Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .84 Choosing Sounds for Mercator - A Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85 ix Designing Auditory Icons - A Different Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Can Auditory Icons be Abstract? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Designing Sets of Auditory Cues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Chapter V Mercator Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Information Capture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Modifications to Xt and Xlib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Protocol Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Replacing the Pseudoserver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Control Flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Interface Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

This paper describes the goals and design of SDIF and its standard frame types, followed by a review of recent SDIF work at CNMAT, IRCAM, and IUA.

In this article I explore the relationship between composing and listening. I begin with a problematic story, draw some general conclusions, introduce relevant concepts from Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1983) and related work, propose some cognitive constraints on compositional systems, discuss "pitch space", and explain why serial (or 12-tone) organizations are cognitively opaque. Most of these topics deserve fuller treatment than is given in these pages. My concern here is just to lay out a basic, if wide-ranging, argument. I am not interested in passing judgement on the composers and compositions that are mentioned, particularly not on the remarkable work by Boulez that I use as a representative example. The thrust of my argument is psychological rather than aesthetic. But since aesthetic issues inevitably impinge on the discussion, I treat them briefly at the end.

Abstract not found

This paper illustrates the features of OSE with examples of several sound representations. 1 Introduction

This document originated in Microsoft Word 2000, and is available from the author’s website. Introduction: The Existence of Templates for Pitch Perception No universal algorithm, model, or formula yet exists that can predict the perceived pitch of a tonal complex 1 to the degree of precision we would like (0.1 cent or better) 2. In my opinion, the central processor theory of pitch perception, invented by professor Julius Goldstein 3 in 1973, [2] [3] [16] comes closest to providing an accurate formula. Goldstein’s theory is based