Adventures in Modern Recording... at home, part 1: a triangle's freq spectrum

[kap'n krunch]

(I don't know where to post this, mods, if you need to move this I totally understand)

So, I "inherited" what seems to be an Orchestra/Symphonic triangle.
When I got it and heard the extremely rich sound I immediately wondered what its highest frequency would be so today I ventured into "Adventures in Modern Recording...at home" and I dusted off my Neumann TLM 103 and the Focusrite producer's pack rack unit and I proceeded to record it in 192K, the sampling frequency I think is overkill for modern non-Classical music and which I NEVER use for recording.

At first I thought that highest freq would be quite high but the reality floored me. The harmonics on this thing shoot past 96K !!! It would be extremely interesting to see where it all ends but I can only go up to 192K in my MOTU 828es.

I did not use any compression nor EQ in the recording.

It also is a great exercise on the fidelity of my recording and playback gear cause when I played it back through the speakers it didn't sound nearly half as good as it does in real life and the headphones did not fare much better... but at the same time it does speak very highly of my mic and sound card. I also discovered a few frequencies in the recording that are not supposed to be there , at about 13.6K, 43.5K, 69.7K and 87K (probably the overtone of the 43.5K one).

Here is the screen grab:

 

[Sonik Wiz]

(I don't know where to post this, mods, if you need to move this I totally understand)

So, I "inherited" what seems to be an Orchestra/Symphonic triangle.
When I got it and heard the extremely rich sound I immediately wondered what its highest frequency would be so today I ventured into "Adventures in Modern Recording...at home" and I dusted off my Neumann TLM 103 and the Focusrite producer's pack rack unit and I proceeded to record it in 192K, the sampling frequency I think is overkill for modern non-Classical music and which I NEVER use for recording.

At first I thought that highest freq would be quite high but the reality floored me. The harmonics on this thing shoot past 96K !!! It would be extremely interesting to see where it all ends but I can only go up to 192K in my MOTU 828es.

I did not use any compression nor EQ in the recording.

It also is a great exercise on the fidelity of my recording and playback gear cause when I played it back through the speakers it didn't sound nearly half as good as it does in real life and the headphones did not fare much better... but at the same time it does speak very highly of my mic and sound card. I also discovered a few frequencies in the recording that are not supposed to be there , at about 13.6K, 43.5K, 69.7K and 87K (probably the overtone of the 43.5K one).

Here is the screen grab:

View attachment 68889

Well that was a very interesting experiment & thanks for the post! I can't quite tell from the pic what was the fundamental frequency? We tend to think of instruments like triangles as being rather high pitched but probably only in the harmonics. Historically instruments have been made that are easy to hear, not at the extremes of the spectrum. Even bass... for those that think the opening bass leads to Money, Smoke on the Water, or Under Pressure is deep boomy bass, it is not. Big pipe organs can go really low and of course midi's/synths. But most acoustical instruments hang around a very comfortable mid-range for the human ear.

Your notes on the harmonics brings to mind something I guess only I care about in regard to multi-band decoders like the QSD-1 or Surround Master. Now shouldn't the main tone as well as harmonics emanate from the same location? It seems to me pretty easy to have a phase difference between fundamental & harmonics causing image smear.

Your comments about the difference between recorded sound and live rung a bell with me. In general one of my least favorite recorded instruments to hear was the violin. It seemed it was usually being a bit strident or dull slightly muffled on recordings. Then in middle school my older daughter started playing the violin. Er, learning to play. The 1st couple of years were tough. But eventually she got quite good & I was surprised how sweet & open a violin can be live instead of recorded. Analog, digiatl cost no object rig... ain't nothing like the real thing.

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Well that was a very interesting experiment & thanks for the post! I can't quite tell from the pic what was the fundamental frequency? We tend to think of instruments like triangles as being rather high pitched but probably only in the harmonics. Historically instruments have been made that are easy to hear, not at the extremes of the spectrum. Even bass... for those that think the opening bass leads to Money, Smoke on the Water, or Under Pressure is deep boomy bass, it is not. Big pipe organs can go really low and of course midi's/synths. But most acoustical instruments hang around a very comfortable mid-range for the human ear.

Your notes on the harmonics brings to mind something I guess only I care about in regard to multi-band decoders like the QSD-1 or Surround Master. Now shouldn't the main tone as well as harmonics emanate from the same location? It seems to me pretty easy to have a phase difference between fundamental & harmonics causing image smear.

Your comments about the difference between recorded sound and live rung a bell with me. In general one of my least favorite recorded instruments to hear was the violin. It seemed it was usually being a bit strident or dull slightly muffled on recordings. Then in middle school my older daughter started playing the violin. Er, learning to play. The 1st couple of years were tough. But eventually she got quite good & I was surprised how sweet & open a violin can be live instead of recorded. Analog, digiatl cost no object rig... ain't nothing like the real thing.

I was in RX 8 doing some work and saw this thread; and hit the "Spectrum" tool on the right, does that tell a more revealing tale of the fundamental frequency you're wondering about? Looks like it targets the whole song/file; but not sure how to highlight/select just a section -

 

[jimfisheye]

You probably have a lot of room tone captured along with it. (Looks like it.) And it's skewed a little as happens with that. If you 'produced' around that you could probably hit the true sound of the instrument. I'm pretty familiar with the 103 and it usually gives you very accurate reproduction. (Actually it's a little bright out of the box with a bump around 9k.) Or use a small diaphragm condenser.

But then again, percussion with brilliant high end and miles of harmonics beyond is a difficult thing to reproduce! I think part of the thinking with instruments and sound sources like that is "This is going to cut through no matter what!"

 

[kap'n krunch]

Thank you guys for chiming in and adding you ver valuable thoughts.
Yes, I forgot to post the main note, which is "C", and also , yes, my mistake for incorrectly calling it the spectrum analysis, (which I have provided below for all of the highlighted area which is the triangle's main sound), when it actually is a SPECTROGRAM.

And yes , indeed there is no substitute for live performance, which makes you love a Classical Orchestra concert.

AND , yes , I had to capture a bit more of a room sound than I would have liked...

Any other thoughts are very welcome..

 

[J. PUPSTER]

Thank you guys for chiming in and adding you ver valuable thoughts.
Yes, I forgot to post the main note, which is "C", and also , yes, my mistake for incorrectly calling it the spectrum analysis, (which I have provided below for all of the highlighted area which is the triangle's main sound), when it actually is a SPECTROGRAM.

And yes , indeed there is no substitute for live performance, which makes you love a Classical Orchestra concert.

AND , yes , I had to capture a bit more of a room sound than I would have liked...

Any other thoughts are very welcome..

View attachment 68891

Cool, so are those peaks and valleys, the quick resonance type vibrations in the triangle?

 

[kap'n krunch]

Cool, so are those peaks and valleys, the quick resonance type vibrations in the triangle?

Yes, I hit the triangle many times with various degrees of force and that is what you see in red/yellow. The spectrum analyzer is the different harmonics cause my educated guess is that the main "C" is the one about 1K. Of course , I could be wrong...

 

[jimfisheye]

The mix is worth a lot in the end. You probably more or less have the sound you heard captured. It's just not also mixed/mastered perfectly at the same time. Sometimes it's hard to capture a final image but you can produce it into shape. I'm not trying to suggest a hyped sound. Sometimes a recording just needs a little focusing to sound natural. Something like getting a triangle to jump out of your speakers and hit you like it does in real life takes a little futzing around. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[kap'n krunch]

The mix is worth a lot in the end. You probably more or less have the sound you heard captured. It's just not also mixed/mastered perfectly at the same time. Sometimes it's hard to capture a final image but you can produce it into shape. I'm not trying to suggest a hyped sound. Sometimes a recording just needs a little focusing to sound natural. Something like getting a triangle to jump out of your speakers and hit you like it does in real life takes a little futzing around. That's what I was trying to say.

Don't worry my friend, I will always be friendly and never suspect any wrong doing from my QQ brethren... as opposed to other websites where the utterance of any word will be taken as an attack!

I mean, like most, if not ALL of the members here, we have a very developed ear. I , myself in my younger days was a recording engineer and I totally understand the eternal struggle of capturing a sound and make it as close to our perception in real life, our ears are spectacular devices which, even with the best possible mics it's impossible to match them...but on the other hand some mics can hear many things our ears can't, so go figure!

I am rather pixelated with the sound of the triangle because of its richness...

 

[Frogmort]

As a drummer/percusionist, many moons ago back in orchestral training, I was told that triangles are specifically made to not have a noticeable definite pitch, so that they may be used for musical pieces in a variety of different keys and still sound correct. How and where you strike them can also affect the sound.

 

[kap'n krunch]

As a drummer/percusionist, many moons ago back in orchestral training, I was told that triangles are specifically made to not have a noticeable definite pitch, so that they may be used for musical pieces in a variety of different keys and still sound correct. How and where you strike them can also affect the sound.

Fascinating...
As I usually state in my posts... "I may be wrong", LOL!!!

The "C" I gave it is probably in my ears/brain but then, "C" is where our musical scales begin...

Thanks for that piece of info...

EDIT. I was very careful to hold the triangle from a string and hit it like I see classical percussionists hit it...

 

[Sonik Wiz]

Ooops, mis-post

 

[AYanguas]

The thing that most impresses me is how different is the real sound compared with a "good" speaker reproduction system.

I have no specific knowledge about this, but I can imagine that the sound generated by the triangle, vibrating the circundant air around the thin metal bars cannot be exactly reproduced by a standard speaker cone than pushes the air from the "whole" cone surface. Even with future speaker materials like graphene, the different size and shape of the vibrating thing would have to make a "different" sound pressure waves in the air.

Only my thoughts...

 

[J. PUPSTER]

The thing that most impresses me is how different is the real sound compared with a "good" speaker reproduction system.

I have no specific knowledge about this, but I can imagine that the sound generated by the triangle, vibrating the circundant air around the thin metal bars cannot be exactly reproduced by a standard speaker cone than pushes the air from the "whole" cone surface. Even with future speaker materials like graphene, the different size and shape of the vibrating thing would have to make a "different" sound pressure waves in the air.

Only my thoughts...

My thoughts also, maybe a real torture test for a good full range speaker. Electrostatic’s perhaps

 

[dabl]

Yes these kinds of instruments that generate such transients are a huge challenge for recording/playback gear of any kind.

Jingling a bunch of metal keys on a key ring is another example of a torture test.

If/when using noise reduction back in the bad old days attempting to record these kinds of things one could get all kinds of crazy results.

 

[THX1136]

Yes, I hit the triangle many times with various degrees of force and that is what you see in red/yellow. The spectrum analyzer is the different harmonics cause my educated guess is that the main "C" is the one about 1K. Of course , I could be wrong...

Middle C is approx. 261 Hz. Your 1k guess would be in the ballpark of 4 octaves above middle C.

 

[kap'n krunch]

Middle C is approx. 261 Hz. Your 1k guess would be in the ballpark of 4 octaves above middle C.

It would be 4 octaves higher, I based my approximation on A 440Hz, it sounds like the C an octave above the one following that ”A”.
Cheers!

 

[MidiMagic]

It would be 4 octaves higher, I based my approximation on A 440Hz, it sounds like the C an octave above the one following that ”A”.
Cheers!

TWO octaves. An octave is double the frequency of the previous note.
261
522
1044 = close to 1KHz
2088
4176

 

[THX1136]

TWO octaves. An octave is double the frequency of the previous note.
261
522
1044 = close to 1KHz
2088
4176

I was thinking harmonics instead of octaves. Thanks for the clarification/correction!

 

[Sonik Wiz]

(I don't know where to post this, mods, if you need to move this I totally understand)

So, I "inherited" what seems to be an Orchestra/Symphonic triangle.
When I got it and heard the extremely rich sound I immediately wondered what its highest frequency would be so today I ventured into "Adventures in Modern Recording...at home" and I dusted off my Neumann TLM 103 and the Focusrite producer's pack rack unit and I proceeded to record it in 192K, the sampling frequency I think is overkill for modern non-Classical music and which I NEVER use for recording.

At first I thought that highest freq would be quite high but the reality floored me. The harmonics on this thing shoot past 96K !!! It would be extremely interesting to see where it all ends but I can only go up to 192K in my MOTU 828es.

I did not use any compression nor EQ in the recording.

It also is a great exercise on the fidelity of my recording and playback gear cause when I played it back through the speakers it didn't sound nearly half as good as it does in real life and the headphones did not fare much better... but at the same time it does speak very highly of my mic and sound card. I also discovered a few frequencies in the recording that are not supposed to be there , at about 13.6K, 43.5K, 69.7K and 87K (probably the overtone of the 43.5K one).

Here is the screen grab:

View attachment 68889

Well Sir....
I am looking forward to Part Two!