Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T21:24:13.484Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

alarm/will/sound: Sound design, modelling, perception and composition cross-currents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2019

Alexander Sigman  and
Nicolas Misdariis
Alexander Sigman*
Affiliation:
International College of Liberal Arts (iCLA), Yamanashi Gakuin University, 2–7-17 Sakaori Kofu-shi, Yamanashi-ken, 400–0805Japan
Nicolas Misdariis*
Affiliation:
Sound Perception and Design Team, STMS Ircam-CNRS-Sorbonne Université, 1, place Igor-Stravinsky, 75004Paris, France
*
*Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
*Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An ongoing international arts-research-industry collaborative project focusing on the design and implementation of innovative car alarm systems, alarm/will/sound has a firm theoretical basis in theories of sound perception and classification of Pierre Schaeffer and the acousmatic tradition. In turn, the timbre perception, modelling and design components of this project have had a significant influence on a range of fixed media, electroacoustic and media installation works realised in parallel to the experimental research. An examination of the multiple points of contact and cross-influence between auditory warning research and artistic practice forms the backbone of this article, with an eye towards continued development in both the research and the artistic domains of the project.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 24 , Special Issue 1: Perceptual Issues Surrounding the Electroacoustic Music Experience , April 2019 , pp. 54 - 70
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Blattner, M. M., Sumikawa, D. A. and Greenberg, R. M. 1989. Earcons and Icons: Their Structure and Common Design Principles. Human-Computer Interaction 4(1): 11–44.Google Scholar
Chion, M. 1994. Audio-vision: Sound On Screen. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. 1986. Auditory Icons: Using Sound in Computer Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction 2(2): 167–177.Google Scholar
Gaver, W. W. 1993. What in the World Do We Hear?: An Ecological Approach to Auditory Event Perception. Ecological Psychology 5(1): 1–29.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1977. The Theory of Affordances. In R. Shaw and J. Branford (eds.) Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing: Toward an Ecological Psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. 1979. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Grey, J. M. 1977. Multidimensional Perceptual Scaling of Musical Timbres. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61: 1270–1277.Google Scholar
Krumhansl, C. L. 1989. Why is Musical Timbre so Hard to Understand? In S. Nielzen and O. Olsson (eds.) Structure and Perceptual of Electroacoustic Sound and Music. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
Lemaitre, G., Houix, O., Misdariis, N. and Susini, P. 2010. Listener Expertise and Sound Identification Influence the Categorization of Environmental Sounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 16(1): 16–32.Google Scholar
McAdams, S. 2013. Musical Timbre Perception. In Deutsch, D. (ed.) Psychology of Music, 3rd edn. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McAdams, S., Winsberg, S., Donnadieu, S., De Soete, G. and Krimphoff, J. 1995. Perceptual Scaling of Synthesized Musical Timbres: Common Dimensions, Specificities, and Latent Subject Classes. Psychological Research 58: 177–192.Google Scholar
Minard, A., Misdariis, N., Houix, O. and Susini, P. 2010. Catégorisation des sons environnementaux sur la base de profils morphologiques. In 10ème Congrès Français d’Acoustique, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
Misdariis, N. and Cera, A. 2017. Knowledge in Sound Design – The Silent Electric Vehicle: A Relevant Case Study. Proceedings of the Conference on Design and Semantics of Form and Movement – Sense and Sensitivity, DeSForM 2017, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Misdariis, N. and Sigman, A. 2016. Innovative Sound Design of Car Alarms: A Case Study on Information Needs and Musical Creativity. In P. Kostagiolas, K. Martzoukou and C. Lavranos (eds.), Trends in Music Information Seeking, Behavior, and Retrieval for Creativity. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Misdariis, N., Minard, A., Susini, P., Lemaitre, G., McAdams, S. and Parizet, E. 2010. Environmental Sound Perception: Metadescription and Modeling Based on Independent Primary Studies. EURASIP Journal on Audio, Speech, and Music Processing. https://asmp-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1155/2010/362013 Google Scholar
Nelken, I. and de Cheveigné, A. 2013. An Ear for Statistics. Nature Neuroscience 16(4): 381–382.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. 1999. Affordances, Conventions, and Design. Interactions 6(3): 38–43.Google Scholar
Patterson, R. D. 1982. Guidelines for Auditory Warning Systems on Civil Aircraft. London: Civil Aviation Authority.Google Scholar
Peeters, G. 2004. A Large Set of Audio Features for Sound Description (Similarity and Classification). CUIDADO Project Ircam Technical Report. http://recherche.ircam.fr/anasyn/peeters/ARTICLES/Peeters_2003_cuidadoaudiofeatures.pdf (accessed 13 April 2018).Google Scholar
Peeters, G. and Deruty, E. 2008. Automatic Morphological Description of Sounds. Acoustics 08 Proceedings, Paris.Google Scholar
Schaeffer, P. 1966/2017. Treatise on Musical Objects: An Essay Across Disciplines. Oakland, CA: University of California Press (English edn pub. 2017 after French edn pub. 1966; trans. C. North and J. Dack).Google Scholar
Schafer, R. M. 1977. The Tuning of the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Schalkwijk, L. F. J. 2017. Alarm and Auditory-Interface Design: Learnability of Alarms and Auditory-feedback for Random and Meaningful Alarm Sounds Investigated in a Paired-associate Paradigm. Unpublished Masters thesis, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.Google Scholar
Slaney, M. 1998. Auditory Toolbox. Interval Research Corporation, Tech. Rep, 10.Google Scholar
Stanton, N. and Edworthy, J. 1998. Auditory Affordances in the Intensive Treatment Unit. Applied Ergonomics 29(5): 389–394.Google Scholar
Suied, C., Susini, P. and McAdams, S. 2008. Evaluating Warning Sound Urgency with Reaction Times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(3): 201–212.Google Scholar
Susini, P., Misdariis, N., Lemaitre, G., Houix, O., Rocchesso, D. and Polotti, P. 2006. Closing the Loop of Sound Evaluation and Design. 2nd ISCA/DEGA Tutorial & Research Workshop on Perceptual Quality of Systems, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Tuuri, K., Mustonen, M. S. and Pirhonen, A. 2007. Same Sound – Different Meanings: A Novel Scheme for Modes of Listening. Proceedings of Audio Mostly, Ilmenau, Germany.Google Scholar
Vanderveer, N. J. 1980. Ecological Acoustics: Human Perception of Environmental Sounds. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Wessel, D. L. 1979. Timbre Space as a Musical Control Structure. Computer Music Journal 3: 45–52.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Sigman and Misdariis supplementary material

Sigman and Misdariis supplementary material 1

Download Sigman and Misdariis supplementary material(File)
File 49.7 MB