I'm not sure if i understand the thing about low frequency and glass. Yes, big mass objects will resonate at a lower frequency and will need a big impulse to start moving anyway. But if the glass resonates it will do so most at its own resonant frequency, wouldn't it? This will be a low sound in a big object, but it will be specific frequencies and not just all low frequencies. It will be the rattle, not the base. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance
Yeah that part could have been clearer. The resonant frequency is indeed a specific frequency where an object moves in sync with a sound wave (i.e. if you played a loud E on a piano, the E strings on your guitar will start vibrating). But even when you're not hitting that specific frequency, objects will still vibrate. Think of it like pushing a kid on a swing. If you time your pushes with the frequency of their swinging they'll start swinging almost 180°. But if you don't, they're still going to be jostled around quite a bit, especially if you're pushing hard. Contrast that to quickly and repeatedly tapping them on the back (i.e. a high frequency wave), and they're not going to move much. Another thing to keep in mind is that while a tuning fork, guitar string, etc. have a very specific resonant frequency, a pane of glass or piece of sheet metal don't. There's a whole complex gradient of different frequencies that will resonate strongly with different parts of the material, so you're probably at or close to a resonant frequency for some piece of it.
If you have a high frequency and a low frequency being broadcast at the same amplitude (pushing the same amount of air), the lower frequency will RESONATE with more, simply due to scale. Its pulses/“impacts” are more distant from each other, parsed out, so it is more palatable to the surface. Personally I find this balance incredible, that low frequencies are larger temporally but also gentler (larger rarefaction). I think this is what Michael’s music theory professor must have been trying to say. The waves of a lower frequency are more gradual and therefore more digestable or accessible to materials, more resonant than the insecure path of a higher-frequency wave. As for glass specifically (to Michael’s point) it’s not made to acoustic standards. There might be specific preparations that would alter a glass’s acoustic qualities (balance of materials, temperature/amount of heat, quantity/scale, etc.) but the process of forging glass is not with this purpose in mind, so it is likely not measured to be consistently or “accurately” tuned.
Been looking forward to your return since hearing you guys mention it on the pod. Welcome back! You diving into “Music theory from the VERY beginning” is VERY exciting 👍🏼
The OG music theory UA-camr returns! Have always loved your approach of “here’s a simple but suboptimal or incorrect conception most people have, and here’s a clearer, better way to think of it” - I think your video on modes is what finally cracked them for me..
To think I used to watch your music theory videos as a nerdy highschooler and now I got my first job as a band director! Crazy how much changes in so little time
I actually had trouble finding good videos that explain the underlying physics of sound. Even with music theory, music and even sound just continues to seems like a mystical thing. I would appreciate more of these videos that give a ground up understanding of things.
Maybe you should be the professor Michael. I’ve always thought you have a great knack of explaining things. Learnt heaps about music theory from your old YTs. This presentation had me thinking about how noise cancelling works and also about the oscillations within oscillations of the ear drum with the multiple frequencies of music. Very happy your back.
Yay! 😊 Incredible take on the basics of the soundwave Michael. Always a pleasure to learn something new or remind myself of something already known from you. This proves how much of an input the presenter makes on the topic. I learnt some of the basic music theory years ago from you Michael and it's a delight that you've returned to your main channel :) I would absolutely love to see a video on your channel on the topics like ear training, recording, DAW operations, etc. Maybe in the future? :) Keep it up! Great video :)
Awesome to see you back on here. Your music theory videos help me move forward in my musical journey. So informative and easy to understand. Keep the content coming. Were hungry!
I learned so much music theory from you back when i was in school. I’m now a graduate and I haven’t played the piano since high school but seeing this makes me think getting back into it
Hi Michael, Stoked your back doing music…I learned the basics from your videos…Your a great teacher!. I love the new set up. I also love that you will be starting from scratch with the basics of sound. The whole “how notes relate to each other and why they sound good or bad together” still eludes me to an extent. I originally wanted it to be a mathematical formula, but now understand that it’s a lot to do with “programming” the scales into our brain at an early age (like language), and we have just “learned” what sounds good or bad through experience, more nurture vs. nature. An example being why some people prefer eastern scales vs. western depending on where you grew up. Love to hear and learn more about all of this!
I think the question "how notes relate to each other and why they sound good or bad together" is fundamentally what I want to try and answer with this and the next few physics-y videos. That piece was missing for me as well when I started out, and in a sense, everything is built on top of it.
Hi Michael. Really great to see you back! I learnt so much from your old videos when I was first starting to produce and your new video is also really informative (as always). 😀
Michael, thank you for making another video! I'm really looking forward to more. Your explanations just make sense to me. I've tried to understand different music concepts over the years and they only really click when they're explained from first principles. Can't wait for the next one!
I started looking for music theory help the same day you made a video after your break. Serendipitous. Your style of explanation is perfect for me. Thank you for returning.
YESSSS! I would love to see more theory videos from you! And I think this format is better too, I've been wishing for you to return for a while now, I'm glad you want to make a new take on all of this
So glad you are back after all these years. Can't wait to see and learn from all the new content. Hope you get around to pentatonic and blues scales and how chords fit (or not) with those scales
Michael, first, great to see you back and as someone else mentioned, thank you for not deleting your older videos! On that note, while I can't wait to hear else you have to say about music theory starting from creation's beginning, I would very much appreciate if you would complete the music reading lessons from 6 years ago.
I only started studying music recently and I’ve learned so much going through your old music theory videos. I feel very lucky to have jumped on the channel right as you started thinking about making new content. Welcome back!
Super excited that you are back, I watched all your videos back in the day and they really helped me learn piano. I’ve since music production and sound design in a big way so this video was so interesting for me, and I’m really excited at the idea of learning more about the physical properties of sound like you mention at the end of the video. I like the new format although the marker could be a bit brighter! Keep up the good work 😁
Tell your professor that in small rooms you have to take breaks every 15min or so when you play music, otherwise the sound waves will bunch up in the corners and start to cause distortion. You can also add that this was why videos on YT were originally limited to 10 minutes. Nice video, welcome back.
So many great clarifications made in this video! I hope overtones and resonance will be discussed soon, I believe these could further inform the “in car optimal mix vs. nearby car overwhelming bass” phenomenon.
"This person". The video is amazing at least to me because I couldn't understand that "sine wave" thing, and also thought that it's a literal depiction of sound moving. Now everything comes together nicely like a puzzle. In the next video it'd be wonderful to also cover overtones. The more I read about them the more confused I get. Bonus question. I don't think this can happen in real life, but what the sound for a human would look (sound) like, if his eardrums would "wobble" only in one direction (e. g., not reacting to rarefaction).
This is great. I don't understand why sound physics isn't taught in music classes as it makes so many things make way more sense. For example, why octaves even exist for one thing (the whole 'the same but not' explanation given in music classes caused me to fail to grasp music at all before I was an adult). Carry on :)
Michael, I watched your early videos years ago and remember very well how much they helped! For example, your video about Am and C being the same set of notes was eye-opening at the time for me! I've greatly missed you but referred back to your videos from time to time. In the interim I've found many good UA-cam channels that cover music theory and acoustics pretty well, too (Casey Connor, Brad Harrison Music, and Signals Music Studio). I always like to check out content by different creators because the subtle differences in presentation often have insights and perspectives that help my understanding, even that which I thought I already knew.
Рік тому
Welcome back! Please continue... This has been enlightening for me.
Oh you’re back man !!! First of all a mountain size thanks for your efforts and explanation about music theory over the years i learned a lot like really a-lot from them and will keep. All the without a single penny my gawd your knowledge is a gift buddy. Even this lesson is tremendously helpful and easily comprehensible. Thanks again for your efforts ❤✨🥹🙌🏻🌊
Awesome video! A critique, though: what was impressive to me about your old videos is that it seemed like you were able to get music theory lessons concisely condensed into 15 minute videos where other people may have taken about an hour to get the same information out. This video however, while I loved the information in it, is 45 minutes long. Idk how much this video COULD have been condensed since that isn't my skill set... But regardless I loved the video and I don't personally mind more long form content nowadays. I just thought I would bring it up. Anyway I look forward to more!
The reason that sound propagates at a certain speed is a function of the basic speed that molecules randomly move at a given temperature. They're always in motion: Approximately 1600 ft/sec. Because of their random directions, a wave in that medium translates slower. (1100 ft/sec.)
I've waited years for you to get back at us Thank you for your awesome explaining and I'm counting the seconds till you drop the video about harmonics and explain us how that works❤
This was awesome! Never seen physics of sound described this clearly and in such a digestible way. You taught me music theory 5 years ago over a week when I had the flu and couldn’t work 😂. Been following your podcast since the beginning and excited for you to get back into theory videos 🎵
After watching your latest video, I went to checkout your most recent uploads and stumbled into this one. I think it's VERY cool that you're uploading again and getting into the basics of music, sound! Or what I call the building block of music. I believe at 14:23, your professor who gestured the sine wave was referring to the air pressure, or the displacement of air (which is offset from pressure by 90 degrees) at a *single* instance of time. Sound is longitudinal (15:39 as you mentioned), and thus longitudinal waves DO happen in the body of a fluid (air is a fluid) 16:19. But his initial argument about the bystander is... well questionable. The oscillating back and forth of longitudinal waves DOES happen though. Think of a slinky at rest for example. Once you force a longitudinal wave through a slinky, the rings don't just all keep moving forward (that would be firing a slinky forward/throwing it). There's a restoring force, the rings return back to their initial position at rest! The same thing happens in air with compression/rarefaction -- the air that pushes on other air creates a low pressure spot by leaving it's initial position. Since the air must eventually get back to ambient pressure and destroy the partial vacuum it created, the air goes from high to low pressure filling in the vacuum it created. Here's a demo showing what I mean ua-cam.com/video/W9rBEGHFNTA/v-deo.htmlsi=_m-tg9aMehUYTrEn&t=101 But yeah... besides that, your professors point about not being able to hear the bass when in the car is foolish. The pressure is what is changing like a sine wave for every position. That's what microphones are, just positions observing pressure changes. OBVIOUSLY, we can hear (and even feel) bass notes close to the source EVEN IF you're closer to the sound source than a wavelength.
Awesome. Welcome back. I get how the graphed sound wave represents one sound or pitch, but how does one speaker create "multi-pitch" sounds (you know... like actually playing an album through a speaker)? And what does that look like when graphed? Are we still only "hearing" one frequency at a time, just that each frequency that hits our ear drum is going to be different?
Hey, first off congrats on putting out a video, from the over analyzers channel I understand it wasn't easy to get back to it, so great job! There are a few thing I'm a bit confused about and I would love to hear you thoughts on. What is the relationship between the graph you are drawing, that you say is related to sound pressure and the graph you might see if you open a wav file in audio software? My understanding from the graph in the audio software is that it relates to the plates position relative to it's neutral position, scaled so 1 and -1 correspond to the max displacement in either direction. How does that relate to pressure? Second and related, you say that the base has much more energy, because there is more area under the curve. which makes sense to me when we are talking about sustaining a pressure for a longer time. but if the graph is about the plate's motion, the resulting pressure would not be that great since the plate is moving so slowly. And this corresponds to my experience playing sine waves with different frequencies but the same amplitude, the low frequency waves seem to be much less loud. how does this relate to the energy you talk about with the area under the curve?
yes it seems strange that sound doesn't slow down... But not knowing how that works scientifically, if we at least accept that the counterforce impact the amplitude, in such a way that the sound can't be heard because it loses the amplitude, rather than the frequency falling below hearing, at least we know there is something working against sound as it travels.
If I understand correctly: A sound wave is a high then low pressure wall passing through you (not an up-and-down beam that can go over your head). A pitch is how deep (how far back) that wall is. Volume/amplitude is how thick (as in compressed) then thin (rarefied) that wall is. Question: If the speed of sound changes with air temp and pressure, does that mean that music is detuned in colder weather?
On this subject, it would be good if you continued to describe how different waveform actually works, since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of this. In particular as it relates to upper frequency of hearing, and recording. It is very common to see people discuss how the Nyquist theorem would be incorrect, as they look on an oscilloscope and see the square wave hitting the upper limit, turning in to a sine wave. People really don't understand that it is an representation of the harmonic content, and that any filter, be it the upper limits of our hearing, or restriction in upper frequency of sampling and hitting an filter, since there are no overtone harmonics, it can't be anything but a sine wave. Also if you could, it would be great, but this may be outside of your area of expertise if you could break down what actually matters in cables. There are lots of people in the industry that also believes in myths similar to those that audiophiles fall for, and buying overly expensive cables, because they think they sound better, not just that they may be better made, because that typically would mean that you are better off learning how to solder, and planning your cabling better, would save you a lot of money and hustle when there is actually an issue, but they also believe that they get better sound from the overly expensive cable, and thus think it is somehow worth it. it would also be great with an explainer video that makes it clear how different speakers in a room (with crosstalk, reflection) sounds vastly different to headphones, as many seem to think that a speaker made mix in a studio translates well to headphones (when it doesn't, as it impacts panning, the perceived loudness of different tracks, how unnaturally panned bass is, and how weird some stereo reverbs sounds without crosstalk). Most people today listen to headphones, even those that listen engaged in the music, so it really does not make sense for mixing and mastering to be made for nearfield monitors in a treated room... Also, related, the advantages of using headphones as moving ones head from the sweetspot between speakers, alters the way one hears sound, so when moving that fader while mixing, or reaching for that EQ/Compressor controller, one has actually altered how one is hearing the sound, so one can't even properly judge from that position what it will sound like in the sweetspot. There are also a lot of misconceptions when it comes to microphones. People don't understand that in some cases, the differences between two mikes, is rather their frequency respons curve than anything else. Meaning that a good pretty flat mic, can often be tuned to sound a lot like other microphones by tweaking the EQ curve, thus also you probably don't need different mics for different types of voices, as you are likely to be able to EQ a curve that fits any voice well (with possibly a few exception, where amplitude in certain frequencies might cause clipping/distortion/ringing/resonances and thus might require a microphone that is less sensitive to that type of issues at those specific frequencies, compared to one that measures flat). The misconceptions in this area are problematic because people starting out gets tricked in to buying overly expensive microphones, or not to look for one really good at the upper end of their potential budget as they may be made in to thinking that they should really get something vastly more expensive later, so there is no point in really looking in to it, if you don't have the budget for a "proper" microphone. This also relates to mic pre-amps, where people are fooled in to thinking they need a more expensive one than they actually need. For some microphones the gain of the typical sound interface is lacking, but that can in many cases be fixed with an in-line amplifier, instead of buying an expensive fully external pre-amp. Often when people suggest "good" pre-amps, they also suggest pre-amps that has a less flat frequency response curve to the ones found in most modern sound interfaces, so they actually alters the sound, meaning that they are actually not at all that good... some do though offer more gain, and if that is needed it may or may not be a better option, even if they have a less flat frequency response curve, if the gain is needed. Other problematic areas in the industry, is not understanding how ones hearing impacts how well one can actually judge what it sounds like to others. Another issue, that is quite apparent is also how knowing the material too well impacts how you hear it, which is clear from how sound engineers for film/tv, and directors sign off on audio mixes where others can't hear the dialogue. But I think those topics would be difficult. Even more difficult, and related to knowing the material, is how our hearing isn't even subjectively objective, we actually hear different depending on our mood, and what we focus on. This is why you can hear differences when you accidentally tweak the wrong channel, so you are actually not doing anything to the sound you listen to. I t also tricks you when listening to different cables. And it can also make you aware of things in a mix that others can't hear unless they are told how to focus on that. It is very frustrating listening to youtube videos where the maker of it either completely convinced they are changing sound when they are not, or not nearly as much as they think, or when the listener actually are unlikely to hear because it isn't natural to focus on that detail. I've seen videos together with other people and none of us have been able to really hear any difference, but that isn't necessarily because it can't be heard, it can in some cases be that we simply are not guided to what to listen for. I actually really wished there was a proper studio Engineering program, with certificate, that went through the actual theories, science and electronics in details, that produced graduates that actually knew what they were talking about. It is highly problematic that people in the industry that are seen as authorities, either talk a lot of made up bs, that they came up with or have been taught, or they know to do certain things but they don't know why it is scientifically correct so they can't objectively describe why. And all the subjective terms, that can mean completely different things. It is one thing if an artist doesn't know objective terms, but when engineers don't either, and it isn't even certain that they mean the same thing, it becomes hopeless.
Ha, so I come from an academic background where most people literally did not know the difference between a dynamic mic and a condenser. I'm not quite as experienced with the engineering side, but you're right that there's a lot of misconception out there, and it would be fun to try and dig into some of those things
@@MichaelNew I don't have any proper background either. So I don't fully understand the engineering part. But it is quite interesting seeing the different types of responses one gets from someone with a proper background. When an electrical engineer talks about cables, and measuring resistance and so on, it is quite a different things compared to the talk you typically hear in field of sound engineers (that aren't actually engineers, although the field actually touches on acoustical engineering, electrical engineering, electroacoustical engineering, and so on). People believe too much in magical powers in this industry. Like the pultec, people weren't quite sure how and what it did to the signal, but when measured, it was clear that the boost and cut EQs did not perfectly align, so it changed the frequency response, in a way that may suite certain sound sources. Many still don't know this, and think there is something magical happening to the sound, when first boosting and then cutting the same frequency. Had I not stumbled across a source that told me this. I would have thought, that there were actually something to the idea, as so many kept repeating it. But the engineers that have designed the various clones, must have discovered this in order to clone it. Yet the studio engineers, did and mostly do not know. Anything that isn't imagined can be measured. That mic that many likes, perhaps it does have less ringing, or has less resonances, or inertia, that makes it a bit less sensitive to transients that can overload the signal, but it could also just as well be the frequency response that people happen to like, or a specific character of the noise, thus not things that other microphones can't be made to emulate. But there is a lot of reluctance in the industry towards actually measuring and finding out, except for the ones designing products to market, and they will not tell you, "this is how you emulate the sound, with a basic/stock-plugin".
This video was the best I've found on the topic, but still I have a question: how long has a frequency to last for a human to be able to recognize a tone? As the video explained snapping your fingers is too short, then playing a wave for a few seconds is enough. But is there a exact point in between?
Good to have you back. Love the content on this video. I would love if you could talk about sound waves and frequencies in an EQ context. What is actually happening here and how that knowledge can be applied to mixing. Look forward to next video
It doesn't surprise me. Stockton Rush said building a sub out of carbon fibre was a superior design and he said that confidently on video to a global audience. A lot of people say very silly things these days which go further than they are ever supposed to. Fortunately music doesn't kill people... usually. 🤣
i didn´t hear anything either, but i thought my speakers were good, so i looked for a tone generator online, and i can hear 37Hz just fine. i think something's wrong with the audio on the video.
From what I've understood: you want to "restart" your channel, introducing again basic music theory videos. Don't do that, talk about new things instead, your basic music theory videos are already the best around the way they are now. Talk instead about new things (modes, song analysis, physics, additive/subtractive synthesys, ecc...). Just my 2 cents. Love ya!
I'm not sure if i understand the thing about low frequency and glass. Yes, big mass objects will resonate at a lower frequency and will need a big impulse to start moving anyway. But if the glass resonates it will do so most at its own resonant frequency, wouldn't it? This will be a low sound in a big object, but it will be specific frequencies and not just all low frequencies. It will be the rattle, not the base.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_resonance
Yeah that part could have been clearer. The resonant frequency is indeed a specific frequency where an object moves in sync with a sound wave (i.e. if you played a loud E on a piano, the E strings on your guitar will start vibrating). But even when you're not hitting that specific frequency, objects will still vibrate.
Think of it like pushing a kid on a swing. If you time your pushes with the frequency of their swinging they'll start swinging almost 180°. But if you don't, they're still going to be jostled around quite a bit, especially if you're pushing hard. Contrast that to quickly and repeatedly tapping them on the back (i.e. a high frequency wave), and they're not going to move much.
Another thing to keep in mind is that while a tuning fork, guitar string, etc. have a very specific resonant frequency, a pane of glass or piece of sheet metal don't. There's a whole complex gradient of different frequencies that will resonate strongly with different parts of the material, so you're probably at or close to a resonant frequency for some piece of it.
@@MichaelNew Thanks a lot for explaining!
If you have a high frequency and a low frequency being broadcast at the same amplitude (pushing the same amount of air), the lower frequency will RESONATE with more, simply due to scale. Its pulses/“impacts” are more distant from each other, parsed out, so it is more palatable to the surface. Personally I find this balance incredible, that low frequencies are larger temporally but also gentler (larger rarefaction). I think this is what Michael’s music theory professor must have been trying to say. The waves of a lower frequency are more gradual and therefore more digestable or accessible to materials, more resonant than the insecure path of a higher-frequency wave. As for glass specifically (to Michael’s point) it’s not made to acoustic standards. There might be specific preparations that would alter a glass’s acoustic qualities (balance of materials, temperature/amount of heat, quantity/scale, etc.) but the process of forging glass is not with this purpose in mind, so it is likely not measured to be consistently or “accurately” tuned.
@@brianbjur4796 Thank you as well!
Been looking forward to your return since hearing you guys mention it on the pod. Welcome back! You diving into “Music theory from the VERY beginning” is VERY exciting 👍🏼
He has a podcast? I had no idea. Can you share the name?
@@Labyrinth1010The Overanalyzers
The OG music theory UA-camr returns! Have always loved your approach of “here’s a simple but suboptimal or incorrect conception most people have, and here’s a clearer, better way to think of it” - I think your video on modes is what finally cracked them for me..
To think I used to watch your music theory videos as a nerdy highschooler and now I got my first job as a band director! Crazy how much changes in so little time
Thank you for not deleting the other videos! Very happy you're back
I actually had trouble finding good videos that explain the underlying physics of sound. Even with music theory, music and even sound just continues to seems like a mystical thing. I would appreciate more of these videos that give a ground up understanding of things.
So good to have you back Michael. As before, you are a breath of fresh air.
Maybe you should be the professor Michael. I’ve always thought you have a great knack of explaining things. Learnt heaps about music theory from your old YTs.
This presentation had me thinking about how noise cancelling works and also about the oscillations within oscillations of the ear drum with the multiple frequencies of music.
Very happy your back.
Yay! 😊 Incredible take on the basics of the soundwave Michael. Always a pleasure to learn something new or remind myself of something already known from you. This proves how much of an input the presenter makes on the topic. I learnt some of the basic music theory years ago from you Michael and it's a delight that you've returned to your main channel :)
I would absolutely love to see a video on your channel on the topics like ear training, recording, DAW operations, etc. Maybe in the future? :)
Keep it up! Great video :)
Awesome to see you back on here. Your music theory videos help me move forward in my musical journey. So informative and easy to understand. Keep the content coming. Were hungry!
Glad to see you back, hope to see more content!!!
I learned so much music theory from you back when i was in school. I’m now a graduate and I haven’t played the piano since high school but seeing this makes me think getting back into it
One of the best teachers on YT. I'm also a fan of your other channel... Love listening to your discussions with your brother. Welcome back!
I'm really looking forward to this reboot to your channel. This video is a great start!
Hi Michael, Stoked your back doing music…I learned the basics from your videos…Your a great teacher!. I love the new set up. I also love that you will be starting from scratch with the basics of sound. The whole “how notes relate to each other and why they sound good or bad together” still eludes me to an extent. I originally wanted it to be a mathematical formula, but now understand that it’s a lot to do with “programming” the scales into our brain at an early age (like language), and we have just “learned” what sounds good or bad through experience, more nurture vs. nature. An example being why some people prefer eastern scales vs. western depending on where you grew up. Love to hear and learn more about all of this!
I think the question "how notes relate to each other and why they sound good or bad together" is fundamentally what I want to try and answer with this and the next few physics-y videos. That piece was missing for me as well when I started out, and in a sense, everything is built on top of it.
YOU’RE BACK!!
Damn dude. This is awesome.
We here in Zimbabwe has been waiting for this great return
Hi Michael. Really great to see you back! I learnt so much from your old videos when I was first starting to produce and your new video is also really informative (as always). 😀
Michael, thank you for making another video! I'm really looking forward to more. Your explanations just make sense to me. I've tried to understand different music concepts over the years and they only really click when they're explained from first principles. Can't wait for the next one!
YOU single-handedly taught me music theory mike, so glad your still rockin
You are one of the best teachers on UA-cam. Thank you for teaching music theory and making it seem really easy
Good to see you back, loving the podcast btw. Keep it up!
Great to see you here again, Mike. You do have a way of explaining things that's helpful to many.
Currently a highschooler that’s been making music for a couple years now - you’ve made a huge impression on me, it’s great to see you back!
I started looking for music theory help the same day you made a video after your break. Serendipitous. Your style of explanation is perfect for me. Thank you for returning.
YESSSS! I would love to see more theory videos from you! And I think this format is better too, I've been wishing for you to return for a while now, I'm glad you want to make a new take on all of this
So glad you are back after all these years. Can't wait to see and learn from all the new content. Hope you get around to pentatonic and blues scales and how chords fit (or not) with those scales
Michael, first, great to see you back and as someone else mentioned, thank you for not deleting your older videos! On that note, while I can't wait to hear else you have to say about music theory starting from creation's beginning, I would very much appreciate if you would complete the music reading lessons from 6 years ago.
I only started studying music recently and I’ve learned so much going through your old music theory videos. I feel very lucky to have jumped on the channel right as you started thinking about making new content. Welcome back!
Sooo glad to see you here again! ✨ your knowledge and explanation skills are exceptional 👌🏻
Super excited that you are back, I watched all your videos back in the day and they really helped me learn piano. I’ve since music production and sound design in a big way so this video was so interesting for me, and I’m really excited at the idea of learning more about the physical properties of sound like you mention at the end of the video. I like the new format although the marker could be a bit brighter! Keep up the good work 😁
It's GREAT to see you back! I'm definitely looking forward to the new series!
Happy to see you're back. The 3D printed music dice from your Patreon times are still with me.
Glad you are back, missed your videos for the past year or so!
Great explanation!
Love the theory videos Michael. Understanding the physics is fun
Glad you like them!
Glad you're back. Love your delivery and music subject matter in particular
Welcome back! The greatest YT teacher of music theory (especially when it comes to basics - better than rick, adam, hack music theory, etc...)
Tell your professor that in small rooms you have to take breaks every 15min or so when you play music, otherwise the sound waves will bunch up in the corners and start to cause distortion. You can also add that this was why videos on YT were originally limited to 10 minutes. Nice video, welcome back.
Also you have to roll your car windows down every so often to let the sound waves escape
So many great clarifications made in this video! I hope overtones and resonance will be discussed soon, I believe these could further inform the “in car optimal mix vs. nearby car overwhelming bass” phenomenon.
"This person". The video is amazing at least to me because I couldn't understand that "sine wave" thing, and also thought that it's a literal depiction of sound moving. Now everything comes together nicely like a puzzle. In the next video it'd be wonderful to also cover overtones. The more I read about them the more confused I get.
Bonus question. I don't think this can happen in real life, but what the sound for a human would look (sound) like, if his eardrums would "wobble" only in one direction (e. g., not reacting to rarefaction).
This is great. I don't understand why sound physics isn't taught in music classes as it makes so many things make way more sense. For example, why octaves even exist for one thing (the whole 'the same but not' explanation given in music classes caused me to fail to grasp music at all before I was an adult). Carry on :)
Michael, I watched your early videos years ago and remember very well how much they helped! For example, your video about Am and C being the same set of notes was eye-opening at the time for me! I've greatly missed you but referred back to your videos from time to time. In the interim I've found many good UA-cam channels that cover music theory and acoustics pretty well, too (Casey Connor, Brad Harrison Music, and Signals Music Studio). I always like to check out content by different creators because the subtle differences in presentation often have insights and perspectives that help my understanding, even that which I thought I already knew.
Welcome back! Please continue... This has been enlightening for me.
Very happy to see you back :-) No pressure but looking forward to your great content
Oh you’re back man !!! First of all a mountain size thanks for your efforts and explanation about music theory over the years i learned a lot like really a-lot from them and will keep. All the without a single penny my gawd your knowledge is a gift buddy. Even this lesson is tremendously helpful and easily comprehensible.
Thanks again for your efforts ❤✨🥹🙌🏻🌊
Looking forward to watching that series of videos on sound theory! Thank you!
Awesome video! A critique, though: what was impressive to me about your old videos is that it seemed like you were able to get music theory lessons concisely condensed into 15 minute videos where other people may have taken about an hour to get the same information out. This video however, while I loved the information in it, is 45 minutes long. Idk how much this video COULD have been condensed since that isn't my skill set... But regardless I loved the video and I don't personally mind more long form content nowadays. I just thought I would bring it up. Anyway I look forward to more!
Yeah I agree; I'd like to target videos more in the 15 to 20 minute time range, and this one went long. I'm rusty.
The reason that sound propagates at a certain speed is a function of the basic speed that molecules randomly move at a given temperature. They're always in motion: Approximately 1600 ft/sec. Because of their random directions, a wave in that medium translates slower. (1100 ft/sec.)
I've waited years for you to get back at us
Thank you for your awesome explaining and I'm counting the seconds till you drop the video about harmonics and explain us how that works❤
Good to see you! I love this interesting topic. I also have to say thanks for sharing the awesome knowledge that has helped me tons
I love physics and music ❤
This was awesome! Never seen physics of sound described this clearly and in such a digestible way. You taught me music theory 5 years ago over a week when I had the flu and couldn’t work 😂. Been following your podcast since the beginning and excited for you to get back into theory videos 🎵
Great video Mike!! I love going as deep as possible with asking "but why?" and building from there
Thanks for coming back!
omg you are finally back!!! been looking your video since 6 years ago!!
After watching your latest video, I went to checkout your most recent uploads and stumbled into this one. I think it's VERY cool that you're uploading again and getting into the basics of music, sound! Or what I call the building block of music.
I believe at 14:23, your professor who gestured the sine wave was referring to the air pressure, or the displacement of air (which is offset from pressure by 90 degrees) at a *single* instance of time. Sound is longitudinal (15:39 as you mentioned), and thus longitudinal waves DO happen in the body of a fluid (air is a fluid) 16:19. But his initial argument about the bystander is... well questionable.
The oscillating back and forth of longitudinal waves DOES happen though. Think of a slinky at rest for example. Once you force a longitudinal wave through a slinky, the rings don't just all keep moving forward (that would be firing a slinky forward/throwing it). There's a restoring force, the rings return back to their initial position at rest! The same thing happens in air with compression/rarefaction -- the air that pushes on other air creates a low pressure spot by leaving it's initial position. Since the air must eventually get back to ambient pressure and destroy the partial vacuum it created, the air goes from high to low pressure filling in the vacuum it created. Here's a demo showing what I mean ua-cam.com/video/W9rBEGHFNTA/v-deo.htmlsi=_m-tg9aMehUYTrEn&t=101
But yeah... besides that, your professors point about not being able to hear the bass when in the car is foolish. The pressure is what is changing like a sine wave for every position. That's what microphones are, just positions observing pressure changes. OBVIOUSLY, we can hear (and even feel) bass notes close to the source EVEN IF you're closer to the sound source than a wavelength.
Awesome. Welcome back.
I get how the graphed sound wave represents one sound or pitch, but how does one speaker create "multi-pitch" sounds (you know... like actually playing an album through a speaker)? And what does that look like when graphed? Are we still only "hearing" one frequency at a time, just that each frequency that hits our ear drum is going to be different?
good to see you again in this channel
Nice to see you again! Welcome back.
He’s back!!
Couldn't have asked for a better topic
OH MY GOD NEW MICHAEL NEW VID IT'S ACTUALLY REAL
Welcome back Mr. New, you are missed.
Yay you’re back🎉
Great video! And just in time for my physics series at OSU this fall!
Hey, first off congrats on putting out a video, from the over analyzers channel I understand it wasn't easy to get back to it, so great job!
There are a few thing I'm a bit confused about and I would love to hear you thoughts on.
What is the relationship between the graph you are drawing, that you say is related to sound pressure and the graph you might see if you open a wav file in audio software?
My understanding from the graph in the audio software is that it relates to the plates position relative to it's neutral position, scaled so 1 and -1 correspond to the max displacement in either direction. How does that relate to pressure?
Second and related, you say that the base has much more energy, because there is more area under the curve. which makes sense to me when we are talking about sustaining a pressure for a longer time. but if the graph is about the plate's motion, the resulting pressure would not be that great since the plate is moving so slowly. And this corresponds to my experience playing sine waves with different frequencies but the same amplitude, the low frequency waves seem to be much less loud. how does this relate to the energy you talk about with the area under the curve?
The legend returns with style.
25:22 I find it more surprising that softer sound doesn't travel slower, or that sound does not slow down as it travels
yes it seems strange that sound doesn't slow down... But not knowing how that works scientifically, if we at least accept that the counterforce impact the amplitude, in such a way that the sound can't be heard because it loses the amplitude, rather than the frequency falling below hearing, at least we know there is something working against sound as it travels.
Holy shit nice to have you back
Very helpful, thank you!
If I understand correctly: A sound wave is a high then low pressure wall passing through you (not an up-and-down beam that can go over your head). A pitch is how deep (how far back) that wall is. Volume/amplitude is how thick (as in compressed) then thin (rarefied) that wall is.
Question: If the speed of sound changes with air temp and pressure, does that mean that music is detuned in colder weather?
On this subject, it would be good if you continued to describe how different waveform actually works, since there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of this. In particular as it relates to upper frequency of hearing, and recording. It is very common to see people discuss how the Nyquist theorem would be incorrect, as they look on an oscilloscope and see the square wave hitting the upper limit, turning in to a sine wave. People really don't understand that it is an representation of the harmonic content, and that any filter, be it the upper limits of our hearing, or restriction in upper frequency of sampling and hitting an filter, since there are no overtone harmonics, it can't be anything but a sine wave.
Also if you could, it would be great, but this may be outside of your area of expertise if you could break down what actually matters in cables. There are lots of people in the industry that also believes in myths similar to those that audiophiles fall for, and buying overly expensive cables, because they think they sound better, not just that they may be better made, because that typically would mean that you are better off learning how to solder, and planning your cabling better, would save you a lot of money and hustle when there is actually an issue, but they also believe that they get better sound from the overly expensive cable, and thus think it is somehow worth it.
it would also be great with an explainer video that makes it clear how different speakers in a room (with crosstalk, reflection) sounds vastly different to headphones, as many seem to think that a speaker made mix in a studio translates well to headphones (when it doesn't, as it impacts panning, the perceived loudness of different tracks, how unnaturally panned bass is, and how weird some stereo reverbs sounds without crosstalk). Most people today listen to headphones, even those that listen engaged in the music, so it really does not make sense for mixing and mastering to be made for nearfield monitors in a treated room...
Also, related, the advantages of using headphones as moving ones head from the sweetspot between speakers, alters the way one hears sound, so when moving that fader while mixing, or reaching for that EQ/Compressor controller, one has actually altered how one is hearing the sound, so one can't even properly judge from that position what it will sound like in the sweetspot.
There are also a lot of misconceptions when it comes to microphones. People don't understand that in some cases, the differences between two mikes, is rather their frequency respons curve than anything else. Meaning that a good pretty flat mic, can often be tuned to sound a lot like other microphones by tweaking the EQ curve, thus also you probably don't need different mics for different types of voices, as you are likely to be able to EQ a curve that fits any voice well (with possibly a few exception, where amplitude in certain frequencies might cause clipping/distortion/ringing/resonances and thus might require a microphone that is less sensitive to that type of issues at those specific frequencies, compared to one that measures flat).
The misconceptions in this area are problematic because people starting out gets tricked in to buying overly expensive microphones, or not to look for one really good at the upper end of their potential budget as they may be made in to thinking that they should really get something vastly more expensive later, so there is no point in really looking in to it, if you don't have the budget for a "proper" microphone.
This also relates to mic pre-amps, where people are fooled in to thinking they need a more expensive one than they actually need. For some microphones the gain of the typical sound interface is lacking, but that can in many cases be fixed with an in-line amplifier, instead of buying an expensive fully external pre-amp. Often when people suggest "good" pre-amps, they also suggest pre-amps that has a less flat frequency response curve to the ones found in most modern sound interfaces, so they actually alters the sound, meaning that they are actually not at all that good... some do though offer more gain, and if that is needed it may or may not be a better option, even if they have a less flat frequency response curve, if the gain is needed.
Other problematic areas in the industry, is not understanding how ones hearing impacts how well one can actually judge what it sounds like to others.
Another issue, that is quite apparent is also how knowing the material too well impacts how you hear it, which is clear from how sound engineers for film/tv, and directors sign off on audio mixes where others can't hear the dialogue.
But I think those topics would be difficult. Even more difficult, and related to knowing the material, is how our hearing isn't even subjectively objective, we actually hear different depending on our mood, and what we focus on. This is why you can hear differences when you accidentally tweak the wrong channel, so you are actually not doing anything to the sound you listen to. I t also tricks you when listening to different cables. And it can also make you aware of things in a mix that others can't hear unless they are told how to focus on that. It is very frustrating listening to youtube videos where the maker of it either completely convinced they are changing sound when they are not, or not nearly as much as they think, or when the listener actually are unlikely to hear because it isn't natural to focus on that detail. I've seen videos together with other people and none of us have been able to really hear any difference, but that isn't necessarily because it can't be heard, it can in some cases be that we simply are not guided to what to listen for.
I actually really wished there was a proper studio Engineering program, with certificate, that went through the actual theories, science and electronics in details, that produced graduates that actually knew what they were talking about. It is highly problematic that people in the industry that are seen as authorities, either talk a lot of made up bs, that they came up with or have been taught, or they know to do certain things but they don't know why it is scientifically correct so they can't objectively describe why. And all the subjective terms, that can mean completely different things. It is one thing if an artist doesn't know objective terms, but when engineers don't either, and it isn't even certain that they mean the same thing, it becomes hopeless.
Ha, so I come from an academic background where most people literally did not know the difference between a dynamic mic and a condenser. I'm not quite as experienced with the engineering side, but you're right that there's a lot of misconception out there, and it would be fun to try and dig into some of those things
@@MichaelNew I don't have any proper background either. So I don't fully understand the engineering part. But it is quite interesting seeing the different types of responses one gets from someone with a proper background. When an electrical engineer talks about cables, and measuring resistance and so on, it is quite a different things compared to the talk you typically hear in field of sound engineers (that aren't actually engineers, although the field actually touches on acoustical engineering, electrical engineering, electroacoustical engineering, and so on). People believe too much in magical powers in this industry. Like the pultec, people weren't quite sure how and what it did to the signal, but when measured, it was clear that the boost and cut EQs did not perfectly align, so it changed the frequency response, in a way that may suite certain sound sources. Many still don't know this, and think there is something magical happening to the sound, when first boosting and then cutting the same frequency. Had I not stumbled across a source that told me this. I would have thought, that there were actually something to the idea, as so many kept repeating it. But the engineers that have designed the various clones, must have discovered this in order to clone it. Yet the studio engineers, did and mostly do not know. Anything that isn't imagined can be measured. That mic that many likes, perhaps it does have less ringing, or has less resonances, or inertia, that makes it a bit less sensitive to transients that can overload the signal, but it could also just as well be the frequency response that people happen to like, or a specific character of the noise, thus not things that other microphones can't be made to emulate. But there is a lot of reluctance in the industry towards actually measuring and finding out, except for the ones designing products to market, and they will not tell you, "this is how you emulate the sound, with a basic/stock-plugin".
HE'S BACK
glad you're back :)
The GOAT is back!
Welcome back, maestro!
Yeah you're back! Today's a good day 😊
YOU HAVE RETURNED???!!
Whoa, welcome back!
Welcome back!❤
Really Enjoyable
This video was the best I've found on the topic, but still I have a question: how long has a frequency to last for a human to be able to recognize a tone? As the video explained snapping your fingers is too short, then playing a wave for a few seconds is enough. But is there a exact point in between?
Good to have you back. Love the content on this video. I would love if you could talk about sound waves and frequencies in an EQ context. What is actually happening here and how that knowledge can be applied to mixing. Look forward to next video
EQ would actually fit pretty well with the plan for the next few videos, so I'll be thinking about it
WELCOME BACK
Yooooooooo return of the KING!
Thanks
Legend is back after 2 year
where have you been bro? I missed your videos
YOU’RE BACK???
22:54 cheers!
Love it
What do you mean longitudinal waves dont happen in the body of a fluid? They do, its transverse waves that cant propogate through fluids (and air).
GOAT FINALLY GOT HIS PASSWORD OF HIS UA-cam CHANNEL ✨
Welcome Back Legend ⚡
It came back to me in a dream
HES BAAAACKKKKK 🤩
It doesn't surprise me. Stockton Rush said building a sub out of carbon fibre was a superior design and he said that confidently on video to a global audience. A lot of people say very silly things these days which go further than they are ever supposed to. Fortunately music doesn't kill people... usually. 🤣
🎉🎉🎉🎉
Epic
23:00.
Turns out my Samsung s21 ultra has bad speakers.
today I learned I have bad speakers AND bad headphones
TBF mine aren't amazing either.
i didn´t hear anything either, but i thought my speakers were good, so i looked for a tone generator online, and i can hear 37Hz just fine. i think something's wrong with the audio on the video.
From what I've understood: you want to "restart" your channel, introducing again basic music theory videos. Don't do that, talk about new things instead, your basic music theory videos are already the best around the way they are now. Talk instead about new things (modes, song analysis, physics, additive/subtractive synthesys, ecc...). Just my 2 cents. Love ya!