Subject: Re: Eckard or Christian? From: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE> Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 07:58:04 +0200At 13:05 16.05.2001 -0700, Pierre Divenyi wrote: >Sorry, folks. I was just reminded that I should have addressed my last >comments re/ Titze to Eckard rather than Christian. My apologies! > >Pierre Pierre, Nobody of us is perfect, and I am aware of having made several mistakes myself. I appreciate Alain's courage as well as his valuable criticism. Forgive me smiling upon you being able expressing your own dislike in a private correspondence to you and even mixing up Christian, a very reputated expert in psychology, with me. Admittedly, I am having problems in understanding your comment. Concerning Titze's model, I refer to Martin's paper, p. 87. Do you have any objection against the physical effect of trachea resonance on f0? Perhaps not. I understood that you consider this effect unlikely to be applicable to musical pitch in speech. Of course, f0 is not identical with pitch. I do not have much knowledge of the various methods for pitch tracking. Merely discrete samples of f0 can be exactly determined by measuring the distances between subsequent glottal pulses. See for instance my adress A015 (Don George). In that context, it does not matter whether f0 belongs to speech or musics. If my interpretation of Martin's data is correct, then they actually relate to f0 rather than to pitch. You are correct. A listener would probably not be able to perceive the pitch as exactly as we can measure the distance between two glottal pulses. I see this one more argument against Martin's original idea. I am not a proponent of that. Eckard At 10:17 16.05.2001 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Alain, Bruno, Christian and others, > >I happen to disagree with Bruno: apologizing always takes courage and Alain >just showed us that he is a scientist of sufficient stature to give us >proof of his courage. Than k you, Alain, in the name of all of those who, >like me, expressed dislike (in private correspondence to me) of a >scientific debate becoming personal. > >Christian', concerning your argument on the likelihood of the Titze model's >applicability to musical pitch in speech, as a psychophysicist you must >know that we don't perceive the extreme frequency as the pitch of an FM >sweep. Depending on the rate of FM, it has been demonstrated by many (e.g., >Nabelek et al. in the 70s) that the pitch is (a) uncertain and (b) its >average value will be somewhere on the FM trajectory. So, proponents of >musical speaking will have to come up with a different argument. > >Pierre >