Talk:Harmonic

message: It might be helpful to define integral multiple.  I think I know what the authors mean, and would be happy to edit the page, but I don't want to jump to any incorrect conclusions.  I'm not entirely sure.
: I've put an example in. Hope that clears it up. -- Tarquin 20:31 Jan 16, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, it clears things up perfectly.  I'm a beginning graduate student in mathematics, and I use Wikipedia often because my background is in computer science, so thanks so much! -- Brittany
Like above, would anyone be willing to explain why we have an "itegral multiple" instead of just an "integer multiple."  I guess I just don't really understand.
"Integral" is an adjective, while "integer" is a noun.  Of course, in English, we can use nouns and adjectives but why bother when have the right kind of word already.    ---Ben
:It's just confusing because of the other uses of the word integral. - Omegatron
:I can't find any instance of "integral" in the article today. Can we close this topic as resolved? I forget how to fold a topic so its body text is hidden and only its title shows on the Talk page unless clicked. Does anyone else remember? 108.60.216.202 (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Integral multiple

message: I don't understand how subharmonics can be generated from a wave.  How are they numbered? - Omegatron 17:23, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)  
>> Think of the opposite function, mutiplication instead of division. Wonders of acoustics allow us to hear lower octaves of fundamentals, as if the string would be twice as long<<
:Subharmonics are numbered in the same order except going down. If the first harmonic is 1/1 f (f = frequency of the fundamental) and the second harmonic is 2/1 f, then the first subharmonic is 1/1 f and the second subharmonic is 1/2 f. Subharmonics don't actually exist in nature. They're a mathematical construct. The only way you'll ever perceive lower frequencies than the fundamental is from "difference tones" when two periodic signals are combined and some sort of distortion exists in the measuring apparatus. For example, if you stand really close to two flute players playing different pitches, the notes will be so loud that your own ears will distort and you'll get intermodulation that adds in the sum and difference tones like a ring modulator would. You'll think you "hear" other pitches in addition to the two they're actually playing. 108.60.216.202 (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  subharmonics 

message: This article talks about two different concepts:
*the technical/telecommunication side, which is basically the same thing as the article on Overtone
*the musical term "Harmonic mode" / "Flageolet tone"
I suggest we merge the former with Overtone and move the remainder to "Harmonic mode" or "Flageolet tone" to make the distinction clearer.
Comments? Peter S. 16:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if this has been done, or what, but I am pretty certain that, because Flageolet tone redirects to this article, the term should at least be mentioned at some point within the article. Ari (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split 

message: []
Notation und MIDI-Sound --88.73.222.2 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation + MIDI-Sound 

message: I removed the passage that said "Harmonics come from the fact that any periodic signal of frequency f is mathematically equivalent to the sum of harmonic signals (sine-like or cosine-like signals) of integer frequencies (f, 2f, 3f...) — see Fourier decomposition." This is misleading, and doesn't actually help in understanding how harmonics arise. Not all periodic signals contain harmonics (Fourier notwithstanding). The significance is more the other way around: because of this property of Fourier series, the sum of a signal and its harmonics is always periodic at the signal frequency. Whether all of the harmonics are resonant in the resonator producing the signal depends on the design of the resonator (damping as a function of frequency, etc.)
--Srleffler 02:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourier 

message: I propose that Harmonic series (music) be merged with this article. Are the articles different enough in scope that they deserve to remain separate? They seem very similar to me. SharkD (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Summary would eventually require "Harmonic series (music)]] to be split off anyways, though merging tends to provide better context at both locations. Hyacinth (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I went about the merge in the wrong direction. Rather than merging material from "Harmonic series" to here, some of the information in this article could be merged to there. Particularly, the "Harmonics on stringed instruments" section could be reduced to a stub and a "Main article" link [edit: i.e., to "Harmonic series"]. The guitar harmonics table could be moved to Pinch harmonic. SharkD (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Musicians freely use the terms overtones, harmonics and partials interchangably. That is not correct. Even overtones are odd harmonics and even harmonics are odd overtones. That seems not to be obvious, because they say overtones are the same as harmonics.
Pitch Name 
String
Length 
Frequency 
Frequency-multiple 
HARMONICS 
PARTIALS 
OVERTONES 
C2 
1:1 
64Hz. 
f0 
Fundamental 
First partial 
Fundamental 
C3 
1:2 
129Hz. 
2 f0 
Second harmonic 
Second partial 
First overtone 
G3 
1:3 
192Hz. 
3 f0 
Third harmonic 
Third partial 
Second overtone 
C4 
1:4 
256Hz. 
4 f0 
Fourth harmonic 
Fourth partial 
Third overtone 
E4 
1:5 
320Hz. 
5 f0 
Fifth harmonic 
Fifth partial 
Fourth overtone 
G4 
1:6 
384Hz. 
6 f0 
Sixth harmonic 
Sixth partial 
Fifth overtone 
 
etc. 
A comparison of harmonic, partial andovertone naming conventions. 
-- Dirk (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Harmonics are not overtones, when counting

message: "In many musical instruments, it is possible to play the upper harmonics without the fundamental note being present. In a simple case (e.g., recorder)..."
A question: To my knowledge, in the example cited, the recorder, there are not prominent even harmonics (when played smoothly), and, as I understand it, jumping the octave is more a matter of exciting the next set of harmonics (starting at the second). The wording might be confusing as it seems to imply that it is simply a matter of removing the fundamental. Is that truly the case? If so, I'm surprised that the second octave is so loud and clear on the recorder.
Also: Does "fundamental note" mean "fundamental frequency"?
Nielsed (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fundamental frequency on musical instruments 

message: The numbering scheme used here is inconsistent with the description of square wave in Waveform.
Learjeff (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? The fundamental is the first harmonic, as far as I can tell, in both articles. —Wahoofive (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Harmonics are partials.  So same number.  In a sine wave, just one; but zero overtones.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  (More than a year later, but who cares, because idea-space is timeless.) Hm. Harmonics are not partials. Harmonics are ideal sinusoidal components that might or might no be present in an actual sonic signal. Partials are the real thing. Harmonics only exist at prescribed frequency relationships to the fundamental. Partials can have any relationship to the fundamental. The number of partials therefore has no connection at all with the number of harmonics. Even the fundamental harmonic is not guaranteed to be present because of the "missing fundamental" affect. However, there will always be a first partial--else there will be no sound! 108.60.216.202 (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency with [[Waveform]] 

message: I find the article to be incoherent, and in many places simply incorrect. I would suggest deleting the whole thing, and use the term "partial" instead of 'harmonic', to avoid such quaint terms as 'inharmonic harmonic'. I think it needs to be written by someone who has a broader understanding of the fundamentals, acoustics, and the physics of instruments. For example, brass instruments do not produce the harmonic series, as they are pipes closed at one end, and as such generate only odd partials.
The use of the plucked string as the 'example' is probably among the worst possible choices. A plucked string is stretched, and is placed under greater tension, thus the harmonicity of the partials is constantly changing. And there are more such fundamental errors.
Kevin  2014 – I – 14  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustin6969 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) "Harmonic" and "partial" aren't synonyms. 2) I moved pizzicato strings into the paragraph of examples with "a mix of harmonic and inharmonic partials". 3) Help fix the article instead of complaining. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: incoherent

message: I figured it out. The animations unrealistically model a closed pipe. Wind instruments are open at one or both ends. If one end, the harmonics are odd. The string-like animations confusingly model a closed pipe too. We need real animations for strings, pipes open at one end, and pipes open at both ends. Any volunteers? 38.86.48.38 (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need better animations 

message: The wave representation column actually shows the same frequency four times. The top one being half a wavelength, then 1 wavelength, 1·5 wavelengths and then finally 2 wavelengths. I'd suggest all should be of one wavelength but with each moving red line increasing in speed by 2,3 & 4 times the first. pmailkeey 15:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: A different issue

message: The word 'harmonics' comes from 'harmony'. Which means 'together' 'in unision' etc. It does not applie to music, frequency or acustics only. One can live in harmony with nature; colours and patterns can be in harmony or not - for example. In all cases there needs to be at least TWO something. One 'thing' can not be in harmony because there is no 'togetherness' or 'unision'. Therefore a single sinusoidal signal can not be a harmonic. There MUST BE another signal to be able to compare the two.   
The lowest frequency is chosen to be the base to what the other frequencies are compared to. Thus the first higher frequency is the first harmonic. (If it is indeed a harmonic)
People instinctively know this. The confusion comes from that some 'experts' try twisting the natural meaning.
The included table trying to explain the relationships between naming the same is the perfect example for the distortion-efforts. As there is only a need for this table if the meaning of the word is not clear. In other words, it is clear to all but to those who want to re-define the meaning.
Anybody saying otherwise reveals, s/he doesn't understand what the word means.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.39.83 (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting harmonics 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Harmonic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120209050929/http://www.acoustics.org/press/134th/galembo.htm to http://www.acoustics.org/press/134th/galembo.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229052719/http://www.dranetz-bmi.com/pdf/harmonicsall.pdf to http://www.dranetz-bmi.com/pdf/harmonicsall.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The first paragraph of the article seems to be taken verbatim from Harmonic series (mathematics) despite the article supposedly being about components of waveforms.
I think the paragraph should be removed to avoid confusion, since it explains the wrong sense of the word 'harmonic',
but I'm not sure how to tweak the following paragraph to adequately introduce what a harmonic is.
117.60.176.103 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also think that some extra information needs to be given about the definition of a harmonic. One important piece of information will be timing. For example, if we have a fundamental waveform - sinusoidal. And then we have a sinusoidal waveform having a frequency that is three times the fundamental frequency, then will that higher frequency sinusoid be considered a 'harmonic' regardless of timing? That is - will a time-shifted version of a 'third harmonic' waveform still be considered as a 'third harmonic' waveform? KorgBoy (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion with the harmonic series in mathematics 

message: The molecular representation GIFs are probably confusing without an intermediary graph showing pressure. Bright☀ 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecular representation 

message: The intro is confusing for several reasons. For example, there is no definition of "periodic" harmonics. What differentiates periodic harmonics from others? There should at least be a link. Better yet, let's try to explain it, from the get-go, for someone who doesn't have a background in physics or the science of sound. Even the first sentence is confusing; it defines "harmonic" as a member of something else ("the harmonic series") whose definition is equally confusing. Why not start with something like: 
A harmonic is one part of a set of tones, waves, or sounds that make up a "harmonic series." 
Keithscoot (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All harmonics are periodic, as plainly stated in the first paragraph. (Treating "harmonic" content of a transient signal such as an impulse function, or single click, may be beyond the scope of this article.) I've added a link to Periodic function which may help readers understand the definition of it. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define "periodic" 

message: Although you might hear "harmonic" and "overtone" used synonymously, they're not the same. To explain, we need to talk about pure tones, complex tones, and partials.
A pure tone is a sine wave, and it has just one frequency. But most sounds we hear are not pure tones; they're complex tones. A complex tone is made up of multiple pure tone components all superimposed. And all of those pure tone components of a complex tone are known as "partials". The main partial is known as the "fundamental frequency"; that's the loudest. The other, quieter, partials are known as the "upper partials", or "overtones".
When you knock on a door, or pluck a guitar string, you hear partials. You hear the fundamental plus overtones. But a door knock doesn't sound musical; whereas a guitar does. Why is that? The reason is that the overtones of a guitar tone are positive integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. But the overtones of the door knock are not related to the fundamental frequency in such a regular, simple, and predictable way. What we think of as a musical tone is all about the simple mathematical relation between fundamental and overtones. For a musical tone, we call the partials "harmonic partials". And that's where the terms "harmonic" and "harmonic series" come from. In a musical tone, the fundamental is the first harmonic (partial), and the upper harmonics are the second, third, and so on, harmonic (partials) or overtones. Although, one might say "harmonic overtones" to differentiate them from the inharmonic overtones in a door knock.
So there are two reasons why "harmonic" and "overtone" are not the same. First, because there are plenty of overtones that are not harmonic (because they're not positive integer multiples of the fundamental). And second, because the fundamental of a musical tone is counted as a "harmonic" (partial). It's the first harmonic (partial) just like the fundamental of any complex tone (harmonic or not) is counted as the first partial. Whereas overtones (or upper partials) do not include the fundamental. 2601:600:A480:4C20:5CDD:8591:49C8:C73F (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You're getting reverted because this is all unsourced. See WP:V and WP:NOR, which are core policies. It is also not written in encyclopedic style - it addresses the reader, uses rhetorical questions, etc. - MrOllie (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology

message: The table in the Partials, overtones, and harmonics section with images in it has a column: “Longitudinal wave Represention” included. This representation is confusing and the link doesn’t seem helpful.  A short explanation of what it means and how to interpret it would be helpful.  The previous column has the helpful “Standing Wave Representation” which has a brief explanation earlier on. CuriousMarkE (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longitudinal wave Represention