Talk:Overtone

message: I changed the basic definition of overtone as the orginal was very misleading.
12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: A recursive arithmetic formula for the overtone series:
*an=an-1+x, for a1=x
A recursive geometric formula for the octave "series":
*an=an-1*2, and/or
*an=an-1/2
I don't know if there is a way to do this in one formula.
Here's another formula for the overtone series for one-dimensional standing waves on a medium of length L and wave speed v:
*fn=(nv/2L)
from Intervals, overtones, and axis PDF
Hyacinth
http://www.chanceandchoice.com/ChanceandChoice/chapter2.html
:Hyacinth, I think you mean harmonic series, not overtone series. Overtones can be inharmonic and overtones don't include the fundamental. Another Stickler (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Formulas

message: If I understand correctly from the innuendo in the passege.
Physically all Overtones are prodcued when a fundamental is played -Is that true?
Are they less dominant because of their lesser energy in contrast to the fundamental which is played directly?
If so, playing the same note on different instrument have a different "sound flavour" because of the non precise production of overtones of that specific instrument? if not, what causes it then ?  --Procrastinating@talk2me 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the overtones capable of being produced will be produced. THat is not to say that every sound source has the same overtone structure. A flute for instance produces very few overtones and sounds pure. An oboe a has a different overtone structure so sounds more 'reedy'. The relative amount of each overtone determines the quality of sound you get. Also some overtones are not harmonics on certain instruments. This also adds to the different character of different instruments--Light current 01:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is just not true.  It is mostly true for struck instruments such as a guitar or bell.  However, any overtone which has a node at the point being struck will not be excited.  Some chinese bells take advantage of this to oscillate with two very different notes depending on where they are struck.  A bowed or blown instrument will typically NOT oscillate at all of its possible overtones, as any bugle player knows.  However, because these instruments are nonlinear, they DO sound with harmonics at integer multiples of whatever overtone is being excited, even if these harmonics are not overtones of the instrument (confusing, I know) David s graff 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: UR welcome --Light current 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I've been looking for real answers regarding harmony and it's preception for a very long time now, this is startgin to get clearer now..Yet thw wiki artciles about music are very very lacking. hopfulyl this discussion will help clear them up..:) Procrastinating@talk2me 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks for all the answers(I got it!). Now all that is needed is for someone to update this info..: --Procrastinating@talk2me 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about U? I could look over any edits you make if you like. Its always better when 2 people are working in 'harmony'  8-)--Light current 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I will. please answer my last question whic you have missed.Procrastinating@talk2me 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I have rewrote the article, and integrated our discussion. --Procrastinating@talk2me 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Looks good to me 8-)--Light current 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just did a bit more tidying. See what U think!--Light current 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fundamental sound physics question

message: *You say that all overtones (frequency integer multiplication) are produced, and then claims that their "amount" matters somehow. the amount is infinte if all are prododuced. So is it an instrument specific volume decaying format that makes the difference?
**Overtones are not necessarily exact multiples of the fundamnetal frequency (although in most musical instuments like the piano the first 6 or seven are pretty near)
***Ok. So an overtone is a physical phenomenan occuring when a plucking a string to play a fundamnetal frequency , and the overtones configuration is the reason for the instrument specific "sound color" ? (and possibly dissonance)
****Yes
**** Not entirely true, it depends on the amplitude of the different overtones as well as their frequency David s graff 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: UR welcome --Light current 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking for real answers regarding harmony and it's preception for a very long time now, this is startgin to get clearer now..Yet thw wiki artciles about music are very very lacking. hopfulyl this discussion will help clear them up..:) Procrastinating@talk2me 21:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks for all the answers(I got it!). Now all that is needed is for someone to update this info..: --Procrastinating@talk2me 21:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about U? I could look over any edits you make if you like. Its always better when 2 people are working in 'harmony'  8-)--Light current 21:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I will. please answer my last question whic you have missed.Procrastinating@talk2me 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. I have rewrote the article, and integrated our discussion. --Procrastinating@talk2me 21:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Looks good to me 8-)--Light current 22:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Just did a bit more tidying. See what U think!--Light current 23:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now i'm even more confused. 

message: []
Notation und MIDI-Sound --88.73.222.2 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link points to a nice illustration of a Harmonic series (music) compared with 12-tone equal temperament, but it's not usable in this article to illustrate overtones because overtones are not necessarily harmonic, and the illustration includes the fundamental, which by definition is not an overtone. Another Stickler (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notation 

message: "This means that halving the physical string length, does not halve the actual string vibration length, and hence, the overtones will not be exact multiples of a fundamental frequency. The effect is so pronounced that well set up guitars will angle the bridge such that the thinner strings will progressively have a length up to few millimeters shorter than the thicker strings. Not doing so would result in inharmonious chords made up of two or more strings. Similar considerations apply to tube instruments."
The angle of the bridge isn't really for correcting overtone-problems, but for correcting intonation problems (relating to the fundamental more than the overtones that is) resulting from difference in mass etc. of the strings.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.57.162 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guitar string 

message: This is a fine example of good, clear writing.  
I have just come from the 'harmonics' article and its a mess.  Could the guy who wrote this article please go over there and clean it up?  The harmonics article seems to have been put together by a room full of monkeys.
Thanks!
--Dpolwarth (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the terminology is wrong as you say, you'll need to produce a source to verify that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: David Be is incorrect. Overtone is not synonymous with partial. Reference: . It is a poor term though. See my new topic below. -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent - now go over to the 'harmonics' section and rewrite that ... 

message: I was taught that overtone and overtones are poor terms to use because overtones refers to all the sines making up a complex tone except the fundamental. That's why there's "over" in "overtones". (See  for multiple dictionaries defining it so.) This makes it confusing when trying to relate it to partials and harmonics, because the first overtone is the second partial. If there are people who think overtones is synonymous with partials or harmonics, it's because of inaccuracy in teaching/learning. Even if the term were ever to be redefined as a synonym, it would become redundant, and still deprecated. Though obsolete, it still has its place; you need to know it to understand what old books are saying. -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  overtone is deprecated 

message: "Overtone singing (wrongly known also as throat singing)..." Tuvan's and Mongol's Overtone singing IS called Throat Singing, it is NOT only the Inuit Katajjaq... (Written by someone from Finland and who is a practitioner of TUVAN THROAT SINGING.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.200.134 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overtone singing 

message: The article claims that the first overtone of a circular drum is 2.4 times the fundamental frequency. But from the Vibrations of a circular drum article, it seems that it should be a11/a01, where amn is the n-th positive zero of the Bessel function Jm. This is 1.5933..., so I think "2.4" should be changed to "about 1.6". --Zundark (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to "about 1.6", and added a reference (which says 1.593). --Zundark (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular drums 

message: I dare say that any competent and intelligent student of musical acoustics at least understands that "overtone" was deprecated over a century ago. Please see the note in the article about Ellis' translation of Helmholtz (which I have read, some time ago). I'm EXTREMELY* disappointed that Wikipedia seems to still give this term so much credence. *I use all caps only very rarely!
Such a respected author as Thomas Rossing, co-author of a fine book about acoustics, as I understand it (I don't own a copy) uses the term "partials", instead of "overtones", pointing out that there are two kinds: harmonic, and inharmonic. The almost-harmonic partials of plucked or struck strings do not detract from a sense that the notes produced have a definite pitch, as hammered dulcimers, pianos, and harpsichords -- as well as guitars, lutes, banjos, and many others plainly demonstrate.
There are certain choices our society stubbornly holds on to, even though there are quite-good reasons to change. (Consider the ridiculous arrangement of the letters on nearly all keyboards, for instance.) If Helmholtz is not good enough of a reference, what is? (Rossing, et al?)
Moreover, the notice at the top of the article that says that no references are cited ignores Ellis. Seems to me that it should be taken down. Nikevich (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Overtone" was deprecated in the 19th century!

message: I tried to rewrite, substituting "partial" for "overtone", essentially where it didn't violently clash with how musicians use the term. I also added some text. However, it seems that, when nearly done, I created an editing conflict with myself (all too doggoned easy to do, hang it!) and lost about four hours' work.
Some more references, inexact (I'm running out of energy; sorry!):
* Juan G. Roederer, Intro. to the Physics and Psychophysics of Hearing (approx. title, possibly correct)
* Arthur [ ] Benade, Horns, Strings, and Harmony (I think that is the title of his- book on musical acoustics)
* Ganot's Physics (Google books; 19th-century text) -- Very popular in its time; of interest partly for illustrations and descriptions of scientific apparatus)
* Rossing, Moore, and Wheeler, The Science of Sound -- Excellent work on acoustics
One of these (Roederer?) points out that, as only fairly-recently learned, perceived timbre is influenced a great deal by initial transients that start a musical note; these die out within a fraction of a second.
As well, please, let's not help perpetuate the "(n-1)" nonsense of calling, say, five times the fundamental the fourth overtone (or harmonic). While it seems odd to designate the first harmonic as the fundamental, that's not much of a nuisance, imho.
No mention of Chladni figures? Good gosh.Nikevich (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added comments 

message: In Musical usage term, it states "The sharpness or flatness of their overtones is one of the elements that contributes to their unique sound. This also has the effect of making their waveforms not perfectly periodic."
I think that if the fundamental, and the overtones, are constant over time, then the resultant waveform will be perfectly periodic, but the period will simply be longer than if the overtones were exact multiples.
In a physical instrument the waveform is very unlikely to be perfectly periodic, but for other reasons: the amplitudes, and to a certain extent frequencies, of the fundamental and various overtones vary over time. FrankSier (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...sharpness or flatness of... overtones [makes] waveforms not perfectly periodic"? 

message: I can't make sense of the lead's attempt to distinguish these terms: "Using the model of Fourier analysis, the fundamental and the overtones together are called partials. Harmonics, or more precisely, harmonic partials, are partials whose frequencies are integer multiples of the fundamental (including the fundamental which is 1 times itself)." Anyone interested in helping me make this easier to understand? ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonics, overtones, partials 

message: There seems to be an inconsistency between the text on overtones and the table under "Musical Usage Term":
 The text states: "Because "overtone" makes the upper partials seem like such a distinct phenomena, it leads to the mathematical problem where the first overtone is the second partial." whereas 
 The table lists the second overtone as being the same as the second partial. 
 I believe that the text is correct.
 
Another issue is that the article takes a particular usage of "harmonic" that is  not universal; i.e.
 "A harmonic frequency is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency." 
 A lot of technical work concerns the harmonics of resonators, which are not integer multiples. 
 I think this is the reason for the term "true harmonic", in which case the sentence should read "A true harmonic frequency is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency". 
I note that the whole area of harmonics, overtones and partials is already full of semantic inconsistencies (possibly due to the terms having been redeveloped by multiple independent sources).  
I believe that this makes it advisable to use only those few terms that are well-defined (note?1) for developmental text, and describe the possible multiple meanings of ambiguously defined terms under their separate headings?
  
Note?1: i.e. true harmonic, overtone and (possibly) partial (though I personally remain uncomfortable with the use of overtone number because it so distorts the numeric relation between overtones of the fundamental and overtones of its harmonics)PhysicistQuery (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: ===============================================