On 13 December 2013 03:12, Manu <turkeyman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 December 2013 04:52, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 18:31:58 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>>>
>>> On 12/12/13 19:15, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You know, I've never had that... but then again I haven't had the fortune of being in a band where distance between the first and back musicians is > 200 metres.  (Because sound doesn't travel *that* slow ;)
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it's not _just_ about the speed of sound, there are also things like the speed of attack of different instruments and so on.
>>>
>>> Then again, ever been to a performance of one of those pieces that ask
>>> for some musicians to be placed in different locations round the back of the
>>> concert hall for spatial effects?  Things can get fun with that ... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only in the recording studio - if the time it takes for sound to leave your instrument, into the microphone, through the walls into the studio booth, into the mixer (and assuming digital) from the mixer to the sound card, to the DAW software mixer which is taking the recording and mixing it in with the playing tracks (optional live effects processing being done) back to the sound card, to the mixer, through the walls into the studio room, into the headphones of the receiver playing the instrument...  is greater than 22ms, then the person playing experiences a delay in the time he plays to the time he hears himself in the song.  If that happens, you are not in a good situation. =)
>>>
>>>
>>> So, if your latency is 22ms, think of how that corresponds to sound travelling in space: you only need to be separated by about 7.5m for that kind of delay to kick in.
>>
>>
>> Delay between people isn't really the problem, it's delay in hearing yourself that's the killer. Although 22ms is the normally quoted limit for noticing the latency, it actually depends on frequency. Even regardless of frequency, i typically find that anything less than 64ms is ok, less than 128ms is just about bearable and anything more is a serious problem for recording a tight-sounding performance.
>
>
> Latency between recording musicians has a strange effect of gradually
> slowing the tempo down. Ie, if both musicians are playing with headphone
> monitors or something, and there is a small latency in the system.
> If you are playing together, but then you feel a 20ms latency between you
> and the other musician, you tend to perceive yourself as playing slightly
> too fast, and then adjust by slowing a fraction, the same thing happens in
> the other direction, so you're both constantly slowing by a fraction to
> maintain perception of synchronisation, and the tempo gradually slows.
> It's almost an unconscious psychological response, quite hard to control in
> the studio.
>

You could argue that it makes the musicians *real*. :)

It is however one reason why I prefer recording all musicians playing together rather than in isolation.  I love the sound of music from the 60s/70s, in which the musicians that made those records never worked to click tracks. The result is that their timing is all over the place - speeding up, slowing down, what have you.  I love it, it gives you a feeling of excitement, and it sounds great.  :)

On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 03:13:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
> On 13 December 2013 04:52, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 18:31:58 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/12/13 19:15, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know, I've never had that... but then again I haven't had the
>>>> fortune of being in a band where distance between the first and back
>>>> musicians is > 200 metres.  (Because sound doesn't travel *that* slow
>>>> ;)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it's not _just_ about the speed of sound, there are also things
>>> like the speed of attack of different instruments and so on.
>>>
>>> Then again, ever been to a performance of one of those pieces that ask
>>> for some musicians to be placed in different locations round the back of
>>> the concert hall for spatial effects?  Things can get fun with that ... :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>  Only in the recording studio - if the time it takes for sound to leave
>>>> your instrument, into the microphone, through the walls into the
>>>> studio booth, into the mixer (and assuming digital) from the mixer to
>>>> the sound card, to the DAW software mixer which is taking the
>>>> recording and mixing it in with the playing tracks (optional live
>>>> effects processing being done) back to the sound card, to the mixer,
>>>> through the walls into the studio room, into the headphones of the
>>>> receiver playing the instrument...  is greater than 22ms, then the
>>>> person playing experiences a delay in the time he plays to the time he
>>>> hears himself in the song.  If that happens, you are not in a good
>>>> situation. =)
>>>>
>>>
>>> So, if your latency is 22ms, think of how that corresponds to sound
>>> travelling in space: you only need to be separated by about 7.5m for that
>>> kind of delay to kick in.
>>>
>>
>> Delay between people isn't really the problem, it's delay in hearing
>> yourself that's the killer. Although 22ms is the normally quoted limit for
>> noticing the latency, it actually depends on frequency. Even regardless of
>> frequency, i typically find that anything less than 64ms is ok, less than
>> 128ms is just about bearable and anything more is a serious problem for
>> recording a tight-sounding performance.
>>
>
> Latency between recording musicians has a strange effect of gradually
> slowing the tempo down. Ie, if both musicians are playing with headphone
> monitors or something, and there is a small latency in the system.
> If you are playing together, but then you feel a 20ms latency between you
> and the other musician, you tend to perceive yourself as playing slightly
> too fast, and then adjust by slowing a fraction, the same thing happens in
> the other direction, so you're both constantly slowing by a fraction to
> maintain perception of synchronisation, and the tempo gradually slows.
> It's almost an unconscious psychological response, quite hard to control in
> the studio.


Interesting. This isn't a phenomena that I've experienced to be honest, generally people's tendency to speed up has dominated most sessions that are without click.

Also, 20ms round-trip latency? That's unusually small.

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 20:20:46 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 12/12/13 19:52, John Colvin wrote:
>> Delay between people isn't really the problem, it's delay in hearing yourself
>> that's the killer.
>
> Think people listening to people they hear with delay for their musical cues, and the people they are listening to listening to _them_ for their musical cues, and the feedback effect that might result ... :-)  You have to get used to the fact that the right time to play may sound like the wrong time to play relative to some other group spatially separated from you.

I don't doubt it's a problem, but at least in the orchestra or with acoustic instruments in general you have the luxury of having hand-ear synchronization. For an electric guitarist in the studio, you have actual latency between when you feel the pick strike in your hand and when you hear it in your ears, sometimes up to 64ms. It's a complete nightmare.

> By the same token, if everyone plays precisely with the conductor, they don't actually play precisely together as far as the audience is concerned, which is why professional orchestras tend to play a bit behind the conductor's beat.

An interesting side-effect of this is in recordings of orchestras. In order to reconstruct the feel of the music from the audiences* perspective, you actually have to time-delay the different mics from different sections!

*but where in the audience? Decisions, decisions...

On 13 December 2013 19:22, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 03:13:16 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> On 13 December 2013 04:52, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 18:31:58 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 12/12/13 19:15, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  You know, I've never had that... but then again I haven't had the
>>>>> fortune of being in a band where distance between the first and back musicians is > 200 metres.  (Because sound doesn't travel *that* slow ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Well, it's not _just_ about the speed of sound, there are also things like the speed of attack of different instruments and so on.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, ever been to a performance of one of those pieces that ask for some musicians to be placed in different locations round the back of the concert hall for spatial effects?  Things can get fun with that ... :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Only in the recording studio - if the time it takes for sound to leave
>>>>
>>>>> your instrument, into the microphone, through the walls into the studio booth, into the mixer (and assuming digital) from the mixer to the sound card, to the DAW software mixer which is taking the recording and mixing it in with the playing tracks (optional live effects processing being done) back to the sound card, to the mixer, through the walls into the studio room, into the headphones of the receiver playing the instrument...  is greater than 22ms, then the person playing experiences a delay in the time he plays to the time he hears himself in the song.  If that happens, you are not in a good situation. =)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> So, if your latency is 22ms, think of how that corresponds to sound
>>>> travelling in space: you only need to be separated by about 7.5m for
>>>> that
>>>> kind of delay to kick in.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Delay between people isn't really the problem, it's delay in hearing
>>> yourself that's the killer. Although 22ms is the normally quoted limit
>>> for
>>> noticing the latency, it actually depends on frequency. Even regardless
>>> of
>>> frequency, i typically find that anything less than 64ms is ok, less than
>>> 128ms is just about bearable and anything more is a serious problem for
>>> recording a tight-sounding performance.
>>>
>>>
>> Latency between recording musicians has a strange effect of gradually
>> slowing the tempo down. Ie, if both musicians are playing with headphone
>> monitors or something, and there is a small latency in the system.
>> If you are playing together, but then you feel a 20ms latency between you
>> and the other musician, you tend to perceive yourself as playing slightly
>> too fast, and then adjust by slowing a fraction, the same thing happens in
>> the other direction, so you're both constantly slowing by a fraction to
>> maintain perception of synchronisation, and the tempo gradually slows.
>> It's almost an unconscious psychological response, quite hard to control
>> in
>> the studio.
>>
>
>
> Interesting. This isn't a phenomena that I've experienced to be honest, generally people's tendency to speed up has dominated most sessions that are without click.
>

Haha, that's true. Naturally, I've observed that too, but that just happens
all the time regardless! :)
Maybe it requires a slightly higher latency than 20ms, but it does reach a
point where the interplay between musicians who are each trying to
unconsciously re-sync against the others causes some weird changes in
overall tempo.
When it reaches the conscious stage, then they just say it's broken and
demand the tech to fix it. But there's a window there that triggers the
unconscious micro-re-sync efforts, and that's where it gets weird in my
experience.


Also, 20ms round-trip latency? That's unusually small.
>

God I hope not. Depends on how many digital effects are in the loop I guess. It's not show-stopping latency, but I start to feel it personally at 20ms or so. Like I said before though, I might have trained myself to be hyper-sensitive.

On 13 December 2013 19:31, John Colvin <john.loughran.colvin@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 20:20:46 UTC, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>
>> On 12/12/13 19:52, John Colvin wrote:
>>
>>> Delay between people isn't really the problem, it's delay in hearing
>>> yourself
>>> that's the killer.
>>>
>>
>> Think people listening to people they hear with delay for their musical cues, and the people they are listening to listening to _them_ for their musical cues, and the feedback effect that might result ... :-)  You have to get used to the fact that the right time to play may sound like the wrong time to play relative to some other group spatially separated from you.
>>
>
> I don't doubt it's a problem, but at least in the orchestra or with acoustic instruments in general you have the luxury of having hand-ear synchronization. For an electric guitarist in the studio, you have actual latency between when you feel the pick strike in your hand and when you hear it in your ears, sometimes up to 64ms. It's a complete nightmare.


I've experienced the same slowing effect I mentioned before in this context
too.
Have you ever trying playing with a delay AND an uncomfortably high
latency? Since you're playing with a delay, you're effectively playing
against yourself from a couple 100ms ago. If you play when you hear
yourself, but there's an effective latency on that note trigger, it will
compound that latency, and you'll drift towards a slower tempo as you play.
It's so weird when I feel myself do it, but it's awfully hard to control (I
don't have mates to play music with... I play a lot with a delay/looper).


 By the same token, if everyone plays precisely with the conductor, they
>> don't actually play precisely together as far as the audience is concerned, which is why professional orchestras tend to play a bit behind the conductor's beat.
>>
>
> An interesting side-effect of this is in recordings of orchestras. In order to reconstruct the feel of the music from the audiences* perspective, you actually have to time-delay the different mics from different sections!
>
> *but where in the audience? Decisions, decisions...
>

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 11:14:05 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 10:43:24 UTC, Manu wrote:
>> So, I'm a massive fan of music games. I'll shamefully admit that I was
>> tragically addicted to Dance Dance Revolution about 10 years ago. Recently,
>> it's Guitar Hero and Rock Band.
>>
>> I quite like the band ensemble games, they're good party games, and great
>> rhythm practise that's actually applicable to real instrument skills too.
>>
>> The problem is though, that Neversoft and Harmonix completely fucked up the
>> GH and RB franchises. Licensing problems, fragmented tracklists. It's
>> annoying that all the songs you want to play are spread across literally 10
>> or so different games, and you need to constantly change disc's if you want
>> to play the songs you like.
>>
>> I've been meaning to kick off a guitar hero clone since GH2 came out. I
>> started one years ago as a fork of my Guitar Hero song editor for PS2, and
>> I added support for drums before GH4 or RB were conceived, but then when
>> they announced those games they stole my thunder and it went into
>> hibernation.
>>
>> I'm very keen to resurrect the project (well, start a new one, with clean
>> code, in D).
>> Are there any music game nerds hanging around here who would be interested
>> in joining a side project like this? It's a lot more motivating, and much
>> more fun to work in a small team.
>>
>> It's an interesting union of skills; rendering, audio processing,
>> super-low-latency synchronisation, mini and communications processing,
>> animation, UI and presentation.
>>
>> I have done all this stuff commercially, so I can act as a sort of project
>> lead of people are interested, but haven't tried to write that sort of
>> software before.
>>
>> It also seems like a good excuse to kick off a fairly large scale and
>> performance intensive D project, which I like to do from time to time.
>
> I would be happy to help with the gui side of thing just to get DOOGLE more inline with what is required from it. Assuming DOOGLE is ok for it.
> It is designed to work on top of games so it is perfect for this type of thing I'm just worried of its state and being ready.

DOOGLE (kind of a pun in Ireland):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters#Father_Dougal_McGuire

Check it out on youtube ("Father Ted").

On Thursday, 12 December 2013 at 10:43:24 UTC, Manu wrote:
> So, I'm a massive fan of music games. I'll shamefully admit that I was
> tragically addicted to Dance Dance Revolution about 10 years ago. Recently,
> it's Guitar Hero and Rock Band.
>
> I quite like the band ensemble games, they're good party games, and great
> rhythm practise that's actually applicable to real instrument skills too.
>
> The problem is though, that Neversoft and Harmonix completely fucked up the
> GH and RB franchises. Licensing problems, fragmented tracklists. It's
> annoying that all the songs you want to play are spread across literally 10
> or so different games, and you need to constantly change disc's if you want
> to play the songs you like.
>
> I've been meaning to kick off a guitar hero clone since GH2 came out. I
> started one years ago as a fork of my Guitar Hero song editor for PS2, and
> I added support for drums before GH4 or RB were conceived, but then when
> they announced those games they stole my thunder and it went into
> hibernation.
>
> I'm very keen to resurrect the project (well, start a new one, with clean
> code, in D).
> Are there any music game nerds hanging around here who would be interested
> in joining a side project like this? It's a lot more motivating, and much
> more fun to work in a small team.
>
> It's an interesting union of skills; rendering, audio processing,
> super-low-latency synchronisation, mini and communications processing,
> animation, UI and presentation.
>
> I have done all this stuff commercially, so I can act as a sort of project
> lead of people are interested, but haven't tried to write that sort of
> software before.
>
> It also seems like a good excuse to kick off a fairly large scale and
> performance intensive D project, which I like to do from time to time.

Hi, I am experienced C++ programmer, recently switched to indie gamedev (1 title released commercially, another on the way). I am really interested in this for 2 reasons:
1) a chance to work with someone of your experience
2) as soon as it is possible (that would be D working on iOS) I would like to do a transition from C++ to D in our projects so new experience in D (and in the industry) is just perfect

Please consider me!

On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 12:30:36 UTC, Chris wrote:
> DOOGLE (kind of a pun in Ireland):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Father_Ted_characters#Father_Dougal_McGuire
>
> Check it out on youtube ("Father Ted").

I had no idea when I named it that. Since it was based originally from OOGL (c++ lib). Although different spelling.

On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 12:37:21 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
> Hi, I am experienced C++ programmer, recently switched to indie gamedev (1 title released commercially, another on the way). I am really interested in this for 2 reasons:
> 1) a chance to work with someone of your experience
> 2) as soon as it is possible (that would be D working on iOS) I would like to do a transition from C++ to D in our projects so new experience in D (and in the industry) is just perfect
>
> Please consider me!

From the sounds of it, it'll be a community project so no worries, just join in.
Have a talk with the GDC compiler guys about helping with ARM support and getting on iOS. They could definitely use the help!
Although from my knowledge there probably will be issues with tool chain not verified by Apple.

On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 13:06:16 UTC, Rikki Cattermole wrote:
> On Friday, 13 December 2013 at 12:37:21 UTC, Szymon Gatner wrote:
>> Hi, I am experienced C++ programmer, recently switched to indie gamedev (1 title released commercially, another on the way). I am really interested in this for 2 reasons:
>> 1) a chance to work with someone of your experience
>> 2) as soon as it is possible (that would be D working on iOS) I would like to do a transition from C++ to D in our projects so new experience in D (and in the industry) is just perfect
>>
>> Please consider me!
>
> From the sounds of it, it'll be a community project so no worries, just join in.
> Have a talk with the GDC compiler guys about helping with ARM support and getting on iOS. They could definitely use the help!
> Although from my knowledge there probably will be issues with tool chain not verified by Apple.

Thing is, I feel nowhere near qualified to work on a compiler. And compiler is really just a beginning. Even with Xcode preparing iOS app that is written in C++ and not Objective-C is still far from easy.