"place" or "timing" theory for Terhardt??

On reading Terhardt's theories again on the Web:

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter.html

it seemed that he really was advocating an "extension" of many of
Helmholtz's ideas, only including the idea of "virtual" pitch, or
combined Fourier-type pitches in the mix...

Correspondingly, he seems to also advocate the "place" theory of
hearning advocated by Helmholtz. However, in other sections on the
perception of sounds he seems to recognize a "timing" sense to sound
perception.

Is he believing in *both* simultaneously??

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> On reading Terhardt's theories again on the Web:
>
> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter.html
>
> it seemed that he really was advocating an "extension" of many of
> Helmholtz's ideas, only including the idea of "virtual" pitch, or
> combined Fourier-type pitches in the mix...
>
> Correspondingly, he seems to also advocate the "place" theory of
> hearning advocated by Helmholtz. However, in other sections on the
> perception of sounds he seems to recognize a "timing" sense to
sound
> perception.
>
> Is he believing in *both* simultaneously??
>
> J. Pehrson

by 'timing' i'll assume we're referring to 'periodicity pitch' and
other effects that look at the actual time structure of the waveform,
as opposed to a mere fourier analysis . . .

on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends up concluding that
evidence for the timing effects is rare and weak. are you seeing
something that seems to contradict that?

in contrast to terhardt, take a look at some of peter cariani's
research. granted, the manner in which i was informed of cariani and
his work was *extremely* suspect, but the research itself looks
perfectly sound . . . he seems to be positing a far larger role for
timing effects . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37209.html#37220

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > On reading Terhardt's theories again on the Web:
> >
> > http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter.html
> >
> > it seemed that he really was advocating an "extension" of many of
> > Helmholtz's ideas, only including the idea of "virtual" pitch, or
> > combined Fourier-type pitches in the mix...
> >
> > Correspondingly, he seems to also advocate the "place" theory of
> > hearning advocated by Helmholtz. However, in other sections on
the
> > perception of sounds he seems to recognize a "timing" sense to
> sound
> > perception.
> >
> > Is he believing in *both* simultaneously??
> >
> > J. Pehrson
>
> by 'timing' i'll assume we're referring to 'periodicity pitch' and
> other effects that look at the actual time structure of the
waveform,
> as opposed to a mere fourier analysis . . .
>

***Well, actually I was thinking more of the theories that imply that
we recognize *pitch* by some kind of timing mechanism, rather than an
actual "place" where hairs are stimulated within the ear. (That
sounds rather disgusting, doesn't it...) I believe I recall
the "nutty professor" citing those two competing theories...

> on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends up concluding that
> evidence for the timing effects is rare and weak. are you seeing
> something that seems to contradict that?
>

***I think I'm looking at a different section, where he talks about
realizing the *position* of sound in the environment according to
timing. I don't know where that is right now, but I bet, Paul, you
know the exact webpage...

> in contrast to terhardt, take a look at some of peter cariani's
> research. granted, the manner in which i was informed of cariani
and
> his work was *extremely* suspect, but the research itself looks
> perfectly sound . . . he seems to be positing a far larger role for
> timing effects . . .

***Is *that* someplace on the Web too? FINALLY, I got around to
reading Terhardt!!!

Joseph

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

> > on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends up concluding that
> > evidence for the timing effects is rare and weak. are you seeing
> > something that seems to contradict that?
> >
>
> ***I think I'm looking at a different section, where he talks about
> realizing the *position* of sound in the environment according to
> timing. I don't know where that is right now, but I bet, Paul, you
> know the exact webpage...

Bob Wendell:
At the risk of telling you something you already know, the
psychoacoustic handles the ear uses to discriminate the location of
sound sources in the environment are not directly related to pitch
perception, but are influenced by it. At low frequencies (long
wavelengths where the head is negligibly large compared to the
wavelengths), phase differences are key in determining physical
location in the "stereo stage", since there is no significant
amplitude difference at these wavelengths because the head is
immersed in the huge wave and has no effect on it in terms of
casting "acoustic shadows".

At higher frequencies where multiple wavelengths fit between the
ears, phase has no coherent significance while the head does cast an
acoustic shadow, so relative amplitude becomes the cue for source
location. The timing of attacks even at high frequencies (implying
high pitches) can be viewed as a relatively low-frequency modulation
of the frequencies in question and the relative timing becomes
analagous to phase difference at lower frequencies, again playing an
important role, therefore, as an additional location cue.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37209.html#37232

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
>
>
> > > on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends up concluding
that
> > > evidence for the timing effects is rare and weak. are you
seeing
> > > something that seems to contradict that?
> > >
> >
> > ***I think I'm looking at a different section, where he talks
about
> > realizing the *position* of sound in the environment according to
> > timing. I don't know where that is right now, but I bet, Paul,
you
> > know the exact webpage...
>
>
> Bob Wendell:
> At the risk of telling you something you already know, the
> psychoacoustic handles the ear uses to discriminate the location of
> sound sources in the environment are not directly related to pitch
> perception, but are influenced by it. At low frequencies (long
> wavelengths where the head is negligibly large compared to the
> wavelengths), phase differences are key in determining physical
> location in the "stereo stage", since there is no significant
> amplitude difference at these wavelengths because the head is
> immersed in the huge wave and has no effect on it in terms of
> casting "acoustic shadows".
>
> At higher frequencies where multiple wavelengths fit between the
> ears, phase has no coherent significance while the head does cast
an
> acoustic shadow, so relative amplitude becomes the cue for source
> location. The timing of attacks even at high frequencies (implying
> high pitches) can be viewed as a relatively low-frequency
modulation
> of the frequencies in question and the relative timing becomes
> analagous to phase difference at lower frequencies, again playing
an
> important role, therefore, as an additional location cue.

***Thanks so much, Bob! Actually, I *didn't* know that, but I'm not
too surprised to find that certain pitches help identify location.

It reminds me a bit of La Monte Young's _Dream House_ here in New
York, where the position of one's *own* head in the room is a
*definite* part of the piece! That's real "head music..."

Joseph

--- jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <rwendell@c...>
> wrote:
>
> /tuning/topicId_37209.html#37232
>
>
> > --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22"
> <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends
> up concluding
> that
> > > > evidence for the timing effects is rare and
> weak. are you
> seeing
> > > > something that seems to contradict that?
> > > >
> > >
> > > ***I think I'm looking at a different section,
> where he talks
> about
> > > realizing the *position* of sound in the
> environment according to
> > > timing. I don't know where that is right now,
> but I bet, Paul,
> you
> > > know the exact webpage...
> >
> >
> > Bob Wendell:
> > At the risk of telling you something you already
> know, the
> > psychoacoustic handles the ear uses to
> discriminate the location of
> > sound sources in the environment are not directly
> related to pitch
> > perception, but are influenced by it. At low
> frequencies (long
> > wavelengths where the head is negligibly large
> compared to the
> > wavelengths), phase differences are key in
> determining physical
> > location in the "stereo stage", since there is no
> significant
> > amplitude difference at these wavelengths because
> the head is
> > immersed in the huge wave and has no effect on it
> in terms of
> > casting "acoustic shadows".
> >
> > At higher frequencies where multiple wavelengths
> fit between the
> > ears, phase has no coherent significance while the
> head does cast
> an
> > acoustic shadow, so relative amplitude becomes the
> cue for source
> > location. The timing of attacks even at high
> frequencies (implying
> > high pitches) can be viewed as a relatively
> low-frequency
> modulation
> > of the frequencies in question and the relative
> timing becomes
> > analagous to phase difference at lower
> frequencies, again playing
> an
> > important role, therefore, as an additional
> location cue.
>
>
> ***Thanks so much, Bob! Actually, I *didn't* know
> that, but I'm not
> too surprised to find that certain pitches help
> identify location.
>
> It reminds me a bit of La Monte Young's _Dream
> House_ here in New
> York, where the position of one's *own* head in the
> room is a
> *definite* part of the piece! That's real "head
> music..."
>
> Joseph
>
----------------
Could this be linked to Heisenberger's 'uncertainty
principle' in some remote sense?

=====
Can Akkoc
1058 Dickenson Avenue
Mobile, AL 36609
USA
(251)639-1936

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

>in contrast to terhardt, take a look at some of peter cariani's
>research. granted, the manner in which i was informed of cariani and
>his work was *extremely* suspect,

Really? He comes to me highly recommended by an expert in the
field.

-Carl

--- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37209.html#37243

> >
> > It reminds me a bit of La Monte Young's _Dream
> > House_ here in New
> > York, where the position of one's *own* head in the
> > room is a
> > *definite* part of the piece! That's real "head
> > music..."
> >
> > Joseph
> >
> ----------------
> Could this be linked to Heisenberger's 'uncertainty
> principle' in some remote sense?
>

***I don't know...

(Sorry, that was a very bad joke...)

J.P.

--- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> > by 'timing' i'll assume we're referring to 'periodicity pitch'
and
> > other effects that look at the actual time structure of the
> waveform,
> > as opposed to a mere fourier analysis . . .
> >
>
> ***Well, actually I was thinking more of the theories that imply
that
> we recognize *pitch* by some kind of timing mechanism, rather than
an
> actual "place" where hairs are stimulated within the ear. (That
> sounds rather disgusting, doesn't it...) I believe I recall
> the "nutty professor" citing those two competing theories...

yes, i was talking about pitch perception above, so we're on the same
page . . .

> > on the particular page i recall, terhardt ends up concluding that
> > evidence for the timing effects is rare and weak. are you seeing
> > something that seems to contradict that?
> >
>
> ***I think I'm looking at a different section, where he talks about
> realizing the *position* of sound in the environment according to
> timing. I don't know where that is right now, but I bet, Paul, you
> know the exact webpage...

position perception is a completely different issue from pitch
perception, joseph!

> ***Is *that* someplace on the Web too?

yeah, i posted some links once . . . search for "cariani" . . .

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37209.html#37248

>
> position perception is a completely different issue from pitch
> perception, joseph!
>

***Good point. Well, it seems as thought Terhardt believes more in
the former than the latter, as far as timing is concerned.. ??

Ya? Naah?

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_unknown.html#37259

> --- In tuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> >
> > /tuning/topicId_37209.html#37248
> >
> > >
> > > position perception is a completely different issue from pitch
> > > perception, joseph!
> > >
> >
> > ***Good point. Well, it seems as thought Terhardt believes more
in
> > the former than the latter, as far as timing is concerned.. ??
>
> he believes that timing is involved much more in position
perception
> than it is in pitch perception.
>
> how's that?

***Thanks, Paul. Then it looks like I read that correctly.
(Applause unnecessary...)

JP

>>>in contrast to terhardt, take a look at some of peter cariani's
>>>research. granted, the manner in which i was informed of cariani
>>>and his work was *extremely* suspect,
>>
>>Really? He comes to me highly recommended by an expert in the
>>field.
>
>i *did* say that his research looked perfectly sound . . .

True. On the other hand, I just looked at his non-neuroscience stuff
for the first time, and it looks a bit fluffy...

-Carl