Perception of Dyads of Impulsive and Sustained Instrument Sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
perception of instrumental blend is important for understanding aspects of orchestration, but no work has studied blends of impulsive and sustained instruments. The first experiment identified the factors that influence the rating of blendedness of dyads formed of one sustained sound and one impulsive sound. Longer attack times and lower spectral centroids increased blend. The contribution of the impulsive sound’s properties to the degree of blend was greater than that of the sustained sound. The second experiment determined the factors that influence similarity ratings among dyads. The mean spectral envelope and the attack time of the dyad best explained the dissimilarity ratings. However, contrary to the first experiment, the spectral envelope of the sustained sound was more important than that of the impulsive sound. Multidimensional scaling of dissimilarity ratings on blended dyads yielded one dimension correlated with the attack time of the dyad and another dimension whose spectral correlate was different for two different clusters within the space, spectral spread for one and spectral flatness for the other, suggesting a combined categorical-analogical organization of the second dimension.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".