Subject: Re: place pitch and temporal pitch From: Eckard Blumschein <Eckard.Blumschein(at)E-TECHNIK.UNI-MAGDEBURG.DE> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:37:21 +0100Dear Christian, At 14:02 19.03.2004 +0100, you wrote: >> Understanding your reasoning quite well, I can nonetheless not confirm >> that. Your filters excluded the spectral code. Consequently, the admittedly >> hidden two-stage autocorrelation of the raw sound waveform was also >> excluded. This caused the discrepancy between your correct conclusion that >> there is no autocorrelation and Peter Cariani's claim that autocorrelation >> plays an important role. Do not be disappointed. You discovered what >> remains without spectrally based autocorrelation. > >Oh, Eckard, I would not be disappointed if we two would continue to >disagree. Such things happen. Respecting the limitations to this list, I do nonetheless not accept evading clarification just with regard to your reputation in case of lacking arguments. Therefore I suggest we clarify the matter in all details privately and inform the list about the outcome. Referees who hide the truth would kill any progress. >As to this attempt to "save" AC via a two-stage model including both >spectral and temporal processing: You are getting me wrong, hopefully not deliberately. The two-stage model was perhaps invented several times. Bogert, Healy, and Tukey published it in 1963. The pertaining mathematics is definitely correct. BTW, the real-valued cepstrum is sufficient. My approach was quite different. First I dealt for decades with inappropriateness of the spectrogram and developed the natural spectrogram. Then I had to understand radar systems using the IFFT method. I realized that a combination of these components provides a model of hearing that fits very well to all data I and unexplained phenomena I am aware of so far. It is also evolutionary plausible. While I never intended to save AC, I speculate that application of AC on the Cochleagram instead of the original signal contributed to the limited success of Malcolm Slaney's correlogram. >No, it does not work. I do not accept such an unproven wrong guess. Nevertheless all my best wishes, Eckard