|
|
Post by comet on Sept 24, 2008 9:34:27 GMT
This thread was started following Stuartj's post in the St. James's Church concert thread HERE.
RichardI Had written in : Re: St. James's Church, Piccadilly, 7 August 2008 « Result #32 Yesterday at 9:01pm » I might be wrong here but I worked with sound equipment for years. The range of a voice in notes from bottom to top would be measured in Hz or the old cycles per second lets just say 800 hertz to 20,000 hertz. They are the notes that can be produced. Loud or quiet is irrelevant. It does not change the frequency. The amount of sound or amplitude is measured in decibels db this is not relevant to the frequency. so you may produce 800Hz very quietly let's say 55db , a little louder than whispering. or you may produce the same frequency 800Hz very loud say 120 db, the threshold of pain for most people or loud as a plane at take off at close range. I'm fairly sure a full orchestra can produce frequencies from around 100 Hz up as far as maybe 22,000 Hz with a loudness from maybe 40 db up to 118 db or more , depending where you are standing, near the brass section may be even louder. and to keep it on topic I listened to the recorded performance and loved it. But it was also picked up by imperfect microphones and then played back through an imperfect amplifier and through imperfect speakers. Hayley produces an amazing sound , she slides easily from note to note. To hear Hayley's voice directly from her mouth to your ear especially if you are only a few feet away is PERFECT AUDIO. nothing added and nothing taken away. That is the definition of Hi - Fi. or high fidelity. makes you realise amplification systems although they have come a long way in the last few years still add or take away from the sound put through them. « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:01pm by comet » ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mile walker Wrote I would question the values of the frequencies you provided, but in general this is how I understand the physics of sound. An A sung by a singer is the same note whether I am 20 feet away or 200 - but the decibel level of the sound will decline dramatically as the distance increases. If loudness is a function of frequency and not of the amount of decibels produced shouldn't I perceive the loudness of the sound to be the same regardless of how far away I am? ............................................................................................................. The values I picked were off the top of my head. Yes the sound level in decibels will decrease the further you are from the source ! unless you are in a valley or near a cliff face or a curved wall which may be gathering sound and reflecting it back at you. Items like an umbrella or a satellite dish are used to gather MORE of the waves coming toward them and to concentrate them on the pickup. But that is the discussion of acoustics.
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 24, 2008 9:52:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 24, 2008 15:25:36 GMT
Thanks Richard for making the new links and things ! and for being there everyday, you must have the patience of a saint to put up with us lot  |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 24, 2008 21:43:53 GMT
Thanks Richard for making the new links and things ! and for being there everyday, you must have the patience of a saint to put up with us lot Boy do I second that !!! It may not have been clear Comet, but I was using the thrust of your post to question Stuart's theory. I need to make it clear here that I am not exactly disagreeing with Stuart - it is simply a very different approach to the issue than I have ever heard before, and also not exactly intuitively true. Hence my skepticism. Using Stuart's typing example, it is true that most everyone can learn to type - but there are still professional standards in place if one is going to be a typist by trade that some people will be able to achieve and others will not. I happened to be one who would not have made it  When I am not using a word processor, my fungers fimble. I would argue that the invention of the word processor is analogous in this case to that of the microphone. Because of the word processor, even people like me can "type" at a professional level. That doesnt mean I cant type at all Lets postulate two singers, both of whom are using Stuart's technique. One of them can produce 75 decibels, and the orther 80. Even if I grant the premise that they can both be heard over the orchestra because of the frequency they are using, all other things being equal wouldnt the louder sound still be louder? Jon |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 25, 2008 3:25:23 GMT
Thanks Richard for making the new links and things ! and for being there everyday, you must have the patience of a saint to put up with us lot Boy do I second that !!! It may not have been clear Comet, but I was using the thrust of your post to question Stuart's theory. I need to make it clear here that I am not exactly disagreeing with Stuart - it is simply a very different approach to the issue than I have ever heard before, and also not exactly intuitively true. Hence my skepticism. Using Stuart's typing example, it is true that most everyone can learn to type - but there are still professional standards in place if one is going to be a typist by trade that some people will be able to achieve and others will not. I happened to be one who would not have made it When I am not using a word processor, my fungers fimble. I would argue that the invention of the word processor is analogous in this case to that of the microphone. Because of the word processor, even people like me can "type" at a professional level. That doesnt mean I cant type at all Lets postulate two singers, both of whom are using Stuart's technique. One of them can produce 75 decibels, and the orther 80. Even if I grant the premise that they can both be heard over the orchestra because of the frequency they are using, all other things being equal wouldnt the louder sound still be louder? Jon Jon, I wouldn't say it was my theory. Of course what you have said is a truism, in fact it's worse than a truism, it's simply tautologous. In as much as the singer hitting 80 decibels is hitting a higher number of decibels than the one hitting 75 decibels, sure. But I don't accept "loudness" as a function of decibels. But leaving that for now, what I almost did earlier is to point out that a certain minimum power is needed sure, but I thought this would have gone without saying. But I don't accept your analogy that there are degrees of this technique as there are degrees of typing speeds. You either hit the right frequencies or you don't, it's all or nothing. The decibel is an objective measure of sound pressure, whereas loudness is pretty meaningless. Here's what Wiki says about "loudness": Loudness, a subjective measure, is often confused with objective measures of sound pressure such as decibels or sound intensity. Filters such as A-weighting attempt to adjust sound measurements to correspond to loudness as perceived by the average human. However, true perceived loudness varies from person to person and cannot be measured this way.
Loudness is also affected by parameters other than sound pressure, including: frequency (see bandwidth), and duration (see temporal integration).I have already mentioned that the human ear is particularly sensitive to certain frequencies. "Loudness", if not decibels, can -- even if I have confused the terms myself in previous posts -- be affected by freqencies. Taking the thing to extremes, my neighbours dog can hear sounds we can't. Jon, your argument that given two singers both achieve the technique that the louder of the two will be the louder hardly refutes my argument. If two drivers are going faster than the speed limit the fact that the one who is going the fastest is going the fastest doesn't mean the slower one is not breaking the speed limit. And if Jose Careeras produces 70 decibels, and Bryn Terfel (all out) 110 decibels, it doesn't make Terfel the better singer of the two. (Apart from that, In my opinion the whole business of projecting over an orchestra is grossly overrated, and a growing number of people within opera are beginning to think the same way.) If you are trying to suggest that Hayley hasn't the minimum power needed to be heard in a large hall if she achieved the technique (not that she'd want to achieve it) is a monstrous insult to her. Non-purist critics have repeatedly said recently how powerful her voice is and someone in Japan described her as "immensly powerful". The Japanese comment is slightly amusing because she is being compared with the tiny little Japanese singers who Hayley (at 5' 6" odd) dwarfs. An American critic described her as "clarion voiced" and he didn't mean it insultingly (this was plain from the context). But I don't think you need much power. I am not sure, but I suspect that a ten-year-old girl screaming in mortal terror would be heard above and beyond a 6' 5" man shouting as loud as he could. The article about the sound energy of the operatic voice being concentrated in the same pitch range as the human scream is no longer on the Net, but I think I may have a copy of it. It's not "vocal deterioration" when this happens, it's deliberate and it is what makes them seem so impressive. Listen carefully to Dame Malvina on the videos associated with this thread. I think that she is doing it. Hayley wasn't doing it, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions about who could produce the most decibels. Actually, I think Will Martin could probably produce more decibels than Hayley or Dame Malvina, with Hayley second. Still, you may hear Dame Malvina from further away than you'd hear Hayley and Will, and Hayley from further away than you'd hear Will. So much for decibels  And what is the big deal about what Hayley did? Nothing. They aren't projecting over an orchestra. Unless I am completely mistaken, they were simply singing along to a piano. |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 25, 2008 3:36:28 GMT
This thread was started following Stuartj's post in the St. James's Church concert thread HERE.
RichardHayley produces an amazing sound , she slides easily from note to note. To hear Hayley's voice directly from her mouth to your ear especially if you are only a few feet away is PERFECT AUDIO. nothing added and nothing taken away. That is the definition of Hi - Fi. or high fidelity. makes you realise amplification systems although they have come a long way in the last few years still add or take away from the sound put through them. « Last Edit: Yesterday at 10:01pm by comet » ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comet, That is an interesting point, because it occurred to me earlier that even without a mike you'd have to be close enough to Hayley (or another singer) to get the voice straight into your ear before you could say it was unadulterated. I'm not sure, but if you are in the back of a hall and even if she is singing without a mic, aren't the acoustics of the building going to affect the sound? A wooden building give a different result from a stone one say? I pose this more as a question than anything I am definite about. |
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 25, 2008 5:37:37 GMT
Heh Well Stuart, I already knew that "loudness" was subjective. However, in the case I offered, I also said "all other things being equal". This would assume that the hearing and perception of any listeners was equal as well. This is important because while you are technically correct that loudness is not identical to objective decibel level, there is nonetheless a very high correlation between the two. Most people would perceive the sound which had the higher decibel level to also be louder. For the record, I dont doubt that a childs scream could be heard above an orchestra - nor for that matter that most people (Hayley included) could project their voice in that fashion under the right circumstances regardless of the technique involved. What makes a traditional opera singer different - note I did not say "better" - is that the childs scream is uncontrolled. In other words, it is not my contention that Hayley could not do this or whatever other technique is involved. It is my contention that she could not do this and maintain the beloved vocal qualities which make her Hayley. This issue aside, there are a number of sub points you made that I actually do agree with. As far as your question is concerned, there is no such thing as an unadultered sound, if for no other reason than the fact that the floor is obviously closer to the singer than any place you can be sitting, unless she is in your lap There is also the distance between you and the singer, the floor, the ceiling, the nearest wall, the number of people, and how much ambient noise they are making along with many other things. I would therefore suggest that you substitute "less adulterated" for "unadulterated"...... Jon |
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 25, 2008 7:51:33 GMT
Heh Well Stuart, I already knew that "loudness" was subjective. However, in the case I offered, I also said "all other things being equal". This would assume that the hearing and perception of any listeners was equal as well. This is important because while you are technically correct that loudness is not identical to objective decibel level, there is nonetheless a very high correlation between the two. Most people would perceive the sound which had the higher decibel level to also be louder. For the record, I dont doubt that a childs scream could be heard above an orchestra - nor for that matter that most people (Hayley included) could project their voice in that fashion under the right circumstances regardless of the technique involved. What makes a traditional opera singer different - note I did not say "better" - is that the childs scream is uncontrolled. In other words, it is not my contention that Hayley could not do this or whatever other technique is involved. It is my contention that she could not do this and maintain the beloved vocal qualities which make her Hayley. This issue aside, there are a number of sub points you made that I actually do agree with. As far as your question is concerned, there is no such thing as an unadultered sound, if for no other reason than the fact that the floor is obviously closer to the singer than any place you can be sitting, unless she is in your lap There is also the distance between you and the singer, the floor, the ceiling, the nearest wall, the number of people, and how much ambient noise they are making along with many other things. I would therefore suggest that you substitute "less adulterated" for "unadulterated"...... Jon Jon, yes, most people -- other things being equal -- would perceive the higher decibel sound to be louder. So? This is simply stating the obvious. When the Mythbusters went about looking for the "loudest", in terms of decibels singers, they could find, the opera singers were no louder than the pop singers. Rock singers (surprise, surprise) were the loudest. The orchestras are not usually playing very loudly when the opera singers sing. Check it on YouTube. Ask an instrumentalist with experience accompanying opera singers. Perhaps I misunderstood you, or you are shifting your ground. You said that Fleming could do it with less effort than Hayley. I can't say which would master the technique most quickly, but it has nothing to do with voice power. The most powerful female voices are altos but they have the most difficulty mastering this technique. Pehaps it is because their vocal cords are bigger and thicker than a light lyrical soprano. (Mens's are too, but perhaps they have stronger muscles that make it easier.) The assumption that Hayley's pure, linear tone would alter if she used this technique has no evidence to support it. The likes of Natasha Marsh who has sung both opera fashion and pop have not shown much noticable change in their voices when doing so. Marsh is one of the more pure, linear, of opera singers. Purists have said that Hayley's pure linear tone makes her voice unfit for opera, and I've never heard anyone suggest before that her singing opera fashion would change it that much. I don't see why it should. Since the turn of the 20 Century the type of opera vocalism in fashion has emphasised singing high notes from the chest and resonating the sound about the cavities. This makes for the fruity blasting type of singing that some like and some don't. I don't advocate Hayley do this, but it wouldn't alter her voice significantly. One of the common purist's gibes about Hayley is that she sings through the nose. She can use her chest and diaphram well, but maybe uses more upper-cavity than opera singers. Mind, much of what the purists say about her is outright rubbish. Remember that this type of opera vocalism that so many seem to rate so highly, was rubbished when it became popular as vulgar bougeois singing overwhelming a more refined aristocratic style. The way Hayley and other crossover singers sing is more in the "refined aristocratic" fashion -- more delicate, muted and less blasting. This doesn't mean that their vocal qualities would change at all for the different style. But no, I don't accept your idea that Hayley adopting that technique would alter her vocal qualities noticably. Why should it? What evidence have you for it? The evidence of opera singers who change their style doesn't support your idea and, I'd say it fails outright because year after year singers training to be opera singers learn the technique and they don't sound noticibly different for doing it. And remember that for every Fleming (or Hayley) there are hundreds of chorus girls with voices more like Hayley's than Fleming's who graduate to leading ladies and go on to learn and master the technique. You never see or hear them because they never get beyond the provincial or amateur companies, but they can project over an orchestra. Hayley, incidentally, was a chorister, I believe, with the Canterbury opera company (provincial professional, one of the biggest in New Zealand), when she was quite young. Maybe only 14 or 15. Whether she could have become a very good opera singer, we'll never know, and I see little reason why we should care. She decided against opera training -- although it was suggested, and that is that. I think she did the right thing. Sophie Westenra is going through the Music degree course at Canterbury University. If she learns this technique, will her vocal qualities change markedly? Will she become an astronomically better singer than Hayley for the training? The idea that Hayley is somehow different from everyone else and her vocal qualities would change because of the technique whereas other people's don't, doesn't wash. The technique doesn't change the essential nature of a person's vocal chords or vocal structures, just adds some formant frequencies to the fundamental freqencies. The addition of the extra frequencies to Hayley's vocal spectrum is not going to alter those aspects of her voice that make it unusual. The only difference is that it will seem much louder. And I don't think that we have ever heard Hayley unmiked with an orchestra. It is not impossible for someone to hit those frequencies without trying, as it were, and I have reason to believe that Hayley does hit some unusual frequencies. The "Amigos" duet with Jonathan Ansell is a case in point (the audience said that their voices "filled the hall" -- but what happens if you hit those frequencies miked...). The other reason I have for saying this is the strange things that have happened to cheap speakers when Hayley sings through them. A spectral anaylisis of her singing from the time of Pure through to now would be interesting. BTW I was not thinking of Hayley sitting on my lap! (How could such a thing cross your mind! ) I was thinking of a duet partner standing beside her, so the floor would be further away!  Still, we are agreed on this point.  Stuart |
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 25, 2008 9:24:58 GMT
The work I did was with nightclubs and disco equipment.
We would use a frequency generator to produce the sound and run through from a couple of Hz which is just a dull thumping sound
right through to about 30, 000 Hz which most people cannot hear.
we would place a decibel meter in front of the loudspeakers normally at 39 inches (1 metre) and hope the sound level in decibels would not fluctuate to much plus or minus 5 db over the whole range of frequencies.
We were also checking for resonances either in the speaker cabinets or in nearby fittings , furniture , windows etc,
There was no point in fitting in a system only to find that some nearby ceiling tile or panel was rattling in sympathy and making more sound than the speakers themselves.
Most of these systems were driven with turntables as the source of sound which was another nightmare with feedback and other problems. Which is why I delight in the Compact Disc and its capabilities. We would also monitor the voltage and current at the power supply of the amplifiers and at the output terminals to the speakers.
Massive amounts of power are required to produce low frequencies at a reasonable sound level whereas the mid and high frequencies need far less power to produce the same sound level. This is in purely electrical terms.
Our concern was not with musical instruments or voices, so I can not discuss with any real knowledge what a human voice can or cannot do in technical terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 25, 2008 18:20:07 GMT
Jon, yes, most people -- other things being equal -- would perceive the higher decibel sound to be louder. So? This is simply stating the obvious. When the Mythbusters went about looking for the "loudest", in terms of decibels singers, they could find, the opera singers were no louder than the pop singers. . But doesnt that also mean that size in the voice does matter - all other things being equal? Extra volume is a mixed bag to be sure - but I think it is clear that most of us associate a raised voice with passion - which means that in at least some cases, the louder voice will produce a bigger emotional response in some listeners. This is no small thing. See below for the other side of this however. Singers like Hayley are often cited for the clartiy and purity of their voice I dont know if I have ever seen that written about a rock star - and opera singers seem to be somewhat in the middle. I think it wouldnt be hard to find an inverse correlation between the perception of the purity of voice and the volume generally produced. It wouldnt be true of all singers in all times of course - but I am not dealing with individual cases like Natasha (or a young Natalie Dessay for that matter). However, I suspect if you took 100 singers from each category and took a poll that a trend would show itself pretty quickly. Volume generally comes at the expense of other perceived vocal attributes. No one really cases if Steven Tyler is in tune and carefully nuancing his phrases. Perhaps I misunderstood, but earlier you suggested that certain songs could be done in this fashion, while other songs like "Sonny" could not be. If singing this way would necessitate a change in her repertiore, doesnt this also suggest a change in her voice (or at least the way that voice would be perceived?) Now you seem to be suggesting that other aspects of vocal training are responsible for operatic singing as well as the use of frequency - which is pretty much what I have been suggesting all along. Even if I granted the point that this vocal technique allows one to sing over an orchestra it seems pretty obvious that a singer employing both techniques would have a tremendous advantage over one only using frequency - assuming a type of music where simply being loud is viewed as a desirable end in and of itself. Which gets us back to the typing analogy (which was your illustration originally, not mine ) Given that the frequency technique allows any singer to be able to sing above an orchestra (much like most typing students can type 25 words a minute) - the actually professional demand is much higher than this, because opera (and rock of course) view loudness as possibly the single most critical vocal attribute. Except for the obvious fact that they would no longer be delicate, muted, and less blasting. If these are the specific reasons I like a singers voice, then it logically follows that I might dislike her voice (or certainly like it less) were she to lose those qualities. How can I like the same voice I dislike? People often say Hayley and other singers of the ilk sound like boy sopranos - I never really understood this personally - but people do say it. Have you ever heard of an operatic soprano (or Joan Jett) for that matter ever described in this way? Which in my case might be a pretty compelling difference in and of itself. There are two competing dynamics here to be sure. First, we do associate a raised voice with passion - which means that some of us do respond to powerfully sung matieral more viscerally. On the other hand some people (myself included) simply dont like loud noises in general. I accept the use of power only as a part of a larger vocal dynamic in a singer - power for power sake gets very old very quickly. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Sept 25, 2008 19:02:15 GMT
Hi Guys,
I think that you actually would hear Hayley's unmiked voice over an orchestra. Do you remember Jekyll? At times, Hayley's voice was used at very low levels with a much louder often orchestral backing. I was surprised at the time to find that I could hear Hayley's unmistakable voice quite clearly despite that.
So I suspect that even if Hayley did not user the operatic projection technique, she would still be heard.
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by milewalker on Sept 25, 2008 19:05:56 GMT
Hi Guys, I think that you actually would hear Hayley's unmiked voice over an orchestra. Do you remember Jekyll? At times, Hayley's voice was used at very low levels with a much louder often orchestral backing. I was surprised at the time to find that I could hear Hayley's unmistakable voice quite clearly despite that. So I suspect that even if Hayley did not user the operatic projection technique, she would still be heard. Martin Hi Martin, Two quibbles. Fist, this was a recording, and there are a number of things which can be done in the recording studio to produce different effects. Assuming the theory to have merit, I would go on from there to say that a mixture of studio technology and Hayley's application of the theory might actually be capable of producing exactly the effect you suggested. Jon |
|
|
|
Post by martindn on Sept 25, 2008 20:47:33 GMT
Hi Jon,
Thanks for that! I bow to your superior knowledge of such things. It is all the more amazing since I know I have very sensitive hearing. I can hear sounds at very low levels, like the traffic on a motorway two miles away from within the house, when my wife cannot. But this has its downside too, since a loud nearby sound drowns out everything else. So if listening to the TV and someone rustles a newspaper, I find it hard to hear the TV hand have to turn the volume up, which annoys my wife no end.
So hearing a low volume voice above a loud orchestra is something I would expect to find more difficult than most. Yet Jekyll managed it. If that is modern recording technology it is brilliant!
Martin
|
|
|
|
Post by stuartj on Sept 26, 2008 7:57:48 GMT
But doesnt that also mean that size in the voice does matter - all other things being equal? Extra volume is a mixed bag to be sure - but I think it is clear that most of us associate a raised voice with passion - which means that in at least some cases, the louder voice will produce a bigger emotional response in some listeners. This is no small thing. See below for the other side of this however. Jon, I'm talking about the technique used to project over an orchestra. This can be done at different volumes and by people with louder and softer voices. What you say above is just a completely irrelevant truism. Pop or opera singers will raise and lower their volume to produce the effect they require. I have never said that extra volume is of no significance in a wider context, just that power -- extra volume -- is not relevant to projecting over an orchestra. I have cited authorities for this and heard people like Gray Bartlett say the same thing, I have heard opera singers confirm this is what they were told in their classes, and I could go on and on. I don't believe there is any argument about it. Yes Hayley has a very pure voice. More than most. That is the way she is. Are you seriously saying that her voice sounds pure because she lacks volume and not because of her innate vocal make-up? Rock singers often deliberately try to sound rougher, and often shout rather than sing. Most opera singers aren't as pure sounding as Hayley. Nor are most other singers. All irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by comet on Sept 26, 2008 11:31:08 GMT
Hi Folks.
We have a lot to be grateful for since the invention of the microphone and the ability to record or amplify sounds.
here is a little piece prom Wiki / Crooners
Crooning is a style that has its roots in the Bel Canto of Italian opera, but with the emphasis on subtle vocal nuances and phrasing found in jazz as opposed to elaborate ornamentation or sheer acoustic volume found in opera houses. Before the advent of the microphone, popular singers, like Al Jolson, had to project to the rear seats of a theater, which made for a very loud vocal style. The microphone made possible the more personal style. Crooning is not so much a style of music as it is a technique in which to sing.
|
|
When I am not using a word processor, my fungers fimble. I would argue that the invention of the word processor is analogous in this case to that of the microphone. Because of the word processor, even people like me can "type" at a professional level. That doesnt mean I cant type at all
