. Surely
changing your
: Cpacitor isn't going to change the tone as much as changing the
tubes. So,
: while you might think that if I change the EQ of the amp I
change the tone
: of the amp(so as from thin to heavy by adding bass)... in all
actuality in
: my definition the tone doesn't change... the tone of the amp
includes all
: the possible EQ settings. Though sometimes I might, as I'm
sure many do,
: say something like "If you roll of the highs on your am it will
make make
: your amp tone sound dark". It really doesn't mean the tone of
the amp
: changes. Just that you have changed the frequency
response(which is
: different than tone but sometimes used interchangble for
convenience).
:
: Anyways, I hope that clears up some of the issues.
:
: Jon
:
:
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Guncho - 18:58 07-11-05
|
|
Jon
You are almost correct.
Tone is anything that changes the EQ of the sound coming out of the
amp.
A huge part of that is the amp, guitar and pedals but if for instance I
play something with my fingers then switch to a metal pick, it will
affect my "tone". If I strum closer to the bridge or closer to the
neck, that will also affect my tone.
However I totally agree that what you choose to play on the guitar or
how you play it is not tone.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Guncho - 19:00 07-11-05
|
|
> I applaud you for trying to get an objective dialog/debate. But I fear it
> will get lost in the noise. Many vociferous ones on usenet don't understand
> theory of sound and signals at all. You know, a lot of people use the term
> "warm" sounding. Some think it means accentuated bass/lower mids and some
> think it means accentuated upper mids. They don't realise that their
> definition is different to the next person so they may argue for no reason
> on points of tonal colour. I know where you are coming from, and you are
> separating tone from the overall sound. The written word is not good at
> describing audio phenomena.
Talking about music is like dancing about architechture.
:)
Chris
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Geoff C - 19:03 07-11-05
|
|
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in
news:11mvo90j8p7g808@corp.supernews.com:
>
> Here is my definition of tone. This is much more unambiguous
> definition that most of you seem to use and hopefully it will clear up
> all the misconceptions.
>
>
> Lets suppose we have a theoretically perfect "tone" generator that
> produces a
> pure sinusoidal(and can reproduce this exactly at any point in time).
>
> We have some amp, cables, and a speaker cab.
>
> We plug in our tone generator into the amp and the result is the
> "tone" of the amplifier. Every amp will "color" our original tone to
> some degree. To compare two amps we just have to compare the two
> different outputs.
>
> Technically a perfect amplifier will produce the exact same signal on
> input to output. But every amp is not perfect and most are not even
> close to being perfect.
>
> Now, in reality we couldn't just compare the sine waves as its
> possible for non-linearities to creap in and make it much more
> complex... hence we use the best tool we have!! OUR EARS!!!
>
> i.e., we could get the total frequency response of the amp by sweeping
> over all the frequencies with different amplitudes... but since amps
> tend to have non-linear distortions along with many other types of
> distortions(clip, thermonic, etc...). So hence the amp's tone will
> depend on many factors such as temperature, electronic components,
> input signals, etc... Thats why we should use the ear because it is
> much better to grasp the overall tonal characteristics of the amp than
> trying to analyze the tone(since the tone depends on so many
> variables).
>
> The idea is simply that if we have two different amps we can use our
> ears with our "tone" generator(hell, we could just record a guitar
> signal and play it to both of them) and compare the output. They will
> be different. Better ears will be more sensitive to those differences
> than others.
>
> The point is that we have an input that doesn't depend on phrasing...
> which I will list some to avoid more confusion:
>
> Phrasing =
> timing, dynamics, agogic, psycholgocal, etc..
>
> For guitar these could be:
> artifical harmonics, palm muting, bends, slides, trills, using
> different picks/fingers, vibrato, whammy bar, different strings,
> etc...
>
>
> now, in my definition one might want to include the guitar in the part
> of the "gear" so one can get the tone of the guitar included. The
> reason I left htis out is cause most people seemed to get confused by
> adding it. If you think in theorical terms(Which seems to be hard for
> most of you) then adding the guitar and having some mechnical device
> pick the strings perfectly and consistently will not be any different
> han using a tone generator except now our tone definition includes the
> guitar(which includes the pu's and strings)... it also makes the
> definition a little more ambiguous but it should still be much
> clearer.
>
>
>
>
> Now, all that said it might be that most amps tone(remember, tone
> depends on a lot of variables... its like a 100 dimension object. Its
> just not one thing) my overlap to a great degree and I might just have
> to figure out why my amp sounds strang in tone to me... it could be
> simply that the settings I'm using are not producing the "tone" I'm
> after because I'm not using the right settings.
>
> Note that tone in the above definition is a partially continuous and
> partialy discrete function. It depends on things such as Tubes, EQ
> settings, Drive/Gain settings, Volumn settings, Capacitor type, etc...
> Some of these variables are more inportant than others. Surely
> changing your Cpacitor isn't going to change the tone as much as
> changing the tubes. So, while you might think that if I change the EQ
> of the amp I change the tone of the amp(so as from thin to heavy by
> adding bass)... in all actuality in my definition the tone doesn't
> change... the tone of the amp includes all the possible EQ settings.
> Though sometimes I might, as I'm sure many do, say something like "If
> you roll of the highs on your am it will make make your amp tone sound
> dark". It really doesn't mean the tone of the amp changes. Just that
> you have changed the frequency response(which is different than tone
> but sometimes used interchangble for convenience).
>
> Anyways, I hope that clears up some of the issues.
>
> Jon
>
>
I applaud you for trying to get an objective dialog/debate. But I fear it
will get lost in the noise. Many vociferous ones on usenet don't understand
theory of sound and signals at all. You know, a lot of people use the term
"warm" sounding. Some think it means accentuated bass/lower mids and some
think it means accentuated upper mids. They don't realise that their
definition is different to the next person so they may argue for no reason
on points of tonal colour. I know where you are coming from, and you are
separating tone from the overall sound. The written word is not good at
describing audio phenomena.
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Don Evans - 19:28 07-11-05
|
|
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11mvo90j8p7g808@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Here is my definition of tone. This is much more unambiguous definition
> that most of you seem to use and hopefully it will clear up all the
> misconceptions.
>
>
> Lets suppose we have a theoretically perfect "tone" generator that
> produces a
> pure sinusoidal(and can reproduce this exactly at any point in time).
>
> We have some amp, cables, and a speaker cab.
>
> We plug in our tone generator into the amp and the result is the "tone" of
> the amplifier. Every amp will "color" our original tone to some degree.
> To
> compare two amps we just have to compare the two different outputs.
>
> Technically a perfect amplifier will produce the exact same signal on
> input
> to output. But every amp is not perfect and most are not even close to
> being perfect.
>
> Now, in reality we couldn't just compare the sine waves as its possible
> for
> non-linearities to creap in and make it much more complex... hence we use
> the best tool we have!! OUR EARS!!!
>
> i.e., we could get the total frequency response of the amp by sweeping
> over all the frequencies with different amplitudes... but since amps tend
> to have non-linear distortions along with many other types of
> distortions(clip, thermonic, etc...). So hence the amp's tone will depend
> on many factors such as temperature, electronic components, input signals,
> etc... Thats why we should use the ear because it is much better to grasp
> the overall tonal characteristics of the amp than trying to analyze the
> tone(since the tone depends on so many variables).
>
> The idea is simply that if we have two different amps we can use our ears
> with our "tone" generator(hell, we could just record a guitar signal and
> play it to both of them) and compare the output. They will be different.
> Better ears will be more sensitive to those differences than others.
>
> The point is that we have an input that doesn't depend on phrasing...
> which I will list some to avoid more confusion:
>
> Phrasing =
> timing, dynamics, agogic, psycholgocal, etc..
>
> For guitar these could be:
> artifical harmonics, palm muting, bends, slides, trills, using different
> picks/fingers, vibrato, whammy bar, different strings, etc...
>
>
> now, in my definition one might want to include the guitar in the part of
> the "gear" so one can get the tone of the guitar included. The reason I
> left htis out is cause most people seemed to get confused by adding it. If
> you think in theorical terms(Which seems to be hard for most of you) then
> adding the guitar and having some mechnical device pick the strings
> perfectly and consistently will not be any different han using a tone
> generator except now our tone definition includes the guitar(which
> includes the pu's and strings)... it also makes the definition a little
> more ambiguous but it should still be much clearer.
>
>
>
>
> Now, all that said it might be that most amps tone(remember, tone depends
> on a lot of variables... its like a 100 dimension object. Its just not one
> thing) my overlap to a great degree and I might just have to figure out
> why my amp sounds strang in tone to me... it could be simply that the
> settings I'm using are not producing the "tone" I'm after because I'm not
> using the right settings.
>
> Note that tone in the above definition is a partially continuous and
> partialy discrete function. It depends on things such as Tubes, EQ
> settings, Drive/Gain settings, Volumn settings, Capacitor type, etc...
> Some of these variables are more inportant than others. Surely changing
> your Cpacitor isn't going to change the tone as much as changing the
> tubes. So, while you might think that if I change the EQ of the amp I
> change the tone of the amp(so as from thin to heavy by adding bass)... in
> all actuality in my definition the tone doesn't change... the tone of the
> amp includes all the possible EQ settings. Though sometimes I might, as
> I'm sure many do, say something like "If you roll of the highs on your am
> it will make make your amp tone sound dark". It really doesn't mean the
> tone of the amp changes. Just that you have changed the frequency
> response(which is different than tone but sometimes used interchangble for
> convenience).
>
> Anyways, I hope that clears up some of the issues.
>
> Jon
>
So, we aren't talking about recorded performances any more, do I have that
right?
Don
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Jon Slaughter - 20:16 07-11-05
|
|
"Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131407899.955328.68230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Jon
>
> You are almost correct.
>
> Tone is anything that changes the EQ of the sound coming out of the
> amp.
>
> A huge part of that is the amp, guitar and pedals but if for instance I
> play something with my fingers then switch to a metal pick, it will
> affect my "tone". If I strum closer to the bridge or closer to the
> neck, that will also affect my tone.
>
lol, I thought you had it but I guess not.
Re-read my definition. THAT IS MY DEFINITION.
Don't you realize that if I strummed exactly like you and played through
your gear I would sound exactly like you?
What you are saying is effecting the tone are all player performance
options. They are external to the amp. If I could play exactly like you but
played through a different amp I would sound different. If I played through
the same amp then I would sound the exact same.
The reason why it isn't(or shouldn't) be considered part of the tone is that
it is a phrasing technique/articulation. You have the choice to make those
things. If you want to change the "tone"(what you call tone) of a note so it
sounds different by choosing to use a different pick or play in a idfferent
position or whatever then it is your choice... but it is independent of the
amp. as far as the amp is concerned it doesn't know what you are doing to
make the note(well, it shouldn't).
Those are all phrasing though. If you don't like it then its just to bad
because it is how I define things. I see no reason to complicate the
definition of tone by including player performance techniques(and all that
you mentioned there are player performance techniques). The reason is
simply that it adds ambiguity.
I my definition you will see that I used something that is independent of
phrasing so you couldn't say it had to do with picks or muting or
whatever... While they will change the "tone", as I pointed out in the
bottom of the post that they are not changing the tone because the tone is a
spectrum of "tone". They are just sampling the different tonal areas of the
amp.
This is the way I choose to define it because it works for me and excludes
the possible overlap of phrasing. Why? For the exact reason that you have
said.. Cause it does effect "tone"... hence I redefine tone so it isn't
effected by these extraneous things.
Maybe its my fault for using the word tone but I don't know what better
things to do. Frequency response spectrum seems to be wrong for the exact
same reasons that you have pointed about above(cause it will change depend
on all those factors). Innate Electronic Response Spectrum doesn't make all
that much sense. Maybe Amp tone would be better but then you would just say
that it is changed dpending on how you phrase things(but you don't seem to
call them phrasing, hence the contradiction).
For me, you cannot play a note with phrasing it. If there is any sound then
from the guitar then it is phrasing. If you bang on the guitar in it is
phrasing... basicaly a way to phrase the open string resonance of the guitar
or something. If you use a different pick then you are phrasing the note
differently.. I understand how you can say that it changes the tone... but
remember, then it makes it extremly complicated to talk about because there
are so many different ypes of picks, different places to pick at, different
angles of attack, different ways to hold the pick, different presures, how
the arm moves, whether you are palm mutting at the same time, what the left
hand is doing simultaneously, and so on.....
And thats just for a pick... what about for everything else? Doesn't it seem
a little complicated?
I can't really explain what I mean by tone without getting into some math,
but here it goes.
the idea is that the tone is a function of all the independ variables of
phrasing(I already said what I think phrasing is)..
Lets just suppose that it is a function 3 variables though for convienence.
Just frequency, EQ, and amplitude.
One way we can visualize this is to think of a 3D cube. Each axis is one of
those variables. each point in the cube represents a "tone" type. So maybe
in the
(need a fixed with font to view)
Freq amplitude
| /
| /
| /
| /
|/
-------- EQ
Now, the point in the corner (0,0,0) might reprsent the all the EQ turned
down, amplitude of 0, and the frequency of 0(DC)... as we move vertically it
reprsents a change in frequency(such as pitch... i.e. playing the notes),
horizontally is EQ(which ofcourse is not just a single real variable but is
much more complicated) and into the page is the amplitude of the frequency.
Now, if I pick any point in the cube I get some tone sample of the amp...
but the amp's tone includes all the points.
Now, if you pick differently you are changing the frequency and amplitude
but that is just some point in the amp's tone space. i.e. you are just
sampling the amp's tone at some point that is different than if you play
normally.
Say the amp has a low pass filter at 100hz and you play some artifical
harmonic at say E5. The amp's tone produces no(theoretical) response to
that note. It is a characteristic feature of the amp. Not of of how you
played the note. You chose to play that note that way and to sample the amp
at that point. But you have no control on how the amp responded to that
note.
I don't really know how to explain it clear but hopefully you get the idea.
Since the input of a note is simply a superposition of fundamental waves and
the amp has a "tone sample point" for that input and has an output for that
input... each amp will have a different output for the same input.
If you play an AH on different amps the exact same way they will all have
different outputs... has nothing to do with your playing. Its the fact that
the amp will modify(unless its perfect) the input signal.
But ofcourse you will get a different sound than if you don't play an AH...
just as you will get a different sound if you play an E note instead of an A
note... this as nothing to do with the amp. The amp doesn't know what notes
are or what picks are or how picks change the input signal, etc... An amp
only knows how modify a signal... and if its perfect and linear then it will
modify them without prejudice... i.e., you can get the total tonal
chracteristics of the amp basic on how it reacts to a single pure sine wave.
Since all input signals(no matter what you do to create them) are simply a
combination of pure sine waves and if the amp is linear then the amps
response to a "complex" input is simply the sum of its responses to the pure
sine waves.
I can't really it explain it well and I know I'm not doing that good a job,
but hopeflly you have some idea. If you know anything about fourier
analysis and electronics then you should have some idea what I'm talking
about. I know the above is not really perfect or technical as it would take
to much space to go into any real detail but it should get the point across.
Note that I'm not saying a real amp doesn't respond differently to phrasing.
It surely does, what I'm saying is that the output will be in its tonal
space of all possible "tones" Its how it changes the output given the
input(NO MATTER WHAT THE INPUT IS) that is important. If the input is
someone strumming the chords to "Hey Joe" and the amp cuts everything below
400hz then thats part of the amps chracteristics. If they instead strum
with a different pick and it makes it brigher then what they have done IS
CHANGE THE INPUT SIGNAL... but the amp will respond the way it does no
matter what.
Basicaly it boils down to the fact that you can't change how the amp
behaves(well, sure you can, you can replace tubes, etc... but really you ar
echanging the amp then). If you do anything like you mentioned above you are
changing the input to be difference AND HENCE THE AMP WILL RESPOND
DIFFERENTLY. Surely the amp will not respond the exact same way for
different inputs? (produce same output for different inputs)
Anyways
Jon
> However I totally agree that what you choose to play on the guitar or
> how you play it is not tone.
>
lol, this seems to contradict what you said above. I do know what you are
saying though. Sure if I palm mute the strings when I strum it sounds
different... You might say it changes the tone. But in my definition maybe
one should say it samples the tone space at a different point. I suppose
that it just all boils down to saying that an amp responds the exact same
way(excluding real problems such as temperature and stuff) given the same
input signals at different times. If this was not the case then amp tone
wouldn't be predictable.. you would play a song and then repeat it and it
would sound totally(maybe) different the next time you played it(even if you
played it exactly the same).
The easiest way I can concieve of sampling the tonal space(after all, you
probably won't be able to understand all the amp's tonal possibilities) is
by playing a phrase(how ever you want) and recording it then sending it to
an amp. Do this for another amp and compare the signals. They will be
different... how much depends on a lot of factors. If you have to perfectly
identical amps and do the above they will sound very different depending on
if you have the different settings. The idea is that we should be able to
get two different tube amps and find the right settings as to get a similar
sound. Then compare... are the outputs similar... surely not. Do they have
the similar prominent tone characteristics that make them sound nice? Maybe,
maybe not.
Hence, but he above I just might not have found the proper settings for my
amp to make it sound similar to some other amp that I like... or it could be
that there is no settings that will make them close.(i.e., like trying to
get a distortion sound out of a clean amp).
Anyways, The put is all this has nothing to do with your hands ;)
> Chris
>
Jon
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Jon Slaughter - 20:23 07-11-05
|
|
"Don Evans" <gtrdonevans@aol.com> wrote in message
news:_5OdnWxHAOyobPLeRVn-iQ@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11mvo90j8p7g808@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>> Here is my definition of tone. This is much more unambiguous definition
>> that most of you seem to use and hopefully it will clear up all the
>> misconceptions.
>>
>>
>> Lets suppose we have a theoretically perfect "tone" generator that
>> produces a
>> pure sinusoidal(and can reproduce this exactly at any point in time).
>>
>> We have some amp, cables, and a speaker cab.
>>
>> We plug in our tone generator into the amp and the result is the "tone"
>> of
>> the amplifier. Every amp will "color" our original tone to some degree.
>> To
>> compare two amps we just have to compare the two different outputs.
>>
>> Technically a perfect amplifier will produce the exact same signal on
>> input
>> to output. But every amp is not perfect and most are not even close to
>> being perfect.
>>
>> Now, in reality we couldn't just compare the sine waves as its possible
>> for
>> non-linearities to creap in and make it much more complex... hence we use
>> the best tool we have!! OUR EARS!!!
>>
>> i.e., we could get the total frequency response of the amp by sweeping
>> over all the frequencies with different amplitudes... but since amps tend
>> to have non-linear distortions along with many other types of
>> distortions(clip, thermonic, etc...). So hence the amp's tone will depend
>> on many factors such as temperature, electronic components, input
>> signals, etc... Thats why we should use the ear because it is much better
>> to grasp the overall tonal characteristics of the amp than trying to
>> analyze the tone(since the tone depends on so many variables).
>>
>> The idea is simply that if we have two different amps we can use our ears
>> with our "tone" generator(hell, we could just record a guitar signal and
>> play it to both of them) and compare the output. They will be different.
>> Better ears will be more sensitive to those differences than others.
>>
>> The point is that we have an input that doesn't depend on phrasing...
>> which I will list some to avoid more confusion:
>>
>> Phrasing =
>> timing, dynamics, agogic, psycholgocal, etc..
>>
>> For guitar these could be:
>> artifical harmonics, palm muting, bends, slides, trills, using different
>> picks/fingers, vibrato, whammy bar, different strings, etc...
>>
>>
>> now, in my definition one might want to include the guitar in the part of
>> the "gear" so one can get the tone of the guitar included. The reason I
>> left htis out is cause most people seemed to get confused by adding it.
>> If you think in theorical terms(Which seems to be hard for most of you)
>> then adding the guitar and having some mechnical device pick the strings
>> perfectly and consistently will not be any different han using a tone
>> generator except now our tone definition includes the guitar(which
>> includes the pu's and strings)... it also makes the definition a little
>> more ambiguous but it should still be much clearer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, all that said it might be that most amps tone(remember, tone depends
>> on a lot of variables... its like a 100 dimension object. Its just not
>> one thing) my overlap to a great degree and I might just have to figure
>> out why my amp sounds strang in tone to me... it could be simply that the
>> settings I'm using are not producing the "tone" I'm after because I'm not
>> using the right settings.
>>
>> Note that tone in the above definition is a partially continuous and
>> partialy discrete function. It depends on things such as Tubes, EQ
>> settings, Drive/Gain settings, Volumn settings, Capacitor type, etc...
>> Some of these variables are more inportant than others. Surely changing
>> your Cpacitor isn't going to change the tone as much as changing the
>> tubes. So, while you might think that if I change the EQ of the amp I
>> change the tone of the amp(so as from thin to heavy by adding bass)... in
>> all actuality in my definition the tone doesn't change... the tone of the
>> amp includes all the possible EQ settings. Though sometimes I might, as
>> I'm sure many do, say something like "If you roll of the highs on your am
>> it will make make your amp tone sound dark". It really doesn't mean the
>> tone of the amp changes. Just that you have changed the frequency
>> response(which is different than tone but sometimes used interchangble
>> for convenience).
>>
>> Anyways, I hope that clears up some of the issues.
>>
>> Jon
>>
>
> So, we aren't talking about recorded performances any more, do I have that
> right?
>
> Don
>
huh?
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Jon Slaughter - 20:23 07-11-05
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Tone definition - Don Evans - 20:34 07-11-05
|
|
"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@Hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11mvv3o19kdaqa0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Guncho" <cgunter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131407899.955328.68230@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Jon
>>
>> You are almost correct.
>>
>> Tone is anything that changes the EQ of the sound coming out of the
>> amp.
>>
>> A huge part of that is the amp, guitar and pedals but if for instance I
>> play something with my fingers then switch to a metal pick, it will
>> affect my "tone". If I strum closer to the bridge or closer to the
>> neck, that will also affect my tone.
>>
>
> lol, I thought you had it but I guess not.
>
> Re-read my definition. THAT IS MY DEFINITION.
>
> Don't you realize that if I strummed exactly like you and played through
> your gear I would sound exactly like you?
>
> What you are saying is effecting the tone are all player performance
> options. They are external to the amp. If I could play exactly like you
> but played through a different amp I would sound different. If I played
> through the same amp then I would sound the exact same.
>
> The reason why it isn't(or shouldn't) be considered part of the tone is
> that it is a phrasing technique/articulation. You have the choice to make
> those things. If you want to change the "tone"(what you call tone) of a
> note so it sounds different by choosing to use a different pick or play in
> a idfferent position or whatever then it is your choice... but it is
> independent of the amp. as far as the amp is concerned it doesn't know
> what you are doing to make the note(well, it shouldn't).
>
>
> Those are all phrasing though. If you don't like it then its just to bad
> because it is how I define things. I see no reason to complicate the
> definition of tone by including player performance techniques(and all that
> you mentioned there are player performance techniques). The reason is
> simply that it adds ambiguity.
>
> I my definition you will see that I used something that is independent of
> phrasing so you couldn't say it had to do with picks or muting or
> whatever... While they will change the "tone", as I pointed out in the
> bottom of the post that they are not changing the tone because the tone is
> a spectrum of "tone". They are just sampling the different tonal areas of
> the amp.
>
> This is the way I choose to define it because it works for me and excludes
> the possible overlap of phrasing. Why? For the exact reason that you have
> said.. Cause it does effect "tone"... hence I redefine tone so it isn't
> effected by these extraneous things.
>
> Maybe its my fault for using the word tone but I don't know what better
> things to do. Frequency response spectrum seems to be wrong for the exact
> same reasons that you have pointed about above(cause it will change depend
> on all those factors). Innate Electronic Response Spectrum doesn't make
> all that much sense. Maybe Amp tone would be better but then you would
> just say that it is changed dpending on how you phrase things(but you
> don't seem to call them phrasing, hence the contradiction).
>
> For me, you cannot play a note with phrasing it. If there is any sound
> then from the guitar then it is phrasing. If you bang on the guitar in it
> is phrasing... basicaly a way to phrase the open string resonance of the
> guitar or something. If you use a different pick then you are phrasing
> the note differently.. I understand how you can say that it changes the
> tone... but remember, then it makes it extremly complicated to talk about
> because there are so many different ypes of picks, different places to
> pick at, different angles of attack, different ways to hold the pick,
> different presures, how the arm moves, whether you are palm mutting at the
> same time, what the left hand is doing simultaneously, and so on.....
>
> And thats just for a pick... what about for everything else? Doesn't it
> seem a little complicated?
>
> I can't really explain what I mean by tone without getting into some math,
> but here it goes.
>
> the idea is that the tone is a function of all the independ variables of
> phrasing(I already said what I think phrasing is)..
>
> Lets just suppose that it is a function 3 variables though for
> convienence. Just frequency, EQ, and amplitude.
>
> One way we can visualize this is to think of a 3D cube. Each axis is one
> of those variables. each point in the cube represents a "tone" type. So
> maybe in the
>
>
> (need a fixed with font to view)
>
> Freq amplitude
> | /
> | /
> | /
> | /
> |/
> -------- EQ
>
>
> Now, the point in the corner (0,0,0) might reprsent the all the EQ turned
> down, amplitude of 0, and the frequency of 0(DC)... as we move vertically
> it reprsents a change in frequency(such as pitch... i.e. playing the
> notes), horizontally is EQ(which ofcourse is not just a single real
> variable but is much more complicated) and into the page is the amplitude
> of the frequency.
>
> Now, if I pick any point in the cube I get some tone sample of the amp...
> but the amp's tone includes all the points.
>
> Now, if you pick differently you are changing the frequency and amplitude
> but that is just some point in the amp's tone space. i.e. you are just
> sampling the amp's tone at some point that is different than if you play
> normally.
>
> Say the amp has a low pass filter at 100hz and you play some artifical
> harmonic at say E5. The amp's tone produces no(theoretical) response to
> that note. It is a characteristic feature of the amp. Not of of how you
> played the note. You chose to play that note that way and to sample the
> amp at that point. But you have no control on how the amp responded to
> that note.
>
>
> I don't really know how to explain it clear but hopefully you get the
> idea. Since the input of a note is simply a superposition of fundamental
> waves and the amp has a "tone sample point" for that input and has an
> output for that input... each amp will have a different output for the
> same input.
>
> If you play an AH on different amps the exact same way they will all have
> different outputs... has nothing to do with your playing. Its the fact
> that the amp will modify(unless its perfect) the input signal.
>
> But ofcourse you will get a different sound than if you don't play an
> AH... just as you will get a different sound if you play an E note instead
> of an A note... this as nothing to do with the amp. The amp doesn't know
> what notes are or what picks are or how picks change the input signal,
> etc... An amp only knows how modify a signal... and if its perfect and
> linear then it will modify them without prejudice... i.e., you can get the
> total tonal chracteristics of the amp basic on how it reacts to a single
> pure sine wave. Since all input signals(no matter what you do to create
> them) are simply a combination of pure sine waves and if the amp is linear
> then the amps response to a "complex" input is simply the sum of its
> responses to the pure sine waves.
>
>
> I can't really it explain it well and I know I'm not doing that good a
> job, but hopeflly you have some idea. If you know anything about fourier
> analysis and electronics then you should have some idea what I'm talking
> about. I know the above is not really perfect or technical as it would
> take to much space to go into any real detail but it should get the point
> across.
>
> Note that I'm not saying a real amp doesn't respond differently to
> phrasing. It surely does, what I'm saying is that the output will be in
> its tonal space of all possible "tones" Its how it changes the output
> given the input(NO MATTER WHAT THE INPUT IS) that is important. If the
> input is someone strumming the chords to "Hey Joe" and the amp cuts
> everything below 400hz then thats part of the amps chracteristics. If
> they instead strum with a different pick and it makes it brigher then what
> they have done IS CHANGE THE INPUT SIGNAL... but the amp will respond the
> way it does no matter what.
>
> Basicaly it boils down to the fact that you can't change how the amp
> behaves(well, sure you can, you can replace tubes, etc... but really you
> ar echanging the amp then). If you do anything like you mentioned above
> you are changing the input to be difference AND HENCE THE AMP WILL RESPOND
> DIFFERENTLY. Surely the amp will not respond the exact same way for
> different inputs? (produce same output for different inputs)
>
> Anyways
> Jon
>
>
>
>> However I totally agree that what you choose to play on the guitar or
>> how you play it is not tone.
>>
>
> lol, this seems to contradict what you said above. I do know what you are
> saying though. Sure if I palm mute the strings when I strum it sounds
> different... You might say it changes the tone. But in my definition maybe
> one should say it samples the tone space at a different point. I suppose
> that it just all boils down to saying that an amp responds the exact same
> way(excluding real problems such as temperature and stuff) given the same
> input signals at different times. If this was not the case then amp tone
> wouldn't be predictable.. you would play a song and then repeat it and it
> would sound totally(maybe) different the next time you played it(even if
> you played it exactly the same).
>
>
> The easiest way I can concieve of sampling the tonal space(after all, you
> probably won't be able to understand all the amp's tonal possibilities) is
> by playing a phrase(how ever you want) and recording it then sending it to
> an amp. Do this for another amp and compare the signals. They will be
> different... how much depends on a lot of factors. If you have to
> perfectly identical amps and do the above they will sound very different
> depending on if you have the different settings. The idea is that we
> should be able to get two different tube amps and find the right settings
> as to get a similar sound. Then compare... are the outputs similar...
> surely not. Do they have the similar prominent tone characteristics that
> make them sound nice? Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Hence, but he above I just might not have found the proper settings for my
> amp to make it sound similar to some other amp that I like... or it could
> be that there is no settings that will make them close.(i.e., like trying
> to get a distortion sound out of a clean amp).
>
> Anyways, The put is all this has nothing to do with your hands ;)
>
>
>
>> Chris
>>
>
> Jon
>
Seems like you are really talking about the frequency response, dynamic
response, sensitivity, rise time, frequency emphasis (eq, maybe) types of
distortion, and so on, of an amplifier. Maybe you could call it "Amplifier
Characteristics"? This is a lot different from talking about a player's
tone. Back to my violin analogy in your other thread, what we are really
talking about is the innate tone of the instrument (maybe "Innate Amplifier
Characteristics"). Guitar amps, like it or not, function as a part of
the instrument when in use. I'm not sure this knowledge will automatically
lead to sounding like a certain player playing a certain piece, since you
still need to know how to "play" the amp. But your definition is clear.
Don
vice president of the I.A.C. organization
|
|
|
|
|
|
