Distant snares.

[virtuosopunk]

Hey, guys.

I'm trying to make a snare drum sound like it's way off in the distance like in a Civil War movie or something. Do any of you know how to do that with reverb? I have Altiverb 6 and Cubase 5.1. I've done some pre-fader sending and tried out some of Altiverb's "outdoor" IRs, but it still just sounds like it's distant in a hall, not so much in a field. Any ideas?

[Animus]

Hipass and lopass and use some verb with no early reflections maybe.

[dementedchord]

first realize that high freqs tarvel better than lows so roll off the bottom... then as has been said no early reflections...

[virtuosopunk]

Cool! Thanks, guys. That did the trick.

[MattiasNYC]

first realize that high freqs tarvel better than lows so roll off the bottom... then as has been said no early reflections...

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite in the natural world. High frequencies are more directional and won't diffract around objects like lows do. So the more "accurate" thing to do would be to roll off highs, not lows.

[dementedchord]

if that were true then you wouldn't see systems where the subs are getting 3-10X's the power of the birds... crown when the whole active crossover thing started made 3 amps specificlly to do this the dc 60-150-300... i had all 3... still use the 60 sometimes for headphone amp...

[Animus]

Low frequency travels further than high frequency imo. Think of an analogy between short and long wave radio.

Like I said in my original post I woudl both hipass and lopass, but perhaps lopass more to taste.

[MattiasNYC]

if that were true then you wouldn't see systems where the subs are getting 3-10X's the power of the birds... crown when the whole active crossover thing started made 3 amps specificlly to do this the dc 60-150-300... i had all 3... still use the 60 sometimes for headphone amp...

Acoustics =/= Electronics

What does thunder sound like miles away?
What does it sound like when it's right on top of you?

When it comes to sounds that are far away in real life it's not just an issue of how sound propagates in air at varying frequencies, but also about what the environment looks like. Most of the time it's filled with stuff, like trees, buildings, hamburgers and moderately sexy vintage slavic vehicles. As soon as a sound hits those obstacles the frequencies with longer wavelengths will diffract around them more easily than the higher frequencies. So at the other end of the obstacle we now have more lows compared to highs compared to before the obstacle.

Imagine yourself sitting in front of a TV set watching an 80's American "College Movie" as a punishment for taking money out of the Salvation Army's tip jar in order to pay for some Juicy Fruit chewing gum. Someone super-fat walks in front of the TV. Other than the relief of not having to watch that garbage, does his blocking the TV filter out the lows or the highs?

[dementedchord]

sometime this coming summer plaese attend a local parade... if you listen closely to the bands as they get closer to you you'll first hear the snare drums... then the cymbals and perhaps some upper register horns... then eventually you'll ad the bass drums and lower register horns.... you're over thinking it i suspect... trying to find data that supports a preconcieved notion insted of simply listening to the air...

[Animus]

There are a lot of variables such as the medium the sound is traveling through etc but in general low freqs travel further. Think about it logically. Higher frequencies have shorter faster oscillating waves that expend more energy faster than low freqs that have longer wavelengths which can travel further on the same energy.

[MattiasNYC]

sometime this coming summer plaese attend a local parade... if you listen closely to the bands as they get closer to you you'll first hear the snare drums... then the cymbals and perhaps some upper register horns... then eventually you'll ad the bass drums and lower register horns.... you're over thinking it i suspect... trying to find data that supports a preconcieved notion insted of simply listening to the air...

I hope I didn't come off as a jerk, that wasn't my intention... however...

I am not "trying to find data that supports a preconcieved notion insted of simply listening to the air". That's a ridiculous accusation. Like I said; listen to thunder from a great distance and compare it to when it's right on top of you. From a distance you hear the low end rumble, when it's on top of you you hear it all. Just imagine the opposite: From a distance the only thing you hear from a thunderstorm is the very high end crackle - no low end.... Does that sound right to you?... How about moving a large object in front of a TV set? What is attenuated the most to the listener on the other side? High end or low end? How about your neighbor watching a movie next door? What do you hear?.... Or take a listen to a good sound effects library and compare sounds that are recorded both close and far.

Same thing with a marching band.

I'm not making this shit up. Take a course in physics, acoustics specifically (I did), if you still don't believe me.

Or google it! Here's what I found spending less than 5 minutes:

This source (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/Sound/diffrac.html) actually uses the marching band to explain diffraction:
The fact that diffraction is more pronounced with longer wavelengths implies that you can hear low frequencies around obstacles better than high frequencies, as illustrated by the example of a marching band on the street. Another common example of diffraction is the contrast in sound from a close lightning strike and a distant one. The thunder from a close bolt of lightning will be experienced as a sharp crack, indicating the presence of a lot of high frequency sound. The thunder from a distant strike will be experienced as a low rumble since it is the long wavelengths which can bend around obstacles to get to you.

and another source, (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/Sound/U11l3d.cfm)
The amount of diffraction (the sharpness of the bending) increases with increasing wavelength and decreases with decreasing wavelength. In fact, when the wavelength of the waves are smaller than the obstacle or opening, no noticeable diffraction occurs.

Diffraction of sound waves is commonly observed; we notice sound diffracting around corners or through door openings, allowing us to hear others who are speaking to us from adjacent rooms. Many forest-dwelling birds take advantage of the diffractive ability of long-wavelength sound waves. Owls for instance are able to communicate across long distances due to the fact that their long-wavelength hoots are able to diffract around forest trees and carry farther than the short-wavelength tweets of song birds. Low-pitched (long wavelength) sounds always carry further than high pitched (short wavelength) sounds.

Scientists have recently learned that elephants emit infrasonic waves of very low frequency to communicate over long distances to each other. Elephants typically migrate in large herds which may sometimes become separated from each other by distances of several miles.

and yet another.... (http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=3&filename=WavesSound_IntroSound.xml)
As sound waves travel through a medium, they lose energy to the medium and are damped. The molecules in the medium, as they are forced to vibrate back and forth, generate heat. Consequently, a sound wave can only propagate through a limited distance. In general, low frequency waves travel further than high frequency waves because there is less energy transferred to the medium. Hence the use of low frequencies for fog horns. Although damped waves have decreasing amplitudes, their wavelength and period are unaffected.

[dementedchord]

have you never heard a band outdoors with inadequate pa??? as you move back it becomes more and more like an old transistor radio.... no??? that's enough for me...

[MattiasNYC]

ok, whatever.....

[kdm]

Lows need more energy to travel the same distance. Thunder is a heck of a lot louder/higher energy than a bass drum in a marching band and carries far more low freq content as well, that's why you hear thunder miles away, but only hear the snares first in a marching band - they are the loudest instrument out there (and highs reflect off of buildings much more readily). A distant snare on a civil war battle field would have minimal ambience, but some late reflection off of hillsides, etc.

[TerryG]

A distant snare will lack some lows but lack more highs... you'll hear the muffled midrange snap of some harmonic overtones above the fundamental 160hz tone... because that's where the most energy is in a snare drum, with little or no ambience (if you're talking about a civil war battlefield scene, think piccolo snare).

That being said, everyone knows as a general rule low frequencies travel farther through air than highs... well, almost everyone.
It's physics.

Why do you hear the subharmonic thud from every hip hopper on the road within 3 blocks, yet the clown in the car pumping out 1000 watts is oblivious? Because those low frequencies take 42+ feet just to complete one cycle... the clown in the car is too close to the source to actually hear it, so he needs to make the windows rattle and the seat shake to feel it. Meanwhile, everyone else outside his car within 100 yards is totally annoyed because the ridiculously loud thud is all they can hear.

The fact it takes more power for humans to reproduce low frequencies is irrelevant to their ability to transmit better through the atmosphere when compared to high frequencies. You only hear thunder crackle before the boom when you're very close... yet the lows can travel for miles. Enough said.

[kdm]

That being said, everyone knows as a general rule low frequencies travel farther through air than highs... .

Only when it has the energy/power behind it to do so - your assumption that power needed to create it is irrelevant, is in fact incorrect in terms of how that translates to a marching band - it is relevant to the distance the low frequency wave will travel, and with what amplitude. The fact that low frequencies transfer through air, water, and even dense materials better, and for longer distances is only one part of the equation relating to what you will hear in a real-world scenario. That's also physics, and perceived loudness (check Fletcher-Munson curve). A bass drum doesn't have nearly the low frequency content or amplitude of the low frequency content of thunder, and most parades involving thunder get canceled for safety reasons. It isn't as simple as just saying low frequencies travel farther.

Now, add a cannon to that marching band playing the 1812 Overture, and yeah, you'll hear the cannon long before you hear anything else. Put a car behind them playing Rap at 105db and you might not even hear much of the marching band, lol.

[Animus]

Given each the same amount of energy low freqs are still longer in wavelenth (more spread out) and thus travel more distance with the same energy than high freqs which are oscillating much faster and expend energy quicker. In otherwords, high freqs have to use more energy to cover the same ground low freqs do.

[TerryG]

Given each the same amount of energy low freqs are still longer in wavelenth (more spread out) and thus travel more distance with the same energy than high freqs which are oscillating much faster and expend energy quicker. In otherwords, high freqs have to use more energy to cover the same ground low freqs do.

exactly.

The amount of power required to make the sound is irrelevant to the point of how sound translates over distance.
Given equal volume at the source, low end travels farther.

[MattiasNYC]

And let's not forget the real world application of the OP: In a real life scenario one would have to take the environment into account. If there are objects in the environment lows will diffract easier and therefor carry longer distances...

[kdm]

exactly.

The amount of power required to make the sound is irrelevant to the point of how sound translates over distance.

And then this is irrelevant to answering the original question.



Given equal volume at the source, low end travels farther.

Are you referring to SPL? Phons? Do you consider "loudness" in terms of amplitude only, or are you taking into account the power/energy of a waveform (area under the curve), and perceived "loudness" of the human ear as well? "Volume" is a bit of a consumer term roughly equated to "loudness" (which is also ambiguous on its' own), but in reality it has no specific technical relevance to natural acoustics, which is what this thread was about.

I think there is some confusion here over what question is being answered. Related to the original question:

Just saying that frequency and distance are the only factors implies that you should hear all lows from that drum before you hear any highs, or even mids, but most of us know from practical experience, and understanding of wave theory, that this is not true in the real world.

Either way, power (or energy in the case of natural acoustics generation) * is* relevant to the question, along with environment, medium/materials, actual frequency content of the source, listener position, etc.



Given each the same amount of energy low freqs are still longer in wavelenth (more spread out) and thus travel more distance with the same energy than high freqs which are oscillating much faster and expend energy quicker. In otherwords, high freqs have to use more energy to cover the same ground low freqs do.

True, but both replies are oversimplified. Yes, high frequencies dissipate more energy more quickly, but because of the medium through which they travel dissipating that energy (amplitude/power decrease over distance), not just "because they do". Consider the law of conservation of energy - if low frequencies "carry more energy" than highs, then it takes more energy to create them than highs. The energy required to overcome dissipation of energy in a certain medium over a certain distance is a separate issue - relevant to what you hear, but dependent on many more factors than just frequency.

If the singular explanation that "low frequencies travel farther" were the only answer to the original question, then your original recommendation would be wrong:


Hipass and lopass and use some verb with no early reflections maybe.

A hipass not be required required if lows frequencies *always* travel farther than highs, regardless of power/energy. Why then do the lows from a field drum/snare not reach the listener before the mids and high mids? Lower energy. Energy/power is relevant in real world sound analysis and sound design, which is directly relevant to the original questions about marching bands and field snares/drums.

[Animus]

I didn't contradict myself. I said both lopass and hipass to taste with reverb. I am speaking from experience. Put a lopass on a sound in Nuendo with some reverb and it will instantly sound more distant. Now try it just hipassing. Keeping the highs in there will still make the source sound upfront.

[kdm]

I didn't contradict myself. I said both lopass and hipass to taste with reverb. I am speaking from experience. Put a lopass on a sound in Nuendo with some reverb and it will instantly sound more distant. Now try it just hipassing. Keeping the highs in there will still make the source sound upfront.

I was talking about the "propagation of low frequencies" concept in real world sound design contradicting the idea of removing lows from the snare with a hipass. If lows propagate better than highs irrespective of source power (as implied by others here), then you wouldn't need a hipass, but we both know exactly why you recommended what you did - highs are blocked, and lows aren't strong enough to reach the ear in this case. Your answer was exactly what I do for the same situations in sound design, though reverb use depends on the environment (i.e. maybe late reflections near a hillside, but almost no ambience unless near harder surfaces, canyons, city buildings, etc).

[TerryG]

Just saying that frequency and distance are the only factors implies that you should hear all lows from that drum before you hear any highs,

It implies nothing of the sort.

The bulk of frequency energy is not in the lows of a snare drum.
What I implied specifically is that at a distance you will primarily hear the midrange harmonics of the approximate 160Hz fundamental of a snare hit because that's where the most energy is.... which means rolling off the volume, a bit of low end (including the 160hz fundamental), and a lot of highs (because highs die faster at distance) from a typical close-mic'd snare sample to approximate the intended affect.

[kdm]

[QUOTE=kdm;20769]
Just saying that frequency and distance are the only factors implies that you should hear all lows from that drum before you hear any highs, QUOTE]


It implies nothing of the sort.

It does if you don't properly qualify it in reference to other factors, such as how "loud" the source is, and the location/environment.




The bulk of frequency energy is not in the lows of a snare drum.
What I did imply is that at a distance you will primarily hear the midrange harmonics of the approximate 160Hz fundamental of a snare hit becaue that's where the most energy is.... which means rolling off a bit of lows and a lot of highs from a close source sample will approximate the intended affect.

I know it isn't, which was my point - you aren't going to hear the lows in a field drum simply because they aren't the loudest part of it's frequency content. You never said anything about hearing midrange frequencies. Stacy was the one that correctly suggested rolling off lows and highs. 160Hz is only fundamental to some snares, by no means all, and by no means necessarily civil war drums, which aren't really snares.



Go into the forest and you'll hear birds within 200 feet... you'll hear an elk within a quarter mile.

Yes, done this many times hiking here in the Rockies, and an elk call is a lot louder than birds, even hawk, falcon or eagle. Still not a good analogy of all factors involved in determining proper sound design.

[TerryG]

If you want to argue for the sake of arguing, you win.

Given equal volume at the source, lows travel farther than highs, period.
Everything else regarding specific treatment for a desired result of a specific souce is secondary to acknowledging the basic fact.

The elk versus the birds is a great analogy... elk need to be heard at a longer distance, which is why they don't chirp. :icon_cool:

[kdm]

Good grief.

[John Lance]

sometime this coming summer plaese attend a local parade... if you listen closely to the bands as they get closer to you you'll first hear the snare drums... then the cymbals and perhaps some upper register horns... then eventually you'll ad the bass drums and lower register horns.... you're over thinking it i suspect... trying to find data that supports a preconcieved notion insted of simply listening to the air...

Most bands as such that are passing by that I've heard do not have the same relative amount of low frequency content compared overall to the mids and sometimes the highs. Except for the cymbals, these bands tend to be very midrange heavy. Also, most times that I've heard bands in such situations, there have been a lot of buildings around along with paved streets which can cause quite a bit of cancellation/reinforcement interplay.

Anyway, this is the internet age. I'm sure we can look this up somewhere because people have already checked and measured this stuff years ago. Oops, not as much info as I thought would be there, but enough. There is information out there, and I am unable to find the definitive information. Basically above some "corner" frequency, which I do not remember, sound is attenuated quite noticeably, and becomes more attenuated as you go higher in frequency. You can even determine this for yourself if you have a small PA system outdoors and take frequency response measurements in increments up to a 100 ft (30.48 meters) or so away, at least enough to prove the point as a "yes" or a "no" to yourself.

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-air.htm
http://www.answers.com/topic/sound-absorption
http://books.google.com/books?id=7QOcDeGFx4UC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=high+frequency+attenuation+in+air&source=bl&ots=cg3NV6KVcM&sig=nIrcB9oKQlzI6FOLv_1VD6garsM&hl=en&ei=TKaNTKXXDoGBlAe_3exi&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CCAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=high%20frequency%20attenuation%20in%20air&f=false