Measurable aspects of sound perception

[PeterZui]

why not start with a wiki on it?

Hi Wes,

a little bit confused here.
I was asking Scott Wurcer.
For your knowledge; the wiki thing is interpreted, what would you like to add on this topic ?

 

[PeterZui]

Claude Shannon's original paper: http://people.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/home/text/others/shannon/entropy/entropy.pdf

I don't understand it in the mathematically rigorous way that some of our other members do, but it's a foundational, enlightening text nonetheless.

Credit to @j_j for the link.

Sorry to admit, I dare say I think to understand Shannon's. (think I had a great teacher on this one during my education). That's why I asked for a further explanation................

 

[xr100]

They are very, very similar, but kind of opposite as well.

[…]

But the overall idea is the same in both, address the signal entropy, and get it from here to there.

Indeed... two sides of the same coin. Thanks JJ, much better than I could have put it!

 

[xr100]

One of U.C. Davis' big tools is a gas chromatograph.

Waterhouse Lab - What's in Wine?

Cool stuff.

Mind you, some of these are poisonous… (though the dose is the poison and all that...), as well as others having possible health benefits...

 

[PeterZui]

Blind testing IS used in sensory evaluation testing.

I have no interest or knowledge about wine but it is a dreadful example as a complex "moving target" (aging, volatile compounds, etc.) Nevertheless,
I think you'll find that chemical analysis is used to inform development.

Moreover, wine is a "creation" as a piece of recorded music is.

Completely different to digitally recorded audio where there is, was, and always will be a reference signal. More akin to testing the just noticeable difference level of adding, say, salt to food or something, than comparing different wines.

Hi XR100,

Many thanks on this statements and I like to advise you:
Taste some wines (some have to be aerated for the better taste) as it will train your brain to distinguish them and appreciate the differences.

I agree a recorded music is a piece of art just as a bottle of wine (from my perspective "emotion" because you hear or gonna taste to get "it")
For the wine: Pour it in a glass and appreciate all circumstances of the moment to enjoy the maximum with your senses and brain proces.
For the music recording: We cannot have it be aerated for a better taste and we only can rely on the quality of our home audio system to bring the "real flavor".
For that matter:
The Live Performance of an orchestra beats the quality of my home audio system every time as an input to my senses and brain;

Something must have gone wrong...................(from my perspective)

 

[scott wurcer]

Hi Wes,

a little bit confused here.
I was asking Scott Wurcer.
For your knowledge; the wiki thing is interpreted, what would you like to add on this topic ?

I was simply stating that the information contained in an audio signal is quantified and measurable. Considering the ability for some people to detect smells and flavors at the ppb level the "information" contained in even simple food products is indeterminate. One would think with the vanilla bean crisis it would be worth probably 10's of millions to come up with an indistinguishable substitute.

 

[PeterZui]

"Audiophiles" are more "Dionysian" than "oenophiles." Go figure...!

Let's keep scientific in our wording on this site

 

[xr100]

Many thanks on this statements and I like to advise you:
Taste some wines (some have to be aerated for the better taste) as it will train your brain to distinguish them and appreciate the differences.

You're welcome, and... no can do, can't drink alcohol at all due to interaction with the medication I take!

For the music recording: We cannot have it be aerated for a better taste and we only can rely on the quality of our home audio system to bring the "real flavor".

Well, you could always stick it through an Aphex Exciter and see how that goes!

I meant more the process of "composing" and "arranging" music than the "recording" aspect.

(Caveat: I'm limiting the discussion below solely to "Western" music.)

I'm not aware of any works solely by an algorithmic generator that are considered to be of real value, by which I mean melody and not harmonic structure etc.

(N.B. I mean "chords"--not the same as the harmonic structure of instruments, aka timbre.)

Music is full of structure and logic, grammar and in particular the "common practice" era was full of "rules" to follow.

Taking this back to the "information theory," it's pretty interesting that there are 7 notes in the diatonic scale and 5 in the pentatonic... interesting to compare to human short-term memory limitations (the old 7 +/-2 items.)

(N.B. In cognitive psychology, concepts have been developed beyond a simple conception of "short term memory" inc. working memory, phonological loop, chunking, etc.)

The limitations and characteristics of cognitive processing crop up everywhere, it's not just sociocultural. "No-one" listens to serialism.*

(*I've been shot down by musicologists for saying that. Oh well...)

Anyway, music is NOT some mysterious uncharacterisable blob...

 

[PeterZui]

I was simply stating that the information contained in an audio signal is quantified and measurable. Considering the ability for some people to detect smells and flavors at the ppb level the "information" contained in even simple food products is indeterminate. One would think with the vanilla bean crisis it would be worth probably 10's of millions to come up with an indistinguishable substitute.

Don't know anything about a vanilla bean crisis but you might be right.

Think we only have a different opinion about measurements.
I think the most important measurement tool is our brain despite it's conclusions might change overnight;
but I will accept this doubt and live with it.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

I think the most important measurement tool is our brain despite it's conclusions might change overnight; but I will accept this doubt and live with it.

More rapidly than overnight and, while you must accept this and live with it, you need not rely on it.

 

[PeterZui]

You're welcome, and... no can do, can't drink alcohol at all due to interaction with the medication I take!

XR100 , reading this; sorry for advising on this one.

Well, you could always stick it through an Aphex Exciter and see how that goes!

I meant more the process of "composing" and "arranging" music than the "recording" aspect.

For me as a listener I can only enjoy the final recording, isn't it ?

(Caveat: I'm limiting the discussion below solely to "Western" music.)

I'm not aware of any works solely by an algorithmic generator that are considered to be of real value, by which I mean melody and not harmonic structure etc.

(N.B. I mean "chords"--not the same as the harmonic structure of instruments, aka timbre.)

Music is full of structure and logic, grammar and in particular the "common practice" era was full of "rules" to follow.

Taking this back to the "information theory," it's pretty interesting that there are 7 notes in the diatonic scale and 5 in the pentatonic... interesting to compare to human short-term memory limitations (the old 7 +/-2 items.)

(N.B. In cognitive psychology, concepts have been developed beyond a simple conception of "short term memory" inc. working memory, phonological loop, chunking, etc.)

The limitations and characteristics of cognitive processing crop up everywhere, it's not just sociocultural. "No-one" listens to serialism.*

(*I've been shot down by musicologists for saying that. Oh well...)

Anyway, music is NOT some mysterious uncharacterisable blob...

 

[xr100]

XR100 , reading this; sorry for advising on this one.

Don't worry, never did get the hang of that alcohol thing, more than happy not to go around making a fool out of myself and making a mess of bathrooms. ;-) I'm not a "moderation" kinda guy...

For me as a listener I can only enjoy the final recording, isn't it ?

It's (obviously!) not necessary to understand music theory in order to enjoy music. However, I find that having a reasonable grasp (even if my own efforts at "composition" are best left heard by myself only) enables an appreciation and understanding that would otherwise hardly be possible, which can be satisfying. On the flip-side, it also renders a lot of sub-standard pieces unlistenable. :-(

However, the point was that at a macro abstracted structural level, the "ingredients" needed in creating music that appeals to a reasonable number of listeners isn't at all mysterious...

 

[xr100]

Let's keep scientific in our wording on this site

It was a joke, and I'm sorry if you found it offensive.

It could be crudely viewed as the old "Aristotle vs. Plato" war... ;-)

 

[Wes]

Hi Wes,

a little bit confused here.
I was asking Scott Wurcer.
For your knowledge; the wiki thing is interpreted, what would you like to add on this topic ?

1. you posted on a public internet site - send him a pm if you want to avoid replies
2. if you are ineducable please just state that so we can put you on ignore

 

[j_j]

I was simply stating that the information contained in an audio signal is quantified and measurable. Considering the ability for some people to detect smells and flavors at the ppb level the "information" contained in even simple food products is indeterminate. One would think with the vanilla bean crisis it would be worth probably 10's of millions to come up with an indistinguishable substitute.

Taste/smell is more complex than hearing. There are many (250?) known smell receptors, but any one person gets from 75 to 125 or so of them in most cases, although some people have a bit more. It is possible ("foxy" or "cilantro" for example) to have very, very different experiences with the same fruit, wine, food, chemical, whatever.

In addition, different smells can saturate or even lose sensation at higher levels (sometimes dangerous, that), and will remain on the sensors for various lengths of time.

This opposed to hearing, where the sensitivity is well established across population, and is easily understood to result from the need to understand human speech.

 

[j_j]

It's my personal conviction that we (us human beings) are far from understanding nature.

https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Note, it is possible to know a great deal without knowing everything.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Taste/smell is more complex than hearing. There are many (250?) known smell receptors, but any one person gets from 75 to 125 or so of them in most cases, although some people have a bit more. It is possible ("foxy" or "cilantro" for example) to have very, very different experiences with the same fruit, wine, food, chemical, whatever.

In addition, different smells can saturate or even lose sensation at higher levels (sometimes dangerous, that), and will remain on the sensors for various lengths of time.

This opposed to hearing, where the sensitivity is well established across population, and is easily understood to result from the need to understand human speech.

Some hazardous and/or explosive gases have ranges where you smell them. And at higher ranges they immediately blunt your senses and you will not smell them. Or near that range you stop smelling them in 30 seconds or so after saturating your senses.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Taste/smell is more complex than hearing.

Hmmm. The temporal aspects are much poorer but taste/smell (mostly smell) have richer direct associations with memory and emotions.

 

[xr100]

 

[scott wurcer]

It is possible ("foxy" or "cilantro" for example) to have very, very different experiences with the same fruit, wine, food, chemical, whatever.

For sure there is ever enough cilantro for me and always too much vitis labrusca wine. It is funny that folks always tend to say you are not sensitive to smells when you simply enjoy them i.e. really stinky cheese.