Re: brightness (Peter Lennox )

Subject: Re: brightness
From:    Peter Lennox  <peter(at)LENNOX01.FREESERVE.CO.UK>
Date:    Tue, 14 May 2002 08:52:00 +0100

This sounds remarkably like an ecological or scene-analysis approach. In the case below, apart from air-filtering affecting high frequencies, there is the matter of 'sharpness' of high frequencies. that is, for relatively distant sounds, where occluding bodies might be relevant, high fequency portions of the signal are likely to have reiterated more often (and therefore have a longer signal path - in fact several signal paths) then the LF part. Thus, transients become 'blurred' (ie less sharp); is this sharpness related to judgements of brightness, and if so in what way? regards ppl ----- Original Message ----- From: "gia" <gia(at)SNAFU.DE> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: 13 May 2002 02:36 Subject: Re: brightness > Dull sounds are low-tension and bright sounds are exciting, as neurons > responsible to high-frequencies are excited (cortico-collicular or > colliculo-cochlear feedback is possible). Moreover, high-frequency could > mean that the sound source is not far away, because more distant sounds lose > high frequencies (thanks for Chris Darwin's and Jim Beauchamp's comments). > It is thus reasonable that as soon as human or animal hear sound containing > strong high-frequency components, they will be excited and alarmed. > > Instead of physical high/low, bright/dull may be related to near/distant. > > Chen-Gia Tsai > gia(at) > Taiwan > >

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