Talk:Pitch (music)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Changing the pitch of a vibrating string: density

I thought frequency was dependent on linear density, μ, and not voluminous density, ρ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.225.203.115 (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"corresponding very nearly"?

What is meant by the "very nearly" in 'pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower", and are quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz), corresponding very nearly to the repetition rate of sound waves.' in the second paragraph?

It seems to be saying "frequencies" are different to "repetition rates" - in what way?

Or maybe it was intended to say that "pitch" corresponds "very nearly" to "frequency", while at the moment it says that one is "quantified as" the other.

I am unsure, so I have not changed it.

FrankSier (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Pitch is a complicated business. We give values to pitch via frequency, which is what we mean about how pitch is quantified. But pitch is a perceptual thing; there are situations where sounds of the same frequency, or repetition rate, will not sound like exactly the same pitch, and situations where sounds with different frequencies will be judge equal in pitch – but only by a little bit, in the case of periodic sounds, usually. "Frequencies" refers to to the repetition rate of Fourier components, and often the fundamental Fourier component; "repetition rate" of a periodic sound agrees with that when a fundamental is present, but is still a good predictor of pitch when there is no such frequency present. So what it's saying is that if you do experiments with periodic sounds, the perceived pitches usually agree very nearly, but not exactly, with the pitches of sine waves of frequency equal to that repetition rate. Getting more precise about it is hard without going off into ratholes, and saying it more simply usually just makes it untrue, so this is sort of an awkward compromise. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, and this seems to be the intention of the following sentence about the subjective nature of pitch (which, unfortunately, the cited source does not verify). The issue here, if I understand Frank Sier correctly, is that the sentence as it stands says that quantifying frequencies as cycles per second, or hertz, only very nearly corresponds to the repetition rate of sound waves. I have flagged the sentence as "vague", but only because I do not know of any {{nonsensical}} template.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; the "very nearly" is supposed to correspond to the relationship between the pitches of the sinusoid frequency and the equal repetition rates; I'll see if I can come up with a better way to say it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Your change reads as correct, but omits the important point that pitch is quantified as hertz. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I reworded it again, and added some more refs that I think support it in some detail. One is a ref to my own work; if that's not appropriate, feel free to take it out and further improve the text as needed. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I suddenly feel that either I am very out of my depth (which is very likely), or this paragraph has just gotten less clear rather than more so. My understanding of psychoacoustics is that pitch, as a subjective phenomenon, cannot be measured directly in Hertz, though the sensation of pitch is closely correlated with physical oscillations, which can be so measured. Second, it is not at all clear to me why the frequency of sinusoidal waves quantified in Hertz and equal repetition rate (presumably of non-sinusoidal phenomena, such as sawtooth waves or pulses), both of which are physical measurements, "only very nearly" correspond. I do not find this explained in any of the sources cited, either.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the difference between waves that are fairly simple sine waves and ones that are much more complex can be explained as a difference in the relative strength of harmonics, with simple sine waves having no or virtually no upper harmonics, and complex signals having a lot of upper harmonics. The presence of strong harmonics can play havoc with pitch sense, especially if the listener's attention is being diverted or directed. In this manner, complex waveforms can be assessed as different in pitch than simple sines with the same number of repetitions per second. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I follow that, but this is still comparing perception and physical sound. If you are correct, and "equal repetition rate" refers to complex waveforms, this still does not explain why the physical measurement of the periodicity of such waves should "only nearly correspond" to the physical measurement of sine waves.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, it's complicated. It's not the case that pitch can be "measured" in Hz, except sometimes for sine waves. Even with sine waves, pitch can vary, e.g. with loudness, so you really need a reference level to quantify pitch in Hz. But quantify we do, as the sources I cited say. And we measure the rep rate of musical tones in Hz, and call that pitch, too, sometimes (like with guitar tuner instruments and such); psychoacoustically, however, small differences can be found under various conditions. So what we're trying to express is this "very near" relationship between pitch and Hz. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not getting clearer from my perspective. The lead is supposed to summarize what's in the body of the article. The fact that the references for these assertions are used only in the lead makes me suspicious that that's not what's happening here. I suggest we go back to the original version of the lead and remove the "very nearly" business. The additional information is important and should appear in the body but this level of detail does not belong in the lead. --Kvng (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget that this article is a merge with the previous Pitch (psychophysics); when you did the merge, you included this sentence in the lead because it was the lead sentence in the other article, being kind of fundamental to the whole psychoacoustics of pitch perception. Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

To Dicklyon: In that case, should it not say "pitch only nearly corresponds" to Hz, instead of "equal repetition rate only nearly corresponds" to Hz? Just to be absolutely clear: I do understand the distinction between pitch as a subjective phenomenon, and frequency as an objective measurement of oscillation. What I do not understand is how two different objective measurements of oscillation, one of sine waves, the other of "equal repetition rate" can only approximately correspond. Put another way: if the "equal repetition rate" is 971.0 per second (Hz), and the sine-wave frequency is 971.0 per second (Hz), how do these two 971.0Hz measurements "only approximately correspond"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The measurements can exactly correspond when the pitches don't, or vice versa. For example, a waveform repeating at 200 Hz might have a pitch of 201 Hz under some conditions (that is, a subject would match it with a 201 Hz sine wave and say they sound like the same pitch). Dicklyon (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I may be seeing a glimmer here. If I understand correctly, some subjects may describe their subjective perception of pitch in terms of Hertz (given suitable circumstances), but this perception may not match the objective measurement. The barrier I have been struggling with is the notion of "perceiving pitch in Hz". I wonder if that sentence can be recast for the benefit of dim-bulbs like myself, who are accustomed to hearing pitch in terms of "higher and lower", but with a little help could understand how "hearing pitch in Hz" might be accomplished.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not up to the subjects. Experimenters quantify pitch via matches with sinusoids; they label the perceived pitch by the frequency of the pitch-matched sinusoid. Dicklyon (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, OK, I think I did say I understand this. Can we do something about the misleading wording of the sentence? Dummies like me tend to think that "Hertz" refers to objective measurement of oscillation rate. It needs to distinguish between "Hertz(1)" = objective and "Hertz(2)" = subjective, as verified against Hertz(1).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the same Hertz, but another measured quantity. A pure sinus wave is mostly theoretical. Any real sound will not have single frequency, but a spectrum of frequencies. One may determine a fundamental frequency of the sound by an algorithm (for example the average of the lowest peak). Or one may determine the pitch by ear, finding out at which frequency a sinusoid sounds neither lower nor higher (at a given reference amplitude). Both results are expressed in Hz, but may have different value. The same sound may have a frequency of 100.0 Hz and a pitch of 100.1 Hz. −Woodstone (talk) 09:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about clarifying the lead any further, without getting into too much elementary explanation. First sentence says it "represents the perceived fundamental frequency..." and in the second paragraph it says "pitch is not an objective physical property, but a subjective psychophysical attribute of sound." Then it says pitch is "quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz), by comparison with sine waves." (I've emphasized a couple of phrases there.)

@Woodstone: I am pretty sure that an electronically generated signal through a high-quality audio system with a good reference-grade transducer (e.g. speaker or earphone) can come as close to a pure sinewave as needed. I believe tuning forks put out vibration with few overtones, perhaps good enough for psychoacoustic measurements? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but the point is to assign a pitch to an acoustic (or musical) sound. As reference an artificial sound as you indicate can be used. −Woodstone (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than talk about it, I have taken the liberty or reworking the second paragraph in the lead. I have removed some detail and some refs. As I say above, the lead should summarize the article. Please feel free to include detail (e.g. sine wave vs. other waveforms) and refs in the body. Let me know what you think. --Kvng (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Your edit may or may not meet with general approval, but at least you have at last addressed the actual problem, instead of returning yet one more off-point elaboration of niceties of scientific measurement of subjective response. I can at last see some possibility that beginners (that is, people other than post-docs in pscychoacoustics) might at last be able to get past the lead paragraph!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I'm easy. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems about right for the lead. I'll think about integrating the "elaboration of niceties of scientific measurement of subjective response" somewhere in the article; I don't think it's "off-point", but I'd like to hear why it was seen that way. Dicklyon (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Works for me. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not off-point for the article, but for the discussion here. Perhaps I do not express myself clearly, but I felt I was trying unsuccessfully to fight my way through a jungle thicket here, and people just kept planting more bushes. The more I tried to get clarification of why two seeming "scientific" ways of measuring frequency were incompatible, the more irrelevant (so it seemed to me, as I read FrankSier's original question) explanations of the perfectly obvious difference between perception of pitch and measurement of frequency came back at me. Yes, of course this material must be included in the article, but the lede ought to reflect the article content, saying as clearly and concisely as possible what that content will be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I kept trying to make is that it's not an incompatibility between two ways of measuring frequency, but rather a small deviation between pitch matching and frequency matching, even though pitch is quantified as a frequency. Dicklyon (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite. It just took me a long time to realize that, when you referred to "Hz", you didn't necessarily mean a measurement of physical sound, but rather the measurement of two physically different sounds being perceived as identical. For me, Hz has always meant an objective measurement. I don't hear pitch in Hz, nor do I know anyone who does (though I have known a few people with acute perfect pitch, who could tell if an oboe's tuning A was significantly distant from 440Hz—that is, within about 3–5Hz).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't hear pitch in Hz..." Thank you. That thought has been nagging at me, and needed to be said. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, quite. That's why it takes some careful language to say that we quantify pitches in hertz, even though that's a physical thing, and even though we hear a psychophysical thing. For periodic and nearly-periodic sounds, there is a "very nearly" 1:1 relationship between hertz and what we hear; but not quite. Dicklyon (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistency in jnd description

In the section on "Perception of Pitch", just-noticeable difference is described as being approximately 4.3 cents (a cent being one-hundredth of a semitone), or about 0.36 Hz in the range 1 kHz to 2kHz. But one cent in that octave is about 0.82 Hz, so 4.3 cents would be 3.6 Hz, or ten times greater than what's stated. Either the 4.3 cents is too high by an order of magnitude, or the 0.36 Hz is too low by an order of magnitude. I'm inclined to think it's the latter (it seems incredible that an ordinary ear, or really any ear, could discern 0.4 Hz in that octave), but don't want to make the change unless it's known for sure which is the case. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the citation in question (Olson 1967); could someone take a looksee and verify that it's the latter? BrianTung (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well-spotted! It turns out that the citation to Olson 1967 covers only the immediately preceding sentence. None of the earlier material in that paragraph, including the arithmetic error you noticed, has anything at all corresponding in Olson's book. (I am a little mystified that you say you do not have access to it, though. To check it, I just clicked on the link and was taken straight to the Google Books page with that book on it.) I have flagged the offending material, and perhaps someone will soon either verify the mistaken maths, or find a better source and fix the text.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Google's book permissions vary by the country that your IP address is in, to conform to relevant copyright law. It is not unusual that some editors can't see linked book contents. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Two years ago I added the 4.3 cents bit, but I do not remember the source. I imagine I was looking at both Olson and another source, likely one with a graph, and if I figure out the other source I will certainly add the ref. Binksternet (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The graphs there are consistent with the 3.6 Hz number (by eyeball about 0.002 $\Delta f / f$ at 2 kHz), so the 0.36 was probably a typo or miscalculation. A definite source would be nice, but for now we can fix it to be consistent with the graphs in that source. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That works for me. I have been known to misplace a decimal point upon occasion. They might be behind the dryer with my lost socks and an accumulation of lint. Binksternet (talk) 04:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Bird vocalisation

I'm writing an article about a bird species and one of the sources I'm consulting says the following about its song:

The first note is pitched from C’’’’ to F’’’’, and the notes that follow are from one and a half to two and a half tones lower, the lowest note in all the records pitched on G’’’.

I've got no idea of waht it means and I really don't know anything about acoustics, so I'd appreciate a simple non-technical explanation. Thanks! --186.108.175.201 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Probably Piano key frequencies will help you. But don't use talk pages as discussion forums. Dicklyon (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added a link to Piano key frequencies to the article. These sorts of questions help improve the article so I'm personally not inclined to discourage them. I do think you're technically supposed to bring them to the reference desk. --Kvng (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, sounds a little like the "three blind mice" of the White-crowned Sparrows outside, but if the primes are added according to the Helmholz convention you must be dealing with something much higher pitched (Yellow Warbler?), C8 in Scientific pitch notation. A (whole) tone is variously a ratio of 8/9, 9/10, or the 6th root of 2. "[P]itched on G'" " refers I suppose to the end of the vocalization; the starting pitches C & F are a fourth (3/4) apart. Certainly it's a legitimate use of the talk page to remind us how (needlessly?) confusing Pitch_(music)#Labeling_pitches is. Sparafucil (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Lead rot

We had a thorough discussion about the lead back in January. That resulted in the following:

Pitch represents the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound.[1] It is one of the major auditory attributes of musical tones along with duration, loudness, timbre, and sound source location.

Pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower" thus pitch allows the construction of melodies.[2] Pitch may be quantified as frequencies in cycles per second (hertz), however pitch is not a purely objective physical property, but also a subjective psychophysical attribute of sound.

The lead has continued to evolve since then and to my eye it is not improving further. I propose to restore the lead to the above. --Kvng (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

• I favor the proposed restoration. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sound source location is not a musical concept. It's an auditory processing one. There are many factors involved in how one would perceive music, such as figure/ground, localization, lateralization (left ear vs right ear), sound-type identification (e.g. music vs speech) but they are not musical concepts. Musicians don't talk about sound localization. You'll never her a conductor tell a trombone player: could you please try to make your solo sound about 6 ft further away.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, those two definitions are complimentary, not mutually exclusive, so you don't need all that inelegant verbiage. Stylistically (a--Atlantictire (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)nd readers' patience-wise), just say things with as few words as possible.--Atlantictire (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you see as inelegant verbiage here?

Sound source location is a minor side issue for this article, but it can easily be cast as a musical choice. The main example is the effort put into stereo separation and imaging in commercial audio recordings. Some early (mid 1950s) stereo demo discs even had recordings of ping-pong games on them. In a more obscure example, recordings of Scots pipe marches have faded in and out, as if the pipers were moving into and out of earshot along a route. Live music brings the interaction of musicians and room into play. Outdoors, strolling minstrels or a strolling audience will have an effect. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sound source location is a consideration in sound design because it factors in how humans perceive music. It factors in how humans perceive all sound. That doesn't mean it's a musical term per se or a property of musical tones. Just because all fish can swim doesn't mean everything that can swim is a fish.

As I've said the fundamental frequency definition and the definition about ordering notes on a scale are complimentary, so you don't need the equivocations. They're misleading.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

For a musical example relevant to sound source location, see Hocket. What equivocations? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sound-source location has been for some composers (not all) an important component of music since at least the 1950s. Works such as Xenakis' Terretektorh or Stockhausen's Cosmic Pulses are rendered meaningless if you remove the spatial component, and many others (e.g., Varèse's Poème électronique, Boulez's Répons) are at least impoverished by doing so. I'm not so sure you can even dismiss spatial organization from much earlier music, such as the polychoral music associated with St. Mark's in Venice, or the antiphonal practice of chant that inspired it. In the context of works by Giovanni Gabrieli I have often heard conductors instruct trombonists to "try to make your solo sound about 6 ft further away".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

What do the compositional experiments of 20th century composers have to do with the fundamental perceptual properties of a sound source? A voice can sound loud, high, husky or horse... but I can't use my vocal folds to make myself sound nearer or farther away.

I've heard conductors tell musicians to make their instruments sound angry or despondent. How is what you're talking about any different? Sound louder is a literal directive. Sound farther away is impressionistic.

Stockhausen is the font of much, much musical sophistry and I'd rather not talk about him. --Atlantictire (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You can pretend it doesn't exist, of course—that is your prerogative—but why do conductors take priority over composers? In the realm of electronic music, of course, conductors serve a very different function. Why is it that orchestras don't have insulators?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an extremely easy way to resolve this: find a music theory text that classes "sound location" with pitch, loudness and duration. I'm not even sure I'd include "timbre" in that class, since timbre is more of a composite property.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"I can't use my vocal folds to make myself sound nearer or farther away." Fair enough, but most vocalists can easily use their feet to accomplish that effect. Orchestral cellists are fond of griping about (even assigning numbers to) various "wrong" seatings, where a conductor has the first violins, the seconds, and the violas sit so the cellos are either sitting in the wrong place, or next to (hence within easiest earshot of) the wrong section.

Timbre is given much attention, and adjusted on the fly by any string player worth their rosin. Measure-by-measure adjustments are made with a mute, and longer-term adjustments are made by tweaking the soundpost or other instrument setup parameters.

I don't mind taking as long as needed to pick this peripheral nit to pieces, but back to the question I care more about: What equivocations? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Atlantictire: There's an extremely easy way to resolve this: find a music theory text …. "What do music theory texts have to do with the fundamental perceptual properties of a sound source?" Still, if it makes you happy, it should not be difficult to oblige.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it would make me happy. I've just now typed the words pitch, loudness, duration and location into Google books. Of the 80 some results I've looked at so far, only one classes location with the other properties, and that's something called Understanding and Crafting the Mix: the Art of Recording. All the results having to do with sound perception discuss pitch, loudness and duration as a class and most mention a fourth vector of "timbre" or "quality" (same thing). Several discuss sound localization as a function of loudness perception.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems almost too obvious to mention, but the New Grove article "Electro-acoustic music", by Simon Emmerson and Denis Smalley should fill the bill. There is a fairly extended discussion there of the importance of spatialization in electronic and computer music, with particular reference to the work of Pierre Schaeffer, [[Edgard Varèse, Iannis Xenakis, John Chowning, Pierre Henry, and Max Neuhaus.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. That's one article on computer music vs. a vast body of literature on sound perception. I'm not even convinced that "spatialization" means what you think it means. And stop listening to crap like Schaeffer and Stockhausen! The act of conditioning yourself to think that music is worth your time has caused you to become quite irrational (I kid).--Atlantictire (talk) 23:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Equivocations?

"the fundamental frequency definition and the definition about ordering notes on a scale are complimentary, so you don't need the equivocations. They're misleading."

What equivocations? In my book, "equivocation" means doubletalk, and is used with intent to mislead. An approach to a definition from complementary directions is not equivocation. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'm just saying that the language in the lead made it sound as if those were two contradictory definitions when they're not.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. The way I read the current state of the intro, that possible confusion is laid to rest by the "and" in "Pitch is defined as the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound and the auditory attribute according to which sounds can be ordered on a scale from low to high." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your contributions. It looks like things are headed in the right direction. I've added a contribution of my own. I no longer feel like the the older revisions are better than the current. --Kvng (talk) 03:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Switched order of first two sentences

I know I'm tempting fate, but I've just switched the order of the first two sentences in the lead so that we first learn what pitch is, then what class it belongs to.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch and melody

Does whoever added the fact about melody in the first paragraph of the lead want to step forward? Just in case anyone wants to challenge it, I'm not the person you need to speak with.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Provide examples in lead

Also, could we give an example of a high-pitched sound and a low-pitched sound in the lead? We should allow for the possibility that someone might visit this page because they don't already know what pitch is, and I think examples may be useful to him or her.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking ogg file of a high pitched sound and a low pitched sound... preferably a pure tone.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Copy editing Perception of pitch

This section is quite long and cumbersome and could do with some subsections and wording adjustments. I'll begin tweaking it, and if there's anything I don't understand or think is redundant or irrelevant I'll post it to this section for clarification and comment.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cut from first paragraph: Pitches described in terms of hertz (Hz) usually match very nearly the repetition rate of sound waves other than sine waves, too.

This might go better in the next paragraph where the differences between pitch and frequency are discussed.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cut from the "direction of attention of" from the sentence: "For this reason the pitch of complex tones is ambiguous, meaning that two or more different pitches can be perceived, depending upon the observer." Direction of attention isn't the only factor in pitch perception. There are also neurological and cognitive factors at work. I'm fine with just leaving it at this for now and not going into all the neurocognitive ins and outs of pitch perception. Am willing to research it so that it can be addressed.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

• Cut "and especially of pitch in the case of the missing fundamental" from "Historically, the study of pitch perception has been a central problem in psychoacoustics, and has been very instrumental in forming and testing theories of sound representation, processing, and perception in the auditory system." The phenomenon of missing fundamental can be discussed in the body of the article. Where?--Atlantictire (talk) 04:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to slow down. You've gone from copy editing to a major and unilateral rewrite. You've changed sourced statements like "Pitches are sometimes quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz), by comparison with sine waves" to new versions that do not capture as well what the sources say. You've left references attached to other statements that you changed; did you check the sources to see if they support what you wrote? Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm done. I haven't changed the factual content, just re-organized.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm challenging. Did you check the sources when you changed the wording, for example of the things I mentioned above? What does "Pitches are sometimes quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz) of sine waves" even mean? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, is it incorrect? I wasn't changing the factual content here. I think the "of sine waves" is redundant and can be deleted.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I think the new version in meaningless. I've replaced it with what is supported by the cited sources. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

How is the new version "meaningless"? The citations weren't changed, and it was much easier to navigate. Are you throwing down the gauntlet, sir? Are we going to start reverting reverts?--Atlantictire (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you did. Whatever, that's fine. I'm still not sure what you are meaning with the sine waves bit. Like I said, it's a bit redundant.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is really important. Two key poits: 1. we assign numbers to pitch by matching sounds to sine waves; we use the frequency as the quantification of pitch. 2. perceptual pitch of sounds determined this way usually tend to match the repetition rate of the sound waveform. These are key aspects of pitch, not something that one should sweep under vague language. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah ha. Sounds like you know a great deal about the physics of sound. Quite honestly, the meaning and relevance of that sentence are lost on me. Not trying to call the accuracy of your wording into question here. I guess I honestly just don't get it. How do you feel about working on it so that it can be more readily understood by a general audience?--Atlantictire (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not physics, but psychophysics. Probably someone else should take a turn at making it more clear, using my hints above and what the sources say (one of which I am a co-author of). Dicklyon (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed "subjective sensation" to "auditory sensation" Calling something a "subjective sensation" is a bit like calling something "food you can eat". All sensations are perceptual and therefor subjective. Also, subjectivity is discussed in depth in the second paragraph, so it's not like the reader isn't appraised of the subjectivity of pitch.--Atlantictire (talk) 04:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead Edits

"Variation of pitch is associated with musical melodies"

What are you driving at? I don't think "associated" is the word you want. Increased crack consumption is associated with higher crime rates, or four leaf clovers are associated with good luck. Associated is word you use when there's a correlation that's probably causal but you're not quite sure, or there's an association in terms of when there's one there's often the other. When there's melody there's definitely pitch, so these aren't quite the relationships you want to convey.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That simple wording came directly from the reference. Extrapolation is often associated with over-thinking. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Associated is not the word you're looking for because they're not merely associated. There's no such thing as melody without pitch.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Merely" is a word that you just used; it does not appear in the source. I favor simplicity in writing, and I believe "associated" is accurate here. If you can point out where the given source supports "These properties of pitch are the basis for the construction of melodies." then that wording will be appropriate. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

www.dictionary.com--Atlantictire (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what your source says: "This appears to be a fairly broad definition, requiring the words “low” and “high” to be associated with pitch or frequency, rather than loudness or intensity."

So that's a bogus citation. There's nothing about melody; it's just saying these words are associated with this concept rather than this concept.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the relevant part of the source (not "my source") which this article now cites for that assertion:

Following the earlier ASA definition, we define pitch as 
"that attribute of sensation whose variation is associated
with musical melodies."

Dictionary dot com is a tertiary source, a mirror of Wikipedia, and cannot be considered a reliable source. For your amusement, kindly consider Jobim's One Note Samba. The first phrases of its melody consist of the rhythmic repetition of a single pitch. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Let's just say I don't like it, but if other people do whatevs.--Atlantictire (talk) 16:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored Bill's version with the def'n from Plack. I can't tell from Plack whether he's quoting an ASA definition, or trying to go it one better. I don't see any other sources for this quote. It would be good to know what is the current official ASA definition, like we previously had quoted in the lead. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the Plack book. On p.1 he quotes and discusses the ASA 1960 and ANSI 1994 definitions and some others, before giving his own, the one quoted above. We could say more from these two pages if anyone wants. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If you think it would make for a better lead, please do. I am sure you already know about considering the audience and keeping it simple but accurate. Further, I'll trust you to paraphrase things without losing their vital core. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I better leave the lead alone. Plack gets into definitional subtleties that make sense in the lead of a book, but are probably to subtle to spend time on in our lead. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking about pitch as it relates to melody here, can we use a musician's definition rather than an engineer's? The Harvard Dictionary of Music defines melody as a coherent succession of pitches. To me this is much preferable, because melody IS pitches. Sorry to keep piling on the analogies, but saying speech is associated with a variation of consonants and vowels just sounds idiotic.

Also, as Bill pointed out with his one note samba example, melody isn't necessarily a variation of pitches.--Atlantictire (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Speech has its own melody. It is called prosody. By itself, a succession of pitches is not a melody. As that dictionary definition points out, a certain coherence is needed, which may come from the spacing of melodic elements in time, or from their stress or loudness with respect to one another, to name two prominent, describable features.

That dictionary definition applies to melody, not pitch. Are we supposed to say that "pitch is something of which a coherent succession makes melody" here? That seems like reaching the long way around your head to scratch your ear; it is a tortuous construction, and does not strike me as understandable by the widest audience.

Being fond of metaphor and analogy, I understand your frustration with "associated" in that it does not seem to make a strong enough connection between pitch and melody. I suspect that may have been intentional on the part of the author(s) who used that word in the first place. It keeps the definition at a general level, not limiting it to a particular case or set of cases. Tooting a single note expresses pitch, without necessarily creating a melody. Since we are trying to define pitch here, it makes sense to keep the connection to melody a loose one. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think the way engineers have characterized melody is something most people actually involved in composing them would want much to do with. The distinction between "are associated with" and "is" is important to me here, just as distinctions between frequencies and sine waves (God, did I even get that right?) are important to Dick. It's not torturous to say:

"Pitches" are compared as "higher" and "lower", and melody is a coherent succession of pitches."

In fact, it's a shorter sentence.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that this article is a merge of pitch (music) with pitch (psychophysics) (see last non-redirect version), so it shouldn't be warped too far toward just being an article for musicians. It needs to cover the technical aspects of what pitch is, as well as how pitch regarded and used in music. Dicklyon (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I’d hardly call this warping the article in the direction of musicians. How is correcting a flawed characterization of the relationship between pitch and melody adversely impacting coverage of technical aspects? Common man. :-)

I guess I’m just saying that when it comes to defining the relationship between pitch and melody, music dictionaries should be the final authority.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if there are multiple points of view, it is best to represent them all, rather than choose a final authority. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, but when one is in conflict with the other, how do you decide which one to pick? I'd say go with the people who specialize in creating, performing and analyzing whatever it is that's under discussion. If some musician retooled the explanation of frequency's relationship to pitch based on something another musician had written, and you took issue with it, I'd stick up for your right to base the explanation on psychophysicist sources.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It isn't a matter of engineers versus musicians, and I don't see it as useful to cast it in those terms. Pitch doesn't just have to do with melody; it also applies to harmony, modulation from key to key, tempered and just tunings, expressive intonation, and probably stuff I've never heard of. Attaching the definition too closely to melody puts the rest of that in the shadows. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

In this case, yes it is. Who is the authority on the relationship of pitch to melody: the ASA or The Harvard Dictionary of Music? You yourselves are saying that the engineer definition is better.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary is a tertiary source, which covers a lot of ground, but not in much depth. Secondary sources are preferred for Wikipedia. "Melody is a coherent succession of pitches" is certainly true, but it does not define pitch. Got a dicdef for "pitch?" __ Just plain Bill (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill, now you're just making stuff up! I'd say trying to discredit the HDM is a shadowy tact indeed for making an argument. By the way, no one's trying to discredit the ASA text. I'm just saying on this particular issue go with the specialists if you wanna breakdance on their turf. Anyway, we're running the risk of getting sucked into | motivated reasoning or, for fans of the Mike Judge movie Idiocracy, the Brawndo conversation. Let's table this for a while.--Atlantictire (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The HDM is an encyclopedic work, Calling it a tertiary source is not discrediting it.

I'll just leave these previously stated facts on the table:

• That dictionary definition of melody does not define pitch.
• Pitch is important to aspects of music other than melody.

__ Just plain Bill (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, quickly

From the Wikipedia:No original research page you linked to:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.

Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries 
of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those 
sources contradict each other. Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, 
and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others."

Sorry, but how is this a prohibition against basing an explanation of melody's relationship to pitch on the HDM? If anything it could be used to support it, as this is exactly the sort of situation for which Wikipedia condones the use of tertiary sources.

• That dictionary definition of melody does not define pitch.

So? That's not why I cited it. Do you seriously think HDM has some arcane, non-standard definition of pitch in mind? Can you think of a definition of pitch that would disallow the HDM explanation of melody while sanctioning the ASA explanation? Do the explanations of pitch in the article do this?

• Pitch is important to aspects of music other than melody.

Ok, but there's a hierarchy of importance. Do other musical grammars have a relationship to pitch as straightforward as melody's? I mean I guess you could start trying to explain harmony, but I think we're just trying to provide some illustrative examples here in order to orient the reader... not list everything in perpetuity throughout the universe comprised of pitches.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've lost track of what you guys are arguing about, but getting back to the question "when one is in conflict with the other, how do you decide which one to pick?" I repeat my answer: both. There no problem stating multiple definitions and points of view of what pitch is. Let's get down to specific proposals that don't choose one POV other the other. We don't need to decide whether musicians get to the have the upper hand here. Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but explain to me how this is a case where the word choice in the definitions reflect "multiple points of view"? You're bluffing, man. What we're dealing with here is a very good definition written by specialists vs an iffy definition written by non-specialists. On the subject of melody and pitch.

Dick, I think you'd be pretty offended if a musician insisted on an explanation of frequency's relationship to pitch that you considered misleading or vague. And you'd have every right to be.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've already posted this, but here's how I propose fixing the wording:

"Pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower", and melody is a coherent succession of pitches."

It's better because 1.) as Bill pointed out you don't need variations in pitch in order to have melody 2.)melody isn't "associated with" pitches or variations in pitch. Melody IS pitches, or rather a succession of pitches.--Atlantictire (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

When I was a kid I owned a pitch pipe. For those unfamiliar with this, it's a round harmonica-like thing with reeds tuned to the C scale; the one I had all the sharps, too. You blew into a hole (they were labeled e.g. A, A#, B etc) and you got the "pitch" of the reed in that hole. This is probably what you're trying to say:

Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound.[1] Just as frequencies are judged as higher or lower based on the count of their cycles per second, pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower" in the same way. Thus a "lower" pitch has a lower fundamental frequency (as measured in cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz)) when compared to one of "higher" pitch (fundamental frequency). For example the pitch A440 is the sound of a string vibrating at its fundamental frequency of 440 cycles per second (440 Hz); whereas the "higher" pitch of C5xx is the sound of a string vibrating at its fundamental frequency of 5xx cycles per second (5xx Hz). Harmonics (overtones) can confuse the perception of pitch; for example a string vibrating in both the fundamental (e.g. A440) and first harmonic (A880) will be perceived to be “pitched higher” than one vibrating at its fundamental (A440) alone. (ref??) Pitch is a major auditory attribute of musical tones, along with duration, loudness, and timbre.[3]

Variation of pitch is associated with musical melodies,[2] . [etc, etc]

I can't remember what C is pitched at, and didn't find it in the article, so I wrote Cxxx. Bill Wvbailey (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But that's not sufficiently general to be true. A pitch does not require a fundamental frequency, nor even a periodic sound. Furthermore, for sounds that are periodic and have a fundamental frequency component, it is not necessarily equal to the pitch; sometimes not even close. Dicklyon (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. To your point see the quote below. You could probably get very technical and say that if a sound's Fourier transform is "higher" (its components weighted toward "higher" frequencies) compared to another sound's FT, the perception will be that it is "pitched higher" than the other sound. That may be true for "static" sounds, but not accurate enough because of the time-variation present in many sound-sequences, as this little example shows. Have you heard the auditory trick where the scale is played "up" and then, like M. C. Esher's men walking around the turret, the sound-sequence is back to the beginning? Clearly as the sounds go up the scale, the audio engineer has mixed in 1/2 the tone's frequency, more and more volume as the notes go higher, until we're back to the starting frequency. Thus it's certainly the case that harmonics foul up our perception of pitch, especially in a tone-sequence. Here's an interesting quote in the context of synesthesia; notice the word "vowel" and that "higher" is in quote-marks, too:

"Torke tells me he experiences colored vowels, too, perhaps, he says because they are more musical than consonants. I tell him how Yale researcher Larry Marks did a study showing a correlation beween vowel and musical pitch and brightness. . . . Marks found that the higher the pitch of the vowel or musical note, the "higher" the level of the color's brightness (although the color itself might be red for one synesthete, green for another)" (p. 106 from Duffy 2001 Blue Cats and Chartreuse Kittens: How Synesthetes Color their World, W. H. Freeman/Holt, NY ISBN 0-7167-4088-5).

I, unfortunately, don't have any good sources re "perception of pitch" in non-synesthetes. It's an interesting topic, no? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, to start with Fourier components weighted toward higher has nothing to do with pitch. And the very notion of "a sound's Fourier transform" is ill formed. Dicklyon (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange, I've done many "Fourier transforms" of sounds. Some I've done by hand using Excel + a lot of quasi-automated work on cricket sounds (actually: anabrus, or katydids). I recorded their sounds with a Sennheiser + amplifier, and a special sound card that was sampling at about 150-200KHz, as I recall. Then I displayed the sound spectrum by use of Sound Forge. If you don't call this "taking the Fourier Transform" of the cricket sounds, on earth do you call it? Bill Wvbailey (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's called taking the Discrete Fourier transform of a segment of a sampled sound. No problem there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch is a topic that is not as simple as it appears on the surface, but the introductory paragraph to this article does not need to mention Fourier transforms, synesthesia, or the Shepard tone illusion. Music could not exist without hearing, so I believe it is appropriate to keep a cognizant view of psychoacoustics in the mix.

"The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific." I do not believe that "musical melodies are a coherent succession of pitches" says anything to define the topic of this article. Claiming that anyone is trying to "disallow the HDM explanation of melody" is a total non sequitur. Still, "explaining melody" is not something that needs to be done in the first few sentences of the intro.

With the Plack reference, we had an actual definition, but Atlantictire has objected to that based on his perception of "the way engineers have characterized melody." Sorry, that does not follow at all from the actual text, which, as far as I have seen, seems silent regarding the character of melody, other than saying it has to do with pitch. Stirring up an artificial conflict betweeen musicians and engineers is purely a distraction, and doesn't help. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

AGREED. I find myself reminding people over and over that most of planet Earth looks up Wikipedia articles because they're learning about a concept for the first time... not because they already know everything about it. People who EDIT Wikipedia are special, and they tend to forget this. You don't want a lead with a bunch or arcane terminology that's going to intimidate a general audience or make them go, "Woah, is this even English?"

In fact, I don't edit Wikipedia articles in areas where I have a great deal of expertise because I've been seeped in my field's the terminology so long I've probably lost a sense of which concepts non-specialists are familiar with and which ones they aren't. I edit articles on topics that I'm interested in but am finding very difficult to learn about from Wikipedia because the language or structure of the article is making me go, "Huh?"--Atlantictire (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

DISAGREED. You may not like that definition of melody, but it is the consensus definition of the most highly credentialed music theorists and musicologists in the world. And this isn't music vs engineers! Wikipedia just happens to be rotten with engineers, so when someone's wrong about something it's usually some engineer.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need any definition of melody at all in the intro to Pitch (music)?

There are other musicians editing here, you know... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we don't need to mention melody. I just assumed someone stuck it in there as a familiar example of something comprised of pitches... so as to orient the reader.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning melody is a fine way to give the reader some context, but the intro does not need a definition of melody. Plack's (or the ASA's) definition of pitch says, loosely paraphrased, "it's the property of sound that shows up in melodies." Both a definition of the present subject and a bit of context, what's to hate about that? __ Just plain Bill (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. We've had a discussion as long as the Gobi Desert because of that blasted "associated with" nonsense, so leave that out, and don't say it has something to do with a "variation" in pitches or else Don Michael Randel would like a word.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with "variation?" Remember, that word is used by the source in defining pitch, not melody. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Concrete proposals?

I'd like to get back to concrete proposals for what changes people think will improve the lead, and why. The discussion above is too long and difficult to follow. Dicklyon (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Until a better reference shows up, Plack actually gives a usable definition of pitch. How about this, with Plack as reference [2]:

Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound.[1] Varying pitch is a feature of musical melody.[2] Different pitches are compared as "higher" and "lower." Pitch is a major auditory attribute of musical tones, along with duration, loudness, and timbre.[3]

Actually, I like this one a little better (of course the refs will be numbered differently):

Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound.[1] It is a major auditory attribute of musical tones, along with duration, loudness, and timbre.[3] Varying pitch is a feature of musical melody,[2] with different pitches being compared as "higher" and "lower."

Note that melody is wikilinked. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Variation in pitch is not an essential attribute of melody. Coherence is much more important--i.e. the notes sound like they belong together.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

We are not defining melody here, but using it as an example. Nothing in the suggested text implies that varying pitch is an "essential attribute" of melody. Varying pitches are undeniably a feature of melody, which is all that says. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if there are more essential features pitch-wise, who cares? Bill, x-nay on "varying" for now. Give it a rest.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict between the Plack and HDM definitions but I move their wording into quotes in the ref so we can use our wording to paraphrase. I'm still unsure about the ref 1 definition, since I don't know the context or exactly what it says, and since I don't have it and can't see it online. Please add a quote with some context we can see what they mean by this vacuous-sounding definition. Dicklyon (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Which one is the vacuous-sounding definition? You mean the one that's the consensus definition by the best credentialed music scholars in the world or a different one? I'd like to help you, but I'm honestly not sure what you want:-)

By the way, it looks pretty good to me.--Atlantictire (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I meant "Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency of a sound." It mixes up physical and perceptual things in a meaningless way; perhaps some experts do that, but I bet we can find better. Dicklyon (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than that, it seems we have a wrap for the moment. Thanks for persevering through all the tap-dancing and rhetorical shenanigans. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"Perceived fundamental frequency"?

In this diff in late 2006, User:ILike2BeAnonymous changed the wording "the psychological correlate of the fundamental frequency" to "the perceived fundamental frequency". Since 2008, the phrase "Pitch is the perceived fundamental frequency" has appeared in about five books (none before 2008). So we know someone is reading, and we ought to try harder to make what we say sensible. The old version appears only in one obscure 1981 item on Google books (actually says "Pitch is thought to be the psychological correlate of the fundamental frequency of an acoustic waveform"), but at least it makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The old article pitch (psychophysics) started out with "To a good approximation the percieved pitch of a sine wave is directly related to the frequency of the sound," which is based on the malformed assumption that a sound generally has a frequency. I changed it in 2007 to Plack's "Pitch is the psychophysical attribute of sound whose variation is associated with musical melodies," and later in 2007 to "Pitch is the property of a sound that allows the construction of melodies," which lasted until the article was merged here in 2010. Those are meaningful and correct, I think. If we want to start with something even simpler, what would it be? the "perceived fundamental frequency" is an oxymoron. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

philosopher's response: ok, well then what is the physical manifestation or event that our senses are detecting? there's something that's being perceived as this construct "pitch", or else we are all hallucinating. Is your problem here that the "f0" is actually the mental representation and not the event/object that is being perceived? are pitches in fact perceived as an f0?--Atlantictire (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fallacious either/or. There is a difference between most instances of experiencing and hallucinating. Reification of experienced items as an external ideal "reality" is another common fallacy. Perhaps Dick can summarize the complexities of pitch perception in simple terms; that will be interesting to read. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

oh dear.--Atlantictire (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup __ Just plain Bill (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In many cases, when a sound is periodic or nearly so and has an identifiable F0 in the range that we can perceive pitch in, the perceived pitch, determined by matching to the pitch of a sine wave, will give a value pretty nearly equal to the F0 of the sound. In that sense, the F0 is closely associated with pitch, for those classes of sound. However, as I mentioned before, many sounds have a pitch but no identifiable F0, and many periodic sounds have a pitch that is very different from their F0. The concept of a "perceived F0" doesn't make sense; what we perceive is pitch. The general physical correlates of pitch remain an active area of research; that's why whole books, like Plack's, are devoted to it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Dick I think you're saying that pitch is an attribute of sound, not what's going on in our heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantictire (talk • contribs)

Quite the contrary. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch is the property of sound which listeners hear as a tone with a fundamental frequency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantictire (talk • contribs)

What is it supposed to mean? Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I searched books for "pitch is a perceptual" and found several I liked better; I changed it to "Pitch is a perceptual attribute that allows the ordering of sounds on a frequency-related scale" sourced to Klapuri and Davy, which is a source that's both musical and technical. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pitch and frequency

Ok, there is still some language that is unclear to me:

Pitches are sometimes quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz), by comparison with sine waves

Earlier, you'd said something about matching sounds to sine waves. Could you go a little into what this process of matching sounds to sine waves entails. Forgive my ignorance, but does this mean you play someone a "sound" (like a note on a guitar) and then you play them a pure tone and ask if they heard the two sounds as having the same pitch?

Pitches in hertz (Hz) usually match very nearly the repetition rate of sound waves other than sine waves as well.

By repetition rate you mean period, right? And then all sounds that aren't pure tones are sounds other then sine waves, correct? If both these things are true we might want to make that a little more explicit in the article.

Sorry to be such a pest, but so many of the articles I work on link to this page and to the frequency page expecting some kind of explanation of the relationship between the two. The frequency page is pretty mute on the issue, so that's why this is so important to me. Oh, and next time I'll definitely knock first!--Atlantictire (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Sort of, yes. Pitch values are generally found by having a subject adjust the frequency of a sine wave until it matches the sound in question. Repetition rate is the reciprocal of period, in the case of periodic sounds; but you can also have repetition rates of random noises, random-polarity or alternating polarity pulses, and such, so it's not necessarily periodic, and the rep rate is not necessarily the same as the fundamental frequency. In the case of musical tones from instruments that make nearly-periodic sounds, it is generally OK, or close enough, to think of the frequency as the pitch. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems excellent to me: "Color or colour (see spelling differences) is the visual perceptual property corresponding in humans to the categories called red, green, blue and others."

I see the words "perceptual attribute" and I wonder, well, attribute of what? Attribute of sound?

Could you make the first sentence of the lead analogous to the color lead: "Pitch is an auditory perceptual property that allows the ordering of sounds on a frequency-related scale."

Possible re-working of the second two sentences of the Frequency and pitch section:

Pitches are sometimes quantified as frequencies (cycles per second, or hertz) by comparing them with pure tones, which have periodic, sinusoidal waveforms. However, unlike pure tones, natural sound (sorry if that's lousy term) does not have periodic repetition rates. Nevertheless, pitches in hertz (Hz) usually match very nearly the repetition rate of sound waves.

First suggestion seems OK; done. The second one seems pretty close. Natural sounds captured in the wild, especially those meant to be musical, will often have something approximating a periodic repetition rate when sampled in an appropriate window, so that may be better stated as something like "does not always have periodic repetition rates." __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The repetition rate is not what's periodic; unclear what that means. The issue is not so much natural sound captured in the wild as it is sound generally, including all the fancy controlled stimuli that scientists make to get at the question of what pitch is. Maybe something like this:

Pitches are usually quantified as frequencies in cycles per second, or hertz, by comparing sounds with pure tones, which have periodic, sinusoidal waveforms. Complex and aperiodic sound waves can often be assigned a pitch by this method; in typical cases, the pitch usually corresponds very nearly to the repetition rate of period or nearly-periodic sounds, or to the reciprocal of the time interval between repeating similar events in the sound waveform.

Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

In the spirit of Hemingway's iceberg, I would suggest putting a full stop after "repetition rate or period of nearly-periodic sounds." Just a thought... __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

By reciprocal, you mean multiplicative inverse, right? I'll just link to that concept so that it's clear.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)