Sign in to follow this  
loljoe

That 'ringing' quality in some belts.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

There are certain ways to enforce what you guys are describing in more practical scenario:

 

Ive attached a spectrograph of the ending higher section. there are four sentences, "Im the one", Feel it too", "Waited on the line", and "to be with you". Notice that the second one with the EE on "feel", has a lot of energy and is more spread. The circled area is centered around 4.5 Khz more or less, green<yellow<orange is low, red>magenta>white is high.

Its kept through the whole song, its a useful positioning in order to achieve a lighter quality and learn how to handle higher pitch more easily. I don´t know what causes the shift on the formants, but I am quite sure of how to train that. You can train this control simply whistling. And, you still need AP narrowing all the same.

to be with you.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kickingtone said:

1:15 was that a ring finger?

At 1:20 someone ran by... do you have ghosts in your house Felipe? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spectrograms are cool!

Now I can understand what they do. They use colour as an extra dimension to summarize a continuum of spectra! (I know that you can tune them to do more, and to pick out different instruments, if there are any.)

Here's one of mine from Audacity. Vocals only. (White > Red > Magenta > Blue > Light Blue > Grey [there is no grey in this one])

specgram2.png

And here is a held note for comparison

specgram1.png

I believe that ring goes on at the 4 - 5kHz range.

Maybe some sort of gap between that and the formant/s at 2 - 3 kHz help the ringing to appear as another layer of sound.

I think that I hear 2 - 3 kHz more as a buzz than a ring. (And given the connotations of the words, I am not prepared to simply accept "standardized definition" in this case).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2016 at 7:02 PM, VideoHere said:

Yup, my opinion. I use twang and it's great to use. :beerbang:

Kick, Here's how I feel in a nutshell.  

Until someone actually sings and practises a lot, they won't really know a focused tone and vocal accuracy versus just singing. Yes, it's a great tone but you can sense it and feel when it's right on the money vs. near the money.

When a singer sings with a focus and accuracy it's the hallmark of a great singer.  You say relative to what?..to an unfocused, tension filled, obstructed airway tone.

Am I making my point? That's the crazy thing about singing...You can do it half good and still sing a band, perform, and everything.  All of it , the ring, ping, tonal accuacy, whatever is the result of a balanced voice.

Don't you agree?

 

 

is this why without twang it's so hard to find the right balance of nasality?  Great conversation guys very intriguing to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a spectrogram of the Indian singer in the "Light yet full and beautiful" thread, 

 

specgram3.png

 

For me, it is a really nice tone, with vocal accuracy.

But there is no "distinct twang", and, looking at the spectrogram, "focus" doesn't really come into it. I'd go further and say that the shifting and drifting of the centre of his vocals is part of the beauty of the singing, in this case. That would not happen had there been distinct twang, because distinct twang creates a centre.

So, once again, I argue that distinct twang is not an essential part of balance, beauty, focus, vocal accuracy, etc. It is just another style, popular in Western music.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Well looking at this particular plotting, the 3Khz band has more energy than the higher ones, which does indicate AP narrowing. At times, quite a lot.

AP narrowing may cause energy in the 3kHz region, but that does not mean that energy in the 3kHz region must come from AP narrowing.

He sounds different from a singer using quack (distinct twang), who sounds different from a classical singer using squillo, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

It's when the area right above the larynx is constricted, its the articulation that causes what we perceive as twang, ring, focus, squillo, bright, etc. 

Unfortunately, there is no "we", in this case.

People's perceptions vary. It is called subjectivity.

What "rings", "stands out", "focuses", "is bright", "is airy,sounding", etc. etc. varies from person to person, much as people may like to think of themselves as the standard.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there is only one way to produce high overtones, or that the perceptions people have of those overtones can all be explained by frequency band alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kickingtone said:

Unfortunately, there is no "we", in this case.

People's perceptions vary. It is called subjectivity.

What "rings", "stands out", "focuses", "is bright", "is airy,sounding", etc. etc. varies from person to person, much as people may like to think of themselves as the standard.

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there is only one way to produce high overtones, or that the perceptions people have of those overtones can all be explained by frequency band alone.

I agree that a spectrograph or any other way of detecting frequency only shows the end result not the configuration. But judging by your statement there is no point in even trying to find out what configuration works to produce such effect because we are all different and one configuration that works for one person may not work for another. Even if someone does discover that the RING,PING or any other aspect is caused by a certain configuration it would not be believed anyway..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MDEW said:

I agree that a spectrograph or any other way of detecting frequency only shows the end result not the configuration. But judging by your statement there is no point in even trying to find out what configuration works to produce such effect because we are all different and one configuration that works for one person may not work for another. Even if someone does discover that the RING,PING or any other aspect is caused by a certain configuration it would not be believed anyway..

That is not what I have said. I have said:

1. If AP narrowing produces partials in a particular frequency band (and it has been demonstrated that it does), that does not mean that it is the ONLY thing that does.

2. Which frequency band it produces the strong partials in, and the pattern of partials, is not heard the same by everybody. I hear a buzz, you hear a ring. For you, the buzz frequency is lower, for me the ring frequency is higher and must NOT sound like "edge".

You talk of "the" configuration, (singular), what configuration (singular) and such effect (singular). And Felipe talks of "we" as one.

It would be absolutely remarkable if we all heard the same thing. It would be like everyone agreeing on visual colour. It is so improbable as to be virtually impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word sallad is irrelevant. As long as you are human, what I said applies :).

There is research for example that relates the 4-5khz energy to the shape of the pyriform sinus, but it still needs ap narrowing to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of what frequencies are being produced or amplified the proper shape and volume needs to be matched for the resonance to take place.  Any configuration is just a starting point. Dialing it in is up to the individual. No need for exact science a guide is all that is needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Felipe Carvalho said:

Word sallad is irrelevant. As long as you are human, what I said applies :).

There is research for example that relates the 4-5khz energy to the shape of the pyriform sinus, but it still needs ap narrowing to happen.

No respectable research would possibly make that claim. Not only have you reversed the implication of any evidence, you have extended it to way beyond its sample size. Do you really think that the sample sizes used are representative of the whole of the human race?

When a research  paper says that we have found A causes B, it does not mean that B must have been caused by A.

18 minutes ago, MDEW said:

Regardless of what frequencies are being produced or amplified the proper shape and volume needs to be matched for the resonance to take place.  Any configuration is just a starting point. Dialing it in is up to the individual. No need for exact science a guide is all that is needed.

It is the folk who are pretending that there is one standard who are trying to make it an exact science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JonJon said:

yaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy.......more semantics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A coach did a group session for some students who wanted to learn falsetto. Every single one of them came out disappointed because what the coach called falsetto was not what they had in mind.

In a separate case, a girl actually gave her trainer a clip of a singer who inspired her, so that she could build certain elements into her voice. She and her coach both heard completely different things in the voice, but because they were not careful with semantics, they didn't notice during discussions. They just assumed they were talking about the same things. She ended up wanting her "old voice back", and you know what, she was asking the same coach! :24:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

A coach did a group session for some students who wanted to learn falsetto. Every single one of them came out disappointed because what the coach called falsetto was not what they had in mind.

In a separate case, a girl actually gave her trainer a clip of a singer who inspired her, so that she could build certain elements into her voice. She and her coach both heard completely different things in the voice, but because they were not careful with semantics, they didn't notice during discussions. They just assumed they were talking about the same things. She ended up wanting her "old voice back", and you know what, she was asking the same coach! :24:

right, and for every horror story like that, you have a million stories where people just want to use "correctness" as an excuse to try to always be right and get the last word

 

I guess a good guide would be " let your singing ability and your vocabulary ability more or less match up"....that would probably end 99% of the back and forth word jousting

 

BTW thats not any kind of oblique reference to your singing....because I dont think ive ever heard you sing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, JonJon said:

right, and for every horror story like that, you have a million stories where people just want to use "correctness" as an excuse to try to always be right and get the last word

There is no right. As long as you think there is only one way, you will end up "word jousting".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kickingtone said:

There is no right. As long as you think there is only one way, you will end up "word jousting".

But I dont...you do lol

 

Its like if there was a guy on the corner all day long screaming out loud that the moon was made of cheese. Is he wrong? of course he is.

But would you feel the need to stand there all day and argue with him? That would only DOUBLE the annoyance level

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JonJon said:

But I dont...you do lol

Its like if there was a guy on the corner all day long screaming out loud that the moon was made of cheese. Is he wrong? of course he is.

But would you feel the need to stand there all day and argue with him? That would only DOUBLE the annoyance level

I don't get annoyed by such stuff.

And If you go back and read, you will find that I am not the one saying there is one way. Quite the opposite.

Now, are you going to stand on the corner screaming that I have said there is only one way? ;)

(And rock? cheese? It's all semantics anyway. :24:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kickingtone said:

Now, are you going to stand on the corner screaming that I have said there is only one way? ;)

 

yeah, its like a vicious cycle.

My mother says "dont get online and argue with those idiots who are arguing with other idiots".....then I hear my sister in the background saying "mom, dont talk to that idiot"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this