Talk:Missing fundamental

message: I feel like some of the paragraphs of information lack citations, or expect the citations from the paragraph following to cover for the information. I also noticed that a lot of the sources seem to be from several years ago. Has anything new come out lately that could be added to this article?Dam395.drexel (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: How can a periodic signal be missing any fundamental frequency? If the fundamental frequency corresponds to the shortest repeating period then it has to exist for any periodic signal. For example the signal, sin(2x) + sin(3x), will repeat exactly as often as sin(x) to which they 'refer'. Even if a signal lacks a component with the same frequency as its fundamental, it still has the same fundamental frequency.
:This is psychoacoustics, not physics.  You are using the overtone series to create the illusion of a fundamental.  The real fundamental is stripped out, too low to hear, or is being simulated.  Whether a fundamental that is psychoacoustically inaudible exists or does not exist is a philosophical matter.172.151.119.150 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misnomer? (title by 172.x.x.x) 

message: I believe this phenomenon makes the DB sound lower than it actually is!--Light current 19:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may be right.  f=73 and f=55 have peaks at the second harmonic.  f=41 has a peak at the third harmonic.  You could test your theory by looking at the overtone series and mimicking it with CoolEdit.  (source: Music, Physics, and Engineering, 2nd ed, Dover.)172.151.119.150 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Bass sound 

message: I think some FM stations are using this trick.  The US pop stations have a heavier sound, even on cheap systems.  Combined with compression, it sounds like crap.172.151.119.150 22:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio stations 

message: It took me two goes (because of my own lack of expertise) to fix a fault in a previous editor's attempt to use the Template: US patent. Their original error was to use too many pipes. By the time I had worked out it was as simple as that, I had already put a "see Discussion" in an edit summary, because the edit summary did not allow me enough characters to make sense.
As I had already put in a "see Discussion" I thought I had better put something in here.
I am just guessing at what had happened previously, but when I found it the reference was going to the US (the country), not to the relevant patent.
FrankSier (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing that. --Kvng (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix to patent ref 

message: I just made a couple changes to make it more accurate. Also, I want to propose that this paragraph be moved to the middle of the "Explanation" section, and the "Differences in Perception" section removed; it doesn't really seem worthy as its own section if there is only one bit of information for it. I will do this in a few days if no one has any objection, or things to add to the "Differences in Perception" section. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. Thanks for working on it! —mjb (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidelberg research 

message: It is important to describe the recent research and the research that has been done in the past which contributes to the questions arising today. Of significance, it is still under question the exact mechanism.  It is important to inform the public of all of the hypotheses that are arising on this topic so that future researchers can be well informed with what information is still in need of explanation. [Akwasí Píèsíe's text bolded by Dicklyon for comparison below] To have a balanced representation of various points of view: 
Akwasí Píèsíe 1967 edit *** The findings of Monahan et al., show that the listener reconstructs the fundamental or virtual pitch within roughly 100 ms after the sound signal onset, which is in accordance with earlier electrophysiological research. According to their paperMonahan PJ, de Souza K, Idsardi WJ. (2008) Neuromagnetic evidence for early auditory restoration of fundamental pitch. PloS One August 6. it also suggests that this fundamental pitch is reconstructed at the very beginning of the auditory cortex. The experiments of Willem Chr. Heerens and J. Alexander de Ru, however, show that this reconstruction process takes place even earlier. Contrary to the conclusion that an early neural mechanism is responsible for the mystery of the inferential pitch, Heerens and de Ru2010 Applying physics makes auditory sense : a new paradigm in hearing Heerens, W.C., Ru, J.A. de Medicine (2010), pp: 1-74  show evidence that the cause for this reconstruction of the virtual or fundamental pitch is hydrodynamic in origin. For residual tone complexes – harmonic series where the first harmonic or fundamental is missing – the differentiating and squaring - (hydrodynamic) process in the cochlea reconstructs perfectly the corresponding but missing fundamental. Mathematically, this signifies that the mammalian cochlea differentiates and squares the incoming sound pressure signal. In terms of physics, it means that a sound energy signal is offered to the organ of Corti. Functioning as a Fourier analyzer, the organ of Corti subsequently converts these incoming signals into the sound energy frequency spectrum that is transferred to the auditory cortex in a frequency selective way. ***
Reverted by Dicklyon ? *** Non-neutral, essentially FRINGE POV; see editor's talk page. *** ? 
Encyclopedic content must be verifiable! 
Well also, the experiments are very verifiable! http://www.a3ccm-apmas-eakoh.be/pcbwp/experiments.htm
The experiments are as neutral, as neutral as the other examples and the other external links which are in the two sections 'Examples' and 'External links'.
So the experiments and the references are very well Non-neutral. Akwasí Píèsíe 1967 (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the inclusion of the hydrodynamic explanation. Binksternet (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with including hydrodynamic explanations, including the far-out one by Heerens, but User:Akwasí Píèsíe 1967 who just showed up today has been posting a string of very slanted POV on this and related cochlear topics at various articles.  I have explained on his talk page that he needs to take a more balanced approach.  Since I have published a hydrodynamic-based explanation myself (in press; yes, the cochlea does have some second-order nonlinear distortion), and I've told Heerens in an off-wiki forum why his explanation is flawed (and others have supported me in this), I'm biased; so I'll stay away from editing on this further myself.  I encourage you to help this new editor get it right.  The weight given to Heerens might best be proportionate to the citations that his work has gotten, which as far as I can tell is zero.  The problem is that he claims his approach is physics based, but he ignores the first-order physics and invokes a second-order effect as if it were the main thing.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

text: We also have a potential WP:SOCK issue here, as the wording in the post above is pretty much identical to that of User:Caitlinmayhew at Talk:Cochlear amplifier, who said "It is important to describe the recent research and the research that has been done in the past which contributes to the questions arising today. Of significance, it is still under question the exact mechanism... It is important to inform the public of all of the hypotheses that are arising on this topic so that future researchers can be well informed with what information is still in need of explanation." a little over a year ago.  At the least, a user page statement declaring and explaining the relationship between the accounts is needed.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Dicklyon, you have told Heerens in an off-wiki forum why his explanation is flawed. I do not see his explanation - in the doctrine with physics - about the reversal of the physical rules with regard to traveling waves is flawed. About the reversal of the physical rules with regard to traveling waves, I support Heerens with his PhaseWave.pdf on that off-wiki forum: http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1208d&L=auditory&P=684 Akwasí Píèsíe 1967 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. It would be most reassuring to see other academics review the Heerens work positively. If such a review exists I cannot locate it. Binksternet (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be most reassuring to see non-biased academics review the Heerens explanations. Akwasí Píèsíe 1967 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The great thing about science is that you can believe one thing before an experiment, then change to believe another thing afterward. Bias should be self-correcting in the presence of experimental evidence. Binksternet (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

text: The explanation of such effects by 2nd-order distortion dates back at least to Helmholtz.  The fact that difference frequencies can be calculated and manipulated is well known before Heerens.  But WP usually bases articles on secondary sources; it would be best to wait and see how the Heerens & Ru theory catches up, rather than use WP to promote an unusual POV from a primary source.  And is that you again with a third WP:SOCK account, new today just to say these things?  Dicklyon (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted by Dicklyon ? *** Non-neutral, essentially FRINGE POV; see editor's talk page. ***  

message: Especially interesting discussion. I am mainly concerned with signal processing applied to medical problems causing this problem exciting me a bit, even a lot. I am concerned with the hearing itself and with (f)MRI where auditory stimulus is used. I must admit that this is an interesting discussion in explanations. I will also have to read the book. If Heerens - de Ru are correct, then not only must and should the theory of the operation of the hearing be re-examined, but also the methodology in which hearing aids are based. Signal processing on the basis of the energy spectrum is very different (and a pack of more complex). At this time I feel that this is analogous as in fMRI where there are two schools. A school that additivity postulates that in the traditional thought pattern fits only works well for high SNR and another school that the additivity rejects because even with fMRI especially the energy content is measured as the absolute phase can not be measured. I know Heerens by his scientific publications during the eighties and nineties regarding capacitive sensors and potential theory offering his expertise in general physics, sensor technology, potential theory, and vacuum technology. Especially interesting discussion. Peculiar, as the point of these sound fragments is to allow anyone, even those without any expertise, to simply listen and hear that these fragments exactly follow the rules as predicted by that new concept of the auditory sense. (the fact that the missing fundamentals in a tone complex can be both systematically manipulated and calculated). The expert wikipedia reader might actually consider this good offering and explanation to that effect. Aside from that, the entire concept has been carefully analysed, is in itself consistent and completely correct in making use of the laws of physics. It therefore stands to reason that it would be capable of taking an objective position. The sound fragments – that have been composed based on a differentiating and squaring auditory sense – can be predicted exactly. This can be heard by anyone without any training whatsoever. K B JANUAR ENERO GENNAIO (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The explanation of such effects by 2nd-order distortion dates back at least to Helmholtz.  The fact that difference frequencies can be calculated and manipulated is well known before Heerens.  But WP usually bases articles on secondary sources; it would be best to wait and see how the Heerens & Ru theory catches up, rather than use WP to promote an unusual POV from a primary source.  And is that you again with a third WP:SOCK account, new today just to say these things?  Dicklyon (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fact that the missing fundamentals in a tone complex can be both systematically manipulated and calculated - perception calculations - Heerens / de Ru 

message: I just wanted to explain that I added tritone paradox as a "see also" because, like missing fundamental, research shows that people generally fall into one of two categories: those who hear it one way, and those who hear it the opposite way. I don't know if the phenomena are linked, but they seem similar enough to warrant a pointer. —mjb (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tritone paradox 

message: This section, and the web page it cites, appear to be incorrect:
"The fundamental frequency is not normally heard on acoustic guitars, classical guitars and other stringed instruments with one end of the strings anchored on a soundboard bridge which has a low profile, holding the strings close to the soundboard surface. In these cases, the lateral string vibration has no discernable effect on the bridge; instead, the bridge is excited by changes in string tension, which are twice the lateral wave frequency. On these instruments, listeners hear the first harmonic as the lowest note. Electric guitars are not like this; the fundamental frequency of each string is heard because the lateral string movement excites the electric pickups underneath the vibrating string.[15]" (citation is here: http://www.guitarmasterworks.com/about-guitar-acoustics-101.html )
It's certainly not the case that the fundamental of a plucked steel string guitar is either missing or not perceived. For some lower notes (E, A) the fundamental can be a little quieter than the first harmonic, but the note is still perceived in its correct and actual octave, not, as the web page suggests, an octave higher. This can be trivially demonstrated with any mic and a simple FFT.
I plan to remove this section unless someone can educate me as to why I'm wrong. If the point is that the lowest strings on a steel guitar have weaker fundamentals than first harmonics, that should be stated without the distracting description of tension cycles from the string excursion or citing that web page, IMO.
Chconnor (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  incorrect section re: acoustic guitar fundamental 

message: I plan to add my description of the topic under the lead section and some recent data from academic papers published in 2013 and 2016 under the subcategory - Explanation. Rest assured these will be cited. Please do let me know if you think the article won't benefit from my additions. Thanks. Carino, Cz (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding cited materials 

message: Turned this page into the Virtual Pitch search's redirect page. Carino, Cz (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect page 

message: Adding instead a referenced material. Carino, Cz (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced plagiarized content