Re: [microsound] data -> sound examples

[Ian Andrews <i.andrews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Christopher Sorgwrote:


>>>  The shift thats happening isn't as direct as, for example,
>> playing a
>>> bitmap as a raw sound file (and I think there are a few different
>>> problems with this kind of format shifting, too).
>> 
>> I agree... you're mainly hearing 'format', not data
> 
> I disagree.  Yes, a bitmap (BMP format) is a specifically-formatted
> image, with a header, pixel data, and a bottom-to-top approach to it's
> pixel list.  JPEGs are compressed, so the data is not raw, so you are
> also hearing "format".  However, if you took a digital camera that
> produced raw data files (which many do), it does not have any particular
> formating per se; merely the output from the CCDs listed in a linear
> fashion, typically from left to right, top to bottom.  Of course, this
> is a convention/format, to read the pixel values in this way, but so is
> reading music from left to right, and notating the lengths of sounds
> with solid or open circles.
> 
"raw data," however, is not really very interesting sonically.  Its just a
series of 1s & 0s (as it is stored) and as a high frequency chain of square
waves (as it is read out).  If it is heard in its "native" form it it is
usually a series of clicks plus a whole lot of stuff up in the MHz region
that cannot be heard.  It needs to be translated to something audible.
The found data-cassette is not really raw-data, it is modulated data, of a
certain scheme (AM, FM, SSB) on a certain frequency carrier.  The found
eprom is not "raw data" either, its format shifting, where the raw data is
translated in a way which is different from the intended format.  I don't
see this as a problem. What I do see as a problem, is when an artist insists
on an ontological connection between the source (via/or its data) and the
sound. Eg. Between image and musical result. This is often described by the
artist as "this is what that picture sounds like." rather that "this is one
interpretation/translation (among many) of this image (which is a particular
format - number of pixels(resolution), bit depth, etc). Not only do I find
this kind of synaesthetic justification uninteresting, I also think that its
loaded with problems. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org