[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: noise classification problem
Wouldn't this translate as "Traite des Objets Musicaux = Traits of musical
Vincent Rioux wrote:
> Back in 77, Pierre Schaeffer wrote very interesting things about sound
> (including "noise") classification (what he called "typo-morphology") in a
> book called "Traité des Objets Musicaux", 'Treatise of Musical Objects'.
> It is written in French.
> There might be some translations of this work in English,
> for e.g. http://www.sun.rhbnc.ac.uk/Music/Archive/Disserts/palombin.html
> but I am not aware of any official edited translation.
> Note, that it was thought as a tool for musical composition (mostly
> electroacoutic music) which might be slightly out of your scope (?)
> At 22:27 15/04/2004, Valeriy Shafiro wrote:
> >Hi Alberto,
> >I don't believe that there are any "official" categories for classifying
> >real world sounds. In my opinion, Gaver's taxonomy of environmental
> >sounds, while clearly not perfect, is still the best that we have for
> >classifying sounds in general. At least it is a great starting point. As
> >you wrote in your email the problem of classification is very complex, and
> >this is one reason why you have not been able to find much information
> >about it. Real world sounds are produced by a great variety of different
> >sound sources which cannot be unambiguously classified either. People have
> >tried to find some kind of an underlying perceptual structure of
> >environmental sounds (e.g., Ballas, 1993; Marcell et al., Gygi, 2001), but
> >that has not revealed any clearcut categories. Which is not to say that
> >there is no category structure, but rather that the categories do not
> >reveal themselves very easily and unambiguously with the analysis methods
> >we are using. My preferred analogy for the perceptual organization of real
> >world sounds would be that of the lexicon where individual items can be
> >classified based on acoustics/phonology, and also based on the ecological
> >significance/semantics/meaning. Of course, this analogy is not perfect,
> >and I offer it just as one way to think about the problem. For one, for
> >most environmental sounds the relationship between their semantics and
> >acoustics is not as arbitrary as it is for words.
> >If I understood you correctly, and your goal is synthesizing musically
> >useful noises (possibly based on some real world sounds) then rather than
> >trying to come up with a general all-encompassing classification of real
> >world sounds you may have more success figuring out specific types of
> >noises/sounds that maybe interesting for your application. Or, you can try
> >to find a way to represent different types of sounds in a smaller subset.
> >Best regards,
> >Valeriy Shafiro
> >Communication Disorders and Sciences
> >Rush University Medical Center
> >Chicago, IL
> >office (312) 942 - 3298
> >lab (312) 942 - 3316
> >email: email@example.com
> >Ballas, J.A. (1993). Common factors in the identification of an assortment
> >of brief
> >everyday sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
> >Performance, 19 (2), 250-267.
> >Gygi, B. (2001). Factors in the Identification of Environmental Sounds,
> >doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved
> >from http://www.indiana.edu/~k300bg/dissall.pdf
> > Marcell, M.M., Borella, D., Greene, M., Kerr, E. & Rogers, S. (2000).
> > Confrontation
> >naming of environmental sounds. Journal of Clinical and Experimental
> >Neuropsychology, 22(6), 830-864.
> Scanned on 16 Apr 2004 07:58:37
> Scanning by http://erado.com
tel;work:425.483.3232 ext. 114 or 132
org:Redhook Ale Brewery;Shipping / P.O.S. / Audiophile
adr;quoted-printable:;;14300 NE 145th Street=0D=0ASuite 210=0D=0A;Woodinville;Washington;98072;U.S.A.