Reply by Carlos Moreno April 10, 20042004-04-10
Could be.  But the problem with this word in the context
of speech signals is that it may be easily confused with
intelligibility, or with clarity in a more "high-level"
sense (the clarity of an explanation, the clarity of a
phrase in the linguistic sense, etc.)

I guess I'll go with "brightness", even if this word
seems to go better in the context of music signals.

Thanks,

Carlos
--

Richard Dobson wrote:
> "Clarity"? > > [...]
Reply by Richard Dobson April 10, 20042004-04-10
"Clarity"?

Richard Dobson

Carlos Moreno wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote: > >>
..
> I'm going to explain now exactly why I needed that -- I'm > writing the report on a Term Project in a Speech Communications > course. I implemented a system that increases (presumably) > the quality of digitized speech by adding a parametric > representation of the 4kHz to 8kHz (which is absent at > the commonly accepted standard sampling rate for "speech > quality"). > > So, in comparing the results, I was trying to explain that > with the vowels, as opposed to fricatives (s and sh sounds, > which are white/pink-noise-like in nature), the high > frequency contents, if anything, just adds a bit of > naturalness by means of the harmonics that increase the > sound's _____ (and that is the word that I was looking > for). >
...
Reply by Jerry Avins April 9, 20042004-04-09
Carlos Moreno wrote:

   ...

> I'm going to explain now exactly why I needed that -- I'm > writing the report on a Term Project in a Speech Communications > course. I implemented a system that increases (presumably) > the quality of digitized speech by adding a parametric > representation of the 4kHz to 8kHz (which is absent at > the commonly accepted standard sampling rate for "speech > quality"). > > So, in comparing the results, I was trying to explain that > with the vowels, as opposed to fricatives (s and sh sounds, > which are white/pink-noise-like in nature), the high > frequency contents, if anything, just adds a bit of > naturalness by means of the harmonics that increase the > sound's _____ (and that is the word that I was looking > for). > > With an S, or F, or SH, high frequencies *is* mostly what > defines those sounds. For vowels, high frequencies simply > "decorate" it -- they add brightness that is present in the > original (acoustic) signal, and that is lost when digitizing > at 8kHz and thus limiting the bandwidth to the lower 4kHz > band. > > I hope I got the right term (well, the report is due > next Tuesday, so if I hear some further objections or > clarifications in this thread, I'll adjust the wording in > my report :-))
Loudspeaker designers of my acquaintance and some musicians would fill in your blank with "openness". George Briggs, in particular, meant that literally. He avoided backs on his tweeter mounts. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Jerry Avins April 9, 20042004-04-09
Jon Harris wrote:

   ...

> I've heard the term "covered" used to describe this. I guess the opposite would > be "uncovered", though probably something like "present" or "clear" is more > common. The term "covered" seems quite direct as you can generate a low-pass > filtered version of a sound source by covering it, e.g. with a blanket.
You remind me that I've heard "hooded" in the same context. More extreme frequency restriction would be "muffled". Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by Carlos Moreno April 9, 20042004-04-09
Jerry Avins wrote:
> >> Two comments: notice that I'm looking for the word to >> describe the right amount of high-frequencies (or, say, >> the presence of high frequencies). I used the example >> of a low-passed piano to imply that I was looking for >> the adjective that describes the original as compared >> to the low-passed version (you hear both and you go: >> "there, this one sounds ____" -- "brighter", as per >> Jon's message) > ... > > Trite as it may seem, the description "high fidelity" comes to mind. > Note that good high-frequency response is not always a good thing. Under > some conditions, a low-pass filter can improve the pleasantness of > music. Low-distortion audio in a flat passband tends to sound best to > people with normal hearing when the product of the upper and lower > cut-offs is close to 400 (KHz)^2. When small speakers limit the base > response, the extreme highs become unwelcome.
Hmmm, even though I mostly agree with the above, I clarify again that I wasn't implying any sort of judgement on that attribute, but rather trying to find out what is the word to describe it. I'm going to explain now exactly why I needed that -- I'm writing the report on a Term Project in a Speech Communications course. I implemented a system that increases (presumably) the quality of digitized speech by adding a parametric representation of the 4kHz to 8kHz (which is absent at the commonly accepted standard sampling rate for "speech quality"). So, in comparing the results, I was trying to explain that with the vowels, as opposed to fricatives (s and sh sounds, which are white/pink-noise-like in nature), the high frequency contents, if anything, just adds a bit of naturalness by means of the harmonics that increase the sound's _____ (and that is the word that I was looking for). With an S, or F, or SH, high frequencies *is* mostly what defines those sounds. For vowels, high frequencies simply "decorate" it -- they add brightness that is present in the original (acoustic) signal, and that is lost when digitizing at 8kHz and thus limiting the bandwidth to the lower 4kHz band. I hope I got the right term (well, the report is due next Tuesday, so if I hear some further objections or clarifications in this thread, I'll adjust the wording in my report :-)) Cheers, Carlos --
Reply by Jon Harris April 9, 20042004-04-09
"Richard Dobson" <richarddobson@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:onDdc.49864$Id.12392@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I would have to say "no". > > The first difficulty is in avoiding describing the source sound, rather than
the
> quality of the tranmission. The opposite to "opaque" is "transparent". To > describe a sound as bright depends on whether the source is bright to begin
with. Good point.
> The other difficulty is the overwhelming majority of adjectives, including
those
> above, and of course "bright" and "dark",are borrowed from the visual domain, > which translates only inexactly to sound. We have extremes: dark v bright, but > not much in between. Attaching to them any quantity (on a scale 1 to 10 say)
is
> ostensibly impossible. We also use onomatopoeic terms ("boomy"), or > causal/mechanical terms ("brassy","grainy"), or terms from the sense of touch > ("warm", "thick"). In short, we are obliged most of the time to describe a
sound
> by reference to some other sound, by common consent. > > In the meantime, the word "muted" would seem useful to describe the l/p
filtered
> sound, as that does at least describe an obstacle to reception, rather than a > quality of the source. On this basis, the opposite has to be "un-muted", as we > have little vocabulary to express the absence of an effect.
I've heard the term "covered" used to describe this. I guess the opposite would be "uncovered", though probably something like "present" or "clear" is more common. The term "covered" seems quite direct as you can generate a low-pass filtered version of a sound source by covering it, e.g. with a blanket.
Reply by Jerry Avins April 9, 20042004-04-09
Carlos Moreno wrote:

   ...

> Two comments: notice that I'm looking for the word to > describe the right amount of high-frequencies (or, say, > the presence of high frequencies). I used the example > of a low-passed piano to imply that I was looking for > the adjective that describes the original as compared > to the low-passed version (you hear both and you go: > "there, this one sounds ____" -- "brighter", as per > Jon's message)
... Trite as it may seem, the description "high fidelity" comes to mind. Note that good high-frequency response is not always a good thing. Under some conditions, a low-pass filter can improve the pleasantness of music. Low-distortion audio in a flat passband tends to sound best to people with normal hearing when the product of the upper and lower cut-offs is close to 400 (KHz)^2. When small speakers limit the base response, the extreme highs become unwelcome. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. &#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;&#2013266095;
Reply by Richard Dobson April 9, 20042004-04-09
I would have to say "no".

The first difficulty is in avoiding describing the source sound, rather than the 
quality of the tranmission. The opposite to "opaque" is "transparent". To 
describe a sound as bright depends on whether the source is bright to begin with.

The other difficulty is the overwhelming majority of adjectives, including those 
above, and of course "bright" and "dark",are borrowed from the visual domain, 
which translates only inexactly to sound. We have extremes: dark v bright, but 
not much in between. Attaching to them any quantity (on a scale 1 to 10 say) is 
ostensibly impossible. We also use onomatopoeic terms ("boomy"), or 
causal/mechanical terms ("brassy","grainy"), or terms from the sense of touch 
("warm", "thick"). In short, we are obliged most of the time to describe a sound 
by reference to some other sound, by common consent.

In the meantime, the word "muted" would seem useful to describe the l/p filtered 
sound, as that does at least describe an obstacle to reception, rather than a 
quality of the source. On this basis, the opposite has to be "un-muted", as we 
have little vocabulary to express the absence of an effect.

The alternative is strict clinical descriptions of the sound such as the 
spectral centroid, but this may cause eyes to glaze over in every-day social 
discourses.

Richard Dobson


Leon Heller wrote:
> "Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message > news:Mwydc.26409$ih4.821654@wagner.videotron.net... > >>Hi, >> >>I'm looking for the word (adjective) that describes that >>quality of the sound resulting from having the right >>amount of high frequencies. >> >>For instance, if you low-pass filter a piano sound at, >>say, 3kHz, it sounds different. >> >>In Spanish (at least where I come from), we would say >>that the low-passed version sounds "opaque", and the >>version with the right amount of high-frequencies >>sounds "shiny" (or "glowy/glowing"). >> >>Is there a typical word in English that is standard >>terminology to describe that quality? (I'm talking >>about a word that is standard in the technical >>community) > > > I think I've seen "brightness" used in this context. > > Leon > >
Reply by Carlos Moreno April 9, 20042004-04-09
Kevin Neilson wrote:

>>I'm looking for the word (adjective) that describes that >>quality of the sound resulting from having the right >>amount of high frequencies. >> >>For instance, if you low-pass filter a piano sound at, >>say, 3kHz, it sounds different. >> >>In Spanish (at least where I come from), we would say >>that the low-passed version sounds "opaque", and the >>version with the right amount of high-frequencies >>sounds "shiny" (or "glowy/glowing"). >> >>Is there a typical word in English that is standard >>terminology to describe that quality? (I'm talking >>about a word that is standard in the technical >>community) > > Audiophiles in the US often describe the sound from vinyl records as > "warmer" than CDs, implying that this distortion is desirable. I think > vinyl records have a lowpass characteristic so I guess warm means the > attenuation of high frequencies.
Two comments: notice that I'm looking for the word to describe the right amount of high-frequencies (or, say, the presence of high frequencies). I used the example of a low-passed piano to imply that I was looking for the adjective that describes the original as compared to the low-passed version (you hear both and you go: "there, this one sounds ____" -- "brighter", as per Jon's message) As for the "warmth" of vinyl sounds, I think what is implied is the lack of distortion at high frequencies, or in general the lack of excessive high-frequency contents; at least that's my notion of "warmth" when talking about sound (in the context of music). Carlos --
Reply by Leon Heller April 9, 20042004-04-09
"Carlos Moreno" <moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@xx.xxx> wrote in message
news:Mwydc.26409$ih4.821654@wagner.videotron.net...
> > Hi, > > I'm looking for the word (adjective) that describes that > quality of the sound resulting from having the right > amount of high frequencies. > > For instance, if you low-pass filter a piano sound at, > say, 3kHz, it sounds different. > > In Spanish (at least where I come from), we would say > that the low-passed version sounds "opaque", and the > version with the right amount of high-frequencies > sounds "shiny" (or "glowy/glowing"). > > Is there a typical word in English that is standard > terminology to describe that quality? (I'm talking > about a word that is standard in the technical > community)
I think I've seen "brightness" used in this context. Leon