Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Kelley wrote:
Hein ten Horn wrote: We hear the average of two frequencies if both frequencies are indistinguishably close, say with a difference of some few hertz. For example, the combination of a 220 Hz signal and a 224 Hz signal with the same amplitude will be perceived as a 4 Hz beat of a 222 Hz tone. I have also read this accounting, but from what I've been able to determine it lacks mathematical and phenomenological support. Here's why. As two audio frequencies are moved closer and closer together, there is no point where an average of the two frequencies can be perceived. There is however a point where no difference in the two frequencies is perceived. Obviously if we cannot discern the difference between 220Hz and 224Hz (as an example), we are not going to be able to discern half their difference either. I suspect the notion may have originated from a trigonometric identity which has what could be interpreted as an average term in it. sin(a) + sin(b) = 2sin(.5(a+b))cos(.5(a-b)) A plot of the function reveals that cos(.5(a-b)) describes the envelope. The period of the 'enveloped' waveform (or the arcane, beat modulated waveform) then can be seen to vary continuously and repetitiously over time - from 1/a at one limit to 1/b at the other. At a particular instant in time the period does in fact equal the average of the two. But this is true only for an instant every 1/(a-b) seconds. The math is perfectly describing what is happening in the course of time at an arbitrary location in the air or in the medium inside the cochlea. Concerning the varying amplitude it does a good job. But does someone (here) actually know how our hearing system interprets both indistinguishable(!) frequencies (or even a within a small range rapidly varying frequency) and how the resulting 'signal' is translated into what we call the perception? Evidently the math given above doesn't reckon with any hearing mechanism at all. Hence it cannot rule out perceiving an average frequency. For the rest I don't get your point on a varying period. From a mathematical point of view the function sin( pi * (f_2 + f_1) * t ) has a constant frequency of (f_2 + f_1)/2 and a constant period of 2/(f_2 + f_1). This frequency is indeed the arithmetical average and it is not affected by a multiplication of the function by a relatively slow varying amplitude. An interesting related experiment can be performed by setting a sweep generator to sweep over a narrow range of frequencies. The range can be adjusted as well as the sweep time. One can then study what sorts of effects are discernible. I have found that it is very difficult to fool the ear in some of the ways that have been suggested. It does not appear, for example, that the claim for 'perceiving the average' is valid for two arbitrarily close frequencies any more than it is for any two other frequencies. But I would appreciate learning of any contradictory research that you might be able to cite. Apart from the mathematical support, I saw the average frequency mentioned in several books on physics, unfortunately without further enclosed proof (as far as I remember). However, getting some empirical evidence should be a rather easy piece of work. gr, Hein |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|