psychoacoustic demonstrations

Unfortunately the article is only available if you subscribe to
Physical Review Letters, so the context is not here, but in any case,
the audio demonstration files are here:
http://www.imedea.uib.es/Nonlinear/research_topics/pitch_perc/

John Starrett

--- In tuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> Unfortunately the article is only available if you subscribe to
> Physical Review Letters, so the context is not here, but in any
case,
> the audio demonstration files are here:
> http://www.imedea.uib.es/Nonlinear/research_topics/pitch_perc/
>
> John Starrett

I think this is very important stuff. Do you think there's any way to
get the article to us? Perhaps you could summarize it or something?

Well, I find that my ear clearly does NOT work the same way their
subjects' ears apparently do. SOME of what they're saying here seems
to apply, but on many examples only with a great stretching of my
imagination do I hear what they seem to expect one to.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > Unfortunately the article is only available if you subscribe to
> > Physical Review Letters, so the context is not here, but in any
> case,
> > the audio demonstration files are here:
> > http://www.imedea.uib.es/Nonlinear/research_topics/pitch_perc/
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> I think this is very important stuff. Do you think there's any way
to
> get the article to us? Perhaps you could summarize it or something?

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> Well, I find that my ear clearly does NOT work the same way their
> subjects' ears apparently do. SOME of what they're saying here
seems
> to apply, but on many examples only with a great stretching of my
> imagination do I hear what they seem to expect one to.

How do you know what they expect one to hear, or what the subjects
heard? You don't have the text of the article, do you?

Can you describe what you do hear? Are you using high-quality audio
equipment, which would seem to be essential here?

Here's an article by the same authors apparantly covering the same material

http://lec.ugr.es/~julyan/papers/soundsproc.pdf

I got it from here:

http://lec.ugr.es/~julyan/publications.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:52 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: psychoacoustic demonstrations

> --- In tuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > Unfortunately the article is only available if you subscribe to
> > Physical Review Letters, so the context is not here, but in any
> case,
> > the audio demonstration files are here:
> > http://www.imedea.uib.es/Nonlinear/research_topics/pitch_perc/
> >
> > John Starrett
>
> I think this is very important stuff. Do you think there's any way to
> get the article to us? Perhaps you could summarize it or something?
>
>
>

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > Well, I find that my ear clearly does NOT work the same way their
> > subjects' ears apparently do. SOME of what they're saying here
> seems
> > to apply, but on many examples only with a great stretching of my
> > imagination do I hear what they seem to expect one to.
>
> How do you know what they expect one to hear, or what the subjects
> heard? You don't have the text of the article, do you?
>
> Can you describe what you do hear? Are you using high-quality audio
> equipment, which would seem to be essential here?

Touche. I am not using high-quality audio equipment. The small
snippets of text that do accompany the sound samples do state, in
some cases, what one should expect to hear. The complex tones with
pitches on either side at a frequency offset of "g", for example, are
said to be audible according to the publishers' theoretical
predictions as having the pitch of an implied fundamental equivalent
to that of the sine-wave tone immediately following each example.

In only one case did it sound that way to me, the rest sounding a
minor third above it to my ear. Although I cannot be sure, I suspect
higher-quality reproduction would not change that perception, since
the fundamental and lower harmonics of the complex tone were missing
anyway according to their own explicit statements, and the headset I
am using does not introduce that much distortion.

Of course, to be sure, I'd have to hear it with high-quality
equipment.

I just read the whole paper without trying to follow rigorously all
the mathematical side and found it extremely interesting, especially
in light of our approach to training in choral intonation. I agree
with the authors that there must be a strong and intimate
relationship between the phenomena they are modeling and our
perception of harmony.

--- In tuning@y..., "Kees van Prooijen" <kees@d...> wrote:
> Here's an article by the same authors apparantly covering the same
material
>
> http://lec.ugr.es/~julyan/papers/soundsproc.pdf
>
> I got it from here:
>
> http://lec.ugr.es/~julyan/publications.html
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...>
> To: <tuning@y...>
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:52 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: psychoacoustic demonstrations
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "John Starrett" <jstarret@c...> wrote:
> > > Unfortunately the article is only available if you subscribe to
> > > Physical Review Letters, so the context is not here, but in any
> > case,
> > > the audio demonstration files are here:
> > > http://www.imedea.uib.es/Nonlinear/research_topics/pitch_perc/
> > >
> > > John Starrett
> >
> > I think this is very important stuff. Do you think there's any
way to
> > get the article to us? Perhaps you could summarize it or
something?
> >
> >
> >

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > > Well, I find that my ear clearly does NOT work the same way
their
> > > subjects' ears apparently do. SOME of what they're saying here
> > seems
> > > to apply, but on many examples only with a great stretching of
my
> > > imagination do I hear what they seem to expect one to.
> >
> > How do you know what they expect one to hear, or what the
subjects
> > heard? You don't have the text of the article, do you?
> >
> > Can you describe what you do hear? Are you using high-quality
audio
> > equipment, which would seem to be essential here?
>
> Touche. I am not using high-quality audio equipment. The small
> snippets of text that do accompany the sound samples do state, in
> some cases, what one should expect to hear. The complex tones with
> pitches on either side at a frequency offset of "g", for example,
are
> said to be audible according to the publishers' theoretical
> predictions as having the pitch of an implied fundamental
equivalent
> to that of the sine-wave tone immediately following each example.
>
> In only one case did it sound that way to me, the rest sounding a
> minor third above it to my ear. Although I cannot be sure, I
suspect
> higher-quality reproduction would not change that perception, since
> the fundamental and lower harmonics of the complex tone were
missing
> anyway according to their own explicit statements, and the headset
I
> am using does not introduce that much distortion.

Are you listening at a low volume, as they suggest? They say that
combinational tones destroy the effect. This makes sense, and is kind
of important (I think).

Did you listen to the "Ode to Joy" examples at the end?

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> I just read the whole paper without trying to follow rigorously all
> the mathematical side and found it extremely interesting,
especially
> in light of our approach to training in choral intonation. I agree
> with the authors that there must be a strong and intimate
> relationship between the phenomena they are modeling and our
> perception of harmony.

I agree too -- but note that these phenomena are distinct from, and
often quite incompatible with, combination-tone phenomena.

Clearly, since combinatorial tones work so well in training people
with no special musical expertise to tune harmonies accurately,
whatever importance this research has for harmonic perception must
work together with combinatorial tones.

After all, the shifting of pitch by some delta omega (change in
frequency, since I can't duplicate those characters here) produces
inharmonicity of timbre. That is interesting for those who wish to
develop a general model of pitch perception, but is quite out of
scope for human vocal timbres (with essentially 100% harmonicity)
learning adapative just intonation.

The point is, in listening to their examples for confirming the model
resulting from their research findings, the conflict warned against
does not hold for perfect integer ratios and no frequency offset
(delta omega) in the partials. Instead I would think the latter
conditions represent a special-case application of their model,
and expect the results of their model to contribute to and
reinforce the combinatorial tones. Perhaps this would explain why the
actual audibility of the combinatorial tones is so much greater than
that predicted by earlier models of these psychoacoustic phenomena in
the human auditory system.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> > I just read the whole paper without trying to follow rigorously
all
> > the mathematical side and found it extremely interesting,
> especially
> > in light of our approach to training in choral intonation. I
agree
> > with the authors that there must be a strong and intimate
> > relationship between the phenomena they are modeling and our
> > perception of harmony.
>
> I agree too -- but note that these phenomena are distinct from, and
> often quite incompatible with, combination-tone phenomena.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

> Clearly, since combinatorial tones work so well in training people
> with no special musical expertise to tune harmonies accurately,
> whatever importance this research has for harmonic perception must
> work together with combinatorial tones.

Not necessarily -- for example, we might be interested in the
perception of "out-of-tune" or tempered harmonies.

> Perhaps this would explain why the
> actual audibility of the combinatorial tones is so much greater
than
> that predicted by earlier models of these psychoacoustic phenomena
in
> the human auditory system.

Not the actual audibility, but the apparent audibility -- since
virtual pitches are not, strictly speaking, combinational tones, even
if they happen to coincide in pitch with some combinational tones.

I wrote,

> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
>
> > Clearly, since combinatorial tones work so well in training
people
> > with no special musical expertise to tune harmonies accurately,
> > whatever importance this research has for harmonic perception
must
> > work together with combinatorial tones.
>
> Not necessarily -- for example, we might be interested in the
> perception of "out-of-tune" or tempered harmonies.

Also, this kind of model could be useful for understanding how high
in the harmonic series we can derive our harmonies from, before
things start to break down.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
>
> > Clearly, since combinatorial tones work so well in training
people
> > with no special musical expertise to tune harmonies accurately,
> > whatever importance this research has for harmonic perception
must
> > work together with combinatorial tones.
>
> Not necessarily -- for example, we might be interested in the
> perception of "out-of-tune" or tempered harmonies.
>
> > Perhaps this would explain why the
> > actual audibility of the combinatorial tones is so much greater
> than
> > that predicted by earlier models of these psychoacoustic
phenomena
> in
> > the human auditory system.
>
> Not the actual audibility, but the apparent audibility -- since
> virtual pitches are not, strictly speaking, combinational tones,
even
> if they happen to coincide in pitch with some combinational tones.

Well, OK, if we want to be semantically picky, you're right of
course, but what's the dang difference in practice? (I already
understand the utility of this distinction for the purpose of cooking
up an accurate model of the human auditory system.)

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> I wrote,
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> >
> > > Clearly, since combinatorial tones work so well in training
> people
> > > with no special musical expertise to tune harmonies accurately,
> > > whatever importance this research has for harmonic perception
> must
> > > work together with combinatorial tones.
> >
> > Not necessarily -- for example, we might be interested in the
> > perception of "out-of-tune" or tempered harmonies.
>
> Also, this kind of model could be useful for understanding how high
> in the harmonic series we can derive our harmonies from, before
> things start to break down.

Yes, it would be very interesting to know at what point or order of
magnitude IN PRINCIPLE the whole thing gets too far out to invoke
whatever human auditory processes are responsible for the perception
of harmony.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Did you listen to the "Ode to Joy" examples at the end?

I thought they were an amazing exhibition of truly grisly timbres,
which could be useful to Joe in hs present mood.

Ha-ha-ha, Gene! Yes, I did listen to them, too, and for the most part
found it did conform enough to be recognizable, although it got
pretty tenuous for me in spots, especially toward the end.

Also I do have to agree about the truly grisly nature of the timbres.
Of course, I think we all know that wasn't the point, but I got a
truly good belly-laugh out of your reaction anyway, Gene! Thanks!

--- In tuning@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
> > Did you listen to the "Ode to Joy" examples at the end?
>
> I thought they were an amazing exhibition of truly grisly timbres,
> which could be useful to Joe in hs present mood.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:

> Well, OK, if we want to be semantically picky, you're right of
> course, but what's the dang difference in practice? (I already
> understand the utility of this distinction for the purpose of
cooking
> up an accurate model of the human auditory system.)

Hi Bob,

You gave one answer yourself:

"Yes, it would be very interesting to know at what point or order of
magnitude IN PRINCIPLE the whole thing gets too far out to invoke
whatever human auditory processes are responsible for the perception
of harmony."

Also, there are many musicians around here devoted to exploring non-
JI harmony and/or inharmonic timbres, so these types of studies make
a "dang" difference to them. Especially when the dominant ideology in
the music theory of inharmonic timbres, which is that of Sethares,
completely, totally ignores these phenomena.

Maybe no "dang" difference to you in your world of vocal ensemble
singing, which is quite wonderful. But in many musical worlds equally
wonderful to friends like Jacky Ligon, a bit of "dang" difference
indeed.

-Paul

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
>
> > Well, OK, if we want to be semantically picky, you're right of
> > course, but what's the dang difference in practice? (I already
> > understand the utility of this distinction for the purpose of
> cooking
> > up an accurate model of the human auditory system.)
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> You gave one answer yourself:
>
> "Yes, it would be very interesting to know at what point or order
of
> magnitude IN PRINCIPLE the whole thing gets too far out to invoke
> whatever human auditory processes are responsible for the
perception
> of harmony."
>
> Also, there are many musicians around here devoted to exploring non-
> JI harmony and/or inharmonic timbres, so these types of studies
make
> a "dang" difference to them. Especially when the dominant ideology
in
> the music theory of inharmonic timbres, which is that of Sethares,
> completely, totally ignores these phenomena.
>
> Maybe no "dang" difference to you in your world of vocal ensemble
> singing, which is quite wonderful. But in many musical worlds
equally
> wonderful to friends like Jacky Ligon, a bit of "dang" difference
> indeed.
>
> -Paul

Bob:
I simply meant that if you hear them, you hear them, whether they are
"virtual" or "real".