Re: The natural spectrogram, Re: Gaussian vs uniform noise audibility

[Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:52 27.01.2004 -0800, Julius Smith wrote:
>Yes, but I believe it is possible to configure and suitably process a
>short-time Fourier transform (STFT) to approach this ideal.  What's wrong
>with "one corresponding natural STFT"?   Something along these lines is
>done in the best model of time-varying loudness perception I am aware of:
(Glasberg & Moore JAES 02)

Thank you for the hint. I will check it. So far I can neither imagine the
STFT itself to be natural nor a spectrogram based on it. Wouldn't this
require to naturally choose size of the window? Wouldn't one have to decide
further arbitrary parameters like the degree of overlap? Doesn't any usual
spectrogram incompletely represent the information? Isn't the usual
spectrogram subject to the notorious trade-off beween spectral and temporal
resolution? Was there any physiological justification for STFT which could
include the rectification? Is there close similarity to measurement of BM
motion and neural pattern? I am sceptical in all of these and further
details.

Eckard

>At 10:05 AM 1/27/2004, Eckard Blumschein wrote:
>>There are many variants of desinging the windows and also many designs of
>>wavelets but there is only one physiological function of the inner ear and
>>only one corresponding natural spectrogram.