Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Acoustical roots
265 views
Skip to first unread message
Joey Goldstein
May 18, 2013, 1:13:24 PM5/18/13
to
If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic here's
a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern Harmonic
Technique Vol. 1.
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
I'll only leave this up for a few days.
Note:
He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
most other texts.
Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
being the proof of the theory.
Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
frequency ratios.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>
a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern Harmonic
Technique Vol. 1.
<http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
I'll only leave this up for a few days.
Note:
He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
most other texts.
Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
being the proof of the theory.
Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
frequency ratios.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/JoeyGoldstein>
rpjazzguitar
May 18, 2013, 4:15:03 PM5/18/13
to
Joey,
Thanks for posting this. Good stuff. I'm still working my way through the chord section.
But, I already have a couple of questions.
They're motivated by my frequent experience of hearing guitarists in jazz combos somewho create a low rumble in the overall sound of the group, particularly if there's a piano and the guitar is not comping only on the upper 4 strings.
So, there's this safe limit. Is 27.5 arbitrary, selected because it a very low note and happens to be the lowest note on the piano for that reason? Does it make any acoustic sense to think of guitar that way? Certainly the lower pitched chords do sound muddier -- is that why?
And, if you have guitar comping near the bass and piano (left hand especially) frequencies are slight inevitable differences in the tuning of the instruments and their overtones making the mud? Does this theory help diagnose the problem and might it point to a solution?
And, then, of course, there are exceptions. I heard Wes live and HE didn't have the problem.
Any thoughts?
BTW, on the Strat issue, I went through it with a screwdriver. I already had the pickups adjusted exactly as you said. I tightened the two screws on the plate pretty tight. Then I tightened the claw -- 5 springs. My thought was that I'm trying to improve energy transfer, so I might as well get all that stuff locked down. Are hardtail Strats less likely to have the problem. At one point I even tightened the neck tilt bolt (creating more tension)but I couldn't hear any difference.
I'll know if it worked tomorrow. I can't really tell at home. I have to be playing in a group to see if the guitar responds when I'm a little over excited.
Thanks for posting this. Good stuff. I'm still working my way through the chord section.
But, I already have a couple of questions.
They're motivated by my frequent experience of hearing guitarists in jazz combos somewho create a low rumble in the overall sound of the group, particularly if there's a piano and the guitar is not comping only on the upper 4 strings.
So, there's this safe limit. Is 27.5 arbitrary, selected because it a very low note and happens to be the lowest note on the piano for that reason? Does it make any acoustic sense to think of guitar that way? Certainly the lower pitched chords do sound muddier -- is that why?
And, if you have guitar comping near the bass and piano (left hand especially) frequencies are slight inevitable differences in the tuning of the instruments and their overtones making the mud? Does this theory help diagnose the problem and might it point to a solution?
And, then, of course, there are exceptions. I heard Wes live and HE didn't have the problem.
Any thoughts?
BTW, on the Strat issue, I went through it with a screwdriver. I already had the pickups adjusted exactly as you said. I tightened the two screws on the plate pretty tight. Then I tightened the claw -- 5 springs. My thought was that I'm trying to improve energy transfer, so I might as well get all that stuff locked down. Are hardtail Strats less likely to have the problem. At one point I even tightened the neck tilt bolt (creating more tension)but I couldn't hear any difference.
I'll know if it worked tomorrow. I can't really tell at home. I have to be playing in a group to see if the guitar responds when I'm a little over excited.
Joey Goldstein
May 18, 2013, 5:11:33 PM5/18/13
to
On 05-18-13 4:15 PM, rpjazzguitar wrote:
> Joey,
>
> Thanks for posting this. Good stuff. I'm still working my way through the chord section.
>
> But, I already have a couple of questions.
>
> They're motivated by my frequent experience of hearing guitarists in jazz combos somewho create a low rumble in the overall sound of the group, particularly if there's a piano and the guitar is not comping only on the upper 4 strings.
>
> So, there's this safe limit. Is 27.5 arbitrary, selected because it a very low note and happens to be the lowest note on the piano for that reason? Does it make any acoustic sense to think of guitar that way? Certainly the lower pitched chords do sound muddier -- is that why?
You're talking here about his theories regarding the Safe Low Interval
> Joey,
>
> Thanks for posting this. Good stuff. I'm still working my way through the chord section.
>
> But, I already have a couple of questions.
>
> They're motivated by my frequent experience of hearing guitarists in jazz combos somewho create a low rumble in the overall sound of the group, particularly if there's a piano and the guitar is not comping only on the upper 4 strings.
>
> So, there's this safe limit. Is 27.5 arbitrary, selected because it a very low note and happens to be the lowest note on the piano for that reason? Does it make any acoustic sense to think of guitar that way? Certainly the lower pitched chords do sound muddier -- is that why?
Limits.
Usually, in most arranging classes, the safe low interval limits are
just presented as a list of intervals with no explanation as to why they
sound muddy below a given threshold.
Delamont is applying then ideas of acoustical roots theory to explain
why these intervals get muddy.
The idea is that an interval whose acoustical root is a pitch that is
below the limits of human hearing will sound muddy.
We can actually hear pitch down to something like 15hz after which the
vibrations are just heard as individual clicks or pulses.
So his choice of A-27.5 being the limit is more of a practical
consideration.
>
> And, if you have guitar comping near the bass and piano (left hand especially) frequencies are slight inevitable differences in the tuning of the instruments and their overtones making the mud? Does this theory help diagnose the problem and might it point to a solution?
able to analyse why things got muddy along these lines.
But the specific intervals involved would need to be known.
Generally speaking, chords with optimal clarity correspond to the
spacing of the intervals in the OTS in that they are close at the top
and spread on the bottom.
Making things close on the bottom just clouds the ear.
>
> And, then, of course, there are exceptions. I heard Wes live and HE didn't have the problem.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> BTW, on the Strat issue, I went through it with a screwdriver. I already had the pickups adjusted exactly as you said. I tightened the two screws on the plate pretty tight. Then I tightened the claw -- 5 springs. My thought was that I'm trying to improve energy transfer, so I might as well get all that stuff locked down.
>Are hardtail Strats less likely to have the problem. At one point I even
tightened the neck tilt bolt (creating more tension)but I couldn't hear
any difference.
hard-tail setup.
But you shouldn't be having the problem you've been describing with a
floating trem either.
>
> I'll know if it worked tomorrow. I can't really tell at home. I have to be playing in a group to see if the guitar responds when I'm a little over excited.
>
Steve Freides
May 20, 2013, 7:52:37 AM5/20/13
to
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
>
> Note:
> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
> most other texts.
> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
> being the proof of the theory.
> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
> frequency ratios.
I made it through a page and half.
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
>
> Note:
> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
> most other texts.
> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
> being the proof of the theory.
> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
> frequency ratios.
His suggestion that listening to the overtone series is accomplished by
playing a low note on the piano with the sustain pedal down isn't quite
what it says it is. When the sustain pedal is down, those overtones are
enhanced by the sympathetic vibrations of the strings whose frequencies
correspond closely to the notes in the overtone series.
To truly listen for overtones in a single pitch would be to try to hear
them after playing a single fundamental. This isn't my area of
expertise but I think this is pretty much the opposite of how our ears
work, and while we can "imagine" difference tones, we simply can't do
this, which is sort of the opposite of that.
-S-
Joey Goldstein
May 20, 2013, 2:20:31 PM5/20/13
to
On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>
>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>
>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>>
>>
>> Note:
>> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
>> most other texts.
>> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
>> being the proof of the theory.
>> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
>> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
>> frequency ratios.
>
> I made it through a page and half.
I suppose that's a start, but it won't teach you anything about
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>
>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>
>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>>
>>
>> Note:
>> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
>> most other texts.
>> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
>> being the proof of the theory.
>> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
>> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
>> frequency ratios.
>
> I made it through a page and half.
acoustical roots.
> His suggestion that listening to the overtone series is accomplished by
> playing a low note on the piano with the sustain pedal down isn't quite
> what it says it is.
if he did it's mostly irrelevant to the topic of acoustical roots.
What I do see him saying on that page is that *every* pitched sound is
also accompanied by a potentially infinite series of overtones based on
successive arithmetical additions of the fundamental tone's vibrational
frequency and that the relative amplitudes of any audible overtones (as
well as their in-or-out-of-tuneness) determines the timbre of the
musical instrument playing that tone.
Still, the overtones of the lowest notes on a piano are most certainly
audible to some degree.
Hit the note with the damper pedal down so that there are no sympathetic
vibrations triggered on any of the other piano strings.
But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots theory.
And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his notions about
difference tones.
Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate
them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
All you need to calculate the ac rt of an interval is the interval's
frequency ratio.
The ac rt will be the pitch that is the "1" of that ratio.
E.g. A220-E330 has a freq ratio of 3:2.
The "1" that yields those notes at that frequency ratio is A110.
Therefore, A110 is the ac rt of that interval.
>When the sustain pedal is down, those overtones are
> enhanced by the sympathetic vibrations of the strings whose frequencies
> correspond closely to the notes in the overtone series.
> To truly listen for overtones in a single pitch would be to try to hear
> them after playing a single fundamental. This isn't my area of
> expertise but I think this is pretty much the opposite of how our ears
> work, and while we can "imagine" difference tones, we simply can't do
> this, which is sort of the opposite of that.
past page 1.
Steve Freides
May 20, 2013, 8:29:05 PM5/20/13
to
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>>
>>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>>
>>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
>>> most other texts.
>>> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones
>>> as being the proof of the theory.
>>> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human
>>> ear. But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
>>> frequency ratios.
>>
>> I made it through a page and half.
>
> I suppose that's a start, but it won't teach you anything about
> acoustical roots.
>
>> His suggestion that listening to the overtone series is accomplished
>> by playing a low note on the piano with the sustain pedal down isn't
>> quite what it says it is.
>
> First of all, I don't recall seeing him make that suggestion, and even
> if he did it's mostly irrelevant to the topic of acoustical roots.
Assignment 7 on Page 26. I don't have to type it in, do I?
> On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>>
>>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>>
>>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>>>
>>>
>>> Note:
>>> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
>>> most other texts.
>>> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones
>>> as being the proof of the theory.
>>> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human
>>> ear. But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
>>> frequency ratios.
>>
>> I made it through a page and half.
>
> I suppose that's a start, but it won't teach you anything about
> acoustical roots.
>
>> His suggestion that listening to the overtone series is accomplished
>> by playing a low note on the piano with the sustain pedal down isn't
>> quite what it says it is.
>
> First of all, I don't recall seeing him make that suggestion, and even
> if he did it's mostly irrelevant to the topic of acoustical roots.
> What I do see him saying on that page is that *every* pitched sound is
> also accompanied by a potentially infinite series of overtones based
> on successive arithmetical additions of the fundamental tone's
> vibrational frequency and that the relative amplitudes of any audible
> overtones (as well as their in-or-out-of-tuneness) determines the
> timbre of the musical instrument playing that tone.
sure, except that they're complete inaudible by anything once you get
past the first 16 or so, and even the last of those are very, very quiet
in comparison to the fundamental.
The relative amplitude of the various overtones is but one of many
qualities that go into timbre. Attack and decay are two more very
important attributes that come to mind.
> Still, the overtones of the lowest notes on a piano are most certainly
> audible to some degree.
> Hit the note with the damper pedal down so that there are no
> sympathetic vibrations triggered on any of the other piano strings.
it removes the dampers and you get sympathetic vibrations galore.
> But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots
> theory. And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his
> notions about difference tones.
> Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate
> them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
> All you need to calculate the ac rt of an interval is the interval's
> frequency ratio.
> The ac rt will be the pitch that is the "1" of that ratio.
> E.g. A220-E330 has a freq ratio of 3:2.
> The "1" that yields those notes at that frequency ratio is A110.
> Therefore, A110 is the ac rt of that interval.
>> When the sustain pedal is down, those overtones are
>> enhanced by the sympathetic vibrations of the strings whose
>> frequencies correspond closely to the notes in the overtone series.
>
> Use the damper pedal.
>> To truly listen for overtones in a single pitch would be to try to
>> hear them after playing a single fundamental. This isn't my area of
>> expertise but I think this is pretty much the opposite of how our
>> ears work, and while we can "imagine" difference tones, we simply
>> can't do this, which is sort of the opposite of that.
>
> If you want to have any understanding of this you're gonna have to get
> past page 1.
-S-
David J. Littleboy
May 20, 2013, 9:14:35 PM5/20/13
to
"Joey Goldstein" wrote:
>On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>>
>>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>>
>>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots theory.
>And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his notions about
>difference tones.
>Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate them
>in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
See the last section of this page.
http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/superposition/superposition.html
Counting beats is the way piano tuners used to get the things equally
tempered.
Or this PDF for some math (PaulF can explain it). Note that the math is
describing the physics of what happens when two notes are played together.
It's not there because someone thought it was "interesting".
http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy207/lc/lc15.pdf
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Joey Goldstein
May 21, 2013, 1:45:07 AM5/21/13
to
It's still mostly irrelevant to the topic of acoustical roots though.
>> What I do see him saying on that page is that *every* pitched sound is
>> also accompanied by a potentially infinite series of overtones based
>> on successive arithmetical additions of the fundamental tone's
>> vibrational frequency and that the relative amplitudes of any audible
>> overtones (as well as their in-or-out-of-tuneness) determines the
>> timbre of the musical instrument playing that tone.
>
> That some true and some incomplete. "Potentially infinite" - well,
> sure, except that they're complete inaudible by anything once you get
> past the first 16 or so, and even the last of those are very, very quiet
> in comparison to the fundamental.
Yes, of course we can't hear all the partials.
The arithmetical sequence can be extended to go into infinity.
That's all I was saying.
And I don't think he said that. It was me.
> The relative amplitude of the various overtones is but one of many
> qualities that go into timbre. Attack and decay are two more very
> important attributes that come to mind.
>> Still, the overtones of the lowest notes on a piano are most certainly
>> audible to some degree.
>> Hit the note with the damper pedal down so that there are no
>> sympathetic vibrations triggered on any of the other piano strings.
>
> That would be with the damper pedal _not_ down - if you press it down,
> it removes the dampers and you get sympathetic vibrations galore.
The one that actually dampens the strings and makes them all quieter.
>> But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots
>> theory. And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his
>> notions about difference tones.
>> Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate
>> them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
>> All you need to calculate the ac rt of an interval is the interval's
>> frequency ratio.
>> The ac rt will be the pitch that is the "1" of that ratio.
>> E.g. A220-E330 has a freq ratio of 3:2.
>> The "1" that yields those notes at that frequency ratio is A110.
>> Therefore, A110 is the ac rt of that interval.
>
> Yes, that's true.
If the theory works then the feeling of acoustical root comes about by
virtue of the the frequency ratio of an interval implying a fundamental
tone even though that fundamental tone is not actually sounding.
But I'm glad you see the logic of the math.
Lots of folks don't.
I.e. The implication of a "1" being transmitted to the human
subconscious is a different thing than actually hearing the "1".
Most people don't buy into it so easily.
I do buy into myself because it seems to help to explain so much and the
traditional explanations seem to leave much to be desired.
>>> When the sustain pedal is down, those overtones are
>>> enhanced by the sympathetic vibrations of the strings whose
>>> frequencies correspond closely to the notes in the overtone series.
>>
>> Use the damper pedal.
>
> The damper pedal removes the dampers - they damp the strings by default.
>
>>> To truly listen for overtones in a single pitch would be to try to
>>> hear them after playing a single fundamental. This isn't my area of
>>> expertise but I think this is pretty much the opposite of how our
>>> ears work, and while we can "imagine" difference tones, we simply
>>> can't do this, which is sort of the opposite of that.
>>
>> If you want to have any understanding of this you're gonna have to get
>> past page 1.
>
> OK, I'll try.
>
> -S-
>
>
Joey Goldstein
May 21, 2013, 1:57:01 AM5/21/13
to
On 05-20-13 9:14 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" wrote:
>> On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>>>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>>>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>>>
>>>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>>>
>>>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots
>> theory.
>> And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his notions
>> about difference tones.
>> Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate
>> them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
>
> FWIW, difference tones _do_ exist, every time two tones are played
> together. See the last section of this page.
>
> http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/superposition/superposition.html
Not much in there about difference tones that I can see.
>
> "Joey Goldstein" wrote:
>> On 05-20-13 7:52 AM, Steve Freides wrote:
>>> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
>>>> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
>>>> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>>>>
>>>> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>>>>
>>>> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
> Thanks!
>
>> But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots
>> theory.
>> And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his notions
>> about difference tones.
>> Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to calculate
>> them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an interval.
>
> FWIW, difference tones _do_ exist, every time two tones are played
> together. See the last section of this page.
>
> http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/demos/superposition/superposition.html
> Counting beats is the way piano tuners used to get the things equally
> tempered.
>
> Or this PDF for some math (PaulF can explain it). Note that the math is
> describing the physics of what happens when two notes are played
> together. It's not there because someone thought it was "interesting".
>
> http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/phy207/lc/lc15.pdf
But beats are a different phenomenon from difference tones.
If you've read the Delamont excerpt you'll see that he gives a simple
arithmetical formula for calculating difference tones.
F1 - F2 = F3 (or sim) where F1 is the vibrational frequency of the
higher note of an interval, F2 is the frequency of the lower note of the
interval, and F3 is the frequency of the difference tone.
But this only works for certain intervals, usually for intervals whose
tones inhabit the same octave.
E.g. E330 - A220 = A110, which is the correct answer as far as
acoustical roots are concerned.
But E660 - A110 = C#550 and C# is most definitely not the acoustical
root of that interval.
So, IMO, if you want to understand Delamont's stuff about acoustical
roots just ignore everything he says about difference tones and just
focus the freq ratios themselves.
Steve Freides
May 21, 2013, 12:37:20 PM5/21/13
to
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> You keep pointing up the most irrelevant parts of my posts and of the
> book.
Sorry.
> You keep pointing up the most irrelevant parts of my posts and of the
> book.
> Yes, of course we can't hear all the partials.
> The arithmetical sequence can be extended to go into infinity.
> That's all I was saying.
> And I don't think he said that. It was me.
>
>> The relative amplitude of the various overtones is but one of many
>> qualities that go into timbre. Attack and decay are two more very
>> important attributes that come to mind.
>
> If you ever feel like talking about acoustical roots please let me
> know.
gathered from what little I've read of both the book and your posts
suggests that we're talking about something very much like difference
tones. These are notes we hear even though they're not there.
>>> Still, the overtones of the lowest notes on a piano are most
>>> certainly audible to some degree.
>>> Hit the note with the damper pedal down so that there are no
>>> sympathetic vibrations triggered on any of the other piano strings.
>>
>> That would be with the damper pedal _not_ down - if you press it
>> down, it removes the dampers and you get sympathetic vibrations
>> galore.
>
> Sorry. I meant the soft pedal.
> The one that actually dampens the strings and makes them all quieter.
actually moves the entire action to the right, causing the hammer to
make partial instead of full contact with the string. The soft pedal on
an upright moves the hammer closer to the strings, again limiting the
maximum volume. (One can do all sorts of cool things with the soft
pedal on a grand but that's another subject.) The soft pedal on a grand
eliminates one ("una") of the three strings ("corda") normally sounded
for each note through most of the piano's register, generally from about
1/2 octave below middle C and continuing through the top note. (The
number of strings is an attempt to balance the volume of the piano,
since if there were only one string per key, the piano would be much
quieter in the middle and upper register when compared to the bass. The
lowest notes have one string, then there's a section of two strings,
often called the tenor, and finally you get three strings per note for
the rest of the way.
I digress, I know, but while I'm learning about acoustic root theory,
you can learn about how a piano works. :)
>>> But the audibility of overtones is irrelevant for acoustical roots
>>> theory. And like I said in the top post of this thread, ignore his
>>> notions about difference tones.
>>> Difference tones don't really exist and there is no need to
>>> calculate them in order to calculate the acoustical root of an
>>> interval. All you need to calculate the ac rt of an interval is the
>>> interval's
>>> frequency ratio.
>>> The ac rt will be the pitch that is the "1" of that ratio.
>>> E.g. A220-E330 has a freq ratio of 3:2.
>>> The "1" that yields those notes at that frequency ratio is A110.
>>> Therefore, A110 is the ac rt of that interval.
>>
>> Yes, that's true.
>
> It's not necessarily true. It's a theory.
> If the theory works then the feeling of acoustical root comes about by
> virtue of the the frequency ratio of an interval implying a
> fundamental tone even though that fundamental tone is not actually
> sounding.
I've never done much with them and don't really understand the details
of how and what they are - that's something I will read up on in the
next few days, too.
One really cool way difference tones happen is what's called
multiphonics on a brass instrument - you play one pitch and you sing
another and, depending on which pitches you've done, you'll hear one (or
even two sometimes, I think) additional notes.
> But I'm glad you see the logic of the math.
> Lots of folks don't.
> I.e. The implication of a "1" being transmitted to the human
> subconscious is a different thing than actually hearing the "1".
> Most people don't buy into it so easily.
> I do buy into myself because it seems to help to explain so much and
> the traditional explanations seem to leave much to be desired.
Steve Freides
May 21, 2013, 12:41:01 PM5/21/13
to
Joey Goldstein
May 21, 2013, 12:44:38 PM5/21/13
to
Thanks. And sorry.
Joey Goldstein
May 21, 2013, 12:50:35 PM5/21/13
to
not difference tones (and combination tones) are real physical sounds in
the air or just a product of the inner ear.
"The specific phenomenon that Tartini discovered was physical. Sum and
difference tones are thought to be caused sometimes by the non-linearity
of the inner ear. ".
I.e. They're either "physical" or they're not.
Steve Freides
May 21, 2013, 2:48:48 PM5/21/13
to
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> On 05-21-13 12:41 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> This is useful, IMHO.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone
>>
>> -S-
>>
>>
>>
>
> Comments like these are what leads me to being confused about whether
> or not difference tones (and combination tones) are real physical
> sounds in the air or just a product of the inner ear.
>
> "The specific phenomenon that Tartini discovered was physical. Sum and
> difference tones are thought to be caused sometimes by the
> non-linearity of the inner ear. ".
>
> I.e. They're either "physical" or they're not.
Sum and difference tones are not real, i.e., you wouldn't find them if
> On 05-21-13 12:41 PM, Steve Freides wrote:
>> This is useful, IMHO.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone
>>
>> -S-
>>
>>
>>
>
> Comments like these are what leads me to being confused about whether
> or not difference tones (and combination tones) are real physical
> sounds in the air or just a product of the inner ear.
>
> "The specific phenomenon that Tartini discovered was physical. Sum and
> difference tones are thought to be caused sometimes by the
> non-linearity of the inner ear. ".
>
> I.e. They're either "physical" or they're not.
you measured with scientific instruments. What's meant by "physical" in
this case is that, at least according to one theory, stuff happening in
our inner ears actually causes vibrations at sum and difference tone
frequencies, so according to this theory, we are accurately perceiving
what our ears are telling us but our ears are, in effect, making up
these pitches.
The other, and IMHO, much more widely accepted theory is that not only
are sum and difference tones not real, they are a purely
psycho-acoustical thing - you hear them because, when you hear a certain
pitch collection and that pitch collection is usually the overtones of a
particular fundamental, you decide that the fundamental must be there,
even if it isn't.
-S-
Lord Valve
May 21, 2013, 3:00:32 PM5/21/13
to
Steve Freides wrote:
> Sum and difference tones are not real, i.e., you wouldn't find them if
> you measured with scientific instruments.
Absolutely wrong.
> Sum and difference tones are not real, i.e., you wouldn't find them if
> you measured with scientific instruments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetrodyne
Lord Valve
Organist
David J. Littleboy
May 21, 2013, 5:21:24 PM5/21/13
to
"Steve Freides" wrote in message news:kng7rr$qig$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
displacement that changes in time, and when you add two waves, you get a new
waveform that has the property that it _also_ changes in time at new
frequencies, one of which is the difference between the frequencies. Very
very real.
>
>Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> You keep pointing up the most irrelevant parts of my posts and of the
>> book.
>
>Sorry.
>
>> Yes, of course we can't hear all the partials.
>> The arithmetical sequence can be extended to go into infinity.
>> That's all I was saying.
>> And I don't think he said that. It was me.
>>
>>> The relative amplitude of the various overtones is but one of many
>>> qualities that go into timbre. Attack and decay are two more very
>>> important attributes that come to mind.
>>
>> If you ever feel like talking about acoustical roots please let me
>> know.
>
>I will try to read the whole thing soon. In the meantime, what I've
>gathered from what little I've read of both the book and your posts
>suggests that we're talking about something very much like difference
>tones. These are notes we hear even though they're not there.
No. We hear them because they _ARE_ there. They occur because a wave is a
>Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> You keep pointing up the most irrelevant parts of my posts and of the
>> book.
>
>Sorry.
>
>> Yes, of course we can't hear all the partials.
>> The arithmetical sequence can be extended to go into infinity.
>> That's all I was saying.
>> And I don't think he said that. It was me.
>>
>>> The relative amplitude of the various overtones is but one of many
>>> qualities that go into timbre. Attack and decay are two more very
>>> important attributes that come to mind.
>>
>> If you ever feel like talking about acoustical roots please let me
>> know.
>
>I will try to read the whole thing soon. In the meantime, what I've
>gathered from what little I've read of both the book and your posts
>suggests that we're talking about something very much like difference
>tones. These are notes we hear even though they're not there.
displacement that changes in time, and when you add two waves, you get a new
waveform that has the property that it _also_ changes in time at new
frequencies, one of which is the difference between the frequencies. Very
very real.
Joey Goldstein
May 23, 2013, 5:42:44 PM5/23/13
to
On 5/18/13 1:13 PM, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic here's
> a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern Harmonic
> Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
OK.
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic here's
> a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern Harmonic
> Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
I've taken the PDF down.
If anybody's still interested in seeing this you can email me privately
and I'll send it to you.
> Note:
> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
> most other texts.
> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
> being the proof of the theory.
> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
> frequency ratios.
>
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
kuy...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 10:55:13 AM6/4/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 23:21:24 UTC+2, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> No. We hear them because they _ARE_ there. They occur because a wave is a
>
> displacement that changes in time, and when you add two waves, you get a new
>
> waveform that has the property that it _also_ changes in time at new
>
> frequencies, one of which is the difference between the frequencies. Very
>
> very real.
>
>
hmmm, not really. The only "real" thing there is pressure wave, which the brain interprets as sound, but the way the brain builds the sound experiences is not trivial, and that's the domain of psychoacustics.
>
> No. We hear them because they _ARE_ there. They occur because a wave is a
>
> displacement that changes in time, and when you add two waves, you get a new
>
> waveform that has the property that it _also_ changes in time at new
>
> frequencies, one of which is the difference between the frequencies. Very
>
> very real.
>
>
In the harmonic space (Fourier transform) the sum of two sin() signals is uniquely represented by those two waves. The difference is just not there.
But the sum of tho such signals can also be represented as the *product* of two signals with frequencies equals to (respectively) the sum and the difference of such signals. That's why we tune the guitar by listening to the "beating" of the two strings. That signal is a multiplicative signal, a modulation of the intensity if you want.
So in a sense it is audible, but it not part of the true harmonic content.
kuy...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 11:15:37 AM6/4/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 18:50:35 UTC+2, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Comments like these are what leads me to being confused about whether or
>
> not difference tones (and combination tones) are real physical sounds in
>
> the air or just a product of the inner ear.
they're the product of the brain if you want ... they are not part of the true harmonic content of the signal, but they can still be heard.
>
> Comments like these are what leads me to being confused about whether or
>
> not difference tones (and combination tones) are real physical sounds in
>
> the air or just a product of the inner ear.
Imagine a fixed 400Hz tone. Imagine changing it's intensity (between 0% and 100%) with an oscillator that makes a complete cycle in one second. You still perceive the sound as (almost) 400Hz and it's volume varying up and down every second.
But if you increase the speed of the modulation into the audible range (e.g. 100 times per second) you will start perceiving the modulation itself as its own note.
But mathematically that note is not present in the harmonic spectrum (e.g. Fourier transform ... whose time signal is created by the *sum*, not the product of its components)
It's actually very hard to understand intuitively, but the product of two (fixed frequency) signals can be represented by the sum of two signals whose frequencies are the sum and difference of the modulate and modulating frequencies.
As a special case the product of two signals of the same frequency is a signal with double frequency (the sum) + a fixed value (the difference = zero).
The brain plays some fancy tricks to build an aural experience out of these pressure waves, and we don't have to assume that what we hear really "exists" out there. At the end of the day we care about what we hear, not about what's really out there, as some kind of ontological commitment ...
kuy...@gmail.com
Jun 4, 2013, 11:22:40 AM6/4/13
to
On Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:00:32 UTC+2, Lord Valve wrote:
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > Sum and difference tones are not real, i.e., you wouldn't find them if
> > you measured with scientific instruments.
>
> Absolutely wrong.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetrodyne
>
>
they are not part of the additive spectrum, but can be extracted via proper signal manipulation ...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>
> > Sum and difference tones are not real, i.e., you wouldn't find them if
> > you measured with scientific instruments.
>
> Absolutely wrong.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetrodyne
>
>
Steve Freides
Jun 9, 2013, 9:39:51 PM6/9/13
to
Joey Goldstein wrote:
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
>
> Note:
> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
> most other texts.
> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
> being the proof of the theory.
> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
> frequency ratios.
If you're interested, check out the thread I started in the newsgroup
> If there's anybody else out there who's interested in this topic
> here's a pdf of Delamont's entries about it from his book, Modern
> Harmonic Technique Vol. 1.
>
> <http://home.primus.ca/~joegold/DelamontRoots.PDF>
>
> I'll only leave this up for a few days.
>
>
> Note:
> He uses non-standard Roman numeral upper and lower cases compared to
> most other texts.
> Also, ignore the fact that he keeps talking about difference tones as
> being the proof of the theory.
> Evidently difference tones don't really exist except in the human ear.
> But he's right when he says that all we need to consider is the
> frequency ratios.
sci.physics.acoustics. The reply I just read today (was posted on June
4) hits the nail on the head about difference tones. It's a low-volume
newsgroup and you won't have any trouble finding the thread if you look
at the messages in chronological order.
-S-
0 new messages