<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-2">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.13" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma color=#808080 size=2>hmm..., sure i've noticed the
<EM>delta v </EM>and <EM>delta t</EM> constrains at both: sonogram and matrixes
above, but it still look different to me. i'm musician, and at my first
[and the second :)] glance i see on sonogram kind of rhythmical points with a
different harmonics composition, and matrixes show to me something like fluent
crescendo and then diminue,do process of one complex sound . Do <EM>delta v</EM>
and <EM>delta t</EM> show the same periods both at matrixes and sono? No i
still can't find and similarities. Maybe it's more clear for any phisician
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma color=#808080 size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Tahoma color=#808080 size=2>greetings - zapala</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #808080 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=christopherjette@gmail.com
href="mailto:christopherjette@gmail.com">christopher jette</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=microsound@microsound.org
href="mailto:microsound@microsound.org">microsound@microsound.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, December 22, 2009 10:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [microsound] Gabor's matrix
vs. Xenakis' screens</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Greetings,<BR>I am not sure that I understand the confusion
with the sonographic image, Roads 2.2 page 60<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">The
question, too, concerning the sonographic representation (Roads' figure 2.2)
also is a good one, as the description and the graphic representation do not
seem to me to coincide. I have nothing more to offer there except this
may be an editorial error.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<DIV><BR>If one looks first @ the sonogram and the lowest left hand corner,
noting where the lines indicating the binding constraints are, there is a
portion of the FFT that is within these confines. From here one can compare
this with the numerical and graphical representations in the top 2 graphs. It
is the same data represented in different fashions. While the
description describes this in the reverse order, it says virtually the same. I
fail to see the error.<BR><BR>Cheers~<BR>Christohpher<BR></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>2009/12/22 Randal Davis <SPAN dir=ltr><<A
href="mailto:randal_davis@operamail.com">randal_davis@operamail.com</A>></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">An
excellent question, and I'll have a go at its answer[s], in plural.
There are, I think, several different ways of approaching it, all, in
their own ways, reasonable. Page references are to both Microsound and
Formalized Music.<BR><BR>>From what perspectives do differences between
Gabor and Xenakis appear? As Rafal correctly points out, they are both
mathematical formalisms representing a "3-dimensional structure of grain:
frequency, time and amplitude." One could, therefore, reasonably
conclude that the differences between them are not significant, if the
vehicle of comparison is, say, a Fourier model.<BR><BR>That is the most
general, and simplest, answer to the question; not very illuminating,
either. Evenso, to understand Xenakis' contention that "a book of
screens equals the life of a complex sound" (Xenakis, 1971, 51) as opposed
to the Fourier model is to understand a very profound distinction in how
sound may be conceptualized.<BR><BR>It's also useful to consider questions
of intent. As Roads points out, "it is important to emphasize the
analytical orientation of Gabor's theory" (57). Gabor was interested
in a theory of hearing, arguing that an approach premised on sound quanta
was superior to the "Fourier analysis of infinite signals" (58), and hence
the Gabor matrix. While a simplified graphic representation of such a
matrix and one of Xenakis' screens might appear visually similar, Xenakis,
Roads notes, had interests less purely theoretical, instead aiming toward
the "explication of a compositional theory for sound grains"
(65).<BR><BR>Let's not, though, do too much too quickly with this
distinction of what looks like "theory" (Gabor) and "practice" (Xenakis).
Look more closely at Xenakis'lemma for Markovian stochastic music:
"All sound, even continuous musical variation, is conceived as an
assemblage of a large number of elementary sounds adequately disposed in
time. In the attack, body and decline of a complex sound, thousands of
pure sounds appear in a more or less short interval of time delta-t"
(Xenakis, 1971 & 1992, 43, and Roads, 65).<BR><BR>Does Xenakis differ
from Gabor here? If so, how? We could return to our earlier,
very general, statement of their congruence, or try and phrase the matter of
their difference differently, one might say. That is, accepting
certain similarities in their formalisms, which is the most complete?
Does Gabor "explain" Xenakis better, i.e., more completely, than
Xenakis "explains" Gabor? Look back at Roads' explication of Gabor's
sound quanta, specifically the necessity of an "uncertainty relation between
time and frequency resolution" (58). Now reread the lemma, and note
the revealing phrase, that the sound grains appear "in a more or less short
interval of time."<BR><BR>That phrase, in my interpretation, is a specific
reference to Gabor's uncertainty relation - as the interval of time grows
"more or less" longer, the sound may indeed become more "pure" (e.g.
pitch-determinant). However, as the time interval grows shorter,
resolution in the pitch domain lessens, and the "pure" sound becomes
"fuzzier" or, more precisely, subject only to a more probabilistic
representation. Thus does Roads refer to the "problems with a constant
microtime grid" (67-8).<BR><BR>Xenakis was surely not unaware of this, and
it is therefore significant to observe that in his graphic representation of
a "book of screens" (Xenakis, 1971, 51 & 53) each cell of the screen is
itself something very much like the graphic representation of a Gabor
matrix; he also allows that grains may "fluctuate around a mean frequency
and intensity" (52).<BR><BR>It therefore seems to me that Gabor's is the
more complete, which is to say the more fundamental, account of the sonic
quanta for its premising of an irreducible uncertainty. At the same
time, as noted, one might imagine that most musicians and composers
preferring the Xenakis formalism (at least speaking for myself, here) for
its more ready conceptualization of the behavior and manipulation of complex
sounds.<BR><BR>The question, too, concerning the sonographic representation
(Roads' figure 2.2) also is a good one, as the description and the graphic
representation do not seem to me to coincide. I have nothing more to
offer there except this may be an editorial error.<BR><BR>Best wishes to all
for 2010.<BR><BR>RD<BR><BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From:
"rafał zapała" <<A
href="mailto:rafal@zapala.com.pl">rafal@zapala.com.pl</A>><BR>> To: <A
href="mailto:microsound@or8.net">microsound@or8.net</A><BR>> Subject:
[microsound] Gabor's matrix vs. Xenakis' screens<BR>> Date: Fri, 18 Dec
2009 15:35:22 +0100<BR>><BR>><BR>> Hi<BR>> (question about
Microsound by Roads) - do you<BR>> understend the difference between
Gabor's Mattrix and Xanakis'<BR>> conception of screens - it's completly
unclear for me, i can't see any<BR>> progress there? Both represent
3dimentional structure of grain:<BR>> frequency, time and amplitude.
According to the figure 2.2 p60 - i don't<BR>> understand the sonogram
too.<BR>><BR>><BR>> +48 506050417<BR>> <A
href="http://www.myspace.com/zapalarafal"
target=_blank>www.myspace.com/zapalarafal</A><BR>> <A
href="http://www.myspace.com/anarchenewmusicensemble"
target=_blank>www.myspace.com/anarchenewmusicensemble</A> :.<BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> microsound mailing
list<BR>> <A
href="mailto:microsound@microsound.org">microsound@microsound.org</A><BR>>
<A href="http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound"
target=_blank>http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound</A><BR><BR>><BR><BR><BR>--<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Surf
the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:<BR>Download Opera 9 at <A
href="http://www.opera.com"
target=_blank>http://www.opera.com</A><BR><BR>Powered by
Outblaze<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>microsound
mailing list<BR><A
href="mailto:microsound@microsound.org">microsound@microsound.org</A><BR><A
href="http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound"
target=_blank>http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR><A
href="http://www.cj.lovelyweather.com">www.cj.lovelyweather.com</A><BR><A
href="mailto:christopherjette@gmail.com">christopherjette@gmail.com</A><BR>617.869.3968<BR>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>microsound mailing
list<BR>microsound@microsound.org<BR>http://or8.net/mailman/listinfo/microsound<BR><BR><BR><BR>__________
Informacja programu ESET Smart Security, wersja bazy sygnatur wirusow 4710
(20091222) __________<BR><BR>Wiadomosc zostala sprawdzona przez program ESET
Smart Security.<BR><BR>http://www.eset.pl lub http://www.eset.com
<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>