Talk:Audio frequency

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Acoustics Taskforce.

Professional sound production Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Professional sound productionWikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound productionTemplate:WikiProject Professional sound productionProfessional sound production articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Music theory High‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Music theory, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of music theory, theory terminology, music theorists, and musical analysis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Music theoryWikipedia:WikiProject Music theoryTemplate:WikiProject Music theoryMusic theory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introductory sentence

The introductory sentence to this article is not correct and doesn't make sense. Audio frequency is not the "measurement of the cycles per second of a sound". Frequency is the measurement of cycles per second of a sound. Audio frequency is simply a range of frequencies that are audible to the average human being. Snottywong 15:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to have a link to a page with sound files of different frequencies.

Agreed. I was hoping to maybe find some web widget that would let me plug in a frequency and hear the resulting sound, since I'm trying to pick out a piezo buzzer from a catalog. Dave 16:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be useful, though we don't have any idea what a Wikipedia user's audio reproduction gear will be capable of. What will they hear if they click on a 30 Hz sine wave and they're using a handheld device for their internet access?

Google "frequency generator" and you'll see some free or inexpensive software options to turn your computer into a signal generator. Personally, I use NCH tone generator for casual testing of sound gear. I also have an Audio Test CD online that you can download for free. Have fun! Binksternet 20:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sound files of different frequencies. Not sure how to make the formatting in the table any prettier... any suggestions? Snottywong 23:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lowest note for a piccolo

The range of a piccolo is D5-C7, altho in very rare cases, may i emphasize on the word VERY, a piccolo would be customized to play a the C5. yet it is generally accepted that the lowest not of the piccolo is D5

even in the obscure chance that this statement is "true" the notion of "the lowest note for a piccolo" is pointless and insignificant; i would suggest using another instrument or sound for C5.

it might be helpful to put C7 as the highest note of the piccolo, again, that may not be the Theoratical high of the range of the picc. but it is generally accepted that anything above c7, are products of ignorant composers or the sheer joy a piccoloist gets by playing really high notes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.130.32 (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "C in middle of treble clef"? Feel free to improve. Groogle (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject banner spam

An anonymous editor appears to have dedicated him-/herself to spamming talk pages with long lists of WikiProject banners. This goes against the good advice at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging, which recommends against speculatively spamming a long list of tangentially related WikiProjects to an article.

The editor often adds empty {{todo}} lists and usually {{talkheader}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.

While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)

If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:

Read Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?
Read the instructions on the WPMED template.
Then leave a message at the doctors' mess to ask whether the article falls within the scope of the project.

I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. No more unnecessary banners. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Frequencies

"32 to 512 2nd to 5th Rhythm frequencies, where the lower and upper bass notes lie."

Utterly ridiculous. Calling anything above Middle-C (262Hz) a "bass" note is obvious nonsense. This article should either be fixed or just outright deleted.21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)21:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.45.250.93 (talk)

o

t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.112.190 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Perhaps you could put a warning for the higher Cs, they're quite painful when you listen to them, especially the last three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.238.3 (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C8 example

Chen lung (talk · contribs) claims that this example is a B, not a C. Es anyone able to do a quick measurement to confirm or deny this. I've restored the example until this minor issue is resolved. --Kvng (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My professional audio analysis computer application sets this tone at 4185.1 or 4185.2 Hz, depending on a couple of settings on the analyzer, well within a reasonable error range of 4186 Hz which is C8. The example deserves to stay. Binksternet (talk) 07:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noise in C10 example

there seems to be quite a bit of noise in the C10 example. I ran it through an analyzer (Amadeus) and there are additional frequencies at (roughly) 7,800, 6,200, 5,400, and 2,840 Hz. While C10 seems to be at my upper hearing threshold and therefore rather weak, these lower frequencies are quite discernible. (kind of a whispering static sound) Are these artifacts due to ogg compression or 44.1 kHz resolution (beat frequencies, perhaps?) or could they be eliminated? (they are presesnt in other samples, too, but there the main frequency is loud enough to overpower them...) -- megA (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main frequency is quite loud in the C10 too, you just can't hear it. It gives me a headache. 71.126.228.63 (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not coherent

There is a big difference between the examples of frequencies stated in the first diagram and the second one, the one with the sound files. As you can read the article begins saying that " from 1024 to 2048 (Hz) | 6th to 7th | Defines human speech intelligibility, gives a horn-like or tinny quality to sound." Then it says that "C6 1046.50 Hz Approximately the highest note reproducible by the average female human voice." So, one of them must be wrong, or maybe both.

Please correct this contradiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.139.106.222 (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human voices carry more than one frequency. The lowest frequency is usually the one we talk about, but the voice is composed of that low frequency, which varies during speech, and multiples of that low frequency. The multiples are called harmonics or overtones. These higher frequencies are crucial to intelligibility. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like high school homework

Above all there article seems to be exclusively about human perceived range and then falls short of even adequately exploring that. 92.40.254.144 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

Is there any reason why Wikipedia includes both this article "Audio frequency" and a separate article on "Hearing range", covering fairly similar matter? 86.16.3.237 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing range is a survey of audio frequencies for different critters. This article is human centric. We could merge the material in this article into Hearing_range#Humans but I think that would cause an WP:UNDUE issue there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kids aren't the only ones who can hear high frequencies

I'm over 30 and I still regularly encounter painful high-pitched noises. :( I was looking forward to hearing loss, but it doesn't seem to be happening. I'll see if I can find some citations before editing the article... 24.84.15.242 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]