On reading the Terhardt again

I was reading throught the Terhardt website again:

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html

and I just wanted to "reinforce" some of the ideas.

In other words, when we listen to the radio or telephone we are
actually hearing a *much greater* range of pitches, *vitual* pitches,
than really exist, and the ear is piecing together harmonics to
create fundamentals and other tones that don't really exist in
reality?? That's spooky...

J. Pehrson

Joseph wrote:
>...and the ear is piecing together harmonics to
>create fundamentals and other tones that don't really exist in
>reality??

Yes, based on this phenomenon is the "superbassboost" or
some such that Philips puts in its portable audio players.
It emphasises the first few harmonics of low tones to
create the impression that these tones are actually there.

Manuel

--- In tuning@y..., manuel.op.de.coul@e... wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37204.html#37206

> Joseph wrote:
> >...and the ear is piecing together harmonics to
> >create fundamentals and other tones that don't really exist in
> >reality??
>
> Yes, based on this phenomenon is the "superbassboost" or
> some such that Philips puts in its portable audio players.
> It emphasises the first few harmonics of low tones to
> create the impression that these tones are actually there.
>
> Manuel

***Thanks, Manuel!

Joseph

--- manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com wrote:
> Joseph wrote:
> >...and the ear is piecing together harmonics to
> >create fundamentals and other tones that don't
> really exist in
> >reality??
>
> Yes, based on this phenomenon is the
> "superbassboost" or
> some such that Philips puts in its portable audio
> players.
> It emphasises the first few harmonics of low tones
> to
> create the impression that these tones are actually
> there.
>
> Manuel
>
******************************************************
During the process of piecing the harmonics together,
how does the human ear know it has reached the
'fundamental'? That is, how does it know where to
'stop' the piecing process? For example, could it
possibly go down to a Fourier component 1/2 the
fundamental in pitch?

=====
Can Akkoc
1058 Dickenson Avenue
Mobile, AL 36609
USA
(251)639-1936

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--- jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:
> I was reading throught the Terhardt website again:
>
>
http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html
>
> and I just wanted to "reinforce" some of the ideas.
>
> In other words, when we listen to the radio or
> telephone we are
> actually hearing a *much greater* range of pitches,
> *vitual* pitches,
> than really exist, and the ear is piecing together
> harmonics to
> create fundamentals and other tones that don't
> really exist in
> reality?? That's spooky...
>
> J. Pehrson
>
****************************************************
Does this phenomenon have anything to do with what
Helmholtz refers to as 'combination tones'?

=====
Can Akkoc
1058 Dickenson Avenue
Mobile, AL 36609
USA
(251)639-1936

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...> wrote:

> Does this phenomenon have anything to do with what
> Helmholtz refers to as 'combination tones'?

not really -- it's actually a *completely different* phenomenon, as
can be demonstrated with slightly inharmonic timbres with a constant
difference frequency . . . the virtual pitch will correspond *not* to
the difference frequency, but instead to the *best-fit fundamental*
obtained by assuming a harmonic series and minimizing the deviations
therefrom . . .

--- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...> wrote:

> During the process of piecing the harmonics together,
> how does the human ear know it has reached the
> 'fundamental'? That is, how does it know where to
> 'stop' the piecing process? For example, could it
> possibly go down to a Fourier component 1/2 the
> fundamental in pitch?

a fourier component? normally, there are no fourier components
present *below* the true fundamental, but only higher, at integer
*multiples* thereof . . .

did you mean a *virtual pitch* 1/2 the true fundamental in frequency?
if so . . .

it could, and on rare occasions, does. but normally, it 'decides'
that such a fundamental, which would only have an incomplete
complement of *even* partials and no *odd* partials whatsoever in the
perceived spectrum, is far less likely than a fundamental (the true
one) which would have a pretty full complement of *both* even and odd
partials.

actually, it seems that there are normally a set of several different
virtual pitches present with different degrees of salience. the true
fundamental is typically the strongest (whenever the pattern-matching
mechanism gets an opportunity to work properly) and the others are
typically at very, very small-integer ratios with the true
fundamental, including the 1/2-fundamental frequency that i think you
were alluding to above. terhardt hypothesizes that tone-affinities,
primarily octave-equivalence, arise from the fact that tones an
octave apart do have some of their virtual-pitch content in
common . . .

if you'd like to understand this better, please read and re-read
these articles:

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/pitch.html

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/affinity.html

http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/octequiv.html

--- In tuning@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_37204.html#37221

> --- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...> wrote:
>
> > Does this phenomenon have anything to do with what
> > Helmholtz refers to as 'combination tones'?
>
> not really -- it's actually a *completely different* phenomenon, as
> can be demonstrated with slightly inharmonic timbres with a
constant
> difference frequency . . . the virtual pitch will correspond *not*
to
> the difference frequency, but instead to the *best-fit fundamental*
> obtained by assuming a harmonic series and minimizing the
deviations
> therefrom . . .

***Yes, this must be a *much* more fundamental (no play on words)
process here, if it works both on radio and TV! :)

Seriously, though, it really *does* seem bizarre -- the whole
notation that we are effectively "hearing* pitches that are virtually
not there! Weird. To *me* anyway....

J. Pehrson

>--- jpehrson2 <jpehrson@rcn.com> wrote:
>> I was reading throught the Terhardt website again:
>>
>>
>http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html
>> In other words, when we listen to the radio or
>> telephone we are
>> actually hearing a *much greater* range of pitches,
>> *virtual* pitches,
>> than really exist, and the ear is piecing together
>> harmonics to
>> create fundamentals and other tones that don't
>> really exist in
>> reality?? That's spooky...
>>
>> J. Pehrson
>>
>****************************************************
>Does this phenomenon have anything to do with what
>Helmholtz refers to as 'combination tones'?
>
>=====
>Can Akkoc
>Most likely it does some of the time, but usually, in such a case as a
telephone where we "hear" let's say, the fundamental of a deep male voice
and it's not really present, we're hearing it because all the higher
harmonics that _are present are being amplitude-_modulated by the
fundamental. Samej goes for the bass strings on a piano. The soundboard is
not capable of reproducing tones at 30 or 40 hertz, but we hear the rumble
of the pitch anyway because all the overtones are being alternately
loudened and softened by those frequencies.
Now, a phenomenon that really fascinates me is that of the components of
tubular bells. My ear tells me that, for example, if I bang the chime that
represents a 440, I hear that A plus a C sharp, a major 6th below.
Surprise! Try playing a recording of that way slow or way fast so you're in
a range where you're ears respond differently and then, to confirm, play
with some filters and you'll find that the A is really an octave higher,
880 hertz, and the C sharp has another component an octave higher. So,
there's that A 880, a C sharp a Major 6th below and another C sharp below
that, and somehow, that combination brings that A down an octave and you're
not conscious of the higher C sharp. All this requires that the thirds and
sixths be Just. I've occasionally heard such chimes that are improperly
tuned and then, the illusion doesn't work.
Cheers,
Jay

Joseph wrote:
>Seriously, though, it really *does* seem bizarre -- the whole
>notation that we are effectively "hearing* pitches that are virtually
>not there! Weird. To *me* anyway....
Yeah, but pretty convenient and clever of Nature to make it so. If we
couldn't be fooled in such ways, pianos would have to be of impractical
size and we'd never have adoped telephones and loudspeakers of convenient
size. Oh well, I imagine there are plenty of folks who think it would be a
better world without such. <grin>
Jay

--- emotionaljourney22 <paul@stretch-music.com> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...>
> wrote:
>
> > During the process of piecing the harmonics
> together,
> > how does the human ear know it has reached the
> > 'fundamental'? That is, how does it know where to
> > 'stop' the piecing process? For example, could it
> > possibly go down to a Fourier component 1/2 the
> > fundamental in pitch?
>
> a fourier component? normally, there are no fourier
> components
> present *below* the true fundamental, but only
> higher, at integer
> *multiples* thereof . . .
>
> did you mean a *virtual pitch* 1/2 the true
> fundamental in frequency?
> if so . . .
>
> it could, and on rare occasions, does. but normally,
> it 'decides'
> that such a fundamental, which would only have an
> incomplete
> complement of *even* partials and no *odd* partials
> whatsoever in the
> perceived spectrum, is far less likely than a
> fundamental (the true
> one) which would have a pretty full complement of
> *both* even and odd
> partials.
>
> actually, it seems that there are normally a set of
> several different
> virtual pitches present with different degrees of
> salience. the true
> fundamental is typically the strongest (whenever the
> pattern-matching
> mechanism gets an opportunity to work properly) and
> the others are
> typically at very, very small-integer ratios with
> the true
> fundamental, including the 1/2-fundamental frequency
> that i think you
> were alluding to above. terhardt hypothesizes that
> tone-affinities,
> primarily octave-equivalence, arise from the fact
> that tones an
> octave apart do have some of their virtual-pitch
> content in
> common . . .
>
> if you'd like to understand this better, please read
> and re-read
> these articles:
>
> http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/pitch.html
>
>
http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/defpitch.html
>
>
http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/virtualp.html
>
>
http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/affinity.html
>
>
http://www.mmk.ei.tum.de/persons/ter/top/octequiv.html
>
>
------------
Thanks Paul, I'll do that. I feel this forum has been
extremely efficient for a pedestrian like myself in
getting a 'free' education in musical acoustics, music
theory, and the like.

It appears there is a stochastic system in place in
our auditory system where 'decisions' are made on
'degrees of plausibilty' basis?

=====
Can Akkoc
1058 Dickenson Avenue
Mobile, AL 36609
USA
(251)639-1936

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Jay Williams <jaywill@t...> wrote:

> >Most likely it does some of the time, but usually, in such a case
as a
> telephone where we "hear" let's say, the fundamental of a deep male
voice
> and it's not really present, we're hearing it because all the higher
> harmonics that _are present are being amplitude-_modulated by the
> fundamental. Samej goes for the bass strings on a piano. The
soundboard is
> not capable of reproducing tones at 30 or 40 hertz, but we hear the
rumble
> of the pitch anyway because all the overtones are being alternately
> loudened and softened by those frequencies.

if this were true, it would be an example of the same non-linear
interaction that is associated with the production of combinational
tones. however, as i pointed out earlier, the virtual pitch
phenomenon, in the case of the telephone, etc., actually relies on a
demonstrably different phenomenon.

--- In tuning@y..., Can Akkoc <can193849@y...> wrote:

> It appears there is a stochastic system in place in
> our auditory system where 'decisions' are made on
> 'degrees of plausibilty' basis?

i don't know if it's stochastic or not, but yes, this sounds right.
in fact, my entire harmonic entropy theory is based on this
assumption, where entropy, a well-known information-theoretic measure
of the level of 'confusion' given a set of probabilities for various
states, models a component of dissonance.