Subject: Re: Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation From: "James W. Beauchamp" <jwbeauch@xxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 20:28:01 -0600 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>I've put an F0 analysis of Dan's piano tone, done by the two-way-mismatch method, at http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/beaucham/pnf0/pn.a0.f0.pdf The two-way-mismatch program was written by Rob Maher in 1989. Jim Original message: >From: Dan Ellis <dpwe@xxxxxxxx> >Date: Jan 31 22:17:13 2007 >To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx >Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] Robust method of fundamental frequency estimation >Comments: To: lazzaro <lazzaro@xxxxxxxx> > >> 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 > >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.
