[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx*Subject*: Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility*From*: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Date*: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:16:01 +0100*Comments*: To: beauchamp james w <jwbeauch@UX1.CSO.UIUC.EDU>*Delivery-date*: Fri Jan 23 14:32:55 2004*In-reply-to*: <200401231611.i0NGBf9B014296@staff2.cso.uiuc.edu>*Reply-to*: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>*Sender*: AUDITORY Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 10:11 23.01.2004 -0600, beauchamp james w wrote: >Eckard Blumschein writes: >>Of course, complex representartion of a signal requires magnitude as well >>as phase. (Magnitude is always positive while there are positive and >>negative amplitudes.) This should once again persuade anybody that the >>inner ear does not perform a complex Fourier transform. What about "any >>operation" I agree on condition of just a single snapshot. >>Hearing is, however, a continuous process where the complex Fourier >>transform is doomed to hop from window to window in a clumsy manner. > >This is an artifact of using discrete computation. In a continuous (or >"analog") formulation, the short-time transform can be absolutely >continuous in time. And this can be approximated as closely as one wishes >on a computer. However, it is easy to show that only a few samples per >window are required due to the band-limited nature of the window >function. First of all, forget the wrong idea that the cochlea performs a complex Fourier transform. The next step after (real-valued) frequency analysis is rectification, and a magnitude cannot be rectified. Complex Fourier transform requires a lot of arbitrariness. Short time FT tries to abstains from the basic arbitrariness by close adaptation to the natural current zero of time. You might be right in so far that this hopping of the origin could be made quasi continuous in a similar manner as I manage to do it more easily with the simpler FCT. Would you please be so kind telling us some references if it is more than just your idea? Admittedly I failed to overlook all variants of spectrograms and wavelets. The vast variety indicates that none of the complex solutions is the ultimate one or could at least be regarded similar to cochlear function. Wouldn't continuous shift of the zero tacitly more or less change magnitude into amplitude, not to tell the other trouble? I guess, equipping the complex FT with a continuously shifted center of the window would end up at an equivalent to FCT. Massively overlapping windows seem already to be a preferred standard solution. The ear does not need such artificial re-formulation. It performs what can be called action of a 'filter bank' or in mathematical terms Fourier cosine transform. You are correct: Equidistant sampling causes a lot of artifacts from which hearing is not affected because it doesn't use regular sampling at all. However, because digitalization is the best way to get rid of noise and errors in transmission, I consider sampled data always the given input of analysis. In my opinion, non-causallity, clumsiness, arbitrary windows and other shortcomings of or in connection with complex Fourier transform may neither be denied nor be ascribed to discretization artifacts. Complex Fourier transform has huge merits but it does not fit as natural to cochlear frequency analysis as does Fourier cosine transform. It gave rise to a lot of unnecessary confusion in particular concerning the role of phase and exceptions from phase deafness. Incidentally, my method to calculate the natural specrogram is not subject to a limited bandwidth while sample rate sets a limit, of course. Seemingly contradicting to the uncertainty principle, this is nonetheless plausible. Sincerely and hard working, Eckard Blumschein

**References**:**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility***From:*beauchamp james w

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Next by Date:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Next by thread:
**Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility** - Index(es):