Re: soundscape analysis? Get real!


Subject: Re: soundscape analysis? Get real!
From: Roald Baudoux (roald.baudoux@brutele.be)
Date: Thu Dec 16 1999 - 06:20:06 EST


Linda A. Seltzer dit Re: soundscape analysis? Get real!.
[1999/12/16Thu 01:16]

>
> There are people who can read spectrograms of speech
> and identify the words.

I think they wouldn't be able to do the same with more complex records like
soundscapes. Moreover, speech records for speech studies benefit of
specific recording conditions (no reverberation, good acoustics, the voice
is not mixed with other sounds...).

Also, it is much easier do to with speech than with soundscapes because
speech use standard units (phonemes) while soundscapes (or contemporary
music) may include any kind of sound.

Moreover, there is still the technical problem of choosing between better
time resolution and better frequency resolution, which leads to different
results.

I guess wavelets would be a better signal (signal, not musical) analysis
tool than the classical FFT but I wonder why there is still no broadly
available analysis software using this technique. Maybe because it needs
much computing power?

Roald Baudoux



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:17 EDT