Subject: Re: sex differences in perception of environmental sounds From: David John SMith <smithd@xxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 23:37:22 -0400 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>----------MB_8CCC5E4E4406CD9_D68_81D7_web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" There seem to be several themes here -=20 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 im= agine the activity of instruments being played.?? Some performance pieces, notably pieces for= prepared piano by=20 John Cage, intentionally cross this boundary. The audience is watching a= familiar sound producing=20 event which produces sounds that do not evoke an associative event in memo= ry. 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 be= comes a "natural sound"=20 when the radio is evident onstage and comfort music to those for whom shor= twave radio has been an illegal connection with the outside world. An interesting caveat is echo (room reverberations) being much more notice= able when played back on a recording (in a different acoustic environment). This is a natur= al sound - sound quality - which becomes synthetic by reproduction.?=20 What about tape hiss - natural sound event? What about tight symphonic har= monies in Beethoven=20 which make it impossible to tell which instruments are playing? Natural sy= nthetic? So - my point, finally - perception is fractal.? Categorical descriptions= might be better investigated and=20 discussed with reference to the limits of possibility.? Without some refer= ence we are just mucking about. ie. Do people hear elephants differently If they wear red shirts? DS ----------MB_8CCC5E4E4406CD9_D68_81D7_web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" There seem to be several themes here - <br> I believe the distinction between natural sounds and artificial sounds is= generally<br> the same as sounds which are interpreted as events and those which are not= .<br> <br> Musical instruments generally fall in the "natural" category because we im= agine the activity<br> of instruments being played. Some performance pieces, notably= pieces for prepared piano by <br> John Cage, intentionally cross this boundary. The audience is watching a= familiar sound producing <br> event which produces sounds that do not evoke an associative event in memo= ry. Some, like those<br> by Karl Stockhausen use natural sound events which trigger memories only= in a specific groups -<br> and crosses perceptual and cultural boundaries. Shortwave radio stat= ic becomes a "natural sound" <br> when the radio is evident onstage and comfort music to those for whom shor= twave radio has been<br> an illegal connection with the outside world.<br> <br> An interesting caveat is echo (room reverberations) being much more notice= able when played<br> back on a recording (in a different acoustic environment). This is a natur= al sound - sound<br> quality - which becomes synthetic by reproduction. <br> <br> What about tape hiss - natural sound event? What about tight symphonic har= monies in Beethoven <br> which make it impossible to tell which instruments are playing? Natural sy= nthetic?<br> <br> So - my point, finally - perception is fractal. Categorical descript= ions might be better investigated and <br> discussed with reference to the limits of possibility. Without some= reference we are just mucking about.<br> ie. Do people hear elephants differently If they wear red shirts?<br> <br> DS<br> <br> ----------MB_8CCC5E4E4406CD9_D68_81D7_web-mmc-m06.sysops.aol.com--