Blend and Segregation of Pairs of Concurrent Instrument
Timbres
Song Hui Chon School of Music
Ohio State University [email protected]
BKN 25 – Milestones in Music Cognition, McGill University, July
2014
CL FL OB EH TP FH TN TU MA VP TB HC HA PF VC
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
Ave
rage
Iden
tific
atio
n R
ate
in D
yad
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Average Dissimilarity Rating
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of In
stru
men
ts H
eard
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.91
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Average Blend Rating
Ave
rage
Num
ber
of In
stru
men
ts H
eard
0 5 10 150.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
EH
TNCL FH
VC HC FLTUVP OB HA
PFTB
TP
MA
Instruments
Saliency Value
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.60.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
CL
EH
FHFL
HA
HC
MA
OB
PF TB
TNTP
TU
VC
VP
Dimension 1
Dimension 2
Timbre Saliency Timbre Dissimilarity
BACKGROUND
PROCEDURE • 15 single-‐instrument
6mbres and 105 composites from
pairs of 6mbres • Woodwind:
Clarinet (CL), English Horn (EH),
Flute (FL), Oboe (OB) • Brass:
French Horn (FH), Trombone (TN),
Trumpet (TP), Tuba (TU) •
Bells: Marimba (MA), Vibraphone (VP),
Tubular Bells (TB) • String:
Harpsichord (HC), Harp (HA), Piano
(PF), Violoncello (VC) • All
equalized in terms of pitch
(C4), loudness and effec6ve dura6on
RESULTS • Iden6fica6on of an
instrument in dyads
OVERVIEW • Timbre is one of
the factors influencing auditory
stream segrega.on (Bregman, 1990) and
orchestral blend (Sandell, 1995;
Tardieu & McAdams, 2011; Chon
& McAdams, 2012b). • Can
we explain the percep6on of
6mbre blend and segrega6on in
terms of, .mbre saliency — the
a^en6on-‐capturing quality of a 6mbre
(Chon & McAdams, 2012a)?
DISCUSSION • Par6cipants reported the
task was difficult • Musicians
(professional and amateur) performed
be^er than non-‐musicians (p=.001,
.020) • Consistent with observa6ons
by Kendall & Cartere^e (1993)
• More number of instruments perceived
in less blended dyads, with two
more dissimilar 6mbres • BeCer
idenDficaDon of an instrument in
less blended dyads • BeCer
idenDficaDon with more high-‐frequency
energy • Higher spectral centroid,
spectral roll off, spectral spread,
spectral flatness, spectral slope in
ERB spectra
• Average idenDficaDon NOT
correlated with Dmbre saliency scale
• In isola6on: r(13) = .39,
p = .1562 • In dyads:
r(13) = .27, p = .3372
• Average confidence raDng correlated
with Dmbre saliency scale •
r(208) = .24, p < .001
• Assuming average correct iden.fica.on
rate is a measure of saliency,
average
iden2fica2on (or saliency) and
confidence ra2ng are highly
correlated • r(208) = .99, p
< 10-‐10
Train with 15 individual 6mbres
Preliminary Test
Be^er than 65%?
Main Test
No
Yes
RESULTS • Single-‐6mbre iden6fica6on
CL FL OB EH TP FH TN TU MA VP TB HC HA PF VC
CL 0.85
0.08
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FL 0.07
0.83
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OB 0.00
0.03
0.57
0.33
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
EH 0.01
0.00
0.21
0.72
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
TP 0.00
0.00
0.04
0.04
0.69
0.11
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FH 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.03
0.08
0.42
0.39
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TN 0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.21
0.14
0.58
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
TU 0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.07
0.74
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
MA 0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
VP 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.79
0.02
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
TB 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.90
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
HC 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.92
0.02
0.00
0.00
HA 0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.85
0.04
0.00
PF 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.98
0.00
VC 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
Iden6fied 6mbre
Actual 6mbre (played)
CL FL OB EH TP FH TN TU MA VP TB HC HA PF VC
CL - 0.33 0.42 0.42 0.29 0.08 0.17 0.54 0.50 0.29 0.12 0.17 0.38
0.21 0.00 FL 0.54
-
0.29
0.04
0.50
0.50
0.21
0.75
0.17
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.33
0.21
0.00
OB 0.21
0.17
-
0.25
0.12
0.25
0.25
0.29
0.04
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
EH 0.12
0.25
0.62
-
0.29
0.46
0.25
0.33
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.12
0.04
TP 0.17
0.21
0.33
0.08
-
0.25
0.29
0.21
0.08
0.12
0.04
0.00
0.34
0.04
0.00
FH 0.21
0.12
0.25
0.04
0.50
-
0.46
0.50
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.12
0.04
0.00
TN 0.25
0.17
0.17
0.04
0.21
0.21
-
0.25
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.17
0.00
0.04
TU 0.21
0.04
0.12
0.04
0.12
0.21
0.33
-
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.17
0.00
0.00
MA 0.38
0.50
0.71
0.29
0.71
0.58
0.62
0.71
-
0.42
0.00
0.04
0.83
0.17
0.04
VP 0.33
0.58
0.46
0.62
0.50
0.71
0.58
0.62
0.50
-
0.08
0.33
0.58
0.50
0.21
TB 0.79
0.88
0.88
0.79
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.79
0.88
-
0.88
0.88
0.79
0.71
HC 0.71
0.83
0.88
0.79
0.92
0.83
0.88
0.88
0.96
0.50
0.08
-
0.83
0.83
0.75
HA 0.38
0.25
0.33
0.25
0.17
0.17
0.12
0.54
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
-
0.04
0.04
PF 0.62
0.62
0.67
0.50
0.75
0.71
0.83
0.92
0.71
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.96
-
0.25
VC 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.92
0.96
0.96
0.92
1.00
0.83
0.58
0.17
0.17
0.88
0.71
-
Present 6mbre (uniden6fied)
Iden6fied 6mbre
• Average number of instruments
VS Blend and Dissimilarity
r(103)=-‐.81, p
