Subject: Re: noise classification problem From: "f.maintenant" <f.maintenant(at)NTLWORLD.COM> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:57:08 +0100correction concerning Shaeffer's Traité des objets musicaux, the last edition is from 1977 and includes an extra chapter: A LA RECHERCHE DE LA MUSIQUE MEME pp. 663-701, signed by Shaeffer with the date Mars 1977. The rest of the book as stated in that chapter by Shaeffer was published in 1966 ( Dix ans aprés la publication du Traité....). Frédéric Maintenant ----- Original Message ----- From: "Claire Piché" <clairepiche(at)VIF.COM> To: <AUDITORY(at)LISTS.MCGILL.CA> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 4:00 PM Subject: Re: noise classification problem > Susan allen wrote > Hello, I would like a definition of 'real world sounds' = does this > include piped in or background music in the retail/service > environment? Many thanks > Susan Allen > > --- That typical Music in the retail/service environment is called MUSAK > wich is also the name of the american firm that defined the concept > during the second world war II. Recently Doctor Hildegard Westerkamp > from Simon Frazer university (communication dpt) gave a lecture on > Musak. Michel Chion also discusses Musak in his book entitled > /Musiques, médias et technologies/, 1994, Paris: Flammarion, p.52-63. > > Also > > Raymond Murray Schafer. 1977. The Tuning of the World, New York; A. > Knopf Inc. 388p./ - Le paysage sonore./ Paris : J.-C. Lattès 1979 pour > la traduction française. > This book is a "must" for anyone interested in "sound of the environment" > Schafer is the "fondateur" of the Canadian Association for Sound Ecology > in Canada. > > Claire Piché > > > Vincent Rioux wrote > Back 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'. > > --- A little correction Vincent, Schaeffer'book has been published in > 1966 not 1997 > > Schaeffer, Pierre. 1966. /Traité des objets musicaux : essai > interdisciplines. /Paris : Éditions du Seuil, 701p. > > Claire Piché > > > > > > > > Vincent Rioux a écrit : > > > Back 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. > > > >