Anders Buen

Members
  • Content Count

    4623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About Anders Buen

  • Rank
    Enthusiast
  • Birthday 06/03/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.linkedin.com/in/anders-buen-4867376?trk=hp-identity-name
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Oslo, Norway
  • Interests
    Violin-, Hardanger- fiddle-, room- and architectural acoustics.

Recent Profile Visitors

19367 profile views
  1. Have anyone seen and discussed this new JASA article? https://asa.scitation.org/doi/10.1121/10.0001159 Abstract: For centuries, wood, and more specifically spruce, has been the material of choice for violin top plates. Lately, carbon fiber instruments have entered the market. Some studies show that composite materials have potential advantages for making instruments [Damodaran, Lessard, and Babu, Acoust. Aust. 43, 117–122 (2015)]. However, no studies exist that evaluate violins made of different composite materials as judged by listeners. For this study, six prototype violins, differing only by the material of the top plate, were manufactured in a controlled laboratory setting. The six prototype violins were judged by experienced listeners in two double-blind experiments. In contrast to popular opinion that violins made from carbon have or lack a specific sound quality, the study provides insights in the diverse sounds and timbres violins from fiber-reinforced polymers can create. It allows an investigation of the links between the perception and the variations in material properties of the soundboards. Additionally, as neither players nor listeners are acquainted with these instruments, these results provide an interesting view on what type of qualities of violin-like sounds are preferred by listeners.
  2. It is more important what reproduction system you have. With sufficiently wideband mics, anything audible from the cello and perfomer may enter the mics and recording. In omnidirectional mics the direcional information is lost. An impression of it is there in a stereo recording, from two or more mics. If a realistic impression is wanted, array mics can be used. But then a multichannel reproduction system is needed, and a proper controlled room to go with it. For cello, much of the information is bass, or low frequency, in addition to the mid and highs of course. Then a sub is probably the most important addition to have to a sound system. Part of a realistic reproduction is the natural noise, from the bow, breath, noises in the floor, or chair, other musicians etc. Maybe even a fan or ventilation. Removing this makes the recording less natural. I prefer the old noisy recordings from 78' records over filtered versions, probably because it sounds more natural with the noise there. If noise is removed from the music and performance, it would simply not sound like a natural performance on a cello.
  3. I think playing in an instrument is getting used to it, and basically nothing else happens. However, changes may happen to the instrument, like creep in aching, environmental changes, varnish hardening etc. But not from the playing or vibrations per se.
  4. That is probably a significant correlation. In Schelskes test the body was the same through the experiment, reducing the variation from varying arching, wood properties, setup etc to a minimum. In the presentation I refer to earlier in this thread I go through Schelskes experiment, copied his data and run the statistical analysis on all possible correlations in that set. There were plenty of correlations, more with the back plate, and this is opposite to his conclucion that there were no correlations. But he was mainly looking for correlations between M5 top plte data and the assembled insturment. Even plate masses does correlate, as well as any of the suggested "impedance parameters" including mass, mode frequencies or "stiffnesses" will do because they are statistically dependant. Stiff plates will in general give a stiff instrument.
  5. If the chart look like R^2 = 1 then there is something wrong. One parameter like the M2 or M5 frequencies can't explain everyting!
  6. The B1-modes and other wood based modes are also very dependant on the setup, type, position and weight of chinrests, possibly weight of pegs, etc. The climate also matters: That is humidity content in air and the wood.
  7. In a finished instrument it is quite seldom to see A1 interact with the B1- mode as it usually will lie lower than the A1 in frequency. The B1l will drop whan the neck is installed. The dip is more likely to be the A1 than the top there. It is weakly driven from the bridge. It is fun to see that George Stoppanis software is in use by makers utlizing the possibility to calculate the net volume change per N force input besides the a/F or v/F curves (admittance). A lot of work, but fun! :-)
  8. Have you tried to compare the mode 2 data against the B1 frequencies? In my former work on this mode 2 came out with significant correlations.
  9. Interesting experiment. Which of them was preferred? Or was there an audible or playability difference?
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336473862_Free_plates_and_signature_modes_of_violins_are_there_any_correlations
  11. In the HUNT studies from North Thrøndelag, n = 50000, they found that hunting and shooting is the highest risk factor for hearing loss after age and genetic factors I believe. I never tend to read books. But there is a graph in Moores book Fig. 4.9 showing that at high sound levels the difference between normal hearing and impaired hearing show a more similar response. This support my opinion on this.
  12. The most common hearing loss cause is age, not exposure to high sound levels. A good source is Brian C J Moore. "An introduction to Psycology of Hearing".
  13. Yes, but from the low end. The hearing threshold increases. The sensing at higher sound levels is not affected. Therefore many with severe hearing loss being yelled at are in pain just as any other normal hearing loss would be if someone yelled intyo our ears. The distance between hearing threshold to hearing levels is smaller. Signal to noise distance narrows in. Having said this a former collegue of mine is one of the leading experts on hearing loss. So if you think I need to check with him, I will.
  14. He apparently threw away the most important information: The overall loudness. All the curves are adjusted top down to the loudest peak at 25 dB. So a direct comparison on the levels cannot be done based on his curves. Only relative values between different part of the spectra can be done.
  15. The sound absorption in the high frequencies is rather large in the air and the revverb time drops in the highs in large reverberant spaces. High frequency sound is also very directive, more beam like. Long reverb blur up the fast content in speech and to a somewhat lesser degree music signals and song as the transients in music, ecept some percussion maybe, are a bit slower. I think the graph above of the hearing sensitivity is a bit oversimplified. There are several påeaks and notches up in higher frequencies due to details in the ear shape and maybe canal.