Subject: Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation From: Pierre Divenyi <pdivenyi@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:54:26 -0800 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>--=====================_72132546==.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From the perceptual point of view, a 27.5-Hz fundamental frequency is not heard as pitch. The $64K question is: how come we react to that lowest piano key's vibrations as if they were truly conveying pitch on the same dimension as, say, the key 2 octaves higher does? Yes, Dan is probably right claiming that a double bass' lowest note evokes a more purely-pitch pitch than the same note on the piano, but that E has a frequency 1.5 times higher than the lowest A on the piano. (NB: concert Boesendorfers descend down to the F below...) Pierre At 07:59 PM 1/31/2007, Dan Ellis wrote: >I've always wondered why playing a bass line on the bottom octaves >of the piano can almost never serve the same sonic role as playing >the same bass line on a stand-up (acoustic) bass or electric bass guitar >(I'm talking about a popular music and jazz context here). > > >I don't know the answer, but I took the FFT of the lowest note of the piano >from the MUMS grand piano samples; it's at: > > ><http://labrosa.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/tmp/mumsPianoA0.jpg>http://labrosa.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/tmp/mumsPianoA0.jpg > >Obviously this depends on recording setup etc., but there's no discernable >energy at the fundamental, and almost none at the second harmonic. It's >only at the 3rd harmonic (82.5 Hz nominal) and above that you really start to >get energy. I would bet a double bass has better representation of lower >harmonics. > >The plot also shows in green the expected locations of harmonics of 27.5 Hz. >The piano harmonics aren't all that close, and over this range it >doesn't look >like a simple stretching either - seems like a much more complex pattern of >per-harmonic deviations, both above and below. > > DAn. > > --=====================_72132546==.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" <html> <body> From the perceptual point of view, a 27.5-Hz fundamental frequency is not heard as pitch. The $64K question is: how come we react to that lowest piano key's vibrations as if they were truly conveying pitch on the same dimension as, say, the key 2 octaves higher does? Yes, Dan is probably right claiming that a double bass' lowest note evokes a more purely-pitch pitch than the same note on the piano, but that E has a frequency 1.5 times higher than the lowest A on the piano. (NB: concert Boesendorfers descend down to the F below...)<br><br> Pierre<br><br> At 07:59 PM 1/31/2007, Dan Ellis wrote:<br><br> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""> <dl> <dd>I've always wondered why playing a bass line on the bottom octaves<br> <dd>of the piano can almost never serve the same sonic role as playing <br> <dd>the same bass line on a stand-up (acoustic) bass or electric bass guitar<br> <dd>(I'm talking about a popular music and jazz context here).<br><br> </dl><br> I don't know the answer, but I took the FFT of the lowest note of the piano <br> from the MUMS grand piano samples; it's at:<br><br> <a href="http://labrosa.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/tmp/mumsPianoA0.jpg"> http://labrosa.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/tmp/mumsPianoA0.jpg</a><br><br> Obviously this depends on recording setup etc., but there's no discernable <br> energy at the fundamental, and almost none at the second harmonic. It's <br> only at the 3rd harmonic (82.5 Hz nominal) and above that you really start to <br> get energy. I would bet a double bass has better representation of lower <br> harmonics.<br><br> The plot also shows in green the expected locations of harmonics of 27.5 Hz. <br> The piano harmonics aren't all that close, and over this range it doesn't look <br> like a simple stretching either - seems like a much more complex pattern of <br> per-harmonic deviations, both above and below.<br><br> DAn.<br><br> <br> </blockquote></body> </html> --=====================_72132546==.ALT--
