Subject: Re: real-time information From: Paris Smaragdis <paris(at)media.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 18:49:53 -0500> Even if the virtue of decorrelation into mutually independent orthogonal > components may provide some similar benefits as does the actual function of > cochlea, I do not expect that any transform may fulfill the whole task > while avoiding detrimental sideeffects. That's why I am skeptical. Do we > really need a cochlea-lookalike transform in order to improve, for > instance, perceptual coding? I see three options. > > Those who are convinced that the problems can be resolved by providing the > "optimal" criteria of decomposition will perhaps go on offering an > abundance of rather academic transforms which do not necessarily reflect > the reality. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. My example was illustrative and by no means was I implying that decorrelation alone is a model of auditory development, neither that deriving a new transform is perceptually relevant. I was merely advocating a more mature and creative use of what people perceive as ugly and stagnant math. After all math, like english, is only a language to express ideas with, its expressiveness lies within its use. > They are obviously not interested in the function of the > audition, being to them just an exchangeable object. The function of audition is not the only holy grail here. One can only do so many interesting studies on modeling the cochlea, looking at neural spikes, or grouping tones. I hope everyone in the list accepts the fact that there are also interesting questions involving the development of audition, its driving principles, and its integration in the perceptual system, regardless of precise modeling. Paris