Sound Research WIKINDX
Sound Research WIKINDX |
|
|
Displaying 1 - 20 of 21 Parameters |
| Altman, R. (1992). Sound space. In R. Altman (Ed), Sound Theory Sound Practice. (pp. 46–64). New York: Routledge. |
  
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 16/02/2006, 07:28 | |
| Summarizing 1930's film sound theoretician J.P. Maxfield "the sound track must carry, independently from the image, all the information necessary to reconstruct the "real" space of the scene (that is, the one represented by the image)." | |
| As the image on screen flits about incessantly drawing our eyes hither and thither, it is the sound track, with its constant scale, that provides stability and an anchorage. "It is thus the sound track that provides a base for visual identification, that authorizes vision and makes it possible. The identity of Hollywood spectators begins with their ability to be auditors." | |
| By the end of the '30s, sound scale/image scale proportionality had been discarded in favour of (dialogue) intelligibility. The notion of the internal auditor (point-of-audition) was developed -- the spectator is required to identify with or inhabit the body of an on-screen character who will hear for us. Reverberation is used to identify sound intended for this character (little or no reverb) or not (greater ratio of reverberated sound to direct sound). The spectator is inserted into the film narrative "at the very intersection of two spaces [film space and the internal auditor's space (the character's body)] which the image alone is incapable of linking, thus giving us the sensation of controlling the relationship between those spaces." (p.61) | |
| An important point here is the relation between sound scale and image scale and the effect on film sound of single microphone technique, multiple mikes, mixing, sound editing, microhpone placements etc. In the early '30s, the emphasis was directed to authentic spatial recording (with a human body analogy) but, with the development of condensor microphones (required to be close to the sound source) and boom technology, this shifted to an emphasis on clarity (of dialogue). This had implications for mixing in post-production leading to the contruction of a sound track rather that its recording. By the end of the decade, attempts to match sound scale accurately to image scale had been all but discarded. | |
| Brumm, H., & Zollinger, S. A. (2011). The evolution of the Lombard effect: 100 years of psychoacoustic research. Behaviour, 148(11/13), 1173–1198. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 28/02/2025, 01:46 | |
| Errede, S. (2002-2017). Consonance & dissonance.. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 19/11/2020, 13:15 | |
| Everest, F. A. (1984). Acoustic techniques for home and studio. 2nd ed. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 10/09/2004, 08:01 | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). How do we hear in the world? Explorations in ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 25/04/2013, 16:39 | |
| Using his simplified algorithms for modelling and synthesis of sound (simplification by discarding parts of the algorithm that have no perceptible effect, is likened by Gaver to "cartoon sounds" analogous to visual cartoons which "capture some defining features while leaving out incidental ones." | |
|
"...material per se does not exist as for mechanical physics, but instead is separated into many other dimensions such as density, elasticity, and homegeneity. Nonetheless, people do seem to hear the material of a struck object, rather than these other properties[cite]185[/cite]." |
|
| Suggests that it is a mistake that acousticians and psychologists make when they assume that hearing a sound as an event requires higher and independent thought processes (because this requires memory and experience) because the sound (these people assume) does not carry such information itself. | |
| Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 14/10/2008, 00:12 | |
Notes that sound FX CDs usually categorize by context although there is usually some further description of sound objects' hierarchy and physical properties. "A hierarchical framework that describes sounds' attributes and dimensions thus seems more likely to be generative, to delineate a space of possible sounds, rather than context-based classifications." p.21A simple hierarchy might be:  p.22while a more complex hierarchy might be:  p.24Notes that his preliminary categorisation into solid, liquid and gaseous sound does not cover all eventualities. What about fire? |
|
| Points out that "concatenating the creak of a heavy door closing slowly with the slap of a light door slammed shut would be likely to sound quite unnatural." This is an example of higher level attributes of sound events not usually studied by acousticians. | |
|
Distinguishes between musical listening (perception of a sound based on its pitch, loudness, temporal change, timbre and masking) and everyday listening (perception of the sound event itself and its environment). This is an experiential distinction or a perceptual one since any sound can be listened to in either listening mode. cf. Chion (1994, pp.25–34) etc. |
|
| A reminder that because the scientific study of sound springs from research into musical acoustics (pitch, loudness etc.), little is known of other modes of auditory perception (e.g. how do we know if someone is walking up or down stairs?). The traditional approach argues that the knowledge about a sound event (ie. everyday listening) relies on experience and memory. | |
| If radiant/direct sound is sensed it arrives at the ear before reflected/reverberant sound. For this reason is is possible to separate information about the sound from information about the environment. Additionally, the medium itself affects sound (e.g. high frequency loss in air) and changes in loudness and/or frequency usually indicate shifting sound (Doppler effect etc.). | |
| If an object's size is changed, the frequency of sound it emits changes too - frequency being the most significant factor of change among others. Therefore, a change in frequency is usually perceived as a change in size of the sound object. | |
| Recounting a third-party experiment, Gaver notes that most participants could distinguish between and estimate the size of objects dropped into water. | |
| Grimshaw, M., & Walther-Hansen, M. 2015, October 7–9. The sound of the smell of my shoes. Paper presented at The 10th Audio Mostly Conference, Thessaloniki. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 04/11/2015, 10:46 | |
| Hofman, P. M., Van Riswick, J. G. A., & Van Opstal, A. J. (1998). Relearning sound localization with new ears. Nature Neuroscience, 1(5), 417–421. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 02/02/2014, 11:05 | |
| Howard, D. M., & Angus, J. (1996). Acoustics and psychoacoustics. Oxford: Focal Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 10/02/2014, 07:47 | |
| "At a physical level sound is simply a mechanical disturbance of the medium, which may be air, or a solid, liquid or other gas. However, such a simplistic description is not very useful as it provides no information about the way this disturbance travels, or any of its characteristics other than the requirement for a medium in order for it to propagate. What is required is a more accurate description which can be used to make predictions of the behaviour of sound in a variety of contexts." | |
| Huang, D. -Y., & Ong, E. P. 2010 Lombard speech model for automatic enhancement of speech intelligibility over telephone channel. Paper presented at 2010 International Conference on Audio, Language and Image Processing. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 19/09/2022, 19:18 | |
| Junqua, J. -C., Fincke, S., & Field, K. 1999 The Lombard effect: A reflex to better communicate with others in noise. Paper presented at 1999 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing. Proceedings. ICASSP99 (Cat. No.99CH36258). |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 19/09/2022, 19:16 | |
| Kacelnik, O., Nodal, F. R., Parsons, K. H., & King, A. J. (2006). Training-induced plasticity of auditory localization in adult mammals. PLoS Biology, 4(4), 0627–0638. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 02/02/2014, 10:17 | |
| Moore, B. C. J. (2012). An introduction to the psychology of hearing. 6th ed. Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 01/12/2014, 07:40 | |
| Rheingold, H. (1991). Virtual reality: The revolutionary technology of computer-generated artificial worlds -- and how it promises and threatens to transform business and society. New York: Summit Books. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 28/04/2005, 20:58 | |
| A description of the Convolvotron developed at NASA/Ames Laboratory in the late 1980s. Basically an early HRTF system modelling the human outer ears' perception of audio. Interesting for a mention of historical work in the positioning of sound in 3D virtual reality and early use of the term 'auditory visualization'. | |
| Röber, N., & Masuch, M. 2005, June 16–20. Playing audio-only games: A compendium of interacting with virtual auditory worlds. Paper presented at Changing Views -- Worlds in Play, Toronto. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 27/07/2005, 11:13 | |
| "The most important quality to explore acoustic spaces is the ability to determine the origin of sounds and speech." | |
| Schnupp, M., Nelkin, I., & King, A. (2010). Auditory neuroscience: Making sense of sound. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/08/2015, 08:36 | |
| Slattery III, W. H., & Middlebrooks, J. C. (1994). Monaural sound localization: Acute versus chronic unilateral impairment. Hearing Research, 75(1-2), 38–46. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 02/02/2014, 11:21 | |
| Van Wanrooij, M. M., & Van Opstal, A. J. (2005). Relearning sound localization with a new ear. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25(22), 5413–5424. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard Last edited by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 02/02/2014, 11:11 | |
| Warren, W. H., & Verbrugge, R. R. (1984). Auditory perception of breaking and bouncing events: A case study in ecological acoustics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 704–712. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 26/04/2013, 09:53 | |
|
Quoting Schubert*: "Schubert (1974) put this succinctly in his source identification principle for auditory perception: "Identification of sound sources, and the behavior of those sources, is the primary task of the [auditory] system" (p.126)." * (Schubert 1975) |
|
|
Reviewing previous work in the field: "These results support the general claim that sound in isolation permits accurate identification of classes of sound-producing events when the temporal structure of the sound is specific to the mechanical activity of the source (Gibson, 1966; Schubert, 1974)."* * |
|
| Wightman, F. L., & Kistler, D. J. (1997). Monaural sound localization revisited. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101(2), 1050–1063. |
|
| Added by: Mark Grimshaw-Aagaard 04/02/2014, 14:45 |