At 09:59 AM 1/25/01 -0500, you wrote:
mike,
With Gram (lovely plaything!) much depends on your microphone, and how
close it is. There are also limitations in the gradations of intensity
displayed by gram, particularily in black and white (I don't like the
colour display - a greyscale one would be much nicer use of this
capability). Just because the fundamental doesn't register doesn't mean
that there isn't one, though overtone series (I think) often lead the ear
to suppose a stronger fundamental than is actually there.
On the subject of falsetto - I've been banging my head against this one
for years and would tend to go with the purely functional definition of
Lloyd Hanson - it's a matter of vocal fold adduction: if that is minimal,
then the resultant sound is likely to have a lot of its energy manifested
as white noise (hissing, more or less) and less as an orderly concentration
of desirable harmonic partials. This is an area where one might want to be
careful in interpreting sonagrams, since the equipment you use may also
produce quite a lot of (electronic) noise.
I'm sorry if this seems obvious and redundant, but there I go. john
...>di testa and falsetto. miller points out that the falsetto example
fails to
>register the fundamental.
>
> my question is, is this absence of the fundamental peculiar to this
>example of falsetto or, is it standard to readings of falsetto in general?
>the readings i have gotten on my own falsetto or, what i have always thought
>of as falsetto, exhibit a fundamental and in fact, don't read any
differently
>from the range i have recently accessed in the past year (G4-F5
vocalizing).
> they do sound different in terms of strength and feel different in the same
>manner. so, what i'm really wondering, is this thing i've always called
>falsetto really head voice (at its lamest)?
>
>thanks,
>mike
>
>
>
>
>
John Blyth
Baritono robusto e lirico
Brandon, Manitoba, Canada
|
|  |
