Acoustics & Music Theory
why it sounds like that
Generator

How long until it comes back — the lag profile generator

Mean similarity along each diagonal of the self-similarity matrix, minus the matrix's own mean off-diagonal similarity, against lag in bars, for 1 case. Lags run to half the length of each scheme, because a longer diagonal holds too few pairs to average. All rows share one vertical scale and the spread of each is printed beside it; the largest is 0.427 and the smallest 0.427. 1 of 1 cases with any spread at all put their strongest lag at the scheme's own repeat unit or a multiple of it.
How long until it comes back. Mean similarity along each diagonal of the self-similarity matrix, minus the matrix's own mean off-diagonal similarity, against lag in bars, for 1 case. Lags run to half the length of each scheme, because a longer diagonal holds too few pairs to average. All rows share one vertical scale and the spread of each is printed beside it; the largest is 0.427 and the smallest 0.427. 1 of 1 cases with any spread at all put their strongest lag at the scheme's own repeat unit or a multiple of it.

Drawn above with its standard settings, which is almost never how an essay draws it: an essay states the numbers it is arguing about, so the figure a reader meets there is about that argument rather than about the drawing in general. Every option a placement passes is checked against the ones this function actually reads, because an option it does not read is silently ignored and the figure quietly draws what is above instead.

It makes a noise. 12 of its 12 placements carry sound, built from the same numbers as the drawing, offering these buttons: Bars 1 to 4, Bars 13 to 16, 12 bars later, Bars 17 to 20, 16 bars later, Bars 5 to 8, 4 bars later, Four bars of the ostinato, Four bars of the rondo's refrain, The cycle, four bars.

Called by 4 essays

the blast radius of changing it

How long until it comes back. Mean similarity along each diagonal of the self-similarity matrix, minus the matrix's own mean off-diagonal similarity, against lag in bars, for 1 case. Lags run to half the length of each scheme, because a longer diagonal holds too few pairs to average. All rows share one vertical scale and the spread of each is printed beside it; the largest is 0.427 and the smallest 0.427. 1 of 1 cases with any spread at all put their strongest lag at the scheme's own repeat unit or a multiple of it.

How long until it comes back

A self-similarity matrix has a second reading that nobody looks for. Add up each diagonal instead of walking along one, and out falls repetition as a function of how long ago — a period, in bars, with no segmentation, no kernel width and no bar numbers anywhere in the answer. Five of the six schemes here report the length a listener would have named. The sixth reports something better.

form · Repetition The period, as the piece goes by. The strongest lag of thirty-two-bar AABA computed on only the bars heard so far, against how many bars that is. The final answer is 4 bars; it is revised 6 times on the way, and is not reached for the last time until bar 29 of 32, which is 91 per cent of the way through and 64 seconds at 108 beats a minute. Nothing about the boundary operator is involved: this is the global statistic, and it is the half of the form that a first hearing cannot have.

The form a first hearing cannot have

Every figure so far was computed with the whole piece in hand. Run the same methods over only the bars already heard and one of the two methods survives intact — the boundary operator turns out to be causal at a fixed delay of a few bars — while the other collapses. The period of a piece is not knowable until the piece is nearly over, and in two of the six schemes here not until its last bar.

form · Repetition The ranking is settled either side of one narrow band. Remembered repetition — each bar's best match to an earlier bar, discounted by exp(−Δt/τ) with Δt in seconds — for 6 schemes at 108 beats a minute, against the decay constant τ on a logarithmic axis. The order of the schemes changes only between 8 and 13 seconds; outside that band it is fixed, so an estimate of τ wrong by any amount that stays outside it leaves the ranking alone.

A return has to be remembered

A stripe four bars off the diagonal and a stripe twenty-four bars off it are the same ink and are not the same experience. Convert the lag axis to seconds, discount every comparison by how long ago it was, and the ranking of these six schemes by how repetitive they are changes — and the decay constant and the tempo turn out to enter the arithmetic as one number rather than two.

perception · Repetition What survives a change of encoding: verse and chorus. The same 32 bars of verse and chorus under five encodings, scored on the three things measured here measures. Mean off-diagonal similarity says how alike the piece looks to the arithmetic. Recall and precision are the novelty operator's boundaries against the 3 the section plan has, at a kernel of four bars. The period is the strongest peak of the lag profile, in bars. Under the bag of pitch classes every other figure uses, the piece is 90 per cent self-similar and the operator finds 0 per cent of the boundaries; under how far the root moved it finds 100 per cent. The period is the quantity that does not move.

The repeat that is not in the notes

Eight earlier essays compare bars by writing each one as a bag of pitch classes and taking a cosine. Nothing chose that encoding — the first used it and the other seven inherited it. Encode the same six schemes four other ways and one of the three findings survives untouched, one survives with different numbers, and one turns out to have been a statement about the encoding all along: the boundary operator finds none of the section edges in three schemes as a bag of pitch classes and every one of them as tonic, subdominant and dominant.

form · Repetition

All figures · What can be heard