It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
to embark in such a project.


On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>
> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
> music background. That would be a great idea.
>
> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>
>
>
> -PBS
>
> =====================================================
>
> --- wstlopez@GMAIL.COM wrote:
>
> From: T Lopez 
> To: CSOUND@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>
> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>
> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>
> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple 
> example..
>
> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an 
> analysis of the waveform?
>
> If so, this would be a viable project..
>
> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7"  > wrote:
>
>     Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
>     spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
>     point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
>     both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>
>     if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
>     ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>
>     we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
>     omni-simultaneous while
>     remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.
>
>     I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
>     we can use it to
>     find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>
>     But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
>     work.
>
>     Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.
>
>     Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.
>
>     How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
>     with less hassle?
>     this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.
>
>     Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
>     chocolates?
>     You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
>     he or she doesn't have
>     to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>
>     My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
>     exactly is possible.
>     My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
>     sorting, grouping etc.
>
>     I kinda had a dream about this.
>
>
>
>     --
>     View this message in context:
>     http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>     Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>     Csound mailing list
>     Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>     https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>     Send bugs reports to
>     https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>     Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>
> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie  
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to 
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be 
> posted here
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie  
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to 
> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be 
> posted here

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition to 
Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with "Multidimensional 
perceptual scaling of musical timbres":

http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf

The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional parameters 
for a satisfary description of sound?

Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to 
shape the timbre?

The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch (high 
and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or duration 
(line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.

Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic form.

This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.

Andrea S.



Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:
> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
> to embark in such a project.
>
>
> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>
>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>
>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>
>>
>>
>> -PBS
>>
>> =====================================================
>>
>> --- wstlopez@GMAIL.COM wrote:
>>
>> From: T Lopez 
>> To: CSOUND@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>
>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>
>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>
>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a super simple
>> example..
>>
>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified soley by an
>> analysis of the waveform?
>>
>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>
>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" > > wrote:
>>
>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just going to be a
>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if we can find a
>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or metallic or
>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>
>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the infrastructure or
>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>
>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound can be
>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth to it.
>>
>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral theory and how
>>      we can use it to
>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>
>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher but I love his
>>      work.
>>
>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one hyper-hierarchy.
>>
>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the freedom-seekers.
>>
>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we want more often
>>      with less hassle?
>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere conflict.
>>
>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't such a box of
>>      chocolates?
>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for the next guy so
>>      he or she doesn't have
>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>
>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we had in mind as
>>      exactly is possible.
>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and controlling,
>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>
>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>
>>
>>
>>      --
>>      View this message in context:
>>      http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>      Csound mailing list
>>      Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>      Send bugs reports to
>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
>> posted here
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be
>> posted here
> Csound mailing list
> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

If there's a solution, i think will be a multidimensional solution.

Andrea S.


Il 08/05/2017 09:14, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:
> Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition 
> to Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with 
> "Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres":
>
> http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf
>
> The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional 
> parameters for a satisfary description of sound?
>
> Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to 
> shape the timbre?
>
> The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch (high 
> and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or duration 
> (line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.
>
> Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic 
> form.
>
> This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.
>
> Andrea S.
>
>
>
> Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the 
>>> questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate 
>>> for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some 
>>> synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -PBS
>>>
>>> =====================================================
>>>
>>> --- wstlopez@GMAIL.COM wrote:
>>>
>>> From: T Lopez 
>>> To: CSOUND@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>>
>>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>>
>>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>>
>>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a 
>>> super simple
>>> example..
>>>
>>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified 
>>> soley by an
>>> analysis of the waveform?
>>>
>>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>>
>>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" >> > wrote:
>>>
>>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just 
>>> going to be a
>>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if 
>>> we can find a
>>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or 
>>> metallic or
>>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>>
>>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the 
>>> infrastructure or
>>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>>
>>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound 
>>> can be
>>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth 
>>> to it.
>>>
>>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral 
>>> theory and how
>>>      we can use it to
>>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>>
>>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher 
>>> but I love his
>>>      work.
>>>
>>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one 
>>> hyper-hierarchy.
>>>
>>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the 
>>> freedom-seekers.
>>>
>>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we 
>>> want more often
>>>      with less hassle?
>>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere 
>>> conflict.
>>>
>>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't 
>>> such a box of
>>>      chocolates?
>>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for 
>>> the next guy so
>>>      he or she doesn't have
>>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>>
>>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we 
>>> had in mind as
>>>      exactly is possible.
>>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and 
>>> controlling,
>>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>>
>>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      --
>>>      View this message in context:
>>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html
>>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>      Csound mailing list
>>>      Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>>      Send bugs reports to
>>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>
>>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>> 
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and 
>>> features can be
>>> posted here
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>
>>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>> 
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and 
>>> features can be
>>> posted here
>> Csound mailing list
>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>
> Csound mailing list
> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

I suspect that the short answer to the question is "No". The domain of 
sounds is unbounded, so that as soon as any classification is completed, 
someone will be able to invent a sound that doesn't fit. One of my pet 
topics is the extraordinary limitations of (the English) language for 
describing sounds. We tend to rely on association with material (hence, 
ceramic, metallic, brassy, wooden, grainy), on onomatopoeia (bang, 
whoosh, thud),  on other senses (bright, dull, dark,warm, dry), methods 
of production (textured, layered), kinds of action (sweeping, rolling, 
flowing, rising, falling, rattling), indirect spatial (reverberant, 
echoey, high, low) and so on. So - how it's made, what it feels like, 
what space is it in, how it behaves. Nothing that says simply what it is 
without any external reference.

We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that 
directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the 
names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course 
non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are 
described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the 
spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important 
to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.

We do have periodic and aperiodic, harmonic and inharmonic, and 
immediately the problem that a sound can contain elements of each and 
all of these in arbitrary and changing proportions. This might be the 
basis of a classification that does not, at any point, depend on 
comparisons with sounds assumed to be already known. But I have little 
confidence that, given a purely verbal description, someone could 
reliably create a sound that matches the subject to general agreement, 
except, as already suggested, for sounds that are already minimalist and 
synthetic in their nature, such as the ubiquitous sinusoid. That may, of 
course, be a good thing!

Still, it is very probably a useful exercise, especially if it leads to 
new tools; and with the potential to invent any number of new technical 
terms...most or all of which will probably fail, like "morphology", to 
enter the vernacular and appear in school essays on "what I did on my 
holidays".

Richard Dobson


On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
> to embark in such a project.
>
>
> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>
>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>
>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>
>>
...

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

that is: a multi-windows solution.


Il 08/05/2017 09:25, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:
> If there's a solution, i think will be a multidimensional solution.
>
> Andrea S.
>
>
> Il 08/05/2017 09:14, Andrea Strappa ha scritto:
>> Systematic studies about timbre perception are conduced - in addition 
>> to Schaeffer or Chion or Risset - by John M. Gray, with 
>> "Multidimensional perceptual scaling of musical timbres":
>>
>> http://aum.dartmouth.edu/~mcasey/m102/GreyMultidimensionalScaling.pdf
>>
>> The problem to solve is: What are the essentials perceptional 
>> parameters for a satisfary description of sound?
>>
>> Furthmore: is it possible to elaborate an analogic control system to 
>> shape the timbre?
>>
>> The classical notation are some analogy with perception of pitch 
>> (high and low), very little with dynamic (cresc. and dim. forks) or 
>> duration (line of time on the abscissa), none with timbre.
>>
>> Csound code even less. Perhaps you have to give up whatever analogic 
>> form.
>>
>> This is a question that maybe we will have to deal with.
>>
>> Andrea S.
>>
>>
>>
>> Il 08/05/2017 01:57, Guillermo Senna ha scritto:
>>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>>> to embark in such a project.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the 
>>>> questions of Taxonomy?
>>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>>
>>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate 
>>>> for audio
>>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some 
>>>> synth or electronic
>>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>>
>>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -PBS
>>>>
>>>> =====================================================
>>>>
>>>> --- wstlopez@GMAIL.COM wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: T Lopez 
>>>> To: CSOUND@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE
>>>> Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?
>>>> Date: Sun, 7 May 2017 19:26:31 +0200
>>>>
>>>> I find this proposal/question quite interesting...
>>>>
>>>> The point is, however, what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?
>>>>
>>>> Are these qualities facts? Like say, saw wave 440 hz...which is a 
>>>> super simple
>>>> example..
>>>>
>>>> What I mean is, could a ceramic or metallic sound be identified 
>>>> soley by an
>>>> analysis of the waveform?
>>>>
>>>> If so, this would be a viable project..
>>>>
>>>> On 6 May 2017 22:06, "Cacophony7" >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>      Some sounds are ceramic and some are metallic and there's just 
>>>> going to be a
>>>>      spectrum between the two with nothing to encapsulate unless if 
>>>> we can find a
>>>>      point of interest that determines, yes! this is a ceramic or 
>>>> metallic or
>>>>      both or plain-old-something-else sound.
>>>>
>>>>      if we do put sound into some kind of hierarchy tree the 
>>>> infrastructure or
>>>>      ANY structure is going to be spectral.
>>>>
>>>>      we might have to use tags or a hierarchy of tags because sound 
>>>> can be
>>>>      omni-simultaneous while
>>>>      remaining just one sound no matter how many sounds gave birth 
>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>>      I wish I knew more about and could apply Ken Wilbers integral 
>>>> theory and how
>>>>      we can use it to
>>>>      find these points of interests, classes, tags etc.
>>>>
>>>>      But Ken Wilber isn't an audio programmer, he's a philosopher 
>>>> but I love his
>>>>      work.
>>>>
>>>>      Infact there might be more than one hierarchy or one 
>>>> hyper-hierarchy.
>>>>
>>>>      Programming is poetry sometimes. Philosophy is for the 
>>>> freedom-seekers.
>>>>
>>>>      How can we incorporate philosophy into getting the sounds we 
>>>> want more often
>>>>      with less hassle?
>>>>      this question can generate many answers without any sincere 
>>>> conflict.
>>>>
>>>>      Wouldn't it be nice if Csound or any audio programming wasn't 
>>>> such a box of
>>>>      chocolates?
>>>>      You can't rush art but you can still entice a better way for 
>>>> the next guy so
>>>>      he or she doesn't have
>>>>      to go through as much trail and error as you did.
>>>>
>>>>      My vision is that we will be able to SELECT the sound that we 
>>>> had in mind as
>>>>      exactly is possible.
>>>>      My vision is breaking a whole sounds into part sounds and 
>>>> controlling,
>>>>      sorting, grouping etc.
>>>>
>>>>      I kinda had a dream about this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      --
>>>>      View this message in context:
>>>> http://csound.1045644.n5.nabble.com/can-we-constitute-sound-into-taxonomic-fields-tp5755949.html 
>>>>
>>>>      Sent from the Csound - General mailing list archive at 
>>>> Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>      Csound mailing list
>>>>      Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>>>      https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>>>      Send bugs reports to
>>>>      https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>>>      Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>>
>>>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>>> 
>>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and 
>>>> features can be
>>>> posted here
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>>>
>>>> Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
>>>> Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie 
>>>> 
>>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to
>>>> https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and 
>>>> features can be
>>>> posted here
>>> Csound mailing list
>>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>>> Send bugs reports to
>>>          https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>>
>>
>> Csound mailing list
>> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
>> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
>> Send bugs reports to
>>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
>> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>>
>
> Csound mailing list
> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here
>

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

That, and the fact that we always use some sort of metaphor when talking about music and sound. 
========================
Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Tel: 00 353 7086936
Fax: 00 353 1 7086952 
> 
> We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.
> 


> Richard Dobson
> 
> 
> On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>> 
>> 
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>> 
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>> 
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>> 
>>> 
> ...
> 
> Csound mailing list
> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>       https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Riveting thread guys, thanks for all your informative responses..I have little to add unfortunately, due to my limited knowledge on the topic.

Indeed, however, my interest has been piqued.

There are two plans that can be distinguished: the plan of the symbolic and the plan of the sound representation;

Riveting thread guys, thanks for all your informative responses..I have little to add unfortunately, due to my limited knowledge on the topic.

Indeed, however, my interest has been piqued.

On 8 May 2017 09:57, "Victor Lazzarini" <Victor.Lazzarini@nuim.ie> wrote:

That, and the fact that we always use some sort of metaphor when talking about music and sound.
========================
Prof. Victor Lazzarini
Dean of Arts, Celtic Studies, and Philosophy,
Maynooth University,
Maynooth, Co Kildare, Ireland
Tel: 00 353 7086936
Fax: 00 353 1 7086952
>
> We have virtually no words that are exclusive to sound - nothing that directly matches the specificity of, say, red, blue, green. Even the names of musical notes are essentially arbitrary, and of course non-specific - 'A' may be any of a number of frequencies. Waveforms are described by (visual) shape - saw, square, triangle. We talk about the spectrum of a sound, but the aspect of a spectrum often most important to scientists - absorption lines - has no obvious sonic counterpart.
>


> Richard Dobson
>
>
> On 08/05/2017 00:57, Guillermo Senna wrote:
>> It sounds like Pierre Schaeffer's attempt to classify and describe
>> sounds. Although I must say his Topology and his Morphology always
>> sounded too arbitrary for me, maybe it's worth a read if you shall try
>> to embark in such a project.
>>
>>
>> On 07/05/17 20:32, Partev Barr Sarkissian wrote:
>>> "what exactly does ceramic or metallic mean?"--- one of the questions of Taxonomy?
>>> 440-Hz, sine and "pure tone periodic" or an "irregular periodic"?
>>>
>>> Cladistic method, or some other method of Taxonomy more appropriate for audio
>>> and music. This might be something for a musicologist with some synth or electronic
>>> music background. That would be a great idea.
>>>
>>> Google searches or GitHub categorization could be optimized.
>>>
>>>
> ...
>
> Csound mailing list
> Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
> https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
> Send bugs reports to
>       https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
> Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list
Csound@listserv.heanet.ie
https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND
Send bugs reports to
        https://github.com/csound/csound/issues
Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Csound mailing list Csound@listserv.heanet.ie https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A0=CSOUND Send bugs reports to https://github.com/csound/csound/issues Discussions of bugs and features can be posted here

Good, to find out whether the scheme is good one has to work with it.

But first we need to ask: why do you want categorizing the timbre?

To baste a your composition form? Or to teach music to children? Or to analyze a famous composer work? Or to do a statistic about something? Or something?

Then, you might notice the opposition of terms: the “difference between units on the level of expression”.

You can notice that some difference is pertinent in a context, not in other context.

For an Inuit there are a lot of types of snow, with a lot of names, because they live in the snow. I have a few words to describe the state of the snow, because I see the snow a few day every year.

Someone said that this musical era is the era of the timbre.

It’s understandeble the need to reflect about a categorization.

Andrea S.

----- Original Message -----

From: Aaron Krister Johnson

To: CSOUND@LISTSERV.HEANET.IE

Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 5:49 PM

Subject: Re: [Csnd] can we constitute sound into taxonomic fields?

These are interesting ideas.

My initial thoughts for categorizing timbre would be an N-dimensional system (however abstract, but ideally, mapped to quantifiable parameters) that would definitely include:

1) harmonicity/inharmonicity of excitation source

1a) fundamental pitch range

2) spectral profile, perhaps represented as a generalized filter contour.

3) attack, decay, sustain, release, etc. (envelope behavior over time)

4) Spacial or "effects" profile

Perhaps unconsciously, I'm thinking that, primitive in that ways that it is, the traditional subtractive analog hardwired synth does a good job of modeling a small subset of the possibilities, which could be extended (by analogy or expansion of parametric possibility) to include many natural and 'newer' types of sound sources:

    generator(osc/noise,phsyical model, actual physical) -->

    optional spectral shaping via filters -->

    amplitude characteristic shaping (envelope) -->

    wrapping the sound in a "space" or "effects space".

In a naive sense, any synth's timbre space is N-dimensional, and 'N' is equal to the number of knobs + switches in its possible parameters!

I tend to think all timbres I can think of can be categorized as such....even when you have FFT and spectral synthesis and resynthesis, you are still working with the idea of an 'excited' sound source, and if the sound is a natural sound (struck/blown/friction), it is still being shaped (filtered/reverberated) by the physics around it.

Acoustic instruments are categorized by Hornbostel/Sachs as 'ideophone - membranophone - chordophone - aerophone - electrophone'; and are strike-/pluck-/blow-/friction- activated. Those categories, in my mind, map to envelopes, both spectral and amplitundinal.

-AKJ