Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1970

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 19:26:40 -0000
> From: "paulerlich" <paul@stretch-music.com>
> Subject: CORRECTION Re: Jerries: a conclusion or two
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "alternativetuning" <alternativetuning@y...>
> wrote:
>> Sorry, my message should read:
>>
>> I noticed this a while ago. But try it with the dyads in the chord
> ---
>>> I find that when a 6:5 plays and the upper note drops out, the lower
>>> seems to rise, but when the 5:4 plays and the lower note drops out,
>>> the upper seems to GO DOWN IN PITCH.
>
> in both cases the pitch that remains moves toward the center.
>
> there is a simple explanation for this. there's a well-known
> psychoacoustical phenomenon at work. when the cochlea is
> exposed to more than one frequency at once, the pitches are
> subjectively `stretched apart' compared to how they sound as
> isolated pitches. there are many references in the literature. one
> interesting side-effect of this is that pure sine tones often sound a
> bit higher than complex tones with the same fundamental frequency
> (references below). the phenomenon has also been used to explain the
> 'octave stretching' effect with respect to the perception of sine
> waves -- stretched octaves seem melodically 'in tune'.

Melodically in tune? As opposed to harmonically in tune? If by that you mean
pitches in series as opposed to pitches sounding simultaneously, I'm not
sure how that would apply to the jerries experiment. (Perhaps, it doesn't?)

> the idea is
> that the 'training' for octaves occurs with exposure to natural
> harmonic series, which (due to the multiplicity of notes) are always
> accompanied by the 'stretching' effect, and so one expects the
> stretch even when the other harmonic series components are absent.
> see http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/octstretch.html
>
> ************************************************************
>
> Terhardt, E. (1971). Die Tonhöhe Harmonischer Klänge und das
> Oktavintervall. Acustica 24, 126-136
>
> The frequencies of a sinusoidal tone and of a complex tone with the
> same pitch are slightly different. The investigations show that
> usually the pitch of a complex tone is lower than the pitch of
> sinusoidal tone of the same (fundamental) frequency. The frequency
> ratio corresponding to the subjectively correct pitch interval of a
> musical octave usually differs slightly from the value 2. This
> phenomenon was investigated with low pure tones and with complex
> tones. The results for complex tones are explained by the octave
> intervals that were found with simple tones and the pitch differences
> between simple and complex tones.

Judged melodically (one after the other) or harmonically (sounding
simultaneously)?
>
>
> These conclusions were revisited here:
>
> Terhardt, E., Grubert, A. (1987). Factors affecting pitch judgments
> as a function of spectral composition. Percept. Psychophys. 42, 511-
> 514
>
> Stimulated by a recent paper by Platt & Racine [Perception &
> Psychophysics 38, 543-553 (1985)], we discuss the factors that
> probably are involved in certain inconsistencies observed in pitch
> judgments of tones with different spectral composition. Typically,
> discrepancies reported in the literature are of the order of 10 cents
> in magnitude. We point out that measurement of such small pitch
> effects is heavily dependent on systematic individual differences;
> and, when individual differences are averaged out (as is essentially
> the case in Platt & Racine's experiments), verification of the actual
> auditory stimulus SPL within a few dB is necessary. Utilizing the
> virtual-pitch theory,

Virtual-pitch theory? I like the sound of that. :-)

> we evaluate the effects of frequency, SPL, and
> earphone frequency response. Further, we present experimental and
> theoretical data on pitch of piano tones relevant to the problem. The
> study elucidates that, taking into account the factors mentioned,
> agreement between the various data considered, as well as theoretical
> understanding, actually is much better than may have become apparent
> on first sight.
>
>
> In Terhardt, E. (1998). Akustische Kommunikation - Grundlagen mit
> Hörbeispielen. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg. 505 S. ISBN 3-540-63408-
> 8, pp. 353-356 describe how, in many cases, the pitch of the harmonic
> complex tone turns out to be slightly lower than that of the pure
> tone.
>
>
> Webster, J.C., Miller, P.H., Thompson, P.O., Davenport, E.W. (1952).
> The masking and pitch shifts of pure tones near abrupt changes in a
> thermal noise spectrum J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 24, 147-152
>
> When a pure tone is mixed with a noise of uniform spectrum, its
> threshold is sraised. At levels above threshold, its loudness and
> pitch are changed by the presence of the noise. Introducing abrupt
> changes in the slope of the noise spectrum by filtering out
> (rejecting) one octave changes these effects in the vicinity of this
> gap. The masked threshold for a pure tone varies from the value for
> unfiltered noise at the edges of the gap to a value approximately 25
> dB lower at the middle. This indicates that gappedi-noise may be used
> to mask out sounds outside of the gap without unduly raising the
> threshold of sounds in the gap. Presence of white noise generally
> raises the pitch of a pure tone whose frequency is between 500 and
> 4000 cps. Presence of noise with the gap does not raise the pitch of
> a pure tone located in the upper half of the gap. For a tone located
> in the lower half of the gap, the pitch is raised more than it would
> be in the presence of unfiltered noise. The changes in the judged
> loudnessof pure tones partially masked by a gapped-noise reaffirm the
> importance of the tails of the excitation pattern in their effect on
> loudness.

Thresholds? Loudness? Does this apply here?
>
>
> Webster, J.C., Schubert, E.D. (1954). Pitch shifts accompanying
> certain auditory threshold shifts. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 26, 754-758
>
> A method was developed for getting a continuous and running record of
> pitch matches between the two ears ...

When working with the jerries, I noted a decided raising and lowering of
pitch my moving my head laterally. However, the total sound moved up and
down together, thus not likely injuring the *relationship* of the
simultaneous pitches. In any case, I decided to hold my head steady looking
straight ahead, attempting to hear the examples equally in both ears.
>
> Ten music students made these pitch matches (90 matches per octave)
> from 150 to 9600 cps. In the ear in which the standard tone was heard
> various types of hearing loss were simulated by masking noises. The
> pitch tended to shift away from a region of hearing loss to a region
> of no, or less hearing loss. Downward shifts were observed but were
> never as marked as the upward shifts.

Interestingly, these "upward shifts" were produced by introducing noise. In
the case of the high third, the "upward shifts" are produced by the *lack*
of noise (i.e., beating).
>
>
> Allanson, J.T., Schenkel, K.D. (1965). The effect of band-limited
> noise ond the pitch of pure tones. J. Sound Vib. 2, 402-408
>
> An investigation has been made of the effect of a band of noise, one-
> third of an octave wide, on the perceived pitch of a pure tone. In
> general, the pitch was found to "move away" from the interfering
> noise. However, in contrast with the results of erlier workers, the
> shifts in pitch were found to be quite small and it is suggested that
> this may be due to the difference in experimental procedures

Paul, if my responses give evidence of having missed an important point
here, please draw my attention to it.

Jerry
>

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

> Melodically in tune? As opposed to harmonically in tune? If by that you mean
> pitches in series as opposed to pitches sounding simultaneously,

yes.

I'm not
> sure how that would apply to the jerries experiment. (Perhaps, it doesn't?)

it's used by terhardt as a jumping-off point in the article i cited. did you read it? it's a webpage.
> Judged melodically (one after the other) or harmonically (sounding
> simultaneously)?

you'd have to read the original article; presumably, it supports terhardt's point that just octaves tend to sound best harmonically due to second-order beating and such, but that, depending on timbre, a more or less stretched octave is preferred melodically (in unaccompanied melody).

> Virtual-pitch theory? I like the sound of that. :-)

if you look back in the archives before you rejoined, in conversations with j gill, i discussed virtual-pitch theory a great deal. but far better would be to just read all of terhardt's webpages.

> > Thresholds? Loudness? Does this apply here?

the other part of the experiment does. anyway, i was simply addressing a post by 'alternativetuning' -- i wasn't, as yet, applying any of this to the 'jerries' experiment.
> >
> > Ten music students made these pitch matches (90 matches per octave)
> > from 150 to 9600 cps. In the ear in which the standard tone was heard
> > various types of hearing loss were simulated by masking noises. The
> > pitch tended to shift away from a region of hearing loss to a region
> > of no, or less hearing loss. Downward shifts were observed but were
> > never as marked as the upward shifts.
>
> Interestingly, these "upward shifts" were produced by introducing noise. In
> the case of the high third, the "upward shifts" are produced by the *lack*
> of noise (i.e., beating).

this is an interesting hypothesis, jerry, but seems unsubstantiated in terms of present psychoacoustical knowledge. a much simpler explanation is at hand for the second, 'jerry0x' set. the noise is replaced by tones. the experimental record after 1954 shows that actual tones have the same effect as noise in this regard.

cheers,
paul

On 3/18/02 3:16 AM, "tuning@yahoogroups.com" <tuning@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> Message: 20
> Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 22:34:25 -0000
> From: "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@rcn.com>
> Subject: jerries giving me the willies
>
> I'm having some problems with the "jerries" again. I reported this
> phenominon earlier. I hope it's nothing wrong with my hearing or
> ability to discern pitch as a composer. Otherwise, I will have to
> move to a *much* more aleatoric style... hmmm.

You may remember, Jon, that I reported not hearing what was described in the
first set of jerries and was quickly "stoned" for my expressed opinions. In
that case, it appeared the problem was a faulty download of the examples.
Have you attempted a second download? Or a third, if needed?
>
> The problem is, with the new jerries examples I'm not hearing
> the "fundamental" very well. Anybody else (of the two other people
> who are trying this) experiencing this phenominon.

Could this be caused by the fact that the 2:3 is so consonant you are only
hearing a single pitch?
>
> What I get sounds like, instead of a perfect fifth opening, something
> that sounds more like a minor third... the 5:6 of the 4:5:6. I'm not
> getting the "4."

Okay. Evidently the problem is not a result of 2:3 consonance. Gotta be a
faulty download.
>
> Of course, there really is *no* third in there, but because I can't
> hear the fundamental I seem to want to supply one.

Understandable. Reminds me of when I used to walk into my advanced
ear-training class, play a short e-g as I passed the piano, say to the class
"what was that." and they would shoot back "major third"--having imagined a
major triad by supplying the "phantom" root.

But that's not the case here. You obviously know what you're hearing. And it
ain't what I'm hearing. It's got to be something in the playback.

> It's a curious
> situation. Could it have something to do with some problems I am
> having with the timbres?
>
> So I hear what sounds like a 5:6 and *then* the 5 transposed up
> another octave, becoming a 10, I guess. So the 5:6 becomes a major
> sixth at 6:10 or 3:5.
>
> Then the "6" drops out, and I'm left with the 10...
>
> But it's hard to judge it all in these samples without hearing the
> fundamental clearly.

Of course it is.
>
> What's going on here? I didn't seem to have a problem when the
> triads were played as simultaneities in the first round of jerries...

How ironic. I get a messy download of the first jerries and you get a messy
download of the second ones.
>
> Anybody *else* having trouble hearing the fundamentals??

Please, folks. Respond quickly. We're having a bit of trauma here.

Jon, I could email my .aif versions if you can play them. They're twice the
size of the .wav's however. Your call.

Jerry

--- In tuning@y..., Gerald Eskelin <stg3music@e...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_35710.html#35722

>> > I'm having some problems with the "jerries" again. I reported
this
> > phenominon earlier. I hope it's nothing wrong with my hearing or
> > ability to discern pitch as a composer. Otherwise, I will have to
> > move to a *much* more aleatoric style... hmmm.
>
> You may remember, Jon, that I reported not hearing what was
described in the first set of jerries and was quickly "stoned" for my
expressed opinions. In that case, it appeared the problem was a
faulty download of the examples. Have you attempted a second
download? Or a third, if needed?

****HI Jerry!

No, this is still Joe/Joseph. I don't believe Jon has yet commented
on the Jerries.

You may be right. Possibly it's something in my playback. I swear I
hear no fundamental. That rather makes judging this experiment
difficult! :)
>
>
> Okay. Evidently the problem is not a result of 2:3 consonance.
Gotta be a faulty download.
> >
> > Of course, there really is *no* third in there, but because I
can't hear the fundamental I seem to want to supply one.
>
>>
> But that's not the case here. You obviously know what you're
hearing. And it ain't what I'm hearing. It's got to be something in
the playback.
>
>> >
> > Anybody *else* having trouble hearing the fundamentals??
>
> Please, folks. Respond quickly. We're having a bit of trauma here.
>
> Jon, I could email my .aif versions if you can play them. They're
twice the size of the .wav's however. Your call.
>

***I don't believe I can play Mac files, Jerry...

Joe