User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

Line 454:

::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I saw a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: Thanks for the clarification. Still, missing fundamentals, from what I gather, are important to tonality by virtue of their implying the existence of an ''actual'' fundamental frequency that generates the note set in question within a reasonable degree of approximation- unnoticeable commas notwithstanding. Yes, actual fundamentals and the missing fundamental effect are two different mechanisms, and indeed there are parts of Wikipedia's explanation that are questionable and it wouldn't be the first such instance. Nevertheless, the end result is that the missing fundamental effect highlights actual musical relationships- without the highlighted note in question actually being physically present. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: Hm... Fundamentally (pun unintended), there is no difference between "tones" and "overtones", that's the key. When a sound wave reaches our ears, the information on the way of its generation is already lost. And yet, we "perceive" the audible modes as such, and mentally associate them with some instrument/oscillator, but it happens only because we hear pretty much what we expect to hear — we basically know how a certain type of musical instrument should behave. This is not pure, but a conceptual perception. That said, if we produce some totally alien sound, without an attempt to model any known real-life mechanical objects, there won't be any mode perception. Or, perhaps, the frequencies can be sensed as the "modes" of a speaker device, which is pretty much the same — no modes, there is no implied object having the modes. If it sounds unlikely, here is one less idealized example: throat singing. When many people hear this singing for the very first time, they often cannot realize what's going on, and later cannot reproduce it. We find it difficult to reproduce not because of physical difficulties. No, we simply don't have a model of what's going on, don't see any analog in our previous experience. Likewise, I saw many people nearly incapable of pronouncing a very simple sound of a foreign language or a combination... This is all the mental model issue, no more no less. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:53 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 20:35 UTC''

@@ Line 454: / Line 454: @@
 ::::::::::::::::::::: I never meant "the idea of the fundamental frequency being entirely outside...", it was a typo, sorry. Please see above: <EDIT>...<end EDIT>. Are you sure you understand the phenomenon correctly? In this Wikipedia article, some important considerations are missing. It needs some time to describe the idea and the questionable parts. It actually comes to theoretical mechanics (not "theoretical mechanics" learned by engineers, but the real thing, mostly the formalism of Lagrange, Hamilton, and then Emmy Noether), where the orthogonal space of modes can be understood, as well as the role of linearity and non-linear effects. (The usual myth of musicians is to call the physical-mathematics basis of music "acoustics", but in fact, there is next to nothing about real acoustics in music theory, but there is a lot of theoretical mechanics, abstract algebra, infinite-dimension functional spaces, theory of numbers, and the like.) Even for linear mechanics, this Wikipedia article considers only the sets of "similar" modes, like string or air vibrations with different number of nodes. Real life is more complicated. On this site, or maybe on some referenced sites, I saw a simple marimba example with some unrelated modes (all real modes do not interact due to linearity, but some modes are also "unrelated"). Now, we can always have a fundamental on an unrelated type of modes, which is lower than the most perceivable fundamental, and, in this case, these frequencies can be also totally unrelated, without any integer-number fractions. ...I understand my text is messy here. If you are interested, I can explain it properly. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;UTC''
 :::::::::::::::::::::: Thanks for the clarification.  Still, missing fundamentals, from what I gather, are important to tonality by virtue of their implying the existence of an ''actual'' fundamental frequency that generates the note set in question within a reasonable degree of approximation- unnoticeable commas notwithstanding.  Yes, actual fundamentals and the missing fundamental effect are two different mechanisms, and indeed there are parts of Wikipedia's explanation that are questionable and it wouldn't be the first such instance.  Nevertheless, the end result is that the missing fundamental effect highlights actual musical relationships- without the highlighted note in question actually being physically present. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: Hm... Fundamentally (pun unintended), there is no difference between "tones" and "overtones", that's the key. When a sound wave reaches our ears, the information on the way of its generation is already lost. And yet, we "perceive" the audible modes as such, and mentally associate them with some instrument/oscillator, but it happens only because we hear pretty much what we expect to hear — we basically know how a certain type of musical instrument should behave. This is not pure, but a conceptual perception. That said, if we produce some totally alien sound, without an attempt to model any known real-life mechanical objects, there won't be any mode perception. Or, perhaps, the frequencies can be sensed as the "modes" of a speaker device, which is pretty much the same — no modes, there is no implied object having the modes. If it sounds unlikely, here is one less idealized example: throat singing. When many people hear this singing for the very first time, they often cannot realize what's going on, and later cannot reproduce it. We find it difficult to reproduce not because of physical difficulties. No, we simply don't have a model of what's going on, don't see any analog in our previous experience. Likewise, I saw many people nearly incapable of pronouncing a very simple sound of a foreign language or a combination... This is all the mental model issue, no more no less. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:53&nbsp;UTC''
 ::::::::::::::::::::: By the way, do you know about the nonlinear properties of our aural system? It was even used in historical organs. I mean, the phenomenon has nothing to do with brain processing. The sound is physically generated in the head out of the sound waves. It can generate a sound which does not physically present in the air, say, combination frequencies which cannot appear in any linear systems due to the superposition principle. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;20:35&nbsp;UTC''