Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Frequency + Political Acoustics From: Jan Schnupp <000000e042a1ec30-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 12:47:40 +0200--0000000000004f70800632a6acf2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Doug, I think what Dick was getting at is periodicity tends to be a pretty good predictor of the perceived pitch, while individual Fourier components are much less useful. People like Cariani and Delgutte for example had argued this quite convincingly, and de Cheveigne and others have also done interesting work in that direction. I also think that Dick is 100% correct to point out that the word "frequency" can mean very different things in different contexts, and this often confuses lay people who are unfamiliar with the not exactly intuitive maths behind Fourier analysis. According to Fourier theory, a white noise burst is an infinite sum of infinitely many "frequencies", but instead of having infinitely many pitches it has, arguably, no distinguishable pitch. I say "arguably" because there is not only ambiguity in the word frequency is, there is also a lot of uncertainty in the definition of pitch. Much ink has been spilled about the rather useless ANSI definition of pitch "that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds may be ordered on a scale extending from low to high" which completely ignores the possibility that there are numerous directions that could be considered "up" and that this definition leaves it completely unclear who should do the ordering and according to which criteria. I can therefore set up a 2-afc experiment which would demonstrate with pretty high certainty that a white noise has a higher pitch than a pink noise or a brown noise. But comparing the white noise against a few piano notes would likely not result in a reliable ordering. Then there are experiments that can show that pitch direction can be ambiguus (eg Pressnitzer's Shepard tone experiments https://auditoryneuroscience.com/index.php/pitch/ShepardHysteresis) or that pitch differences can be helpful in scene analysis even if we can not easily attribute pitch values to different sources in a scene ( https://auditoryneuroscience.com/scene-analysis/double-vowels). In my view, our field is not helped by the fact that some of our key terminology is not really fit for purpose, and the ambiguities around "frequency"are only one of several examples. Not sure what to do about that though. None of this contradicts your view of pitch as a semiotic first though, or your assertion that it can be helpful to draw analogies between pitch and color. The perception of pitch and color "feels" immediate and in some way fundamental, but that sense of immediacy belies the complexity of the sensory processing that constructs these perceived qualities. Best, Jan --------------------------------------- Prof Jan Schnupp Gerald Choa Neuroscience Institute The Chinese University of Hong Kong Sha Tin Hong Kong https://auditoryneuroscience.com http://jan.schnupp.net On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 at 06:28, Douglas Scott <jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Dick > > I would have thought the opposite: Pitch isn't usually perceived as a > frequency in the sense of a rate of repetition, but rather as a semiotic > First (i.e. a direct perception). This would be analogous to the way colo= ur > is perceived versus the frequency of the light that produces the > sensation, which is even more imperceptible directly. This is how one can > "spoof" perceptual organs with false colour and reconstruct missing > fundamentals. > > The Fourier transform, meanwhile, is explicitly about repetition of the > circular motion of various types of circles. It is thus inherently a > semiotic Second, while assigning a pitch name or class would be a Third. > > Of course, these concepts are fluid, so constructing an interpretation in > your terms is also entirely possible, but I don't think it's the default > way of seeing it. Perhaps I'm biased. > > Doug > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2025 at 01:31, Richard F. Lyon < > 0000030301ff4bce-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Adam, >> >> Thanks for bringing us back to topics more germane to the list. (While = I >> agree there's a lot that needs to be discussed about the current state o= f >> craziness in the U.S., I also agree that this list is probably not so gr= eat >> a place to take that on. I realize I'm speaking from a position of >> almost-retired and already signed up for Social Security, so not as much >> affected as many. When I was out on the "Hands Off" protest march, >> Auditory was not on my mind.) >> >> I took a glance at your paper, and it looks to me like you didn't do a >> clear enough job of distinguishing different notions of frequency (maybe= I >> need to read more). Pitch, though a perceptual concept, is very closely >> related to the concept of frequency as repetition rate. In physics and >> math, however, frequency is often thought of as a parameter of a Fourier >> transform, more related to sinusoids, or circular motion, than to >> repetition. Your paper barely mentions pitch, but I think it's a concep= t >> that might help make some of your points better. I look forward to read= ing >> more of it. >> >> Dick >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 9:31=E2=80=AFPM Adam Weisser <adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx= ail.fm> >> wrote: >> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> I would like to share with you my latest piece on the topic of >>> frequency. While it is not strictly within auditory science, this work >>> would have never materialized if it weren't for the deeply-ingrained >>> approach to acoustic signals that has time and frequency as more or les= s >>> independent dimensions - two attributes of sound that are interrelated,= but >>> which we generally perceive as essentially different. Contrasting this >>> understanding with the fundamental definition of frequency in physics -= the >>> reciprocal of the period - leaves much to be elucidated and is duly >>> riddled with paradoxes. >>> >>> In this manuscript, I review the different instantiations of the concep= t >>> of frequency in physics, engineering, mathematics, and perception, >>> partially tracing their historical evolution, in attempt to answer the >>> question of whether frequency can be counted as a separate dimension of >>> reality, in addition to space and time. The resolution ties together ti= me, >>> frequency, and determinism in a highly counterintuitive manner: >>> >>> https://zenodo.org/records/15162477 >>> >>> While I have no illusions regarding how this text (and its author) may >>> come across given the extraordinary claims put forth, I have tried to g= o >>> about it in the most rigorous way I could, while methodically scrutiniz= ing >>> some long-held dogmas in the sciences, in hope of sparking further >>> discussion, somewhere down the road. >>> >>> For what it's worth, I'm indebted to what I have learned (or maybe, >>> mislearned) by virtue of being part of the auditory community. Yet, the= se >>> days appear to be challenging to many members of the Auditory List. I o= nce >>> had a good colleague (PKR) who lamented how we were never trained in >>> "political acoustics" in engineering school, that would have endowed us >>> with the necessary skill set to be able to juggle between the various >>> demands of our whimsical bosses. Even today, still nobody teaches this >>> subject, and people are expected to figure out this vital skill as they= go >>> along, while trying to survive and stay true to what they were original= ly >>> hired to do. It's perhaps ironic, because in every other respect, heari= ng >>> science must be one of the most unifying and all-encompassing of all hu= man >>> endeavors, being positioned in the nexus between physics, biology, >>> psychology, neuroscience, perception, communication, language, music, >>> engineering, medicine, environment, architecture, computer science, >>> mathematics, and many other disciplines. All this is in opposition to >>> politics, which usually excels in sowing division, whether we are ready= to >>> get directly involved with it or not. >>> >>> I hope that we can transcend these unpleasant times both as individuals >>> and as a community and eventually get back to what we do best, which is >>> study hearing and sound. >>> >>> With wishes for better times to come, >>> And thank you for your attention and time, >>> Adam. >>> >> --0000000000004f70800632a6acf2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Hi Doug,</div><div>I think what Dick was getting at i= s periodicity tends=C2=A0to be a pretty good predictor of the perceived pit= ch, while individual Fourier components are much less useful. People like C= ariani and Delgutte for example had argued this quite convincingly, and de = Cheveigne and others have also done interesting work in that direction. I a= lso think that Dick is 100% correct to point out that the word "freque= ncy" can mean very different things in different contexts,=C2=A0and th= is often confuses lay=C2=A0people who=C2=A0are unfamiliar with=C2=A0the not= exactly intuitive maths behind Fourier analysis. According to Fourier theo= ry, a white noise burst is an infinite sum of infinitely many "frequen= cies", but instead of having infinitely many pitches it has, arguably,= no distinguishable pitch.=C2=A0</div><div>I say "arguably" becau= se there is not only ambiguity in the word frequency is, there is also a lo= t of uncertainty in the definition of pitch. Much ink has been spilled abou= t the rather useless ANSI definition of pitch "that attribute of audit= ory sensation in terms of which sounds may be ordered on a scale extending = from low to high" which completely ignores the possibility that there = are numerous directions that could be considered "up" and that th= is definition leaves it completely unclear who should do the ordering and a= ccording to which criteria. I can therefore set up a 2-afc experiment which= would demonstrate with pretty high=C2=A0certainty that a white noise has a= higher pitch than a pink noise or a brown noise. But comparing the white n= oise against a few piano notes would likely not result in a reliable orderi= ng. Then there are experiments that can show that pitch direction can be am= biguus=C2=A0(eg Pressnitzer's=C2=A0Shepard tone experiments <a href=3D"= https://auditoryneuroscience.com/index.php/pitch/ShepardHysteresis">https:/= /auditoryneuroscience.com/index.php/pitch/ShepardHysteresis</a>) or that pi= tch differences can be helpful in scene analysis even if we can not easily = attribute pitch values to different sources in a scene (<a href=3D"https://= auditoryneuroscience.com/scene-analysis/double-vowels">https://auditoryneur= oscience.com/scene-analysis/double-vowels</a>).</div><div><br></div><div>In= my view, our field is not helped by the fact that some of our key terminol= ogy is not really fit for purpose, and the ambiguities around "frequen= cy"are only one of several examples. Not sure what to do about that th= ough.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>None of this contradicts your view of = pitch as a semiotic first though, or your assertion that it can be helpful = to draw analogies between pitch and color. The perception of pitch and colo= r "feels" immediate and in some way fundamental, but that=C2=A0se= nse of immediacy belies the complexity=C2=A0of the sensory processing that = constructs these perceived=C2=A0qualities.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>B= est,</div><div><br></div><div>Jan</div><div><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail= _signature" data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D= "ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><= div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><br></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">--= -------------------------------------</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">= Prof Jan Schnupp</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">Gerald Choa Neuroscie= nce Institute</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px">The Chinese University o= f Hong Kong</div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><span style=3D"font-size:1= 2.8px">Sha Tin</span></div><div style=3D"font-size:12.8px"><span style=3D"f= ont-size:12.8px">Hong Kong</span><br></div><div><div style=3D"font-size:12.= 8px"><br></div><a href=3D"https://auditoryneuroscience.com" target=3D"_blan= k">https://auditoryneuroscience.com</a></div><div><a href=3D"http://jan.sch= nupp.net" target=3D"_blank">http://jan.schnupp.net<br></a></div></div></div= ></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quot= e gmail_quote_container"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, 13 A= pr 2025 at 06:28, Douglas Scott <<a href=3D"mailto:jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx= com">jdmusictuition@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"= gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(20= 4,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Hi Dick<div><br></div><div>I = would have thought the opposite: Pitch isn't usually perceived as a fre= quency in the sense of a rate of repetition, but rather as a semiotic First= (i.e. a direct perception). This would be analogous to the way colour is p= erceived versus the frequency of the light that produces the sensation,=C2= =A0which is even more imperceptible directly. This is how one can "spo= of" perceptual organs with false colour and reconstruct missing fundam= entals.</div><div><br></div><div>The Fourier transform, meanwhile, is expli= citly about repetition of the circular motion of various types of circles. = It is thus inherently a semiotic Second, while assigning a pitch name or cl= ass would be a Third.</div><div><br></div><div>Of course, these concepts ar= e fluid, so constructing an interpretation in your terms is also entirely p= ossible, but I don't think it's the default way of seeing it. Perha= ps I'm biased.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Doug</div></div><br><div cl= ass=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sat, 12 Apr 20= 25 at 01:31, Richard F. Lyon <<a href=3D"mailto:0000030301ff4bce-dmarc-r= equest@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">0000030301ff4bce-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx= sts.mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= le=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);paddi= ng-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-si= ze:small">Adam,</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small"= ><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:small">Thanks=C2= =A0for bringing us back to topics more germane to the list.=C2=A0 (While I = agree there's a lot that needs to be discussed about the current state = of craziness in the U.S., I also agree that this list is probably not so gr= eat a place to take that on.=C2=A0 I realize I'm speaking from a positi= on of almost-retired and already signed up for Social Security, so not as m= uch affected as many.=C2=A0 When I was out on the "Hands Off" pro= test march, Auditory was not on my mind.)</div><div class=3D"gmail_default"= style=3D"font-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"= font-size:small">I took a glance at your paper, and it looks to me like you= didn't do a clear enough job of distinguishing different notions of fr= equency=C2=A0(maybe I need to read more).=C2=A0 Pitch, though a perceptual = concept, is very closely related to the concept of frequency as repetition = rate.=C2=A0 In physics and math, however, frequency is often thought of as = a parameter of a Fourier transform, more related to sinusoids, or circular = motion, than to repetition.=C2=A0 Your paper barely mentions pitch, but I t= hink it's a concept that might help make some of your points better.=C2= =A0 I look forward to reading more of it.</div><div class=3D"gmail_default"= style=3D"font-size:small"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"= font-size:small">Dick</div><div class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-size:= small"><br></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" clas= s=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 9:31=E2=80=AFPM Adam Weisser <<= a href=3D"mailto:adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank">adam_weisser@xxxxxxxx= astmail.fm</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style= =3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding= -left:1ex"><div><u></u><div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Dear all,</div= ><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial= ">I would like to share with you my latest piece on the topic of frequency.= While it is not strictly within auditory science, this work would have nev= er materialized if it weren't for the deeply-ingrained approach to acou= stic signals that has time and frequency as more or less independent dimens= ions - two attributes of sound that are interrelated, but which we generall= y perceive as essentially different. Contrasting this understanding with th= e fundamental definition of frequency in physics - the reciprocal of the pe= riod=C2=A0 - leaves much to be elucidated and is duly riddled with paradoxe= s.</div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style=3D"font-famil= y:Arial">In this manuscript, I review the different instantiations of the c= oncept of frequency in physics, engineering, mathematics, and perception, p= artially tracing their historical evolution, in attempt to answer the quest= ion of whether frequency can be counted as a separate dimension of reality,= in addition to space and time. The resolution ties together time, frequenc= y, and determinism in a highly counterintuitive manner:</div><div style=3D"= font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><a href=3D"ht= tps://zenodo.org/records/15162477" target=3D"_blank">https://zenodo.org/rec= ords/15162477</a></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br></div><div styl= e=3D"font-family:Arial">While I have no illusions regarding how this text (= and its author) may come across given the extraordinary claims put forth, I= have tried to go about it in the most rigorous way I could, while methodic= ally scrutinizing some long-held dogmas in the sciences, in hope of sparkin= g further discussion, somewhere down the road.</div><div style=3D"font-fami= ly:Arial"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial">For what it's wort= h, I'm indebted to what I have learned (or maybe, mislearned) by virtue= of being part of the auditory community. Yet, these days appear to be chal= lenging to many members of the Auditory List.=C2=A0I once had a good collea= gue (PKR) who lamented how we were never trained in "political acousti= cs" in engineering school, that would have endowed us with the necessa= ry skill set to be able to juggle between the various demands of our whimsi= cal bosses. Even today, still nobody teaches this subject, and people are e= xpected to figure out this vital skill as they go along, while trying to su= rvive and stay true to what they were originally hired to do. It's perh= aps ironic, because in every other respect, hearing science must be one of = the most unifying and all-encompassing of all human endeavors, being positi= oned in the nexus between physics, biology, psychology, neuroscience, perce= ption, communication, language, music, engineering, medicine, environment, = architecture, computer science, mathematics, and many other disciplines. Al= l this is in opposition to politics, which=C2=A0usually excels in sowing di= vision, whether we are ready to get directly involved with it or not.</div>= <div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br></div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"= >I hope that we can transcend these unpleasant times both as individuals an= d as a community and eventually get back to what we do best, which is study= hearing and sound.</div><div style=3D"font-family:Arial"><br></div><div st= yle=3D"font-family:Arial">With wishes for better times to come,</div><div s= tyle=3D"font-family:Arial">And thank you for your attention and time,</div>= <div style=3D"font-family:Arial">Adam.</div></div></div></blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> </blockquote></div> --0000000000004f70800632a6acf2--