Onsets (Stephen Smoliar )

Subject: Onsets
From:    Stephen Smoliar  <smoliar(at)ISS.NUS.SG>
Date:    Thu, 16 Sep 1993 07:59:45 -0400

Al Bregman writes: > INCIDENTALLY, I THINK THAT IT WOULD >BE BETTER TO USE THE NAME "EVENT" IN AUDITION, RATHER THAN IMPORTING THE NAME >"OBJECT" FROM VISION. "EVENT" IS TO AUDITION WHAT 'OBJECT" IS TO VISION. > I think I agree with this in both letter and spirit, but I would still like to kick it around a bit. I think that it IS important to distinguish entities which basically occupy some extent of space from those which only exist by virtue of the passage of time. The only danger is that we may equate the concept of "event" with some particular interval of time and all that transpires over that interval. Such an interpretation might deny the subject of a fugue being stated by a single voice in the fabric of counterpoint the status of being an event, since the event would only be what all the voices happened to be doing at that time. However, the concept of event does not force such an interpretation, since it is perfectly possible to speak of concurrent events. Therefore, I guess I am willing to accept that we have visual objects but auditory events. (If this were not an auditory discussion group, I suppose I would now want to ask about the distinction between visual objects and tactile objects!) Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511 Internet: smoliar(at)iss.nus.sg FAX: +65-473-9897

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <dpwe@ee.columbia.edu>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University