Professional Documents
Culture Documents
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/convolution.htm
Home | Tablet Mag | Podcasts | WIN Prizes | Subscribe | Advertise | About SOS | Help
Search SOS
Have an account?
Log in
Search
News
Articles
Forum
SOS TV
Subscribe
Shop
Readers' Adverts
Information
Blog
WebExtras
In this article:
The Spirit(s) Of Reverberation Whats Possible With Convolution Reverberation Basics Discrete Or Diffuse? The Difference Between Reverberation And Filtering The Continuum Between Reverb And Filtering Other Ways To Modify IR Length IR Length: Altiverb Vs Peak Diffuse Field Authoring With Noise Percussive Samples As IRs Speakers & Headphones As IRs Space Designer Programs Conclusion Creative Impulse Response Recording
When is a reverb not a reverb? When its a filter, of course! Theres more to convolution than meets the ear, and creative processing of impulse responses can yield extraordinary results.
Emmanuel Deruty
he common perception of convolution reverb plug-ins, which are based on the use of impulse responses, is that they offer great realism, but limited potential for experimentation. In this article, however, well be exploring the creative side of convolution. Being audio files, impulse responses can be edited, modified and even created from scratch, and well see how this opens up new ways of processing sound. Ill be proposing several innovative methods for impulse response authoring and processing, and offering an original understanding of reverberation. This article is accompanied by a number of audio examples, which are available on-line at www.soundonsound.com/sos /sep10/articles/convolutionaudio.htm. The audio examples are all numbered, so Ill refer to them simply by their number in the text. Most reverberation examples are based on a single dry audio file that was recorded inside an anechoic chamber (see audio example 1). I have also provided a number of impulse response files corresponding to the relevant audio examples, as 24-bit, 44.1kHz WAV files.
Reverberation Basics
Before actually dealing with convolution reverbs, lets take a closer look at reverberation itself. Acoustic reverberation can be divided into two stages: first or early reflections, and the diffuse field that comes after these. Early reflections are easy to understand: imagine that youre at your desk, in front of your laptop. Reading this article, you may very well be in this precise situation. If you speak, the sound of your voice will strike your computer screen and keyboard, and bounce back to you directly. These reflections are discrete, as opposed to continuous: they can be identified individually. In an impulse response file, they appear as peaks, or clicks. The diffuse field is less easy to understand. Imagine youre shouting in a big factory. The sound of your voice will strike the surfaces around you, creating the first reflections. In turn, these reflections will be reflected and diffracted on other surfaces, creating other reflections, which will also be reflected and so on. Eventually there will be so many reflections that the resulting sound will become continuous. This continuous stream of reflections makes the diffuse field. In an impulse response file, the diffuse field appears as a continuous noise.
1 de 5
17/10/13 17:26
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/convolution.htm
In actual rooms, discrete early reflections gradually become too numerous to be discriminated individually, thus turning into a continuous diffuse field. There is no clear limit between one and the other. However, the distinction is useful to make, in order to understand how reverberation works. Also, some non-convolution-based digital reverb algorithms use separate processes to generate early reflections and the diffuse field, with no gradual transition from one to the other. If you take an impulse response from such an algorithmic reverb, the two are clearly distinct. For instance, the impulse response whose waveform is shown right was recorded from the TC Electronic M3000 using preset 354, Mine Corridor. There is no smooth transition between early reflections and diffuse field. Both can be clearly distinguished. The second impulse response was recorded from the same unit, this time using preset 305, Wide Garage . By contrast with the first example, early reflections are gradually turned into diffuse field, and its difficult to distinguish a clear point at which this happens. Intuitively, one would think that only large spaces, such as cathedrals, produce a diffuse field. Indeed, if you clap your hands in your bedroom, its unlikely that you will actually hear a clear diffuse field, such as the one you can hear in a warehouse. But in truth, in any acoustic space, there is always a diffuse field. Its just that in small spaces the reverberation is too short, everything happens too quickly, and its impossible for the ear and the brain to discriminate the early reflections from the diffuse field. For instance, consider the impulse response whose waveform is shown on the right , recorded from a bedroom closet. This is indeed diffuse field! No early reflections are apparent. Refer to audio example 2 to hear the result of such an IR, and to obtain the corresponding IR file.
Discrete Or Diffuse?
This preset from the TC Electronic M3000
To get a better understanding of the transition between discrete reflections and diffuse field, it can be useful to carry out a simple experiment. For this purpose, lets consider a derivative of whats called a Dirac Impulse: a short impulse, which can be digitally rendered as a single 1 in a series of 0s. The screen overleaf shows such a waveform in BIAS Peak. Considered as an impulse response, this Dirac Impulse corresponds to a single delay, which does not colour the sound at all. For those versed in mathematics, this Dirac Impulse is the identity element of convolution, and as a consequence, of impulse responses. Now, if we add four other Dirac Impulses to this first one, we will get an IR with five reflections, corresponding to five discrete echoes. The more Dirac Impulses we have in an impulse response, the more reflections we get. Lets continue adding Dirac Impulses to each other in a random way, until eventually we end up with an impulse response that contains 32,000 reflections. An interesting phenomenon will then happen: above a certain number of reflections, the ear will not be able to discriminate between the reflections, and will begin to hear a diffuse field. Refer to audio examples 3-15 to hear the transition from discrete reflections to diffuse field. Example 3 is based on five Dirac Impulses within a one-second timeframe, example 4 on 10 Dirac Impulses, and so on up to example 15, which is based on 32,000 Dirac Impulses. The corresponding IR files are also provided. If you listen to the IR files themselves, youll hear that discrete Dirac Impulses seem to completely disappear when there are more than 4000 of them. When listening to the audio examples, a diffuse field begins to be heard above 500 simultaneous Dirac Impulses.
A different preset from the same unit, by contrast, shows a gradual transition between early reflections and diffuse field.
Lets consider the perceptual disappearance of the discrete reflections and the advent of the diffuse field in the example above. This phenomenon happens at between 200 and 500 discrete Dirac Impulses in a one-second span. This would suggest that the human ear is able to discriminate phenomena that are separated by a period of 50ms, but not by a period of 20ms. Consequently, it means that there is a time constant above which the ear is capable of discriminating consecutive events, and below which it is not. This constant does indeed exist: its called the ears integration time. Its a very important notion as far as hearing is concerned. To make this notion perfectly clear, consider two extremely short audio samples, such as digital clicks. If those two clicks are played back with a one-second interval between them, they can easily be discriminated. Play those clicks with a 100ms interval between them and its still possible to hear two clicks, but its less easy. Play those two clicks a mere 10ms apart and its impossible to hear two clicks: they are perceptually merged with each other. In place of the two clicks, we hear one compound sound. The time interval over which those two clicks can be discriminated is called the ears integration time, and is described in the technical literature as around 40 to 50 milliseconds. This is a very important phenomenon. It is what makes us able to hear pitch instead of consecutive sound events: 50ms corresponds to a frequency of 20Hz, which is the lower range of human audition. In the context of reverberation, it is what turns discrete reflections into diffuse field. It also brings another interesting consequence. Consider an impulse response around 100ms long: perceptually, this impulse response corresponds to a reverb. Then, consider an impulse response that is only 10ms long. This impulse response is not perceived as a reverb as something that possesses an existence over time but as a filter, something that is perceived as being instantaneous. Quite importantly, this means that as far as impulse responses are concerned, reverbs and filters are the same thing, based on the same content. Only perception makes them different. In this article, it means that by dealing with convolutions in general, well deal with both reverberation and filtering.
2 de 5
17/10/13 17:26
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/convolution.htm
through them in sequence and youll hear how the room sound seems to shrink, eventually turning into a filter that keeps some characteristics of the initial room. This is an interesting experiment, but it also provides an interesting range of unusual impulse responses that can be of great use in production: a variety of small spaces, along with interesting filters that would be hard to get on an actual EQ. Lets try that again, this time starting with a completely synthetic IR, processed from a pseudo-periodic oscillator. This IR and others like it can be downloaded from http://1-1-1-1.net/pages/impulses/index.htm#lorenz195225. The same phenomenon happens: the reverb gradually turns into a filter, which retains some characteristics of the original IR. Refer to audio examples 28 to 39 to hear the result and get the corresponding IRs. Lets point out that this method is more empirical than scientific. If we had used another time-stretch algorithm, we would have obtained slightly different results. On a practical note, be warned that very short IRs cant be used with Audio Eases Altiverb 6. This is apparently a software limitation, because there are no problems with Space Designer in Logic, for example.
Equivalent controls can be found in other convolution plug-ins. In Waves IR1 plug-in, for instance, the Reverb Time control does the same as in Altiverb 6. In Logics Space Designer, the Length parameter at the left side of the IR waveform has the same purpose.
3 de 5
17/10/13 17:26
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/convolution.htm
creativity.
controls give surprisingly different results from time-stretching an impulse response in a third-party editor.
If we look at any given set of impulse responses, well find that a vast majority of them feature a decreasing dynamic profile. This seems to be natural enough: if you clap your hands in any given place, the resulting reverberation will not get louder over time. That would be quite absurd. In practice, if you use an impulse response with a dynamic profile that is increasing or even stable, you will find that the result quickly becomes incomprehensible. While reverse and gated reverbs do, respectively, feature increasing and stable dynamic profiles, their use remains quite specific. This raises a simple question: if I take any short sample with a decreasing dynamic profile, will that make a suitable impulse response? The answer is: that depends. Impulse responses with too much of harmonic content, such as a piano chord, often lead to cheesy results. Responses with too many low frequencies, such as a kick-drum sample, can lead to completely incomprehensible results. Remember that most reverbs exhibit spectra that are quite smooth, without strong formants, and with quite a lot of high frequencies (canonic models being white and pink noises). When experimenting with impulse responses, those are good models to keep in mind. Now, there is one kind of instrument that definitely meets these criteria, and thats the cymbal. Cymbal samples, especially short ones, can make interesting impulse responses, perfect for eerie vocals or metallic-sounding keyboards. They are also useful when youve got way too many tracks to fit into a mix, but for some reason you cant mute any of them (maybe because the other musicians or the producer dont want you to). In this situation, its necessary to decrease the timbral largeness of those tracks in one way or another. Lo-fi plug-ins and filters can help: so, too, can convolution with short cymbal samples, in combination with EQing. Audio examples 59 and 60 are two illustrations of cymbals used as impulse responses.
Conclusion
I hope this article has shown that close study of convolution brings a whole lot of interesting discoveries: reverbs are in fact filters, tiny spaces produce diffuse fields that can be used as an EQ, cymbals can be used as a reverb, and headphones can be used as a processing peripheral. To top it all, during IR recording in location, random mic placements can produce bettersounding results than academically correct ones (see Creative Impulse Response Recording box). Convolution reverbs are open systems, making impulse responses is easy, so dont hesitate: forget about realism and correctness, and be creative!
Creative Impulse Response Recording A well-known and efficient way to create impulse responses is to record them from acoustic spaces. Many articles exist that explain the process, including a couple in the SOS archives (April 2005, at www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr05/articles /impulse.htm, and February 2008, at www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/logictech_0208.htm). However, it is interesting to give some thought to the influence of speaker and microphone placement during IR recording sessions. In concert rooms, it is usual and logical to put the speakers on the stage, and the microphones in a symmetrical setup in front of the stage or in the audience. But when recording the impulse response from a living room, for instance, the issue is not so straightforward, and one can legitimately wonder where to put the speakers and the mics. The first issue is symmetry: in music production, most reverbs are symmetrical. On the other hand, a living room is seldom symmetrical. This means that when trying to use stereo IRs recorded from domestic spaces in music production, one is almost certain to encounter symmetry issues. This is a problem that can be partially solved during recording by using near-coincident microphone pairs, such as X/Y setups. This way, the IR will retain some sense of space while being reasonably symmetrical. Alternatively, its possible to agree with Eric Jamess opinion in SOS March 2003 (www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar03/articles/stereorecording.asp), and consider that symmetry in reverberation is but an aspect of correctness. This means that if it turns out that the IR is not symmetrical, so be it, and any potential problems that arise during production can be solved during production. This is only reasonable. After all, the main point of a reverb is not to comply with given standards, its to bring an interesting timbre. Plus, if we need standard reverbs, we dont need to make them ourselves: there are plenty of standard reverbs out there. Now that weve let aside the symmetry issue, we can get more creative. We can envisage an IR recording session in the following way: with one speaker and one mic, we can record lots of mono impulse responses, with the speaker and especially the microphone being constantly moved around the space. This is not a time-consuming process: when recording the IR of an acoustic space, what takes time is to bring the gear to the location, and to set it up. Using this method, symmetry issues can be solved afterwards, when recombining those mono-to-mono IRs into mono-to-stereo or stereo-to-stereo ones in post-production. Lets illustrate these issues by detailing the recording of the small indoor swimming pool weve been using as an example in this article. This recording was made using two speaker positions and two mic positions, each one featuring a stereo X/Y pair, thus resulting in eight mono-to-mono IRs (see audio examples 72 to 79). When combining those mono-to-mono IRs
4 de 5
17/10/13 17:26
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep10/articles/convolution.htm
into mono-to-stereo IRs, we certainly can put together IRs from the same X/Y pair, which would be the correct way to do it. Alternatively, though, its possible to put together IRs coming from different X/Y pairs, which is definitely not correct, for at least two reasons: mono-to-stereo IRs created in this way are not symmetrical, and the phase relationship between channels doesnt compare to anything realistic. Correct and incorrect IRs are represented in audio examples 80 to 83, and, in this authors opinion, the incorrect mono-to-stereo IRs sound much better than the correct ones. Generally speaking, unless youre recording IRs inside the Amsterdam Concertgebouw, its more rewarding to seek something that sounds good than something thats correct. You can also push this principle further and be creative: put mics near walls, under sheets, under seats, in sinks. Experimentation is the whole point of making IRs yourself. Other people, such as the Audio Ease team, are specialists in discerning correctness and do their job perfectly well. Let them deal with this aspect of things.
Home | Search | News | Current Issue | Tablet Mag | Articles | Forum | Subscribe | Shop | Readers Ads Advertise | Information | Digital Editions | Privacy Policy | Support | Login Help
Current Magazine
Email: Contact SOS Telephone: +44 (0)1954 789888 Fax: +44 (0)1954 789895 Registered Office: Media House, Trafalgar Way, Bar Hill, Cambridge, CB23 8SQ, United Kingdom. Sound On Sound Ltd is registered in England and Wales. Company number: 3015516 VAT number: GB 638 5307 26
News Search
New Search Forum Search Search Tips
Forum
Today's Hot Topics Forum Channel List Forum Search My Forum Home My Forum Settings My Private Messages Forum Rules & Etiquette
My SOS
Change Password Change My Email Change My Address My Subscription My eNewsletters My Downloads
Articles
Reviews Technique Sound Advice People Glossary WebExtras
SOS TV
Watch exhibition videos, tutorials, interviews, masterclasses
Information
About SOS Contact SOS Staff Advertising Licensing Enquiries Magazine On-sale Dates SOS Logos & Graphics SOS Site Analytics Privacy Policy
Home
Readers Classifieds
Submit New Adverts View My Adverts
Help + Support
SOS Directory
All contents copyright SOS Publications Group and/or its licensors, 1985-2013. All rights reserved. The contents of this article are subject to worldwide copyright protection and reproduction in whole or part, whether mechanical or electronic, is expressly forbidden without the prior written consent of the Publishers. Great care has been taken to ensure accuracy in the preparation of this article but neither Sound On Sound Limited nor the publishers can be held responsible for its contents. The views expressed are those of the contributors and not necessarily those of the publishers. Web site designed & maintained by PB Associates | SOS | Relative Media
5 de 5
17/10/13 17:26