User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 443:

::::::::::::::::: Well, I think I can understand your consideration of the sense of tonality, disruption, concepts you've shared before.

:::::::::::::::::: Right. I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 04:01 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions. This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of thing here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)

@@ Line 443: / Line 443: @@
 ::::::::::::::::: Well, I think I can understand your consideration of the sense of tonality, disruption, concepts you've shared before.
+:::::::::::::::::: Right.  I guess that means my only question on this front concerns whether or not my aforementioned concepts and considerations in this sphere actually make logical sense in light of known phenomena like the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_fundamental virtual fundamental effect] and your own observations of the sound sample of two different CM6 chords that I provided. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::::: Now, about the problem, how "exactly to program complicated tonal values". First, the problems are solved using the "divide and conquer" method and "separation of concerns". In particular, tone values can be abstracted from the technical means of sound production. Another thing is: it's good to "think by hands". (In our case, "hands" is the generalization of several things: hands, fingers, hearing, etc.) When you don't understand how to solve the problem, of, course, think about understanding but also start working with incomplete understanding and uncertainties. As you try, you can get a better feeling of the problem, will be able to get rid of some illusionary ideas and get new ones... Moreover, in some analogous ways, I many times recommended people to... avoid reading literature. Here is what I mean: it's good to try to solve a problem from scratch by yourself. Why? First, you won't miss a pretty rare chance of inventing something really new. More realistically, when you read, you don't quite understand reading at first, because the illusionary understanding is quite common, besides, you can be affected by some well-established ideas and reduce your chances for a fresh look. And when you tried hard and broke some of your teeth at the problem, you can use what you learned, and then you will ready with much better understanding. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;04:01&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: There are definitely a lot of merits to that approach, but in my experience, incomplete data can lead to wrong conclusions.  This is especially true in cases where the data is wrongly interpreted- or worse, outright ignored- though it would be ill-advised for me to talk about specific examples of these sorts of thing here and now for a variety of reasons- not the least of which is the potential for pointless arguments. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::: By the way, do you really still use MP3?! It is not just obsolete, it is stone age, with ridiculous quality and compression. Top Web standard is .opus, is supported by everything. Probably, MP3 is alive only due to the existence of the devices like car audio — nothing is so conservative as those weird people designing such devices. :-)