Prototype/User Test for Thesis
After a LOT of work/heavy lifting with C++, audio timing and beat spacing, I finally am relieved to have a sizeable prototype for thesis that is a big step towards my intended project. It may not seem like a lot in the form I’m presenting it, but it involved a lot of planning, coding, and adjustments to my XML in order to create something that I can test.
This test consists of two audio files, both generated live from baseball game information read from a database, parsed to XML, imported into openFrameworks, then associated with certain beats in two different patterns. I associated the same beats with events in each pattern so that they can hopefully be compared in a similar fashion. The beats are as follows:
- Inning Change: Snare Drum
- Top/Bottom of inning: Bass Drum
- Out: Kick Drum
- Hit: Clapping
The first pattern is linear, which means that every plate appearance by a player is mapped to an equally timed beat. This diagram attempts to illustrate what I mean…
This approach is true to the actual rhythm of the game, and spaces the beats as they would occur in actual time. The audio effect that this gives can be quite random at time, and while it represents the game very well
Here is what this sounds like:
[audio:linearSound.mp3]
The second approach I took was to use the constants in the game (9 innings/Top and Bottom to each inning) as steady beats, and then use the variable events within these constants (hits, runs, outs, etc) as sections of variable timing within the the constants. The diagram below attempts to illustrate this:
This approach doesn’t hold as true to the actual rhythm of the game, however I think that the contrast between constant, steady beat patterns and variable events gives both a feeling of the game as well as a better sounding, more rhythmic sound.
Here is what this sounds like:
[audio:spacedTiming.mp3]
I’d appreciate any feedback you have as well as suggestions, so please review these two tracks and let me know what you think in the comments!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by stevevarga and stevevarga, stevevarga. stevevarga said: @simeon_P Thanks! Just check this out for me for now http://www.vargatron.com/blogatron/2009/11/29/prototypeuser-test-for-thesis/ [...]
The first approach allows me to concentrate more on trying to decode what happened in the game according to what I’m listening to.
The Second approach feels more dynamic and communicates the intensity of the game, but then loses the aspect of following what is happening in the game and therefore becomes more like dance music.
I therefore prefer the first because I would like to try to follow what is happening in the game.
I prefer the second version over the first. To me, it feels more complete and has a more rhythmic beat to it. The first version seems to be more random and lacks the tempo and rhythm the second one has.
I like the 2nd one. The first one sounds very mechanic, and it’s kinda annoying. The 2nd one is more like electronic music which human likes.
There’s definitely an art to sonification. I think you have to decide whether you want to sonify accurately or in a more abstract fashion. Is it practical or is it art?
I definitely find the real time innings more interesting as they are now. While the sounds could have a baseball feeling to them, like the hit being a clap, I don’t think it’s that important.
You’ve also got a lot to work with in terms of players. They could create an entire orchestra, which you’d hear their part at least 3 times in a game. You could also pick and choose players to create a fantasy team. Instead of sonifying a game, you could sonify a career, or a mixture of careers.
I’m more curious about the actual interaction though. How can I screw with this? Will it always sound good? Am I just swapping out samples or can I have a larger effect on the audio? And how do I do that?
The first sounds more rigid and mechanic like Danny said, but it’s still pretty rad. The second does win out, though, with a more organic feel and variety in tones. I’d have to say, though, that it’s as hard as I try, I can’t make out what is what.
In the first, I hear 4 things. It sounds like a closed hi-hat, bass drum, snare, and rim shot. Seems like the hi-hat’s keeping time, the snare/rim shots are providing the variation, and the bass drum steadily fading in and out.
In the second, I hear the same 4, except with the bass drum keeping time, snare/rim shots providing variation, and the hi-hat adding extra syncopation.
I like your idea. Might be cool to hear more games using method 1 and 2. I think it needs a clearer legend (ie, aren’t kick drum and bass drum the same?).
Starting off with Clay’s question: Is it practical or is it art? These prototypes seem to fall under “practical” – both are attempts at “accurate” sonification where you shifted your constants. The pace and amount of sounds also obscures the narrative. The first is “real-time” whereas the second has a fixed tempo, leaving each to feel like something is missing.
I think the interface you’re thinking about making and your style of work lends itself to a more artistic interpretation. The sonification should be more abstract so you can approach it narratively. It seems like you want to tell a story here, but the story is secondary right now to the beats.
My biggest question is why don’t the different teams have different sound effects? Even if they were different tones of the same note (flat vs. sharp). Right now there’s no clear auditory way of attributing game actions to a team. The sounds are all the same, and all we’re left with is a sense of when action is occurring, but not for who. Instead of layering all the sounds at once, perhaps just try looking at hits for each team, assign them a different tone, and play that back.
I’d encourage you to look at ways to communicate the ebbs and flows of a game more. Silence is your friend, and right now the audio is too busy. I think the visuals will help a lot, especially if the sounds are sequenced on a visual timeline, but the audio should be a strong narrative on its own.
I don’t know much about baseball so the first one is more clear to me – I’m able to more clearly understand what’s being communicated with the rhythm and chart. I feel overwhelmed looking at and listening to the second one.
If your audience is super familiar with baseball, the second one is more dynamic but if you’re trying to reach a larger audience, I think the first one is better
I’m inclined to agree with Grace. While the second one is more dynamic, that steady beat just doesn’t make me think ‘baseball’. I was just looking at some of the baseball records at http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_gmlg.shtml – there’s some incredible variance there in inning length, game length, number of innings, etc. I think you would potentially lose a lot of that interesting detail by trying to squeeze events into such small time intervals.
I guess it depends on what you’re trying to accomplish. If you’re just trying to create music that’s generated from baseball game data, then the second one is great, but if you’re trying to capture the essence of baseball in said music, I think the first is much more accurate.
While I definitely prefer the second one in terms of it as “music” the first one makes me think more about what is going on in the game (makes me wonder which game, when in the season, etc.). However, if you decide to have multiple games (I’m not sure if that’s where you’re going with this) I think the second version wins because it incorporates more typical baseball constants which will make it easier to differentiate between patterns and establish a “norm” beat.
I’m with Grace, Kirsten, and Rupa on the matter. That’s if your intention is to make sound from data without the freedom of remixing, like the project Conway’s group created in Beijing. Even for people who are baseball fanatics, unless they’re also very rhythmically inclined, I’d think they’d get lost in the second one. Rad stuff!