User:Sintel/Validation of common consonance measures: Difference between revisions
m →Data: typo |
made a mistake in calculation |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
* The Wilson norm is the sum of prime factors (with repetition). That gives <math>\text{Wilson}\left(\tfrac{15}{8}\right) = 5 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 14</math>. | * The Wilson norm is the sum of prime factors (with repetition). That gives <math>\text{Wilson}\left(\tfrac{15}{8}\right) = 5 + 3 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 14</math>. | ||
I have also included Euler's ''gradus suavitatis'',<ref>Leonhard Euler (1739) ''Tentamen novae theoriae musicae'' (Attempt at a New Theory of Music), St. Petersburg.</ref> which is probably the first complexity measure historically. | I have also included Euler's ''[[gradus suavitatis]]'',<ref>Leonhard Euler (1739) ''Tentamen novae theoriae musicae'' (Attempt at a New Theory of Music), St. Petersburg.</ref> which is probably the first complexity measure historically. | ||
It is somewhat similar to the Wilson norm, in that it depends on the prime factorization. | It is somewhat similar to the Wilson norm, in that it depends on the prime factorization. | ||
Given ''s'', the sum of prime factors, and ''n'' the number of prime factors, Euler's gradus function is {{nowrap|''s'' - ''n'' + 1}}. | Given ''s'', the sum of prime factors, and ''n'' the number of prime factors, Euler's gradus function is {{nowrap|''s'' - ''n'' + 1}}. | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
First proposed by [[Helmholtz]], these models are quite popular in the psychoacoustics literature, and many variations have been developed over the years. | First proposed by [[Helmholtz]], these models are quite popular in the psychoacoustics literature, and many variations have been developed over the years. | ||
Here, I will use the classic roughness curve as derived by Plomp and Levelt in 1965.<ref>R. Plomp, W. J. M. Levelt (1965) [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1909741 ''Tonal Consonance and Critical Bandwidth'']. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.</ref> | Here, I will use the classic roughness curve as derived by Plomp and Levelt in 1965.<ref>R. Plomp, W. J. M. Levelt (1965) [https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1909741 ''Tonal Consonance and Critical Bandwidth'']. J. Acoust. Soc. Am.</ref> | ||
<ref group="note">This model does not take into account the amplitude of the partials. One may object that we should weight the contribution of beating according to the amplitude of the harmonics (i.e. 1/''n'') but this only makes the model worse (R<sup>2</sup> = 0.652).</ref> | |||
[[File:Consonance_ratings_roughness.png|500px|thumb|none|Roughness model from Plomp and Levelt. They consider beating between harmonic tones with 6 partials.]] | [[File:Consonance_ratings_roughness.png|500px|thumb|none|Roughness model from Plomp and Levelt. They consider beating between harmonic tones with 6 partials.]] | ||
| Line 153: | Line 154: | ||
== Code availability == | == Code availability == | ||
All figures and models presented here can be replicated by running the notebook available at: https://gist.github.com/Sin-tel/59ea5446a90119c4bfe5467f4198c9b5. | All figures and models presented here can be replicated by running the notebook available at: https://gist.github.com/Sin-tel/59ea5446a90119c4bfe5467f4198c9b5. | ||
== Notes == | |||
<references group = "note"/> | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||