Meanings, Messages & Signals
Consumers have grown to expect and demand much, much more from Media Industries. It is wonderfully ironic to observe how western working class demands compel the industry to supply.
INERTIAL SOUND
Most consumers very obviously knew that “something was missing” from digital recordings. It was the very same “something” which analog apparently retained. But what is the analog “soft warmth”? What is the digital “hard cold”? How can sound, “mere pressure waves in air”, be distinguished in these terms?
When Helmholte studied the nature of sound, it was not from the stance of the “sensing percipient”. When Helmholtz studied sound, he did so from the poise of the quantitative observer. Separated from the feelings which sounds evoked in him, Helmholtz directed all of his attention on the inertial dynamics of sound. Along with those who endorsed the quantitative redefinition of natural study, Helmholtz ignored and eradicated his inner feelings from the scientific record. Helmholtz filtered and discarded those qualitative components which form the greater part of acoustic phenomena, pursuing the science of acoustics with his typical quantitative elegance.
He measured sound pressures, wavelengths, amplitudes, harmonics, and heat equivalences. He graphed sounds, comparing wave traces and overtones from diverse sound sources. With this data base, Helmholtz undertook the mathematical description of every acoustic phenomenon. This mathematical conversion proceeded without incident until the analysis of different instrument “voices” was attempted.
TIMBRE
Timbre. A difference in voice which cannot be explained by tone alone. Baffled at first, Helmholtz came to believe that different instrumental “voices” could adequately be explained in terms of overtones and harmonics alone. In his inertial model, orchestral instruments were each viewed as transducers of complex overtones. Instrumental voices, or “timbre”, supposedly differed only because they produced specific overtone clusters.
Helmholtz declared that the theoretical proof of his theory would be secured only when instrumental voicings could be “synthesized”. The synthesis of any instrumental timbre required the appropriate blending of fundamental overtones. An appropriate overtone blend could theoretically then “sound just like” a human voice, a trumpet, a violin, a piano—any instrument Elegant. Elegant and false.
SYNTHESIS
Pipe organs. The original synthesizers. Tool of the poor composer, the pipe organ was the means by which so many lost symphonies were arranged and finalized. Those who designed the great pipe organs of Europe knew that the Helmholtz theory of “timbre” was completely inadequate. The design of “organ stops”, different orchestral voicings, required far more than the mere blending of overtones produced by combined variations of pipe ranks. Woodwinds and brass voicings, played through organ stops, still sounded like pipes. These designers could not “synthesize” other instruments at all. Pipe organ sounds persisted in a curious signature by which they were always recognized.
Laurens Hammond, inventor of the Hammond organ, produced his experimental “Novachord” in 1930. The Novachord was a keyboard capable of synthesizing and mixing complex waveforms. Attack, decay, tremolo, and echo were each carefully generated by vacuum circuits and carefully controlled through forward controls. The very first commercial synthesizer, the Novachord, produced unearthly electronic voicings. Musicians found greater satisfaction playing these new timbre combinations than arranging the synthesis of traditional orchestra instruments. In point of fact, the Novachord could NOT adequately synthesize orchestral instruments. As with the pipe organ, the sound of the Novachord was always recognized.
During the early 1970’s, solid-state electronic synthesizers were produced to revitalize the guitar-worn music population. Equipped with a great variety of complex waveform generators, designers claimed that their instruments could accurately synthesize every orchestral voice. Despite new attack and decay controls, all of these synthesizers produced sounds common to the old pipe organs.
Claiming that their failure was the result of inaccurate harmonic synthesis, manufacturers now theorized that a “more graphically detailed blend” of overtones could “replace an orchestra”. Hoping to quickly achieve this theoretical goal to meet the rising expectations, engineers produced new kinds of waveform generator. The resultant tide of FM stereo synthesizers produced impressive sounds, but could never reproduce true orchestral voices. As with pipe organs, so with synthesizers. In fact, each keyboard could be named on hearing. Each synthesizer retains its peculiar signature.
SAMPLERS
Utterly frustrated with the consumer critique which followed FM stereo synthesizers, designers began work on “sampling” keyboards. In this method, pre-recorded orchestra instruments are reproduced on command. “Samplers” used pre-recorded voicings to produce note-by-note instrument reproductions. The early Sampling systems employed tape (Mellotron, 1966) and optical soundtracks (Orchestron, 1972) to achieve this feat.
While providing a wondrous orchestral filling of ordinary guitar songs, the eerie and disembodied sounds of the Mellotron were easily recognized. These tape-replay keyboards could not provide more than a background “wash” of symphonic sounds. In several instances, the sounds of Mellotrons were compounded with a chamber ensemble to produce magnificent rock studio recordings. But neither synthesizer nor sampler can “fool the ear”.
Pipe organs, synthesizers, and samplers. The Helmholtz concept of overtone synthesis had again failed. How thoroughly intriguing that we are consistently brought back to the very instruments which we seek to synthesize! The strange tautology is telling us something about quantitative analysis and its fundamental error. In fact, the Helmholtz overtone synthesis theory is wrong. We cannot synthesize timbres at all. There clearly is more to sound than the acoustic waveforms, a difference which quantitative analysis can neither measure or explain.
ANALOG
Tinfoil, wax, bakelite, metal, film, vinyl. Sound vibrations were directly applied to storage media with needles and light beams from 1877 until 1985. The applications were changed from longitudinal (vibrations into media) to transverse (vibrations across media) in attempts to improve overall sound qualities. No recording reproduced the original sources with “live performance” impact. Recordings, whether cylinders or discs, always maintained their “music box” sound.
Technicians sought the improvement of recording techniques in hopes of modifying that “music box” sound. Reproducing the “live feel” was their goal. Being direct copies of source sounds, reproductions were seen as real sound ANALOGUES, the method known as ANALOG. Analog recording employed the continuous path storage of vibrations actually produced by sound sources.