Most real practitioners do exactly that (see Toole, Geddes, Olive, Lipshitz, Linkwitz...). The parts-swapping stuff is confined to a narrow subset of hobbyists.
thanks for detail, it was rhetorical, but I checked what it sounded like again, yeah thats not happening
Buddy, first you misquote me, there was no reference to 2kHz in my posting about the "crossover in the middle of the vocal range".
Second, please check your facts, your mate here
Voice Acoustics: an introduction to the science of speech and singing
has some pretty charts with voice spectrum.
Third - don't try to move it now to "fundamental frequency" as you would be misquoting me again
Fourth - get over it. A 2 driver setup with a crossover inside the vocal range will pretty much guarantee that the vocal spectrum will be cut into 2 zones coming out of phase in respect to each other.
Kirchoff. When speaking of "range" in reference to singers the word often refers to the notes sung. The misunderstanding of what you posted is not surprising.
Most folks here DO know that the fundamental is not the strongest part of the voice energy. It should have been clear what you meant, but it wasn't. (It made me scratch my head for a moment).
'Nuff said.
Most folks here DO know that the fundamental is not the strongest part of the voice energy. It should have been clear what you meant, but it wasn't.
(It made me scratch my head for a moment).'Nuff said.
Kirchoff. When speaking of "range" in reference to singers the word often refers to the notes sung. The misunderstanding of what you posted is not surprising.
Most folks here DO know that the fundamental is not the strongest part of the voice energy. It should have been clear what you meant, but it wasn't.
'Nuff said.
I got a Boss electronic tuning accessory the other day. A very clever machine, as it evidently extracts the fundamental via some computational technique and does so fairly well. But I can see where it may be a bit off with singers, and it may prompt me to preface the detachable microphone with some filtering to select for a small range of fundamentals.
Well, inspection of a discrete Fourier transform could do it, but also looking at the autocorrelation function for the reasonably longest time interval.
This gives me a chance to mention a machine from many pre-DSP-years ago that a physics guy I know contracted to make for the UCLA Music Dept. He wanted me to collaborate and I demurred, sensing (as I rarely did) that disaster was ahead. The dept. had a complex machine I believe called the Melograph, the brainchild of Charles Seeger if memory serves, the founder of "systematic musicology". It was an amazing feat for the day, with myriad tubes and complicated displays, but it was often necessary for a human operator to "play" along with a recording because the Melograph was easily fooled by complex timbres common in ethnomusicological field recordings. But once led by the nose as it were, the precise pitches of the non-western scales could be extracted.
The physicist devised a more straightforward approach using monostable multivibrators and various other "ballpark" filters. It sort of worked, but he drastically underbid the job and more tellingly, overestimated the willingness of the faculty members to actually learn how to use it. He was accused of taking their money and not delivering. One faculty member, an ex-friend, was particularly abrasive about it, and I was even a bit tarred by the brush just for being the physicist's friend. Of course these criticisms emanated from people who would rapidly starve or freeze to death without the generous support of a developed society and its scientists and engineers.
Interestingly, the fundamental may not exist- if you have a series with 2k, 3k, 5k, and 7k (for example), the ear/brain can often "fill in" the missing 1k fundamental. So the software probably has to do a greatest common factor calculation.
dont buddy me mate, be clear with your communication and you wont be misunderstood … simple
secondly, I didnt quote you AT ALL, let alone mis-quote you
whats with the rest of the post? you are just making stuff up to fill out your rant?
pot… kettle ...
Last edited:
I don't know if there's a total absence in some instruments (as opposed to test signals), but you can often see a fundamental much lower in amplitude than the the harmonics- I would think that this would necessitate a GCD calculation (which is pretty easy to implement). Let me emphasize that I'm just speculating about how the software works- I don't have any inside info.
Sabine in Gainesville, Florida was a pioneer in the small electronic tuner world. They explained to me once how it worked, but I've long forgotten. They went on to use the technology in acoustic feedback suppressors for stage.
AKAIK, the harmonics are very much louder than the fundamentals in some styles of singing. I've thought about Jan's lowest frequency = fundamental trick before, but SY's point is good if the fundamental is absent, or almost. . How does it keep from being confused? Actually, I think they can. I suppose at least as long as it can catch the 2nd harmonic you'd get the right note, if not the right octave.
Does anyone remember the spinning wheel stroboscope tuners from the old days? Those were cool.
AKAIK, the harmonics are very much louder than the fundamentals in some styles of singing. I've thought about Jan's lowest frequency = fundamental trick before, but SY's point is good if the fundamental is absent, or almost. . How does it keep from being confused? Actually, I think they can. I suppose at least as long as it can catch the 2nd harmonic you'd get the right note, if not the right octave.
Does anyone remember the spinning wheel stroboscope tuners from the old days? Those were cool.
Form a superposition of harmonic (i.e. integer) multiples of a fundamental, leaving the fundamental out. View the complex waveform and note how often it repeats exactly. Measure that interval and invert for the frequency of the known-to-be-missing fundamental.
Do you have a link to some evidence of this? My impression is that just the first few harmonics are required, and there is some ideal proportion of each.
I've seen this posed as an explanation of how valve amplifiers can seem to go an octave below what they are actually capable of. The deeper they fail to go, the more harmonic distortion they produce, in roughly the right proportions.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.