or could someone explain to me how to do this on a calculator (not good with math), with the following formula…
These 11 sample calculators are quite handy as well…
Thanks in advance.
nevermind…
Original tempo: 68.8275 derived from the pitch of D
multiplied by 4 → 1.25992105
New tempo: 86.717
Anyhow, my reason for doing this is, for some reason pitching down rendered vst’s sounds more analog than digital, might have something to do with playback smearing, diffusing, mudding up frequencies or something.
So in the simple example above, I compose a song or melodic phrase at 68.8275, intended as the bpm gravity so to speak. But I render the song or melodic phrase, say +4 semitones up (86.717), then play it back -4 semitones down to its original tempo, in order to get a smeared almost analog sound, well to my ears atleast.
wow, i never thought of that trick in the digital world. i’ll try it.
i’m not sure about the more analog sounding idea, but i’ve often read that certain reel to reel mixes were pitched down slightly to make them sound ‘better’… to the bewilderment of many bedroom jam-alongs trying to tune to it.
these would be all analog recordings of all analog instruments i think, because nothing else existed (outside of academic usage) at the time.
i wonder what the phenomenon is behind this. is it just that people have a nervousness that causes them to play/compose at too fast of a tempo from a listener’s perspective or does the slow down just cause a pleasing ‘meaty’ effect? or both, probably?
I think it has to do with the integrity of the sample.
If you are pitching down samples, then less data has to be stored in the same space so each bit might get expanded across several bits because they are on the same level as the previous and next bits, allowing you to hear more of the same bit. I guess this gives a more “full” feel than with the original pitch where you just get a glimpse of this only one bit that casted towards your ears. You do loose bits though.
Interesting that there are lost bits and expansion. That could explain the loss of certain high frequencies and possibly a gain of low, since I’m pitching down instead of up. The problem with this pitching down business, without the calculation in the past, was I would loose the original tempo as well as the original key a song was written in. The calculation helps maintain the closeness of the original tempo and key.
my guess is that since we humans are predicting machines,
composing at a fast tempo without knowing why
may reflect the high neural oscillation
from the need to figure out what to do next during the compositional process.