Date: 23 May 2009
Time 10:00 am
Place: Home
I have done the composition that is 33 bars or 1:06 minuets. I have record the composition using the Ninjam software and two laptops. Laptop 1 is the MacBook Pro laptop and Laptop 2 is the MacBook(white) laptop. Specifications can be found in previous posts. I have done similar setting with experiment one. I have recorded the source, the composition, played back from the iPod as well as the incoming signal from the network. Again the latency was different between laptop 1 and 2. For laptop 1 the latency was 2 seconds and 9 frames where for laptop 2 was 3 seconds and 13 frames. The following two videos show this.
Video 1 shows the latency as it is experienced from Laptop 1
Video 2 shows the composition as it is heard from Laptop 2. Here the source and the latency sound are presented in two different tracks.
The recording of Laptop 1 could not be recorded in two separate channels. The latency again can be seen clearly in the recording of Laptop 2.The latency that we notice here as well as the previous experiments suggests an alternative compositional approach. Since there is latency between the 2 and 7seconds it should be included as an aspect of the composition. In the composition above, look at the score in post 10, I have done similar thing. I include sections with small durations going from simple to busier playing. In this particular software, as it was mentioned earlier, the latency can reach up to 7 seconds. As a compositional approach it can be described as a latency fugue with the difference that each line is repeated exactly the same with no variations. The difference here with any compositions that used delay-repetition, like Jonathans Harvey- Ricercare una melodia, is that the delay/latency is unpredictable. For instance Harveys piece use a delay of one, two, three and four bars, each delay for a different loudspeaker. Knowing this it is possible to create harmonies, rhythmical patterns and so on. In the use of delay/latency it is impossible to predict for sure the amount of latency. However there are some thresholds like a minimum of two-second and a maximum 7 seconds. The following is an example using the sound material from the composition mentioned in post 10. I include rests varied up to 5 seconds. This approach will allow the latency to be heard more clearly as it was not so clear in the above examples that I only two laptops where used.
Here is a version with the rests mention above.
To stimulate the latency effect I have used four MIDI tracks with a different starting point. Assuming that each of the four laptops will have the same sound source, the piano, the following video is the sound experienced from one of the four laptops, laptop 1.I have used the latencies mentioned in Post 9 that were monitor from the Ninjam software. The four tracks represent the four laptops. Laptop 1 is with no latency. Laptop 2 has latency of 4 seconds and 9 frames. Laptop 3 has a latency of 3 seconds and 15 frames and Laptop 4 has latency of 2 seconds and 15 frames.
For the next video I have shift Laptop 4 further to the right to produce a latency of 7 second and 3 frames. Laptop 1 and 3 are heard from the left speakers where 2 and 4 form the right speaker. There is a noticeable difference between the two videos even though only one of the laptops has a different latency.
Conclusion
For experiment 2 we notice that latency can be used from an aesthetic point of view rather as a dysfunctional performing aspect. From the last two videos, even though that only one of the laptops had a different latency the difference was noticeable.
OVERALL Conclusion.
Experiment 1.
Even though it is possible to have the phasing effect using an adjustable latency is not functional enough to be used in a composition or a performance. Ejamming is indeed quality software that eliminates latency using a variation of techniques. However the primary idea of the suggested performance for using 2 laptops in each location could not be achieved here as many of the hardware equipment was not available. Most of all the locations were not available since the university network could not allow this. However this approach could be included to future works asking the university to provide an open Internet connection. In would be interesting to include eJamming and Ninjam in the performance. Since two laptops in each location would be used having different software in each laptop could provide with interesting results. In general experiment 1 was not a productive one in terms of latency creativity but nonetheless it was a good approach in understanding the experiment approach point of view.
Experiment 2
These experiments provide very good material to work with for future works. First of all the different in sound distribution from the server to the clients is enough to work with. As it was mentioned in the related post this function could serve as latency surround system that depends and change for each performance. The output of each of the laptops could be routed to one of the speakers and a surround environment. Again this was not possible to be done since I don’t have a surround system (yet).
Another aspect that was mentioned but not explored has to do with the audio sample. Changing the output sample rate for 44100 Hz to 48000 Hz it sounds almost one tone above the primary sound. This in relation the latency surround system can provide a rich musical piece using few notes.
The idea of the server did not work so well. Since it is free to log in any time to any server available there were many people interrupting my tests. As a future work I will setup my own private serve to deal with this matters.
Experiment 2 show that latency could be used creatively and in fact from various points of view.
In general these experiments were a good start for any future work.
Time 10:00 am
Place: Home
I have done the composition that is 33 bars or 1:06 minuets. I have record the composition using the Ninjam software and two laptops. Laptop 1 is the MacBook Pro laptop and Laptop 2 is the MacBook(white) laptop. Specifications can be found in previous posts. I have done similar setting with experiment one. I have recorded the source, the composition, played back from the iPod as well as the incoming signal from the network. Again the latency was different between laptop 1 and 2. For laptop 1 the latency was 2 seconds and 9 frames where for laptop 2 was 3 seconds and 13 frames. The following two videos show this.
Video 1 shows the latency as it is experienced from Laptop 1
Video 2 shows the composition as it is heard from Laptop 2. Here the source and the latency sound are presented in two different tracks.
The recording of Laptop 1 could not be recorded in two separate channels. The latency again can be seen clearly in the recording of Laptop 2.The latency that we notice here as well as the previous experiments suggests an alternative compositional approach. Since there is latency between the 2 and 7seconds it should be included as an aspect of the composition. In the composition above, look at the score in post 10, I have done similar thing. I include sections with small durations going from simple to busier playing. In this particular software, as it was mentioned earlier, the latency can reach up to 7 seconds. As a compositional approach it can be described as a latency fugue with the difference that each line is repeated exactly the same with no variations. The difference here with any compositions that used delay-repetition, like Jonathans Harvey- Ricercare una melodia, is that the delay/latency is unpredictable. For instance Harveys piece use a delay of one, two, three and four bars, each delay for a different loudspeaker. Knowing this it is possible to create harmonies, rhythmical patterns and so on. In the use of delay/latency it is impossible to predict for sure the amount of latency. However there are some thresholds like a minimum of two-second and a maximum 7 seconds. The following is an example using the sound material from the composition mentioned in post 10. I include rests varied up to 5 seconds. This approach will allow the latency to be heard more clearly as it was not so clear in the above examples that I only two laptops where used.
Here is a version with the rests mention above.
To stimulate the latency effect I have used four MIDI tracks with a different starting point. Assuming that each of the four laptops will have the same sound source, the piano, the following video is the sound experienced from one of the four laptops, laptop 1.I have used the latencies mentioned in Post 9 that were monitor from the Ninjam software. The four tracks represent the four laptops. Laptop 1 is with no latency. Laptop 2 has latency of 4 seconds and 9 frames. Laptop 3 has a latency of 3 seconds and 15 frames and Laptop 4 has latency of 2 seconds and 15 frames.
For the next video I have shift Laptop 4 further to the right to produce a latency of 7 second and 3 frames. Laptop 1 and 3 are heard from the left speakers where 2 and 4 form the right speaker. There is a noticeable difference between the two videos even though only one of the laptops has a different latency.
Conclusion
For experiment 2 we notice that latency can be used from an aesthetic point of view rather as a dysfunctional performing aspect. From the last two videos, even though that only one of the laptops had a different latency the difference was noticeable.
OVERALL Conclusion.
Experiment 1.
Even though it is possible to have the phasing effect using an adjustable latency is not functional enough to be used in a composition or a performance. Ejamming is indeed quality software that eliminates latency using a variation of techniques. However the primary idea of the suggested performance for using 2 laptops in each location could not be achieved here as many of the hardware equipment was not available. Most of all the locations were not available since the university network could not allow this. However this approach could be included to future works asking the university to provide an open Internet connection. In would be interesting to include eJamming and Ninjam in the performance. Since two laptops in each location would be used having different software in each laptop could provide with interesting results. In general experiment 1 was not a productive one in terms of latency creativity but nonetheless it was a good approach in understanding the experiment approach point of view.
Experiment 2
These experiments provide very good material to work with for future works. First of all the different in sound distribution from the server to the clients is enough to work with. As it was mentioned in the related post this function could serve as latency surround system that depends and change for each performance. The output of each of the laptops could be routed to one of the speakers and a surround environment. Again this was not possible to be done since I don’t have a surround system (yet).
Another aspect that was mentioned but not explored has to do with the audio sample. Changing the output sample rate for 44100 Hz to 48000 Hz it sounds almost one tone above the primary sound. This in relation the latency surround system can provide a rich musical piece using few notes.
The idea of the server did not work so well. Since it is free to log in any time to any server available there were many people interrupting my tests. As a future work I will setup my own private serve to deal with this matters.
Experiment 2 show that latency could be used creatively and in fact from various points of view.
In general these experiments were a good start for any future work.
