"Correcting" output of a filter
in [DSP]
|
From: Jerry Avins on 26 Apr 2010 17:26 On 4/26/2010 4:07 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > (snip) > >> And it's a concept that varies depending on the domain you're in. In >> music, the closest approximation is "the note that you hear", even >> though the overtones ('partials' I believe is the correct term, although >> I don't know 'partial of what') of an instrument are often not the exact >> harmonics of the fundamental. > > That sounds right. The modes of many instruments are not exactly > harmonically related, so harmonic isn't the right word. I refer to them as overtones. I too wonder "partial" of what? Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Eric Jacobsen on 26 Apr 2010 18:01 On 4/26/2010 2:26 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: > On 4/26/2010 4:07 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >> Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >> (snip) >> >>> And it's a concept that varies depending on the domain you're in. In >>> music, the closest approximation is "the note that you hear", even >>> though the overtones ('partials' I believe is the correct term, although >>> I don't know 'partial of what') of an instrument are often not the exact >>> harmonics of the fundamental. >> >> That sounds right. The modes of many instruments are not exactly >> harmonically related, so harmonic isn't the right word. > > I refer to them as overtones. I too wonder "partial" of what? > > Jerry I've always thought it was a "partial" element of the total waveform or sound. A harmonic contains only part of the total energy. I've heard them called "partials" in musical contexts as well, and just thought that was the general idea. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
From: Jerry Avins on 26 Apr 2010 18:19 On 4/26/2010 6:01 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: > On 4/26/2010 2:26 PM, Jerry Avins wrote: >> On 4/26/2010 4:07 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: >>> Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >>> (snip) >>> >>>> And it's a concept that varies depending on the domain you're in. In >>>> music, the closest approximation is "the note that you hear", even >>>> though the overtones ('partials' I believe is the correct term, >>>> although >>>> I don't know 'partial of what') of an instrument are often not the >>>> exact >>>> harmonics of the fundamental. >>> >>> That sounds right. The modes of many instruments are not exactly >>> harmonically related, so harmonic isn't the right word. >> >> I refer to them as overtones. I too wonder "partial" of what? >> >> Jerry > > I've always thought it was a "partial" element of the total waveform or > sound. A harmonic contains only part of the total energy. I've heard > them called "partials" in musical contexts as well, and just thought > that was the general idea. Piano tuner's jargon refers to "partial" too (a good enough reason is fewer syllables). It probably means "component". Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. �����������������������������������������������������������������������
From: Rune Allnor on 26 Apr 2010 18:49 On 26 apr, 20:06, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > And it's a concept that varies depending on the domain you're in. In > music, the closest approximation is "the note that you hear", There are some weighting functions involved in the human audio sensory system. The human ear is more sensitive to some frequency ranges than to others. It's been decades since I saw those graphs, but as I recall, the human ear isn't very sensitive to tones less than a couple of hundred Hertz. If one uses filters that account for such sensitivities, fundamentals of low tones might well go AWOL. Rune
From: Jerry Avins on 26 Apr 2010 19:06
On 4/26/2010 6:49 PM, Rune Allnor wrote: > On 26 apr, 20:06, Tim Wescott<t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > >> And it's a concept that varies depending on the domain you're in. In >> music, the closest approximation is "the note that you hear", > > There are some weighting functions involved in the human > audio sensory system. The human ear is more sensitive to > some frequency ranges than to others. It's been decades > since I saw those graphs, but as I recall, the human ear > isn't very sensitive to tones less than a couple of hundred > Hertz. If one uses filters that account for such sensitivities, > fundamentals of low tones might well go AWOL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_effect Jerry -- "I view the progress of science as ... the slow erosion of the tendency to dichotomize." --Barbara Smuts, U. Mich. ����������������������������������������������������������������������� |