>>14375916I do both music and math, so I can share a few things: first of all, looking at raw waveforms doesn't tell you a lot about what they will sound like (though you may notice that sharp or discontinuous waveforms will sound buzzier, while smooth ones will sound mellow), but transforming it into the frequency domain will tell you a lot: you will know what overtones your sound has, so you will know if it's harmonic (like the human voice or a stringed instrument), or non-harmonic, like a bell or a precussion instrument; you will also know what kind of timbre you're dealing with: does it have many high frequencies, making it bright and buzzy, or does it mostly have low frequencies, making it mellow? You will also know WHY leads are usually triangular (pic related) etc: it has to do with how the individual sine waves for the overtones sum up into a single wave form.
Math also gives you stuff like the Nyquist theorem, which tells you what frequencies you can use in your music to avoid aliasing artifacts and make sure it reprodces correctly on normal audio equipement. Some mathematical perspective will also help you understand how the filters and effects you use work, which will help you use them more intelligently and effectively.
Then, of course, you can look into the mathematical relationships that govern the tuning of an instrument, or which notes sound harmonious together and which ones will clash and create dissonance. This will allow you to understand exotic tunings, to build new scales (using more than 12 semitoes, for instance) that actually work. As for creating "a perfect orgasmosound for human ears", you're on your own. Math will mostly help you on the lower level of individual tones, scales and chords, and the various technicalities involved in competent producing, but it won't help you create beautiful melodies, generate emotions and figure out interesting higher-level structures.
