Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Tartini Tones and Under/Overtones


Shunyata

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No need to bang your head, modulated or otherwise.

Pigment + canvas produces the impression of Mona Lisa even though there is no Mona Lisa there.  C + E produces the impression A lower G even though there is no G there.  Voila, Tartini tones!  (...by the way, this is an example of what Buddhists mean by shunyata.)

An interesting suggestion by an earlier commenter was that the physical construction of my violin may have pushed C and E too far out of phase to get a strong amplitude on the mirage  G.  I left the G side rather heavy when graduating.  And I do get moderate Tartini tones on thirds not involving the G string... There might be something there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Shunyata said:

No need to bang your head, modulated or otherwise.

Pigment + canvas produces the impression of Mona Lisa even though there is no Mona Lisa there.  C + E produces the impression A lower G even though there is no G there.  Voila, Tartini tones!  (...by the way, this is an example of what Buddhists mean by shunyata.)

An interesting suggestion by an earlier commenter was that the physical construction of my violin may have pushed C and E too far out of phase to get a strong amplitude on the mirage  G.  I left the G side rather heavy when graduating.  And I do get moderate Tartini tones on thirds not involving the G string... There might be something there.

Always fancied having a go at Buddhism. 

Might help make me a bit less lairy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JohnCockburn said:

Doesn't matter. Apart from "displacement from equilibrium" which in general, isn't the definition of amplitude. Amplitude is the maximum displacement from equilibrium. 

So constant amplitude, ie with no modulation or fluctuation of the amplitude, for a sound wave, for example, means that the sound has constant intensity, or perceived loudness, if you will. Changing the amplitude changes the loudness.

"Amplitude without modulation produces no sensation of sound, only something ranging between a weird feeling, and pain"

No. Wrong.

 

Here's one example of a "waveform" without amplitude. It looks like this:

________________________________________________________________

No sound.

Not only one of us can cherry-pick our definitions. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, David Burgess said:

Here's one example of a "waveform" without amplitude. It looks like this:

________________________________________________________________

No sound.

Not only one of us can cherry-pick our definitions. ;)

David. This is just foolish.

No-one was talking about a waveform without amplitude.

But a waveform of constant amplitude.

This really is weapons grade nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my screen it has a constant amplitude of 5, not zero.  Still isn't audible though. 

Amplitude without frequency doesn't mean anything.  Kind of like the Mona Lisa painted in just one color... an interesting thought experiment but no one would agree Mona Lisa was involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shunyata said:

On my screen it has a constant amplitude of 5, not zero.  Still isn't audible though. 

Amplitude without frequency doesn't mean anything.  Kind of like the Mona Lisa painted in just one color... an interesting thought experiment but no one would agree Mona Lisa was involved.

No, a flat line has "zero amplitude". Doesn't matter where on the screen it is. That's just a DC-offset.

Of course, amplitude without frequency is meaningless, because nothing is oscillating.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnCockburn said:

Honestly, David. Go away and read a high school physics text book.

Hugs and kisses once again. :)

Fiddle acoustics research has gone far beyond the high-school physics level, and I've been fortunate enough to have had some exposure to the cutting-edge stuff.

I still luv ya, whether you like it or not. You have a history of having posted some really good stuff on Maestronet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a control systems engineer and know a few things about signal processing.  ;-)  (Seriously, although at least one of my old professors would smirk to hear me say it.) 

That flat line definitely had an amplitude of 5, which is definitely a thing.  Like Mr. Burgess, I actually had atmospheric pressure in mind when I first wrote it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, David Burgess said:

But it does. Zero in reference to what? Atmospheric pressure at sea level? Atmospheric pressure in Denver? At the top of Mount Everest?

Cockburn:

Right, amplitude is width in relation to the waves mean.  A flat line, if considered as a wave, has amplitude zero and frequency undefined, so problematic.  These issue are intrinsic to the line and don't need a context.

Right: Difference tones (Tartini tones) don't appear in a correct fourier transform.

On the other hand, they do appear as periodic cycling of pressure.  Depending on your definition of 'sound' that either does or doesn't make them sound, and real.  Yet, under the right circumstances, they are audible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, David Burgess said:

Hugs and kisses once again. :)

Fiddle acoustics research has gone far beyond the high-school physics level, and I've been fortunate enough to have had some exposure to the cutting-edge stuff.

I still luv ya, whether you like it or not. You have a history of having posted some really good stuff on Maestronet.

David. I owe you a humble apology. Looking back over the way this thread developed, I can see that at one point i got hold of the wrong end of the stick about what you were saying, and ended up talking nonsense. What you were saying was right. I was wrong.

And I also realise that there is a way that Tartini tones arising from beats could appear in a Fourier transform. If the difference frequency periodicity excites another resonance, such as an open string. That would do it, I think.

Cheers

john

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JohnCockburn said:

David. I owe you a humble apology. Looking back over the way this thread developed, I can see that at one point i got hold of the wrong end of the stick about what you were saying, and ended up talking nonsense. What you were saying was right. I was wrong.

And I also realise that there is a way that Tartini tones arising from beats could appear in a Fourier transform. If the difference frequency periodicity excites another resonance, such as an open string. That would do it, I think.

Cheers

john

 

 

What then was this : "Right. For an idiot. "  ?

Not decent calling David Burgess an idiot and then apologized like nothing happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...