This has become ridiculous

This is my frustration at the recent discussions both on and offlist
about GCD's, difference tones, beating, "frequencies", "wave theory",
the general existence of aperiodic waves, and whatever else has been
discussed ad nauseum on here.

We are no longer arguing just about the way that virtual fundamentals
work, but now how acoustics work in general. The latest question is
whether or not all resonant filters that peak at 440 Hz will, due to
the fact that "sine waves aren't special", resonate at all complex
tones with a fundamental frequency centered around 440 Hz, even if the
fundamental is missing. Actually, it hasn't a question so much as an
assertion that "yes, they will." This is of course, applied to the
hair cells in the basilar membrane as an explanation for how pitch
works.

I thought that the argument over whether the "missing fundamental"
concept was real (do you really think decades of research on this are
just based on stupidity?) was frustrating enough. However, at this
point, we've moved over into the realm of the hopelessly useless. Not
because it's off topic for this forum - it is pretty on topic - but
because we've now moved past questioning concepts of psychoacoustics
and moved into questioning reality itself. A simple experiment with a
tuning fork (or any random piece of metal that happens to rattle in
your bedroom, for that matter) would confirm to you that if you play a
complex tone at that frequency that lacks the fundamental component in
it, it won't resonate, save from some trace nonlinear effects. Go
check it for yourself.

Now, you can't expect everyone to know everything. The fact that the
above question was asked at all isn't that bad in and of itself. The
frustrating thing is that the answer to this question has been
explained a thousand and a half times and met with resistance that
makes no sense. For example, the latest response to this is that my
explanation displays "a long-standing scientific bias towards sine
waves." I'm actually speechless at this. I have no words for it. What
could I possibly say to point out the ridiculousness of that statement
more than just copying and pasting it here?

To deny that a fundamental tracking mechanism exists, much less that
is a fabrication of a "corrupt scientific culture", is completely
ridiculous. And to deny resonant filters with one peak exist
mathematically, and to deny it repeatedly, is absurd on a level that I
never thought I'd find on a list like this. A scientific bias towards
sine waves...?

The most disturbing part of all of this is that those of us who have
been trying to correct the misconceptions have largely given up,
because nobody has the energy to argue forever about these things. So
all of these misconceptions were never laid to rest. So the
misinformation has won out in this little argument, and the discussion
is continuing unencumbered in that fashion. Maybe i'm a bit
overzealous, but isn't this dangerous for the continual development of
microtonal theory?

I have no idea what the solution is, as I'm a firm believer in people
being free to voice their opinions, but I'm frustrated to my limit by
this whole thing. People left the tuning list in droves after the
argument with Marcel went on to 100+ posts, but at least that one
reached a definitive conclusion. To let misinformation spread around
unchallenged though, seems much worse.

-Mike

Well put, Mike. I would welcome a broader discussion about
pseudoscience on the tuning list (on metatuning or some other
suitable venue) but for now, threads that have been discussed
ad nauseum, where no progress is being made, will be moderated.

> So the misinformation has won out in this little argument,
> and the discussion is continuing unencumbered in that fashion.

I don't know exactly who's involved offlist, but I don't see
them winning anything.

> Maybe i'm a bit overzealous, but isn't this dangerous for the
> continual development of microtonal theory?

It is. This stuff can show up on google, where the curious
of the world (including Wikipedia editors) can get turned off
real quick. And I never really want to get another e-mail
from someone telling me they've unsubscribed because of
pseudoscience here.

-Carl

>"The latest question is
whether or not all resonant filters that peak at 440 Hz will, due to
the fact that "sine waves aren't special, resonate at all complex
tones with a fundamental frequency centered around 440 Hz"

In this case I misunderstood the question...and, if I get it now, will say that of course they would not.
You can't create frequencies out of nothing, but simply mask and unmask partials that already exist relative to each other.
The above statement is not pseudoscience: it's is used directly in mp3-type format (I should know because
I've built encoders and decoders).

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:54:34 PM
Subject: [tuning] This has become ridiculous

This is my frustration at the recent discussions both on and offlist
about GCD's, difference tones, beating, "frequencies" , "wave theory",
the general existence of aperiodic waves, and whatever else has been
discussed ad nauseum on here.

We are no longer arguing just about the way that virtual fundamentals
work, but now how acoustics work in general. The latest question is
whether or not all resonant filters that peak at 440 Hz will, due to
the fact that "sine waves aren't special", resonate at all complex
tones with a fundamental frequency centered around 440 Hz, even if the
fundamental is missing. Actually, it hasn't a question so much as an
assertion that "yes, they will." This is of course, applied to the
hair cells in the basilar membrane as an explanation for how pitch
works.

I thought that the argument over whether the "missing fundamental"
concept was real (do you really think decades of research on this are
just based on stupidity?) was frustrating enough. However, at this
point, we've moved over into the realm of the hopelessly useless. Not
because it's off topic for this forum - it is pretty on topic - but
because we've now moved past questioning concepts of psychoacoustics
and moved into questioning reality itself. A simple experiment with a
tuning fork (or any random piece of metal that happens to rattle in
your bedroom, for that matter) would confirm to you that if you play a
complex tone at that frequency that lacks the fundamental component in
it, it won't resonate, save from some trace nonlinear effects. Go
check it for yourself.

Now, you can't expect everyone to know everything. The fact that the
above question was asked at all isn't that bad in and of itself. The
frustrating thing is that the answer to this question has been
explained a thousand and a half times and met with resistance that
makes no sense. For example, the latest response to this is that my
explanation displays "a long-standing scientific bias towards sine
waves." I'm actually speechless at this. I have no words for it. What
could I possibly say to point out the ridiculousness of that statement
more than just copying and pasting it here?

To deny that a fundamental tracking mechanism exists, much less that
is a fabrication of a "corrupt scientific culture", is completely
ridiculous. And to deny resonant filters with one peak exist
mathematically, and to deny it repeatedly, is absurd on a level that I
never thought I'd find on a list like this. A scientific bias towards
sine waves...?

The most disturbing part of all of this is that those of us who have
been trying to correct the misconceptions have largely given up,
because nobody has the energy to argue forever about these things. So
all of these misconceptions were never laid to rest. So the
misinformation has won out in this little argument, and the discussion
is continuing unencumbered in that fashion. Maybe i'm a bit
overzealous, but isn't this dangerous for the continual development of
microtonal theory?

I have no idea what the solution is, as I'm a firm believer in people
being free to voice their opinions, but I'm frustrated to my limit by
this whole thing. People left the tuning list in droves after the
argument with Marcel went on to 100+ posts, but at least that one
reached a definitive conclusion. To let misinformation spread around
unchallenged though, seems much worse.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

>Hi Mike,

It's not 'pseudoscience'. The same wave laws apply to the vibrating strings and pipes that create the sound, to the medium which carries it, to the speaker that recreates it, to the synths that imitate it, and we can safely assume in the basilica membrane which 'hears' it in some form of one-one correspondence. Furthermore, everywhere Fourier Analysis or waves make an appearance in any scientific theory whatsoever it is present, and even our eyes will confirm it when the waves are plotted. Flick through the pages of any science text or book on differential equations and it is there. The same basic laws also apply to light and electromagnetism and even to the elementary wave-particles of matter. And historically speaking musical harmony was the first science, its trace evidence being found in the very representation of the world in numbers. So against the backdrop of this bigger scientific picture, it is entirely possible - and I'm only saying possible mind you - that psychoacoustics perhaps got lost in some of the small details, that they forgot to look at the outside view from time to time. This doesn't mean they're stupid because, as you said yourself, "you can't expect everyone to know everything", and 50 years is not long in the scheme of things. But saying this is all 'pseudoscience' is a bit beyond the pale.

Below you say that "A simple experiment with a tuning fork (or any random piece of metal that happens to rattle in your bedroom, for that matter) would confirm to you that if you play a complex tone at that frequency that lacks the fundamental component in it, it won't resonate, save from some trace nonlinear effects. Go check it for yourself." This is an interesting point and I'll think about it.

-Rick

> This is my frustration at the recent discussions both on and offlist
> about GCD's, difference tones, beating, "frequencies", "wave theory",
> the general existence of aperiodic waves, and whatever else has been
> discussed ad nauseum on here.
>
> We are no longer arguing just about the way that virtual fundamentals
> work, but now how acoustics work in general. The latest question is
> whether or not all resonant filters that peak at 440 Hz will, due to
> the fact that "sine waves aren't special", resonate at all complex
> tones with a fundamental frequency centered around 440 Hz, even if the
> fundamental is missing. Actually, it hasn't a question so much as an
> assertion that "yes, they will." This is of course, applied to the
> hair cells in the basilar membrane as an explanation for how pitch
> works.
>
> I thought that the argument over whether the "missing fundamental"
> concept was real (do you really think decades of research on this are
> just based on stupidity?) was frustrating enough. However, at this
> point, we've moved over into the realm of the hopelessly useless. Not
> because it's off topic for this forum - it is pretty on topic - but
> because we've now moved past questioning concepts of psychoacoustics
> and moved into questioning reality itself. A simple experiment with a
> tuning fork (or any random piece of metal that happens to rattle in
> your bedroom, for that matter) would confirm to you that if you play a
> complex tone at that frequency that lacks the fundamental component in
> it, it won't resonate, save from some trace nonlinear effects. Go
> check it for yourself.
>
> Now, you can't expect everyone to know everything. The fact that the
> above question was asked at all isn't that bad in and of itself. The
> frustrating thing is that the answer to this question has been
> explained a thousand and a half times and met with resistance that
> makes no sense. For example, the latest response to this is that my
> explanation displays "a long-standing scientific bias towards sine
> waves." I'm actually speechless at this. I have no words for it. What
> could I possibly say to point out the ridiculousness of that statement
> more than just copying and pasting it here?
>
> To deny that a fundamental tracking mechanism exists, much less that
> is a fabrication of a "corrupt scientific culture", is completely
> ridiculous. And to deny resonant filters with one peak exist
> mathematically, and to deny it repeatedly, is absurd on a level that I
> never thought I'd find on a list like this. A scientific bias towards
> sine waves...?
>
> The most disturbing part of all of this is that those of us who have
> been trying to correct the misconceptions have largely given up,
> because nobody has the energy to argue forever about these things. So
> all of these misconceptions were never laid to rest. So the
> misinformation has won out in this little argument, and the discussion
> is continuing unencumbered in that fashion. Maybe i'm a bit
> overzealous, but isn't this dangerous for the continual development of
> microtonal theory?
>
> I have no idea what the solution is, as I'm a firm believer in people
> being free to voice their opinions, but I'm frustrated to my limit by
> this whole thing. People left the tuning list in droves after the
> argument with Marcel went on to 100+ posts, but at least that one
> reached a definitive conclusion. To let misinformation spread around
> unchallenged though, seems much worse.
>
> -Mike
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rick_ballan" <rick_ballan@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
>
Hi Mike,

I tried to create resonance by placing the pitch fork of A440Hz in front of the speaker at various angles, touching it etc and got no response from either the A440Hz sine or the relative prime example. I plugged in some external speakers, wrote Csound files which were very loud and of short duration so I could hear the fork and still no go. Next I tried to recreate it with my acoustic guitar as resonator, holding down A440Hz and placing the headstock onto the speaker. Again nothing I'd write home about. So then I reread Helmholtz' chapter on resonance looking for clues and Googled for any previous experiments or theories tucked away, and only got the usual stuff about nodes etc...

But thinking about it, if the A440Hz audio can cause sympathetic vibration in the A440Hz pitch fork, then we could still create resonance in pitch forks corresponding to the relative prime partials E1320Hz, C#2200Hz etc. But since pitch forks are close to a pure sine wave, then we are really just recreating the original experiment.

To my mind this makes sense if the GCD is a first principle since they are meant to be self-evident and elementary, not able to be deduced by more primitive axioms.

-Rick

This is nothing to win. I could care less what the outcome is. I am interested in figuring out why i am getting this answer. i did an experiment. This is what happen. -
Should i not ever ask for help in such things?
my POV is that many things happen by accident when one looks for one thing and one discovers something else.
Their could be something likely reason why there is problems with rick experiment. But this cannot be decided by heresay or 'logical' guess. Everything has to be falseified or not.

Low pass fitlers do a not peak anyway i had to set it at 210 to omit the upper frequencies. This is interesting in itself . Same with a high cut ( i really don't know the difference ( these both being in logic). There is all for those who even bothered to listen all types of low frequency noise which could be an artifact or not.

The correct answer here is to produce the same results with a peaking filter. I personally only tried to do one other experiment due to time. That was with 4000 which would put the frequencies higher than hearing. It didn't work but i am not sure Csound can deal with unlimited ranges of pitches

This subject to go on and on all that was required was some experiment to cut it short.

I think something useful can be discovered.
--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

i have no interest in getting a certain answer. in fact i did not expect this answer.
perhaps someone needs to look at the c sound code.

--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

Hello Kraig,

I generated signals as rick described (one pure 440 Hz tone, one
3:5:7:11:13 tone, and one 3:5:7 tone) and ran it through a reson
filter peaking at 440 Hz, and as expected, for the first signal I
heard a 440 Hz tone, and for the second signals I heard barely
anything except for some leakage from the other tones. If you could
post the files you used as well as the filter specs, or the csound
code, I could take a look at it for you to see why the 440 Hz tone was
there the whole time. It's possible that either the files had the
original 440 Hz tone in it, and that a mistake was made in generating
them, or that the way you filtered it led the first 440 Hz tone to
"hang over" to the second and third signals as well. There are really
a thousand ways it might have happened, so if you post the code we
could explain better.

Nonetheless, if you add apples and oranges together, you aren't going
to suddenly get bananas, even if you put them in a banana shaped
fashion.

-Mike

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 1:06 AM, Kraig Grady<kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
>
> This is nothing to win. I could care less what the outcome is. I am
> interested in figuring out why i am getting this answer. i did an
> experiment. This is what happen. -
> Should i not ever ask for help in such things?
> my POV is that many things happen by accident when one looks for one
> thing and one discovers something else.
> Their could be something likely reason why there is problems with rick
> experiment. But this cannot be decided by heresay or 'logical' guess.
> Everything has to be falseified or not.
>
> Low pass fitlers do a not peak anyway i had to set it at 210 to omit
> the upper frequencies. This is interesting in itself . Same with a high
> cut ( i really don't know the difference ( these both being in logic).
> There is all for those who even bothered to listen all types of low
> frequency noise which could be an artifact or not.
>
> The correct answer here is to produce the same results with a peaking
> filter. I personally only tried to do one other experiment due to time.
> That was with 4000 which would put the frequencies higher than hearing.
> It didn't work but i am not sure Csound can deal with unlimited ranges
> of pitches
>
> This subject to go on and on all that was required was some experiment
> to cut it short.
>
> I think something useful can be discovered.
> --
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
> a momentary antenna as i turn to water
> this evaporates - an island once again
>
>

To Mike:

If you mix sines of 200Hz, 500Hz, 800Hz, 1100Hz, ... up to as high as you can hear, do you hear a particular sound that you could describe in a particular way, or do you hear just "barely anything except for some leakage of tones"?

Petr

> If you mix sines of 200Hz, 500Hz, 800Hz, 1100Hz, ... up to as high as you
> can hear, do you hear a particular sound that you could describe in a
> particular way, or do you hear just "barely anything except for some leakage
> of tones"?

Petr: the "leakage of tones" was what happened when I ran the
3:5:7:11:13 chord (with 1 being at 440) through a narrowband bandpass
filter (commonly referred to as a reson filter) peaking at 440. The
filter didn't perfectly attenuate the other components of the signal,
and so you could sort of hear them filter through a bit, but you
certainly didn't hear a 440 Hz tone coming out.

Now in regards to your question: are you asking me what I'd hear if I
ran your tones through a 100 Hz reson filter, or a 440 Hz filter, or
no filter at all?

-Mike

Mike wrote:

> Now in regards to your question: are you asking me what I'd hear if I
> ran your tones through a 100 Hz reson filter, or a 440 Hz filter, or
> no filter at all?

No filter at all. I can clearly remember other people who were finding my observations suspicious without having told me what they could hear.

Petr

Hello Petr,

Are the sinusoids all at unity volume? Or is there a rolloff? That
would influence the resulting sound by quite a bit.
-Mike

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Petr Parízek<p.parizek@...> wrote:
>
>
> Mike wrote:
>
>> Now in regards to your question: are you asking me what I'd hear if I
>> ran your tones through a 100 Hz reson filter, or a 440 Hz filter, or
>> no filter at all?
>
> No filter at all. I can clearly remember other people who were finding my
> observations suspicious without having told me what they could hear.
>
> Petr
>
>
>
>
>
>

i believe they are all at equal volume. The 440 that i can hear though does change in volume depending which makes me think it is not in the C sound code but was hoping we could get someone to look just to be sure. The volume is loud and maybe there is someway to overdrive the info to get this. I am interested in case there is a unique condition in which the GCD comes out for some reason.
--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again

here is the file rick sent me
http://anaphoria.com/GCDaudioA440Hz.mp3
i used both a low pass filter and tried a high cut filter from the one i have in logic 7. i had to go down to 210 before i could get this 440 residue. I don't have the C-sound code which i guess rick cannot pass on at this point.
--

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

a momentary antenna as i turn to water
this evaporates - an island once again