AN EXPLORATION INTO POTENTIAL RELEVANCE OF DIFFERENCES OF INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS IN DRUM PATTERNSSkip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. Please contact email@example.com to use this work in a way not covered by the license. :
For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy.
Page 00000385 AN EXPLORATION INTO POTENTIAL RELEVANCE OF DIFFERENCES OF INDIVIDUAL SOUNDS IN DRUM PATTERNS Matthias Rath, Marcel Wdltermann Berlin University of Technology Deutsche Telekom Laboratories ABSTRACT While it is common "beat programming" practice to construct rhythmic sequences from isolated samples of drum instruments, sounds of separate strokes on a drum are not really identical. Experiences in a first pilot study with "drum-machine-like" patterns making use of several samples of each involved drum instrument suggest that such unavoidable individual differences in individual notes have a relevant influence on the overall character of the musical results. 1. INTRODUCTION Whoever is experienced in listening to or playing traditional musical instruments will agree with the statement that their potential of emotional expression usually relies on complex variability of the sonic results in reaction to a musician's various input gestures. It has indeed often been noted that the sonic aesthetic fascination of an instrument is usually hardly captured in the quality of a single typical tone but also lies to strong degree in the dynamic behaviour of the abundance of various producible sounds. This observation is easily made in particular when dealing with electronic instruments based on playback of so-called "samples" of preexisting sound sources, as often used for the digital simulation of mechanical, electromechanical or analogue-electronic instruments: sound production on the basis of sample-player simulations of mechanical instruments can easily lead to an overall result of the typical "midi-studio sound" with its tendentially "inorganic", "static" or "cheap" character. The aspect of dynamic variation and reactiveness is therefore one of the hopes and goals connected to approaches of sound generation that are based on (physically inspired) models of processes of sound generation, and that are often denoted under the term of "physical" of "physically-based modelling". In sample-based sound generation on the other hand, strategies to introduce a dynamic quality to the instrumental behaviour include the post-processing of employed signals by means of filters and amplitude envelopes with dynamically varying parameters . Mechanical sound-producing processes however generally include much more complex dependencies between characteristics of physical actions at the beginning of the causal chain (such as an instrumentalist's gestures) and the final acoustic output. As an example, it is that the sounds of an acoustic piano played at different strengths do not simply differ in a way that may be fully described by amplitude scaling or low-pass filtering. Many sample-based digital instruments therefore use "multisamples" of instruments played at various levels of loudness. Inherent non-repeatability of sounds of mechanical instruments? While variations of piano sound resulting from key strokes of different velocities or of the sound of a drum struck at variable velocities have received some attention (and, as just noted, been considered by the use of multisamples) the question of a possible perceptual relevance of unavoidable, involuntary indeterminacy in such sounds has hardly been addressed so far. In more simple words, isn't it possible that indeterminable differences in e.g. piano tones or drum sounds played with identical intention on the side of the instrumentalist are an important factor for the "overall sonic characteristic" of the instrument? To establish the potential interest of this question it is worthwhile to note that the mechanical systems of sound generation of traditional instruments in their description as dynamical systems usually include strong non-linearities (see e.g. ) so that even arbitrarily small variations in initial conditions or input parameters may lead to strong and perceptible differences in sonic output. One of the authors has been involved in the development of a sound synthesis algorithm based on a simple model of impact interaction of solid objects. As an example, for the observation just given, figure 1 shows the vibration of a simple linear object of two vibrational modes being struck periodically with equal initial velocity by a point-mass (a sound event similar e.g. to a mechanical door bell). Without Figure 1. Vibration (at one point) of a two-mode object struck periodically (at a frequency of ca. 20Hz) by a point-mass. further explanation of the model by means of which this displayed waveform has been generated (we here refer to 385
Page 00000386 dedicated publications ) it is noted that this behaviour is very different - and sounds quite different - than a simple repetition of identical copies of the signal created by one single impact. A closer look at the displayed signal reveals that the different phases between two impacts also differ more fundamentally than described simply by amplitude scaling or linear (e.g. low- or high-pass) filtering. Given this complex behaviour of even a rather simple dynamical system (derived from physical descriptions under involvement of strong simplifications) we have to assume that for "real" mechanical systems such as a drum or piano, the given observations are also very relevant. A played drum roll must therefore have a quite different auditory quality than the periodic playback of the same drum sample (an example that has been auditorilly tested by the authors and that will later be picked up again). If we stick with the example of the drum we must further consider that also besides the initial state of movement of the membrane many other initial conditions and parameters of the mechanical sound-emitting event may be controlled by the player only up to a certain precision; examples are the velocity of the drum stick, the position at which the stick hits the membrane, the angle of the stick at the moment of contact (thus its "effective admittance") and the force which the player exerts on the stick at the moment of contact. We must therefore take the possibility into account that even two drum strokes played at two freely chosen distinctive moments with the intention to sound the same, and with the drum being initially quiet, may actually sound clearly different. Figure 2 displays the signals of such two distinct snare-drum strokes recorded under equal conditions (microphone position... ) and normalised for equal RMS value. The two signals towards the posed question. 2. A SIMPLE APPLICATION OF "NON-REPETITIVENESS" CONSIDERATIONS In order to investigate the question described and motivated in the previous section we constructed drum-patterns from samples of a bass-drum, snare-drum, and hihat, in the way typically employed in a midi-sequencer or drum computer. All patterns were then realised in two versions, one by using one sample of each instrument, just as in a conventional sample-based drum machine, and a second by using several samples of each drum instrument, distributed randomly among the programmed notes of the respective instrument. The different samples of each drum instrument were taken from previous recordings of the second author playing isolated notes on each instrument (bass-drum, snare and hi-hat). The single notes had been played with the same intention of loudness and playing technique to create a pool of potential drum samples for musical use. All tones of one instrument had been recorded with drum, microphone and recording room in the same constant configuration, with the microphone placed possibly close to the drum. Individual differences beyond loudness variations? When listening to the different samples of one instrument from the recordings "in a row", or selectively comparing different such samples those distinguishing features that might be described in terms of commonly understood attributes were small differences in loudness and in rare cases in the length of the decay of the snare sound. In order to minimise an influence of these aspects on the overall impression of the drum patterns - such as for example one single extreme snare stroke dominating the appearance of one version- two measures were taken: 1. Snare samples with noticeably short or long decay were not used in the pool of samples for random selection. 2. All samples of each instrument were normalised for equal RMS level. After these precautions the chosen samples of one instrument appeared of equal loudness to the authors. In order to further focus on the relevance of individual sound variations that go beyond what may be captured by a loudness attribute, all notes in all generated patterns were scaled by a random factor distributed logarithmically uniform between 1/1.15 ( -1.2dB) and 1.15 ( 1.2dB). The motivation for the choice of this exact factor of +/ - 1.2dB, which is close to the perceptive threshold for amplitude differences (see e.g. ) will become clear in the following paragraph. Drum rolls as "most delicate scenario" It has already been noted in the introduction (section 1) that a drum roll must be expected to sound and look quite different than the periodic repetition of the sound of one singular drum stroke. The authors have constructed various versions of artificial drum rolls by triggering at con 0 I/I,5? ''P!l ~ly/^|^ Figure 2. Different snare-drum strokes played with identical intention and normalised for identical RMS value. sound similar but may be auditorilly distinguished (by the authors, after a quick informal test), their auditory difference is however not of the type achievable by amplitude scaling or low- (or high-) pass filtering (a note that is also reflected in the waveform displays). From these considerations it seems convincing that the question given at the beginning of this paragraph is clearly worthwhile investigating in the case of drum instruments. Even for the piano, where variations of relevant parameters during sound generation (such as the ones listed above for the drum) are much more restricted by the mechanics of the instrument, it is imaginable that the differences between tones played with identical intention, and such that e.g. the perceived loudness is equal, may be a perceptually (and musically) relevant factor. The work described in the following focuses on drum sounds for the reason of easier practicability and forms a first simple investigation 386
Page 00000387 stant high rate, exactly 32th notes at a tempo of 120 BPM, snare drum samples out of the pool of RMS-normalised samples as described above. The different versions consisted of 1. periodic repetition of one single sample, 2. periodic repetition of several, between 2 and 18, different samples in constant order, and 3. constant-rate triggering of several, again between 2 and 18, different samples - randomly. Figure 3 shows waveforms of three examples. Summing up the authors' informal auditory ex0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 t0.5 -0.55 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 t/s 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 Figure 3. "Drum rolls" created by repetition of one fixed sample (above), repetition of the same sample with random amplitude scaling of maximal +/ - 1.2dB (middle), and constant-rate triggering of different samples of the same drum (below). perimentation with the different created "roll" patterns 1. the periodically repeated single sample sounds very unnatural, almost not drum-like, 2. for several samples, periodic triggering in constant order results in audible periodicity in the pattern, which gets increasingly dominant the smaller the number of used samples, but still disturbing even for 18 samples, 3. constant-rate triggering of samples in random order generally leads to auditory results closer to a played drum roll, but also here the overall sound was found quite strange if less than 4 samples were used. Finally we examined the effect of additional amplitude randomisation with the general findings that 1. for periodic repetition of one sample the sonic result gets somehow more natural up to a certain factor of randomisation, above which the irregularity sounds rather awkward, 2. for the periodic repetition of several samples in fixed order, the noted periodicities of timbre remain also for "modest" amplitude randomisation, and 3. for randomly triggered samples slight randomisation of amplitudes has small auditory effect. An amount of random modulation of individual amplitudes of samples between the maxima of 1.15 and 1/1.15 (+/ - 1.2dB) was chosen as leading to the most convincing sound results. A "drum machine with sound variations" On the basis of the notions just described, a simple "sequencer" was realised that allows to program drum patterns of the three chosen instruments, bass-drum, snaredrum and hi-hat in an arbitrary regular temporal grid, just like with a typical "drum machine". Individual amplitudes of notes can be specified with 32-bit-float resolution and are randomised with an additional +/ - 1.2dB-factor as above. Furthermore, each instrument (bass-drum, snaredrum, hi-hat) allows the specification of the number of samples in the pool out of which single notes are randomly taken. The random algorithm was enhanced such that no specific sample will ever appear twice in a row. The whole "drum machine" was realised in Matlab  such that all temporal placement of drum sounds is accomplished with a precision of single time steps, i.e. at the used sample rate precise up to 1/44100s ( 0.023ms). 3. PILOT STUDY In order to examine a potential auditory relevance of involuntary individual differences in drum strokes for musical character on a larger scale a short pilot study was conducted with test subjects listening to drum patterns generated by means of the experimental drum machine described in the previous section. Four drum patterns were programmed, somewhat of increasing complexity, each realised in two versions, one "static", using only one sample per instrument and one "dynamic", using eight samples per instrument. The first pattern forms a rather simple, Disco-like beat at tempo 120 BPM, with a completely regular four-quarter bass-drum, and snare-strokes on quarters 2 and 4. Pattern 2 is a slower, tempo 108 BPM, more complex "Funky-Drummer"-like beat. Pattern 3 in addition contains short 48th snare note rolls and is faster, tempo 130. Finally, yet more complicated is pattern 4, a Drum'n-Bass inspired beat with more drum rolls. 3.1. Experiment As the start of the test each subject was made listen to the 4 drum patterns, each in the two versions. The order in which the two versions were presented was fixed for each subject but swapped in between subjects. Each version was preceded by 4 seconds of pink noise (followed by 1 second of silence) in order to "erase" any immediate memory of eventual preceding patterns. As an example, the first subject was presented with 1. pink noise, 2. beat 1, dynamic version, 3. pink noise, 4. beat 1, static version, 5. pink noise, 6. beat 2, dynamic version, 7. pink noise, 8. beat 2... Before listening, subjects were told that they would hear four drum patterns, each in two different versions, separated by noise. After having listened to the series of drum patterns subjects were asked five questions, the first two of which ai med at subjects' immediate spontaneous impression. The first question read "In what respect do you feel does the first version of each beat differ from the second one?", 387
Page 00000388 while question 2 was "Which version of each beat, the first or second, did you generally like more?". Question 3, as question 2, again aimed at the personal preference of which version the subject thought sounded better, but now the subject could (if she wanted) listen again to the pair of each beat before answering. The same procedure applied to the questions 4 and 5 of "Which version of the beat sounds 'more natural'?" and "Which version do you feel sounds more like a human drummer rather than a machine?". All questions were read to subjects and explained in case of difficulties. In particular, subjects were told that they did not have to answer to the questions. Twelve subjects participated in the test, three female and nine male, aged between 25 and 35, with various musical experiences and interests. 3.2. Results Spontaneously perceived difference As a first general observation 5 of the 12 subjects after having listened once to the series of pairs found it hard to spontaneously state or at least to verbalise any perceived difference. Exact answers of these 5 subjects included "no difference noticed" (one subject) and doubtful guesses without obvious relation to the real phenomenon such as "more reverb?", "more dull?, faster?" or "further away?". Of the remaining 7 subjects one described the dynamic version as being "more dynamic, as if the drummer was more involved in dosing the strength of his strokes to make the beat more energetic", one labelled this version as "more natural", the other as "more artificial" and one stated the static version being "unnatural". One subject described the differences in the pairs as "the dynamic fluctuations in the snare drum being differently strong" without being able to give a general tendency from the static to the dynamic version. The three remaining subjects gave more generic attributes, concretely: the static version "sounding cleaner", "more pushing", the dynamic version "sounding stronger". No subject, including those with some musical and listening experience, was able to actually find out the mechanism behind the generation of the pairs of beats (namely one version being built from different samples and one containing only one sample of each instrument). Personal aesthetic preference and "naturalness" judgements Asked for a spontaneous preference after first listening 5 subjects opted for the dynamic version, 3 for the static one, the remaining 4 subjects had no preference. When allowed to listen again to single pairs of beats under the aspect of preference in few cases some subjects rendered their responses more precisely. Without going into de tails, the general tendency here was towards the dynamic version being preferred. One subject that had initially preferred the static version now preferred the dynamic one for all four beats, as well as another subject that had initially not stated any preference. Answers to question 4 correlated strongly with those to question 3, i.e. in almost all cases subjects now labelled the version as more "natural" that was previously liked more, whereby the dynamic version now clearly dominated. The same overall tendency was finally seen for question 5 where 5 of the 12 subjects labelled the dynamic version as "sounding less machine-like" than the static one and only one subject saying the opposite for the first pattern. While this test and the presented results are of course very preliminary, it can however overall be stated that a difference between the static and dynamic versions is perceived, although subjects often have difficulties describing their impression, and that there is at least some evidence that the dynamic version is preferred in average. Of course these remarks must be considered as a first exploration and will have to be followed deeper in extended experiments. 4. CONCLUSIONS The presented work forms a first exploration on the question of a potential relevance of inherent variations in individual sounds of mechanical instruments. Despite the very simple approach used to take into account possible variations in drum sound for the creation of stimuli patterns and the very simple design of the pilot study, some points may be seen. Strong hints have been found that unavoidable differences between drum sounds of essentially equal perceived volume and played with identical intent may however be clearly relevant for the perceived character of a musical phrase. From these observations it appears well possible that the practice of constructing rhythmic patterns from single samples of percussive instruments may be one important factor responsible for what is commonly perceived as the typical "midi-studio sound". A closer examination of the phenomenon may form a basis for new tools for musicians with extended expressive possibilities. 5. REFERENCES  Dana C. Massie, "Wavetable sampling synthesis," in Applications of Digital Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics, Mark Kahrs and Karlheinz Brandenburg, Eds. Springer Netherlands, 2002.  Julius 0. Smith III, "Physical modeling synthesis update," Computer Music Journal, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 44-56, 1996.  F. Avanzini, M. Rath, and D. Rocchesso, "Physicallybased audio rendering of contact," in Multimedia and Expo, 2002. ICME '02. Proceedings. 2002 IEEE International Conference on, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 445-448 vol.2.  Eberhard Zwicker and Hugo Fastl, Psychoacoustics. Facts and Models, Berlin, 2nd ed. edition, 1999. 388