can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Cacophony7
Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or both or plain-old-something-else sound.

if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or ANY structure is going to be spectral.

we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be omni-simultaneous while
remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.

I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how we can use it to
find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.

But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his work.

Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.

Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.

How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often with less hassle?
this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.

Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of chocolates?
You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so he or she doesn't have
to go through as much trail and error as you did.

My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as exactly is possible.
My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling, sorting, grouping etc.

I kinda had a dream about this.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

bubget

I find this proposal/question quite interesting...

The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?

Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple example..

What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an analysis of the waveform?

If so, this would be a viable project..

On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
both or plain-old-something-else sound.

if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
ANY structure is going to be spectral.

we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
omni-simultaneous while
remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.

I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
we can use it to
find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.

But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
work.

Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.

Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.

How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
with less hassle?
this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.

Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
chocolates?
You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
he or she doesn't have
to go through as much trail and error as you did.

My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
exactly is possible.
My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
sorting, grouping etc.

I kinda had a dream about this.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Partev Barr Sarkissian
In reply to this post by Cacophony7

"what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?

Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
music background. That would be a great idea.

Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.



-PBS

=====================================================

--- [hidden email] wrote:

From: T Lopez <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200

I find this proposal/question quite interesting...

The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?

Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple example..

What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an analysis of the waveform?

If so, this would be a viable project..

On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
both or plain-old-something-else sound.

if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
ANY structure is going to be spectral.

we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
omni-simultaneous while
remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.

I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
we can use it to
find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.

But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
work.

Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.

Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.

How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
with less hassle?
this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.

Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
chocolates?
You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
he or she doesn't have
to go through as much trail and error as you did.

My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
exactly is possible.
My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
sorting, grouping etc.

I kinda had a dream about this.



--
View this message in context: http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
 

Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

gsenna
It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
to embark in such a project.


On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:

> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>
> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
> music background. That would be a great idea.
>
> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>
>
>
> -PBS
>
> =====================================================
>
> --- [hidden email] wrote:
>
> From: T Lopez <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>
> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>
> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>
> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple
> example..
>
> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an
> analysis of the waveform?
>
> If so, this would be a viable project..
>
> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
>     spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
>     point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
>     both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>
>     if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
>     ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>
>     we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
>     omni-simultaneous while
>     remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.
>
>     I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
>     we can use it to
>     find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>
>     But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
>     work.
>
>     Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.
>
>     Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.
>
>     How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
>     with less hassle?
>     this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.
>
>     Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
>     chocolates?
>     You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
>     he or she doesn't have
>     to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>
>     My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
>     exactly is possible.
>     My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
>     sorting, grouping etc.
>
>     I kinda had a dream about this.
>
>
>
>     --
>     View this message in context:
>     http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>     Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>     Csound mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>     Send bugs reports to
>     https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>     Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>
> Csound mailing list [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
> posted here
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
> Csound mailing list [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
> posted here

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS
Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition to
Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with "Multidimensional
perceptual scaling of musical timbres":

http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf

The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional parameters
for a satisfary description of sound?

Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to
shape the timbre?

The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch (high
and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or duration
(line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.

Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic form.

This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.

Andrea S.



Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:

> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
> to embark in such a project.
>
>
> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>
>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>
>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>
>>
>>
>> -PBS
>>
>> =====================================================
>>
>> --- [hidden email] wrote:
>>
>> From: T Lopez <[hidden email]>
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>
>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>
>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>
>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple
>> example..
>>
>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an
>> analysis of the waveform?
>>
>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>
>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>
>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>
>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.
>>
>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
>>      we can use it to
>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>
>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
>>      work.
>>
>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.
>>
>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.
>>
>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
>>      with less hassle?
>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.
>>
>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
>>      chocolates?
>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
>>      he or she doesn't have
>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>
>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
>>      exactly is possible.
>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>
>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>
>>
>>
>>      --
>>      View this message in context:
>>      http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>      Csound mailing list
>>      [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>      Send bugs reports to
>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>> Csound mailing list [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
>> posted here
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>> Csound mailing list [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
>> posted here
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS
If there's a solution, i think will be a multidimensional solution.

Andrea S.


Il 08/05/2017 09:14, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:

> Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition
> to Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with
> "Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres":
>
> http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf
>
> The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional
> parameters for a satisfary description of sound?
>
> Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to
> shape the timbre?
>
> The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch (high
> and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or duration
> (line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.
>
> Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic
> form.
>
> This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.
>
> Andrea S.
>
>
>
> Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the
>>> questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate
>>> for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some
>>> synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -PBS
>>>
>>> =====================================================
>>>
>>> --- [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> From: T Lopez <[hidden email]>
>>> To: [hidden email]
>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>>
>>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>>
>>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>>
>>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a
>>> super simple
>>> example..
>>>
>>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified
>>> soley by an
>>> analysis of the waveform?
>>>
>>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just
>>> going to be a
>>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if
>>> we can find a
>>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or
>>> metallic or
>>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>>
>>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the
>>> infrastructure or
>>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>>
>>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound
>>> can be
>>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth
>>> to it.
>>>
>>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral
>>> theory and how
>>>      we can use it to
>>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>>
>>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher
>>> but I love his
>>>      work.
>>>
>>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one
>>> hyper-hierarchy.
>>>
>>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the
>>> freedom-seekers.
>>>
>>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we
>>> want more often
>>>      with less hassle?
>>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere
>>> conflict.
>>>
>>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't
>>> such a box of
>>>      chocolates?
>>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for
>>> the next guy so
>>>      he or she doesn't have
>>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>>
>>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we
>>> had in mind as
>>>      exactly is possible.
>>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and
>>> controlling,
>>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>>
>>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      View this message in context:
>>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>      Csound mailing list
>>>      [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>>      Send bugs reports to
>>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>
>>> Csound mailing list [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and
>>> features can be
>>> posted here
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>> Csound mailing list [hidden email]
>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and
>>> features can be
>>> posted here
>> Csound mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Richard
In reply to this post by gsenna
I suspect that the short answer to the question is "No". The domain of
sounds is unbounded, so that as soon as any classification is completed,
someone will be able to invent a sound that doesn't fit. One of my pet
topics is the extraordinary limitations of (the English) language for
describing sounds. We tend to rely on association with material (hence,
ceramic, metallic, brassy, wooden, grainy), on onomatopoeia (bang,
whoosh, thud),  on other senses (bright, dull, dark,warm, dry), methods
of production (textured, layered), kinds of action (sweeping, rolling,
flowing, rising, falling, rattling), indirect spatial (reverberant,
echoey, high, low) and so on. So - how it's made, what it feels like,
what space is it in, how it behaves. Nothing that says simply what it is
without any external reference.

We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that
directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the
names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course
non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are
described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the
spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important
to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.

We do have periodic and aperiodic, harmonic and inharmonic, and
immediately the problem that a sound can contain elements of each and
all of these in arbitrary and changing proportions. This might be the
basis of a classification that does not, at any point, depend on
comparisons with sounds assumed to be already known. But I have little
confidence that, given a purely verbal description, someone could
reliably create a sound that matches the subject to general agreement,
except, as already suggested, for sounds that are already minimalist and
synthetic in their nature, such as the ubiquitous sinusoid. That may, of
course, be a good thing!

Still, it is very probably a useful exercise, especially if it leads to
new tools; and with the potential to invent any number of new technical
terms...most or all of which will probably fail, like "morphology", to
enter the vernacular and appear in school essays on "what I did on my
holidays".

Richard Dobson


On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:

> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
> to embark in such a project.
>
>
> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>
>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>
>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>
>>
...

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS
In reply to this post by AndreaS
that is: a multi-windows solution.


Il 08/05/2017 09:25, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:

> If there's a solution, i think will be a multidimensional solution.
>
> Andrea S.
>
>
> Il 08/05/2017 09:14, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:
>> Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition
>> to Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with
>> "Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres":
>>
>> http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf
>>
>> The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional
>> parameters for a satisfary description of sound?
>>
>> Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to
>> shape the timbre?
>>
>> The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch
>> (high and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or
>> duration (line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.
>>
>> Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic
>> form.
>>
>> This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.
>>
>> Andrea S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:
>>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>>> to embark in such a project.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the
>>>> questions of Taxonomy?
>>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>>
>>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate
>>>> for audio
>>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some
>>>> synth or electronic
>>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>>
>>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -PBS
>>>>
>>>> =====================================================
>>>>
>>>> --- [hidden email] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: T Lopez <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: [hidden email]
>>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>>>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>>>
>>>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>>>
>>>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>>>
>>>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a
>>>> super simple
>>>> example..
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified
>>>> soley by an
>>>> analysis of the waveform?
>>>>
>>>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" <[hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just
>>>> going to be a
>>>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if
>>>> we can find a
>>>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or
>>>> metallic or
>>>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>>>
>>>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the
>>>> infrastructure or
>>>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>>>
>>>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound
>>>> can be
>>>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral
>>>> theory and how
>>>>      we can use it to
>>>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>>>
>>>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher
>>>> but I love his
>>>>      work.
>>>>
>>>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one
>>>> hyper-hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the
>>>> freedom-seekers.
>>>>
>>>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we
>>>> want more often
>>>>      with less hassle?
>>>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere
>>>> conflict.
>>>>
>>>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't
>>>> such a box of
>>>>      chocolates?
>>>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for
>>>> the next guy so
>>>>      he or she doesn't have
>>>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>>>
>>>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we
>>>> had in mind as
>>>>      exactly is possible.
>>>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and
>>>> controlling,
>>>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>>>
>>>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      --
>>>>      View this message in context:
>>>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html 
>>>>
>>>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at
>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>      Csound mailing list
>>>>      [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>>>      Send bugs reports to
>>>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>
>>>> Csound mailing list [hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and
>>>> features can be
>>>> posted here
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>>> Csound mailing list [hidden email]
>>>> <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and
>>>> features can be
>>>> posted here
>>> Csound mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>> Send bugs reports to
>>>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>
>>
>> Csound mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Victor Lazzarini
In reply to this post by Richard
That, and the fact that we always use some sort of metaphor when talking about music and sound.
========================
Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Tel: 00 353 7086936
Fax: 00 353 1 7086952
>
> We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.
>


> Richard Dobson
>
>
> On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>       https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

bubget

Riveting thread guys, thanks for all your informative responses..I have little to add unfortunately, due to my limited knowledge on the topic.

Indeed, however, my interest has been piqued.

On 8 May 2017 09:57, "Victor Lazzarini" <[hidden email]> wrote:
That, and the fact that we always use some sort of metaphor when talking about music and sound.
========================
Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Tel: 00 353 7086936
Fax: 00 353 1 7086952
>
> We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.
>


> Richard Dobson
>
>
> On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>       https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS

There are two plans that can be distinguished: the plan of the symbolic and the plan of the sound representation;

There's some shades, but they are distinguished.

Is it important to elaborate a grammar of timbre? Maybe not. When the "odyssey" was written the grammar did not exist.

But for a young student it's more difficult to learn a music notation system with very arbitrary  signs.

Pierce defined icons, indices, symbols. Not all signs are the same.



Il 08/05/2017 21:08, T Lopez ha scritto:

Riveting thread guys, thanks for all your informative responses..I have little to add unfortunately, due to my limited knowledge on the topic.

Indeed, however, my interest has been piqued.

On 8 May 2017 09:57, "Victor Lazzarini" <[hidden email]> wrote:
That, and the fact that we always use some sort of metaphor when talking about music and sound.
========================
Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Tel: 00 353 7086936
Fax: 00 353 1 7086952
>
> We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.
>


> Richard Dobson
>
>
> On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
> Csound mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>       https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list
[hidden email]
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

rorywalsh
On 8 May 2017 at 22:49, Andrea Strappa <[hidden email]> wrote:

There are two plans that can be distinguished: the plan of the symbolic and the plan of the sound representation;

There's some shades, but they are distinguished.

Is it important to elaborate a grammar of timbre? Maybe not. When the "odyssey" was written the grammar did not exist.

True. When the "Odyssey" was written Homer described the sea as a dark wine colour. If I'm not mistaken, the word blue didn't appear in literature till much later. Maybe someday we'll look back and laugh at a time where sounds weren't described in such precise and definite terms....but I doubt it. If it hasn't happened by now, I expect it never will. 


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

akjmicro
These are interesting ideas.

My initial thoughts for categorizing timbre would be an N-dimensional system (however abstract, but ideally, mapped to quantifiable parameters) that would definitely include:

1) harmonicity/inharmonicity of excitation source
1a) fundamental pitch range
2) spectral profile, perhaps represented as a generalized filter contour.
3) attack, decay, sustain, release, etc. (envelope behavior over time)
4) Spacial or "effects" profile

Perhaps unconsciously, I'm thinking that, primitive in that ways that it is, the traditional subtractive analog hardwired synth does a good job of modeling a small subset of the possibilities, which could be extended (by analogy or expansion of parametric possibility) to include many natural and 'newer' types of sound sources:

    generator(osc/noise,phsyical model, actual physical) -->
    optional spectral shaping via filters -->
    amplitude characteristic shaping (envelope) -->
    wrapping the sound in a "space" or "effects space".

In a naive sense, any synth's timbre space is N-dimensional, and 'N' is equal to the number of knobs + switches in its possible parameters!

I tend to think all timbres I can think of can be categorized as such....even when you have FFT and spectral synthesis and resynthesis, you are still working with the idea of an 'excited' sound source, and if the sound is a natural sound (struck/blown/friction), it is still being shaped (filtered/reverberated) by the physics around it.

Acoustic instruments are categorized by Hornbostel/Sachs as 'ideophone - membranophone - chordophone - aerophone - electrophone'; and are strike-/pluck-/blow-/friction- activated. Those categories, in my mind, map to envelopes, both spectral and amplitundinal.

-AKJ


Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.untwelve.org

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 5:37 PM, Rory Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 8 May 2017 at 22:49, Andrea Strappa <[hidden email]> wrote:

There are two plans that can be distinguished: the plan of the symbolic and the plan of the sound representation;

There's some shades, but they are distinguished.

Is it important to elaborate a grammar of timbre? Maybe not. When the "odyssey" was written the grammar did not exist.

True. When the "Odyssey" was written Homer described the sea as a dark wine colour. If I'm not mistaken, the word blue didn't appear in literature till much later. Maybe someday we'll look back and laugh at a time where sounds weren't described in such precise and definite terms....but I doubt it. If it hasn't happened by now, I expect it never will. 


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS
In reply to this post by rorywalsh

Good, to find out whether the scheme is good one has to work with it.

But first we need to ask: why do you want categorizing the timbre?

To baste a your composition form? Or to teach music to children? Or to analyze a famous composer work? Or to do a statistic about something? Or something?

Then, you might notice the opposition of terms: the “difference between units on the level of expression”.

You can notice that some difference is pertinent in a context, not in other context.

For an Inuit there are a lot of types of snow, with a lot of names, because they live in the snow. I have a few words to describe the state of the snow, because I see the snow a few day every year.

Someone said that this musical era is the era of the timbre.

It’s understandeble the need to reflect about a categorization.

Andrea S.


 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

 

These are interesting ideas.

 

My initial thoughts for categorizing timbre would be an N-dimensional system (however abstract, but ideally, mapped to quantifiable parameters) that would definitely include:

 

1) harmonicity/inharmonicity of excitation source

1a) fundamental pitch range

2) spectral profile, perhaps represented as a generalized filter contour.

3) attack, decay, sustain, release, etc. (envelope behavior over time)

4) Spacial or "effects" profile

 

Perhaps unconsciously, I'm thinking that, primitive in that ways that it is, the traditional subtractive analog hardwired synth does a good job of modeling a small subset of the possibilities, which could be extended (by analogy or expansion of parametric possibility) to include many natural and 'newer' types of sound sources:

 

    generator(osc/noise,phsyical model, actual physical) -->

    optional spectral shaping via filters -->

    amplitude characteristic shaping (envelope) -->

    wrapping the sound in a "space" or "effects space".

In a naive sense, any synth's timbre space is N-dimensional, and 'N' is equal to the number of knobs + switches in its possible parameters!

I tend to think all timbres I can think of can be categorized as such....even when you have FFT and spectral synthesis and resynthesis, you are still working with the idea of an 'excited' sound source, and if the sound is a natural sound (struck/blown/friction), it is still being shaped (filtered/reverberated) by the physics around it.

 

Acoustic instruments are categorized by Hornbostel/Sachs as 'ideophone - membranophone - chordophone - aerophone - electrophone'; and are strike-/pluck-/blow-/friction- activated. Those categories, in my mind, map to envelopes, both spectral and amplitundinal.

 

-AKJ

 


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Nathan Holmes
Perhaps this will be more entertaining than illuminating, but you all might be interested in this Google AI Project, "The Infinite Drum Machine", which used machine learning ("t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding", apparently) to group audio files together based on similarity.


You can quickly browse through the sample set by clicking "Launch Experiment" and then dragging the circles around on the map. Some of it is grouped together pretty nicely: there'a large blue cluster with clinking, glass-like and metallic sounds; and then as you move to the right toward the purple/magenta, the sounds get more clunky and wooden; and the large teal/green sections at the top seems to be more "scrape-y" or have more breath/air present, with the teal stuff on the upper-middle left getting closest to white noise. Or so it seems to me.

(Note, the sounds seem to have a bunch of tags on them, but the project description says the program categorized based on audio alone.)

So, naturally there are occasional samples that seem oddly out of place, but otherwise I find a lot of pleasant coherency in how these sounds are grouped together. Maybe a more refined version of this process could help suggest some overarching categories for timbre?

But if not, it's at least fun to play around with. :)


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Andrea Strappa <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good, to find out whether the scheme is good one has to work with it.

But first we need to ask: why do you want categorizing the timbre?

To baste a your composition form? Or to teach music to children? Or to analyze a famous composer work? Or to do a statistic about something? Or something?

Then, you might notice the opposition of terms: the “difference between units on the level of expression”.

You can notice that some difference is pertinent in a context, not in other context.

For an Inuit there are a lot of types of snow, with a lot of names, because they live in the snow. I have a few words to describe the state of the snow, because I see the snow a few day every year.

Someone said that this musical era is the era of the timbre.

It’s understandeble the need to reflect about a categorization.

Andrea S.


 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

 

These are interesting ideas.

 

My initial thoughts for categorizing timbre would be an N-dimensional system (however abstract, but ideally, mapped to quantifiable parameters) that would definitely include:

 

1) harmonicity/inharmonicity of excitation source

1a) fundamental pitch range

2) spectral profile, perhaps represented as a generalized filter contour.

3) attack, decay, sustain, release, etc. (envelope behavior over time)

4) Spacial or "effects" profile

 

Perhaps unconsciously, I'm thinking that, primitive in that ways that it is, the traditional subtractive analog hardwired synth does a good job of modeling a small subset of the possibilities, which could be extended (by analogy or expansion of parametric possibility) to include many natural and 'newer' types of sound sources:

 

    generator(osc/noise,phsyical model, actual physical) -->

    optional spectral shaping via filters -->

    amplitude characteristic shaping (envelope) -->

    wrapping the sound in a "space" or "effects space".

In a naive sense, any synth's timbre space is N-dimensional, and 'N' is equal to the number of knobs + switches in its possible parameters!

I tend to think all timbres I can think of can be categorized as such....even when you have FFT and spectral synthesis and resynthesis, you are still working with the idea of an 'excited' sound source, and if the sound is a natural sound (struck/blown/friction), it is still being shaped (filtered/reverberated) by the physics around it.

 

Acoustic instruments are categorized by Hornbostel/Sachs as 'ideophone - membranophone - chordophone - aerophone - electrophone'; and are strike-/pluck-/blow-/friction- activated. Those categories, in my mind, map to envelopes, both spectral and amplitundinal.

 

-AKJ

 


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

AndreaS

Nice! Entertaining sometime can be considered also.
Galileo originated an illuminating telescope from a Dutch entertaining toy.
"The Infinite Drum Machine" project is based on recorded audio samplers.
The fondamental dimension of sound is time.
We must distinguish between real (authentic, true) time and frozen (recorded) time.
The first born, live and death in the ambient and in a unrepetable "now".
The second  is duplicable, always equal yourself, "thinged".
A taxonomy can be based on the second type of time.
If we do not take account about ambient and real time, probably we could leave out also the source of sound.
Hornbostel-Sachs classification it's not important, in this context.
You could experiment an unique envelope type in several sound samplers, or an unique spectral profile and so on.
Maybe fixing some aspects you could discover something.
Andrea S.
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

Perhaps this will be more entertaining than illuminating, but you all might be interested in this Google AI Project, "The Infinite Drum Machine", which used machine learning ("t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding", apparently) to group audio files together based on similarity.


You can quickly browse through the sample set by clicking "Launch Experiment" and then dragging the circles around on the map. Some of it is grouped together pretty nicely: there'a large blue cluster with clinking, glass-like and metallic sounds; and then as you move to the right toward the purple/magenta, the sounds get more clunky and wooden; and the large teal/green sections at the top seems to be more "scrape-y" or have more breath/air present, with the teal stuff on the upper-middle left getting closest to white noise. Or so it seems to me.

(Note, the sounds seem to have a bunch of tags on them, but the project description says the program categorized based on audio alone.)

So, naturally there are occasional samples that seem oddly out of place, but otherwise I find a lot of pleasant coherency in how these sounds are grouped together. Maybe a more refined version of this process could help suggest some overarching categories for timbre?

But if not, it's at least fun to play around with. :)


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:39 PM, Andrea Strappa <[hidden email]> wrote:

Good, to find out whether the scheme is good one has to work with it.

But first we need to ask: why do you want categorizing the timbre?

To baste a your composition form? Or to teach music to children? Or to analyze a famous composer work? Or to do a statistic about something? Or something?

Then, you might notice the opposition of terms: the “difference between units on the level of expression”.

You can notice that some difference is pertinent in a context, not in other context.

For an Inuit there are a lot of types of snow, with a lot of names, because they live in the snow. I have a few words to describe the state of the snow, because I see the snow a few day every year.

Someone said that this musical era is the era of the timbre.

It’s understandeble the need to reflect about a categorization.

Andrea S.


 

----- Original Message -----

From: [hidden email]

To: [hidden email]

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

 

These are interesting ideas.

 

My initial thoughts for categorizing timbre would be an N-dimensional system (however abstract, but ideally, mapped to quantifiable parameters) that would definitely include:

 

1) harmonicity/inharmonicity of excitation source

1a) fundamental pitch range

2) spectral profile, perhaps represented as a generalized filter contour.

3) attack, decay, sustain, release, etc. (envelope behavior over time)

4) Spacial or "effects" profile

 

Perhaps unconsciously, I'm thinking that, primitive in that ways that it is, the traditional subtractive analog hardwired synth does a good job of modeling a small subset of the possibilities, which could be extended (by analogy or expansion of parametric possibility) to include many natural and 'newer' types of sound sources:

 

    generator(osc/noise,phsyical model, actual physical) -->

    optional spectral shaping via filters -->

    amplitude characteristic shaping (envelope) -->

    wrapping the sound in a "space" or "effects space".

In a naive sense, any synth's timbre space is N-dimensional, and 'N' is equal to the number of knobs + switches in its possible parameters!

I tend to think all timbres I can think of can be categorized as such....even when you have FFT and spectral synthesis and resynthesis, you are still working with the idea of an 'excited' sound source, and if the sound is a natural sound (struck/blown/friction), it is still being shaped (filtered/reverberated) by the physics around it.

 

Acoustic instruments are categorized by Hornbostel/Sachs as 'ideophone - membranophone - chordophone - aerophone - electrophone'; and are strike-/pluck-/blow-/friction- activated. Those categories, in my mind, map to envelopes, both spectral and amplitundinal.

 

-AKJ

 


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here



Avast logo

Questa e-mail è stata controllata per individuare virus con Avast antivirus.
www.avast.com


Csound mailing list [hidden email] https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here