Re: ... differences in perception of ... sound[s]

[Kevin Austin <kevin.austin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks. I would consider that 'sound' does not exist independently of perception. There may be vibration etc etc, but this list is the AUDITORY list, not the ACOUSTICS list. The interest would appear to be how the nervous system and related organs receive and convert mechanical energy into electrochemical energy (cochlea discussions), and how the brain decodes this complex of information.

In my classes, I try to have the students differentiate between 'sounds' and signals (in the electronic or digital sense, not in the semiotic sense). I 'hear' a bell. Does that mean that there is a bell in the environment? Maybe I have interpreted the sound as being that of a bell.

Here, I hear bells. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xze97RUKsc&feature=related
and here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4x_mXNJ-3w
and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0Z-WTyzCxs&feature=related

I would propose that perception of sound is not a linear or uni-dimensional activity. The physical stimulus is gone before it can be processed, therefore, it would appear to me to relate to the traces of the stimulus that are being processed. The broader ones basis of comparison / categorization, the wider (and more detailed) the range of options for their classification.

Kevin



On 2010, May 20, at 5:40 PM, Anna Preis wrote:

> Dear List,
> 
> I do not know who started the discussion about definition of environmental sounds.
> In my opinion another question is  important :  do we really listen to the sounds?
> 
> I believe that we  listen to the sound sources. In this case there is no need to classify sounds we have to classify sound sources. We know which sound sources occur in an environment!
> It is much easer to name the environmental sound sources and as a consequence environmental sounds.
> 
> Anna Preis
> 
> Kevin Austin pisze:
>> My terms for this are acoustic and electroacoustic. If a tree falls in a forest -- an event ... if a composer records the tree falling in a forest, and plays it back through a loudspeaker (in the forest) ... is this an event or a concert?
>> 
>> While the categorization discussion is important (for me), I see it as part of the larger question of [the nature of] identity, which requires memory. I know what an explosion in outer space sounds like because I have watched Star Wars.
>> 
>>  
>>> What about tight symphonic harmonies in Beethoven which make it impossible to tell which instruments are playing? Natural synthetic?
>>>    
>> 
>> Perhaps impossible for you, but the question is not one of the vibration in the outside world but one on the part of the listener.
>> 
>> With this as a framework, there is no "natural" and "synthetic" division in the acoustical signal, simply variations in amplitude. At a local railway / road crossing, the [real] bell has been replaced by a synthesized tone. Children hearing this will growing with this tone as being "natural", or at least as natural as the explosion in outer space.
>> 
>> Can one thing be "more real" (surreal) than another [without the invocation of memory]?
>> 
>> I record a grand piano playing a scale. It is played back through a boombox, and then through a $3000 pair of speakers. Which is more real? [*]
>> 
>> Kevin
>> 
>> 
>> [* I usually hear both as being the recording of a piano being played through a loudspeaker. Sometimes I hear is as being part of the Beethoven Seventh Symphony in the piano transcription by Liszt, but in this case, I am listening.]
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2010, May 19, at 11:37 PM, David John SMith wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>> There seem to be several themes here - I believe the distinction between natural sounds and artificial sounds is generally the same as sounds which are interpreted as events and those which are not.
>>> 
>>> Musical instruments generally fall in the "natural" category because we imagine the activity of instruments being played. Some performance pieces, notably pieces for prepared piano by John Cage, intentionally cross this boundary. The audience is watching a familiar sound producing event which produces sounds that do not evoke an associative event in memory. Some, like those by Karl Stockhausen use natural sound events which trigger memories only in a specific groups - and crosses perceptual and cultural boundaries.  Shortwave radio static becomes a "natural sound" when the radio is evident onstage and comfort music to those for whom shortwave radio has been an illegal connection with the outside world.
>>> 
>>> An interesting caveat is echo (room reverberations) being much more noticeable when played
>>> back on a recording (in a different acoustic environment). This is a natural sound - sound
>>> quality - which becomes synthetic by reproduction.  
>>> What about tape hiss - natural sound event? What about tight symphonic harmonies in Beethoven which make it impossible to tell which instruments are playing? Natural synthetic?
>>> 
>>> So - my point, finally - perception is fractal.  Categorical descriptions might be better investigated and discussed with reference to the limits of possibility.  Without some reference we are just mucking about.
>>> ie. Do people hear elephants differently If they wear red shirts?
>>> 
>>> DS
>>> 
>>>    
>>