Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:07:23.712Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlling Perception Thresholds for Changing Timbres in Continuous Sounds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 May 2019

Felix A. Dobrowohl ,
Andrew J. Milne  and
Roger T. Dean
Felix A. Dobrowohl*
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, PenrithNSW2751, Australia
Andrew J. Milne*
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, PenrithNSW2751, Australia
Roger T. Dean*
Affiliation:
MARCS Institute for Brain, Behaviour and Development, Western Sydney University, Locked Bag 1797, PenrithNSW2751, Australia
*
*Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
*Emails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Perceptual dimensions underlying timbre and sound-source identification have received considerable scientific attention. While these scholarly insights help us in understanding the nature of sound within a multidimensional timbral space, they carry little meaning for the majority of musicians. To help address this, we conducted two experiments to establish listeners’ perceptual thresholds (PT) for changes in sound using a staircase-procedure. Unlike most timbre perception research, these changes were sonic manipulations that are common in synthesisers, audio processors and instruments familiar to musicians and producers, and occurred within continuous sounds (rather than between discrete pairs of sounds). In experiment 1, two sounds (variants of a sawtooth oscillation) both with the same fundamental frequency (F1: 80 Hz, 240 Hz or 600 Hz) were played with no intervening gap. In each trial, the two sounds’ partials differed in amplitudes or frequencies to produce a timbre change. The sonic manipulations were varied in size to detect thresholds for the perceived timbre change – listeners were instructed to indicate whether or not they perceived a change within the sound. In experiment 2, we modified stimulus presentation to introduce the factor of transition time (TT). Rather than occurring instantaneously (as in experiment 1), the timbre manipulations were introduced gradually over the course of a 100 ms or a 1000 ms TT. Results revealed that PTs were significantly affected by the manipulations in experiment 1, and additionally by TT in experiment 2. Importantly, the data revealed an interaction between the F1 and the timbre manipulations, such that there were differential effects of timbre changes on the perceptual system depending on pitch height. Musicians (n=11) showed significantly smaller PTs compared to non-musicians (n=10). However, PTs for musicians and non-musicians were highly correlated (r=.83) across different sonic manipulations, indicating similar perceptual patterns in both. We hope that by establishing PTs for commonly used timbre manipulations, we can provide musicians with a general perceptual unit, for each manipulation, that can guide music composition and assessment.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 24 , Special Issue 1: Perceptual Issues Surrounding the Electroacoustic Music Experience , April 2019 , pp. 71 - 84
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

Berger, H. M. and Fales, C. 2010. ‘Heaviness’ in the Perception of Heavy Metal Guitar Timbres. In T. Porcello and P. D. Greene (eds.) Wired for Sound: Engineering and Technologies in Sonic Cultures. Middleton, CT: Weseyan University Press.Google Scholar
Bernstein, L. R., Richards, V. and Green, D. M. 1987. The Detection of Spectral Shape Change. In W. A. Yost and C. S. Watson (eds.) Auditory Processing of Complex Sounds. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bürkner, P.-C. 2016. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
Caclin, A., McAdams, S., Smith, B. K. and Winsberg, S. 2005. Acoustic Correlates of Timbre Space Dimensions: A Confirmatory Study Using Synthetic Tones. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118(1): 471–482.Google Scholar
Cohen, E. A. 1984. Some Effects of Inharmonic Partials on Interval Perception. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 1(3): 323–349.Google Scholar
Dannenberg, R. B. and Derenyi, I. 1998. Combining Instrument and Performance Models for High‐quality Music Synthesis. Journal of New Music Research 27(3): 211–238.Google Scholar
Grey, J. M. 1978. Perceptual Effects of Spectral Modifications on Musical Timbres. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 63(5): 1493–1500.Google Scholar
Iverson, P. and Krumhansl, C. L. 1993. Isolating the Dynamic Attributes of Musical Timbre. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 94(5): 2595–2603.Google Scholar
Järveläinen, H., Välimäki, V. and Karjalainen, M. 1999. Audibility of Inharmonicity in String Instrument Sounds, and Implications to Digital Sound Synthesis. Paper presented at the ICMC, Beijing, China.Google Scholar
Laitinen, M.-V., Disch, S. and Pulkki, V. 2013. Sensitivity of Human Hearing to Changes in Phase Spectrum. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society 61(11): 860–877.Google Scholar
Lee, K. M., Skoe, E., Kraus, N. and Ashley, R. 2009. Selective Subcortical Enhancement of Musical Intervals in Musicians. Journal of Neuroscience 29(18): 5832–5840.Google Scholar
Levitt, H. 1971. Transformed Up‐down Methods in Psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 49(2B): 467–477.Google Scholar
Marozeau, J. and de Cheveigne, A. 2007. The Effect of Fundamental Frequency on the Brightness Dimension of Timbre. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(1): 383–387.Google Scholar
McAdams, S. 1999. Perspectives on the Contribution of Timbre to Musical Structure. Computer Music Journal 23(3): 85–102.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(3): 177–192.Google Scholar
Miller, J. R. 1975. Perceptual Space for Musical Structures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 58(3): 711–720.Google Scholar
Moog, R. A. 1977. US 4,050,343: Electronic Music Synthesizer. United States Patents.Google Scholar
Moore, B. C. J. 1986. Thresholds for Hearing Mistuned Partials as Separate Tones in Harmonic Complexes. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 80(2): 479–483.Google Scholar
Olsen, K. N., Dean, R. T. and Leung, Y. 2016. What Constitutes a Phrase in Sound-Based Music? A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Perception and Acoustics. PLoS One 11(12): e0167643.Google Scholar
Olsen, K. N., Dean, R. T., Stevens, C. J. and Bailes, F. 2015. Both Acoustic Intensity and Loudness Contribute to Time-series Models of Perceived Affect in Response to Music. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain 25(2): 124–137.Google Scholar
Peeters, G., Giordano, B. L., Susini, P., Misdariis, N. and McAdams, S. 2011. The Timbre Toolbox: Extracting Audio Descriptors from Musical Signals. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(5): 2902–2916.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. 2013. Energy Flash: A Journey through Rave Music and Dance Culture. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Schuck, O. H. 1943. Observations on the Vibrations of Piano Strings. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 15(1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Seago, A., Holland, S. and Mulholland, P. 2010. A Novel User Interface for Musical Timbre Design. Paper presented at the AES Convention, London.Google Scholar
Siedenburg, K., Fujinaga, I. and McAdams, S. 2016. A Comparison of Approaches to Timbre Descriptors in Music Information Retrieval and Music Psychology. Journal of New Music Research 45(1): 27–41.Google Scholar
Siedenburg, K., Jones-Mollerup, K. and McAdams, S. 2015. Acoustic and Categorical Dissimilarity of Musical Timbre: Evidence from Asymmetries Between Acoustic and Chimeric Sounds. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1977.Google Scholar
Solberg, R. T. 2014. ‘Waiting for the Bass to Drop’: Correlations between Intense Emotional Experiences and Production Techniques in Build-up and Drop Sections of Electronic Dance Music. Dancecult: Journal of Electronic Dance Music Culture 6(1): 61–82.Google Scholar
Tervaniemi, M., Just, V., Koelsch, S., Widmann, A. and Schroger, E. 2005. Pitch Discrimination Accuracy in Musicians vs Nonmusicians: An Event-related Potential and Behavioral Study. Experimental Brain Research 161(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
Traube, C. and Smith, J. O. 2001. Extracting the Fingering and the Plucking Points on a Guitar String from a Recording. Paper presented at the IEEE Workshop on the Applications of Signal Processing to Audio and Acoustics.Google Scholar
Van Nort, D. 2006. Noise/music and Representation Systems. Organised Sound 11(02): 173–178.Google Scholar
Versfeld, N. J. and Houtsma, A. J. 1991. Perception of Spectral Changes in Multi-tone Complexes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 43(3): 459–479.Google Scholar
Wessel, D. 1979. Timbre Space as a Musical Control Structure. Computer Music Journal 3(2): 45–52.Google Scholar
Wishart, T. 1994. Audible Design: A Plain and Easy Introduction to Practical Sound Composition. York: Orpheus the Pantomime.Google Scholar
Zacks, J. M., Speer, N. K., Swallow, K. M., Braver, T. S. and Reynolds, J. R. 2007. Event Perception: A Mind-Brain Perspective. Psychological Bulletin 133(2): 273–293.Google Scholar

Videography

Beardyman. 2011. Indie Music and Dubstep. Youtube, https://youtube/IodzT42UpUc: D milic (accessed 4 August 2016).Google Scholar