Orchestral Instruments: Analysis of Performed Transitions

Strawn J. Orchestral Instruments: Analysis of Performed Transitions. J Audio Eng Soc. 1986;34(11):867-880. Available from: https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=5239

@article{Strawn1986_5239,
  author = {Strawn, John},
  title = {{Orchestral Instruments: Analysis of Performed Transitions}},
  journal = {Journal of the Audio Engineering Society},
  volume = {34},
  number = {11},
  pages = {867--880},
  year = {1986},
  month = nov,
  publisher = {Audio Engineering Society},
  url = {https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=5239}
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Orchestral Instruments: Analysis of Performed Transitions
AU  - Strawn, John
T2  - Journal of the Audio Engineering Society
J2  - J. Audio Eng. Soc.
VL  - 34
IS  - 11
SP  - 867
EP  - 880
PY  - 1986
DA  - 1986/11/06
UR  - https://aes.org/publications/elibrary-page/?id=5239
PB  - Audio Engineering Society
LA  - en
AB  - The region between performed notes was examined in nine instruments (flute, bass flute, piccolo, clarinet, oboe, bassoon, trumpet, violin, cello). On each instrument, eight intervals (2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, ascending and descending) and two playing styles (tongued/untongued, bow change/no bow change) were digitally recorded. Using a computer, the recordings were analyzed for time-varying power and time-varying spectrum. Analysis of as many as five recordings of a given interval and playing style showed that the performer could easily replicate a given transition, so the recordings were judged representative. In the tongued (bow change) case, the notes were farther apart, the amplitude dip between the notes (except in the cello), was greater, and spectral changes were more extensive than in the nontongued (no bow change) case. This pattern was not significantly influenced by variation in the size of the interval, the direction of the interval, or the instrument performing.
ER  -