Subject: | |
From: | |
Date: | Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:54:00 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Len Fehskens wrote:
>Karl Miller asks me about my definition of noise:
>
>>How would that apply to something which has been labeled white noise. I
>>recall the notion that white noise was the presence of all frequencies at
>>all amplitudes.
>
>Not all amplitudes, the same amplitude. If you plot the spectral
>distribution of white noise it is a flat line. If you think about, it's
>impossible to have all amplitudes present; they would sum to infinity for
>each freqency.
I continue to be confused...
The way I was taught..."The last electronic sound...to be considered
is white sound or white noise (also sometimes referred to as Gaussian
or thermal noise). Perhaps the most descriptive term is 'white
sound.'...white sound is a mixture of all the audible frequencies at
random instantaneous amplitudes." Electronic Music, Allen Strange, 1983
Does not the notion of random instantaneous amplitudes suggest that in time
all amplitudes will be present within the overall amplitude of the noise?
When I listen to a work like Bohor by Xenakis, not totally white noise, but
not totally unlike it to my ears, I find that I hear such variety in the
sound, or it just a manifestation of gestalt psychology?
Karl (who certainly isn't a physicist)
|
|
|