Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Re:_Shaeffer's_Trait=E9_des_objets_musicaux_?= -- From: "John K. Bates" <jkbates(at)COMPUTER.NET> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:28:39 -0400Kevin, I agree with your comments. I wish there were more who were thinking along this line. At 06:34 AM 04/17/2004, you wrote: snip >I have found this to be (like Helmholtz and Schaeffer) a melange of >cognition and perception that fails when there is an attempt to apply >it 'rigorously' in a "meaningful" (non-trivial) way. (The ability to >apply the results of the analysis as a creative tool.) But that may >be a discussion for other places. > >Part of the recent history of this attempt to classify may be the >search for 'the' "unified field theory" of (sonic) perception and >cognition, including the drive to develop some kind(s) of analytical >tools that will allow the 'final classification' of all sounds / >noises, You might be interested in my attempt at an operational analysis of auditory perception. It is based on fundamentals of why and how hearing has evolved as a sensory mode for aiding survival within the animal kingdom. It brings in elements of meaning as well as the requirements and physical limitations that are imposed by the acquisition of acoustic information that is needed for survival. My objective in doing the analysis was to develop a basic structure for computational auditory scene analysis. I reckoned that achieving a CASA model could best be done by understanding the essential functions, physical requirements, and constraints of natural auditory systems. (I would welcome a reference to any such pre-existing analysis.) By knowing the limits of what is required it becomes possible to design and implement an ASA system according to attainable parameters. The structure that has evolved from my analysis has similarity with mammalian auditory pathways, yet without any overt attempt to replicate them. If this analysis is correct, it could explain current difficulties in auditory modeling. In any case, it does intend to explain why a siren at 3:00 AM is noise but not noise in an emergency, and why 12-tone atonal music has an irritating percept. (At least, it does to my ears.) >Even without touching the voice, I find that the classification of >(This is (?) a psychometric definition of noise rather than an >acoustical one (?).) Therefore the classification system needs to >acknowledge the two parts (perceptual and cognitive -- the sensation >/ what the sensation is interpreted to mean). These factors are considered in my analysis. >There are many other layers to this thread, to be followed up in other places. <http://home.computer.net/~jkbates> Best regards, John Bates