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

Re : [AUDITORY] Re : Topics for discussion



Dear Yi Yu and dear list,

Thank you for the link to SoSoMir that I did not know. Personally I rather go to MusiSorbonne for music discussion or Music-Ir (Ircam list).
No my question  (which was underlied in my last message) addresses fondamentaly the modern definition of timbre which, in term of Maths, is not a definition but a theorem. Discrimination of timbre is only partly linked to pitch, and there are many musical example that would make the "official" definition in difficulty. I know that Mr Bregman advocate not to use the term timbre, but unfortunatly, I believe it is difficult to avoid using it.
I recall that if  most psycho-acoustic experiments on timbre differentiation suppose that the pitch of the sounds tested are the same; however in the following paper three tones [B3 (247 Hz), C#4 (277 Hz) and Bb4 (466 Hz)] were used : Jeremy Marozeau, Alain de Cheveigné, Stephen McAdams and Suzanne Winsberg, The dependency of timbre on fundemental frequency, JASA 114-5, 2003 pp.2946-2957.
Further more Alain de Cheveigné has put forward in another paper , The auditory system as a separation machine, In: Physiological and Psychological Bass of Auditory Fuction, Shaker 2000 pp. 453-460 that to not being able to seperate sounds is still a major problem for all of our existing mechanical recording systems. I believe, and I showed it somehow in my paper, Controlling spectral harmony with Kohonen maps, Cognitive Processing vol.4 (2003), Springer-Verlag, that one of the major problems we are having is that we chose the frequency as the first axis in our representation of sounds. In Maths the first axis has a very different signification than the second axis which is reserved for the image. It would mean that starting from a frequency we obtain an energy which is absurd but practical for representation. Chosing energy (or amplitude) as the first axis is problematic and not easy to handle as I showed in my paper, but it has the advantage to represent sound as we hear them (or getting closer to), that is that we are capable of discriminate timbre easely regardless of frequency (it is a vital function) but not frequencies regarless of timbre (usually not a vital function: if we don't hear a car coming we can die, if the car break the pitch of the car goes up and give us an important information, but still it is secondary; ie we need to discriminate the sound of the car whatever frequency the engine, breaks etc... are): I mean also that in normal conditions, with very litlle cultural knowledge, we know if a sound comes from a flute or a violin, but we are not capable to say which note is being played (except for highly trained musicians who have actually a different brain configuration, I am talking of scans not of metaphorical implications).
So my questions remain: how can we have overlooked Rousseau's dictionary for so long, which leads to another question: is our spectral representation really the good one, according that Fourier was not working on sound but on heat. Epistemologically speaking, I think that we are going progressively off the tracks since the 80s, and that there is a demand that our brain is being configurated to match how computer hears sounds. I'd like to be proved wrong.

Frédéric Maintenant





De : Yi Yu <yi.yu.yy@xxxxxxxxx>
À : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Envoyé le : Mer 17 mars 2010, 3 h 07 min 11 s
Objet : Re: Re : Topics for discussion

Dear list
 
The prolonged discussion for music can be done effectively on SoSoMir.net by creating a special group. SoSoMIR.net is a professional web site. The discussion result can be summarized and sent to the AUDITORY list.

All the best
 
www.SoSoMIR.net
 
Yi Yu
 
On 3/17/10, frédéric maintenant <fmaintenant@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you Mr Bregman for your comment!

I take the opportunity to ask again (I believe I did not use the proper mode of answering, since 4 or 5 years I haven't been much active on the list, being again more involved with music):
Does anybody know or is aware of how Gunther Schuller composed his piece Spectra (1958), it seems that he used spectral analysis of sound, a method that would be years ahead of his time. I am not only interested in the musical aspect of his composition but also in the potential scientific side: did he use scientific knowledge? 

Rousseau, in his dictionary, wrote already very advance things concerning differential sounds, partials, noise etc.; it seems that his most mature and official writing (ie the dictionary) has been widely overlooked. Here's a paper by the Cornelia Fales that put forward some of Rousseau's conception on sound and music:

Cornelia Fales (2005):  Listening to timbre during the French enlightment,

it gives an excellent account of the epistemology of the notion of timbre and can be read at:

http://www.oiccm.umontreal.ca/doc/cim05/articles/fales_c_cim05.pdf

I'd like to thank again Mr Giordano to have share with us the 1973 Wessel's paper:

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~bruno/Wessel_1973.pdf

It is a real gem! I noticed that the orientation was much more musical than what can be read afterward, notably with the mention of Varèse and Ligeti.

All the best,

Frédéric Maintenant
Chargé de cours à l'université Paul Valéry, Montpellier
Membre du groupe de recherche IDEAT/CNRS-Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris


De : Al Bregman <al.bregman@xxxxxxxxx>
À : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Envoyé le : Mar 16 mars 2010, 23 h 34 min 04 s
Objet : Topics for discussion

Dear list,

I would like to remind everyone that the AUDITORY list members come
from a variety of disciplines including experimental psychology,
linguistics (especially phonology), infant development, brain
sciences, music and other sonic arts, audio technology, artificial
intelligence, robotics, computer science, and speech and hearing
science.  For the last little while, the postings seem to have focused
heavily on a rather technical and heated discussion of the mechanics
of the cochlea.  It is impressive to see the enthusiasm of researchers
on this topic, but I hope that other people will not be discouraged
from interrupting this discussion with questions, announcements, and
messages on other topics.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if, when any group wishes to have a
prolonged discussion of a highly specialized topic, they form a
discussion group of interested parties.  It would then be of great
interest for the list as a whole to be brought up to date on the
thoughts, and maybe conclusions, of this specialized group if any of
its members were willing to take the trouble to write up summaries
from time to time.

Best to all,

Al

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor
Psychology Department, McGill University
1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue
Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1.
Office:  Phone: (514) 398-6103, Fax: (514) 398-4896
http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/Group2/abregm1/web/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 



De : Yi Yu <yi.yu.yy@xxxxxxxxx>
À : frédéric maintenant <fmaintenant@xxxxxxxx>
Cc : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Envoyé le : Mer 17 mars 2010, 3 h 07 min 11 s
Objet : Re: [AUDITORY] Re : Topics for discussion

Dear list
 
The prolonged discussion for music can be done effectively on SoSoMir.net by creating a special group. SoSoMIR.net is a professional web site. The discussion result can be summarized and sent to the AUDITORY list.

All the best
 
www.SoSoMIR.net
 
Yi Yu
 
On 3/17/10, frédéric maintenant <fmaintenant@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you Mr Bregman for your comment!

I take the opportunity to ask again (I believe I did not use the proper mode of answering, since 4 or 5 years I haven't been much active on the list, being again more involved with music):
Does anybody know or is aware of how Gunther Schuller composed his piece Spectra (1958), it seems that he used spectral analysis of sound, a method that would be years ahead of his time. I am not only interested in the musical aspect of his composition but also in the potential scientific side: did he use scientific knowledge? 

Rousseau, in his dictionary, wrote already very advance things concerning differential sounds, partials, noise etc.; it seems that his most mature and official writing (ie the dictionary) has been widely overlooked. Here's a paper by the Cornelia Fales that put forward some of Rousseau's conception on sound and music:

Cornelia Fales (2005):  Listening to timbre during the French enlightment,

it gives an excellent account of the epistemology of the notion of timbre and can be read at:

http://www.oiccm.umontreal.ca/doc/cim05/articles/fales_c_cim05.pdf

I'd like to thank again Mr Giordano to have share with us the 1973 Wessel's paper:

http://www.music.mcgill.ca/~bruno/Wessel_1973.pdf

It is a real gem! I noticed that the orientation was much more musical than what can be read afterward, notably with the mention of Varèse and Ligeti.

All the best,

Frédéric Maintenant
Chargé de cours à l'université Paul Valéry, Montpellier
Membre du groupe de recherche IDEAT/CNRS-Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris


De : Al Bregman <al.bregman@xxxxxxxxx>
À : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Envoyé le : Mar 16 mars 2010, 23 h 34 min 04 s
Objet : Topics for discussion

Dear list,

I would like to remind everyone that the AUDITORY list members come
from a variety of disciplines including experimental psychology,
linguistics (especially phonology), infant development, brain
sciences, music and other sonic arts, audio technology, artificial
intelligence, robotics, computer science, and speech and hearing
science.  For the last little while, the postings seem to have focused
heavily on a rather technical and heated discussion of the mechanics
of the cochlea.  It is impressive to see the enthusiasm of researchers
on this topic, but I hope that other people will not be discouraged
from interrupting this discussion with questions, announcements, and
messages on other topics.

Perhaps it would be a good idea if, when any group wishes to have a
prolonged discussion of a highly specialized topic, they form a
discussion group of interested parties.  It would then be of great
interest for the list as a whole to be brought up to date on the
thoughts, and maybe conclusions, of this specialized group if any of
its members were willing to take the trouble to write up summaries
from time to time.

Best to all,

Al

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert S. Bregman, Emeritus Professor
Psychology Department, McGill University
1205 Docteur Penfield Avenue
Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1B1.
Office:  Phone: (514) 398-6103, Fax: (514) 398-4896
http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/Group2/abregm1/web/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------