Forums

What is the word? (sound quality)

Started by Carlos Moreno April 9, 2004
"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.
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 --
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. &#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;
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. &#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;
"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). >
...
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"? > > [...]