Subject: Re: noise classification problem From: Vincent Rioux <vincent.rioux(at)NO-LOG.ORG> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:45:55 +0200Back 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 (?) regards, vincent 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 >------------------------------------------------------------- >Valeriy Shafiro >Communication Disorders and Sciences >Rush University Medical Center >Chicago, IL > >office (312) 942 - 3298 >lab (312) 942 - 3316 >email: valeriy_shafiro(at)rush.edu > >Refs: > >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, >Unpublished >doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved >02/20/02 >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.