If equal temperament divides octave into 12 equal parts, why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?Why are pianos traditionally tuned “out of tune” at the extremes?In C major, if the third note is 14 cents sharp from JI, does the V/VI have a third that is 28 cents sharp?Do capable harmony singers sing in just intonation or tempered tuning?Are sharp keys “bright” and flat keys “dark”?Two people listening to the same song, yet they hear two different guitar chords that sound right played. Why?How do I spell a note when none of the usual rules make a difference?In meantone temperaments, do A sharp and B flat have different frequencies?Need help understanding harmonic series and intervalsWhat is the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 when it comes the accented beats?
Vertical Yagi spun at 1000 RPM: gain properties?
Is success due to hard work sustainable in academic research?
Length-terminated sequences
Is the phrase “You are requested” polite or rude?
Why not 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5?
How to delete music as it's being played in Windows Media Player (or other player)?
Find the closest enemy
Hideaway - do I get to put cards put on the bottom of my library in any order?
How to determine the current ubuntu is minimal or not?
Why is Microwaved mac & cheese burnt where they touch?
Can I reproduce this in Latex
How do I get softer pictures in sunlight, like in this commercial?
How was the space shuttle fuelled?
What is Noita downloading every time I quit the game?
Why is a 737 Original speed-restricted below 10,000 ft with inoperative windscreen heating?
が function in this sentence?
Do temporary hit points from the Heroism spell keep a troll alive?
Using water whip to pull a creature being restrained
Finding a parametric curve fitting a two-dimensional dataset
Was Hitler exclaiming "Heil Hitler!" himself when saluting?
How to run fortran77 program with inputs from file?
Why doesn't the nucleus have "nucleus-probability cloud"?
Implement the 2D Hadamard Transform
Do any languages mark social distinctions other than gender and status?
If equal temperament divides octave into 12 equal parts, why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?
Why are pianos traditionally tuned “out of tune” at the extremes?In C major, if the third note is 14 cents sharp from JI, does the V/VI have a third that is 28 cents sharp?Do capable harmony singers sing in just intonation or tempered tuning?Are sharp keys “bright” and flat keys “dark”?Two people listening to the same song, yet they hear two different guitar chords that sound right played. Why?How do I spell a note when none of the usual rules make a difference?In meantone temperaments, do A sharp and B flat have different frequencies?Need help understanding harmonic series and intervalsWhat is the difference between 2/4 and 4/4 when it comes the accented beats?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty
margin-bottom:0;
Let's take A sound 440Hz
If we divide space between 440Hz and 880Hz into 12 equal parts, we would have:
440Hz, 476.6, 513.2 ... 880Hz. And this for me looks like equally divided.
Why we say equally divided if its element 12th of 2?
theory harmony tuning intervals temperament
New contributor
add a comment
|
Let's take A sound 440Hz
If we divide space between 440Hz and 880Hz into 12 equal parts, we would have:
440Hz, 476.6, 513.2 ... 880Hz. And this for me looks like equally divided.
Why we say equally divided if its element 12th of 2?
theory harmony tuning intervals temperament
New contributor
9
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Let's take A sound 440Hz
If we divide space between 440Hz and 880Hz into 12 equal parts, we would have:
440Hz, 476.6, 513.2 ... 880Hz. And this for me looks like equally divided.
Why we say equally divided if its element 12th of 2?
theory harmony tuning intervals temperament
New contributor
Let's take A sound 440Hz
If we divide space between 440Hz and 880Hz into 12 equal parts, we would have:
440Hz, 476.6, 513.2 ... 880Hz. And this for me looks like equally divided.
Why we say equally divided if its element 12th of 2?
theory harmony tuning intervals temperament
theory harmony tuning intervals temperament
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 days ago
Tukkan
New contributor
asked Oct 11 at 15:08
TukkanTukkan
1444 bronze badges
1444 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
9
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
9
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago
9
9
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
The intervals between notes are "equal" not in the sense that the difference in Hz between them is the same, but the ratio a
between them is the same. Let's say g
is one semitone higher than f
, then g = a f
.
Note Hz Ratio a to previous note, rounded to 3 decimal places
A4 440.00
A#4 466.16 1.059 (466.16 / 440.0 = 1.059, and so on down the column)
B4 493.88 1.059
C5 523.25 1.059
C#5 554.37 1.059
D5 587.33 1.059
D#5 622.25 1.059
E5 659.25 1.059
F5 698.46 1.059
F#5 739.99 1.059
G5 783.99 1.059
G#5 830.61 1.059
A5 880.00 1.059
It might be easier to understand when you think of the frequency of the octaves. The number of Hz between octaves is different (220, 440, 880, 1760, etc.), but the ratio of 2:1 is always the same. The same concept applies to the notes in the scale.
Mathematically, what we are doing is dividing an octave (2:1 ratio) into 12 equal steps (equal in ratio, i.e. a^12=2
). Using a scientific calculator, we can solve for a=2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
, which is the exact ratio between two half steps.
New contributor
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are... 41700779204317494185 ...
.
– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
add a comment
|
The division of notes has to do with human perception and psychoacoustics. One description of human perception is the Weber-Fechner law, where a human will perceive equal changes in some sensory input, such as sound level or sound pitch, not by absolute level or value difference, but by the ratio of the change. e.g. larger values need a proportionately larger change for the change be perceived (if small) or perceived as about the same, within some reasonable range (e.g. audible, but not causing ear damage, etc.)
Thus, for a semitone (forth, fifth, etc.) interval to sound the same, no matter which base note one starts from, in the equal temperament scale, the notes have to differ not by equal absolute frequency differences (as would be created by equal Hz deltas between notes), but by equal ratio differences (the 12th root of 2, so that twelve equal multiplications will equal one octave).
e.g. the "equality" in equal division has to be in equal in ratio, not additive absolute value.
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
add a comment
|
What happens if you go down by the same steps:
- 440Hz
- 1 step down : 403.33Hz
- 2 steps down : 366.67Hz
- 3 steps down : 330.Hz
- ...
- 11 steps down : 36.67Hz
- 12 steps down : 0Hz
- 13 steps down : -36.67Hz
So, using your "equally divided" logic, we are at zero Hz after 12 steps, and the next step beyond that is minus 37 Hz! What does that even mean? But ok, let's follow your logic a little bit ... what's the frequency exactly in the middle of the octave 440 - 880 Hz, that would be 660 Hz. What's an octave above that? That would be 2 * 660 Hz = 1320 Hz. What would be the steps in that octave - 660 Hz / 12 = 55 Hz? Ok, then let's take one step up from 660 Hz, that's 660 Hz + 55 Hz = 715 Hz. But wait ... the step was supposed to be 37 Hz, not 55 Hz??? Does your step size depend on the start and end points of the octave? Or does it take a sudden jump at 880 Hz - steps below 880 would be 440 / 12, but above 880 they would be 880 / 12? Where does such a divider come from, is it embedded in nature? I thought A = 440 Hz was only an agree-upon convention, not a law of nature.
Where did you get the 880Hz? By multiplying by 2, i.e. one octave higher. I guess the same has to apply for any frequency, not only 440Hz? For example, one octave higher from 880Hz has to be 880Hz * 2? And any other frequency like 1000Hz... one octave above that must be 2000Hz. If the interval of an octave is calculated with multiplication, how could other intervals be calculated with addition?
So, ask yourself: if F1 and F2 are the frequencies of two consecutive semitones, what is the relationship between F1 and F2, if (F1 * 2) and (F2 * 2) has to have the same relationship?
You're looking for a function f(F) such that f
applied 12 times gives 2*F.
f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(F)))))))))))) = 2 * F
If you step up one semitone from F, you get a frequency f(F). The frequency one octave higher from that is 2 * f(F).
If you first step up an octave, you get F*2. And if you step up one semitone from that, you get f(F*2), which should be the same frequency, so:
2 * f(F) = f(2 * F)
What might function f be like?
From the subject line "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?" I assume that you already know that consecutive semitones have a ratio of 2^(1/12).
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
A simple way is to look at ratios as suggested above. One can divide an interval equally arithmetically such that the length (size, or more technically "measure") of each subinterval is identical. Dividing an interval arithmetically in 12 pieces (I can explain the 12 but it takes more math.) yields, 1=12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12, 19/12, 20/12, 21/12, 22/12, 22/12, 24/12=2. However people's hearing seems (experimentally) to distinguish ratios of frequencies rather than differences as being more identical. For example (Taking A=440cps), the fifth above A is E at 660cps not 19/12*440=696.666....
If we want equal ratios for each half-step, instead of (2-1)/12, we 2^(1/12). The point is that the ratio of G to C is constant for all fifths (A-D, C-F, etc.). Since antiquity, the ratio of a fifth is 3:2 (or 3/2 times the frequency of the lower note.) This comports with dividing a string into intervals and listening to the frequency of the two shorter pieces. (Aside: Vincenzo Galilei suggested using 18/17 as a approximation to the twelfth root of two; it's remarkably good.)
However: for computational work, we can use logarithms; the logarithm of a ratio is the difference in the logarithms of that ratio's constituents. One divides the octave into 1200 cents (the 1200th root of 2) and assigns 100 cents to the equal-tempered semitone. This allows one to easily (at least when using pencil and paper instead of a calculator) compute interval sized for varying tunings.
So, even though our ears hear by ratio (experimentally), we can calculate by ratios or addition. Wiki has a bunch of articles qG (quod Google in analogy with qv) which give a more comprehensive explanation.
add a comment
|
Possibly a simple way to look at it is to look at a guitar neck. An octave there is divided into 12 parts - equal as far as each fret is a semitone away from its neighbour. But looking carefully, it's fairly obvious that each fret isn't the same size. In fact, the eleventh fret is very nearly half the size of the first one, from nut to fret 1. Go further, and the 12th (octave) is actually half the size of the first.
Your hypothesis is that they would all be the same size - one twelfth of the half length of the open string? Were that the case, what woud happen at fret 13? And apart, each fret would produce a note that was out of tune. So there needs to be a ratio of each fret against its neighbour, as pointed out in other good answers.
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
add a comment
|
Start by considering the equal division of octaves into one part. That is, think about changing pitch by octaves only.
If we start with A1=55 Hz, we have the following pitches:
Pitch Frequency
----------------
A1 55 Hz
A2 110 Hz
A3 220 Hz
A4 440 Hz
A5 880 Hz
...
You can see that when you increase the pitch by an equal additive amount, you increase the frequency by an equal multiplicative factor. That is, every time you increase the pitch by one octave, you double the frequency. This means that the relationship between pitch and frequency is logarithmic.
From there, it is fairly easy to reach the conclusion that to divide the octave into some number of equal parts, you need to find the factor that, when multiplied by itself that number times, yields 2. In other words, the frequency factor corresponding to a division of the octave into n parts is the nth root of 2.
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
add a comment
|
Our note system is a logarithmic scale for frequency. A logarithmic scale turns equal fractions into equal distances. You can define equal temperament as a constant step size of 1/12
on the log_2
scale of frequency.
Going back to the linear scale, this means that a semitone translates into a factor of 2^(1/12)
(the twelfth root of two).
The reason for this is, that the sound of an interval depends on how the overtone spectra of the two nodes match up.
The octave has the unique feature that all harmonics of the higher note match up with some harmonic of the lower note. Likewise, if you have a perfect fifth (factor 3/2), every second harmonic of the upper note coincides with every third harmonic of the lower note. Similar relations hold for the perfect fourth (factor 4/3), the mayor third (5/4) and the mayor sixth (5/3). And so on, and so forth. The pattern of how the harmonics match up defines the sound of the interval, and the harmonics are defined by factors of frequency.
Thus, only a logarithmic scale can be used to describe intervals well (our note system). And by consequence, equal temperament must be defined on the logarithmic scale.
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequenciesf1-f0
andf0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.
– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
This is another answer trying to help understanding also the question to people who can't cope with ratios and other abstract terms:
Imagine you have a tone of 12 Hz frequency (a string waving 12 times/second).
How must the 12 half steps between the octava (24 Hz) be tuned, so that the differences between all half steps are equal?
The question implies: If the range between the octava is 12 Hz, why is the difference between the 12 half steps not always just 1 Hz?
root=12Hz
minor second 13Hz
major second 14Hz
.
.
.
.
perfect fifth 18Hz
.
.
.
major seventh: 23Hz
octave: 24
We can see that the difference between the first half 12Hz and 13Hz is just 1/10 of 12Hz (10% of the whole octava), while the additional difference between the octava 24Hz and the precedent half tone (23Hz) would have been almost only a 1/20 (=5%) of the difference between the next upper half tone above the octave will be 2Hz more - because this must be a 1/10 of the next octava of 48Hz, as the difference between of ocatava' (24Hz) and octava'' (48Hz) is 24Hz! (48-24=24) and a half step of 1/12 between octava' and octava'' will be 2?
From this we can derive that the differences between the half steps are not additional of 1/12 but proportional by multiplying each half step with 1/12.
Hope this is not droning and confusing. TLDR?
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "240"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Tukkan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f90613%2fif-equal-temperament-divides-octave-into-12-equal-parts-why-hertz-differences-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
8 Answers
8
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The intervals between notes are "equal" not in the sense that the difference in Hz between them is the same, but the ratio a
between them is the same. Let's say g
is one semitone higher than f
, then g = a f
.
Note Hz Ratio a to previous note, rounded to 3 decimal places
A4 440.00
A#4 466.16 1.059 (466.16 / 440.0 = 1.059, and so on down the column)
B4 493.88 1.059
C5 523.25 1.059
C#5 554.37 1.059
D5 587.33 1.059
D#5 622.25 1.059
E5 659.25 1.059
F5 698.46 1.059
F#5 739.99 1.059
G5 783.99 1.059
G#5 830.61 1.059
A5 880.00 1.059
It might be easier to understand when you think of the frequency of the octaves. The number of Hz between octaves is different (220, 440, 880, 1760, etc.), but the ratio of 2:1 is always the same. The same concept applies to the notes in the scale.
Mathematically, what we are doing is dividing an octave (2:1 ratio) into 12 equal steps (equal in ratio, i.e. a^12=2
). Using a scientific calculator, we can solve for a=2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
, which is the exact ratio between two half steps.
New contributor
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are... 41700779204317494185 ...
.
– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
add a comment
|
The intervals between notes are "equal" not in the sense that the difference in Hz between them is the same, but the ratio a
between them is the same. Let's say g
is one semitone higher than f
, then g = a f
.
Note Hz Ratio a to previous note, rounded to 3 decimal places
A4 440.00
A#4 466.16 1.059 (466.16 / 440.0 = 1.059, and so on down the column)
B4 493.88 1.059
C5 523.25 1.059
C#5 554.37 1.059
D5 587.33 1.059
D#5 622.25 1.059
E5 659.25 1.059
F5 698.46 1.059
F#5 739.99 1.059
G5 783.99 1.059
G#5 830.61 1.059
A5 880.00 1.059
It might be easier to understand when you think of the frequency of the octaves. The number of Hz between octaves is different (220, 440, 880, 1760, etc.), but the ratio of 2:1 is always the same. The same concept applies to the notes in the scale.
Mathematically, what we are doing is dividing an octave (2:1 ratio) into 12 equal steps (equal in ratio, i.e. a^12=2
). Using a scientific calculator, we can solve for a=2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
, which is the exact ratio between two half steps.
New contributor
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are... 41700779204317494185 ...
.
– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
add a comment
|
The intervals between notes are "equal" not in the sense that the difference in Hz between them is the same, but the ratio a
between them is the same. Let's say g
is one semitone higher than f
, then g = a f
.
Note Hz Ratio a to previous note, rounded to 3 decimal places
A4 440.00
A#4 466.16 1.059 (466.16 / 440.0 = 1.059, and so on down the column)
B4 493.88 1.059
C5 523.25 1.059
C#5 554.37 1.059
D5 587.33 1.059
D#5 622.25 1.059
E5 659.25 1.059
F5 698.46 1.059
F#5 739.99 1.059
G5 783.99 1.059
G#5 830.61 1.059
A5 880.00 1.059
It might be easier to understand when you think of the frequency of the octaves. The number of Hz between octaves is different (220, 440, 880, 1760, etc.), but the ratio of 2:1 is always the same. The same concept applies to the notes in the scale.
Mathematically, what we are doing is dividing an octave (2:1 ratio) into 12 equal steps (equal in ratio, i.e. a^12=2
). Using a scientific calculator, we can solve for a=2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
, which is the exact ratio between two half steps.
New contributor
The intervals between notes are "equal" not in the sense that the difference in Hz between them is the same, but the ratio a
between them is the same. Let's say g
is one semitone higher than f
, then g = a f
.
Note Hz Ratio a to previous note, rounded to 3 decimal places
A4 440.00
A#4 466.16 1.059 (466.16 / 440.0 = 1.059, and so on down the column)
B4 493.88 1.059
C5 523.25 1.059
C#5 554.37 1.059
D5 587.33 1.059
D#5 622.25 1.059
E5 659.25 1.059
F5 698.46 1.059
F#5 739.99 1.059
G5 783.99 1.059
G#5 830.61 1.059
A5 880.00 1.059
It might be easier to understand when you think of the frequency of the octaves. The number of Hz between octaves is different (220, 440, 880, 1760, etc.), but the ratio of 2:1 is always the same. The same concept applies to the notes in the scale.
Mathematically, what we are doing is dividing an octave (2:1 ratio) into 12 equal steps (equal in ratio, i.e. a^12=2
). Using a scientific calculator, we can solve for a=2^(1/12) = 1.0594630943592952645618252949463
, which is the exact ratio between two half steps.
New contributor
edited 21 hours ago
M. Stern
1714 bronze badges
1714 bronze badges
New contributor
answered Oct 11 at 17:26
Sagebrush GardenerSagebrush Gardener
4211 silver badge3 bronze badges
4211 silver badge3 bronze badges
New contributor
New contributor
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are... 41700779204317494185 ...
.
– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
add a comment
|
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are... 41700779204317494185 ...
.
– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
2
2
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
I think the OP already knows it's the twelfth root of two. He says that in the subject line, "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?"
– piiperi
2 days ago
4
4
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are
... 41700779204317494185 ...
.– Eric Towers
yesterday
You have not written the exact ratio. 2^(1/12) is irrational. You have written the initial segment of its decimal expansion, but it continues non-repetitively forever. The next 20 digits are
... 41700779204317494185 ...
.– Eric Towers
yesterday
2
2
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
I think this answer is spot-on. This is the reason. But I do think the phrase "the difference is the same ratio" sounds a little clumsy. May I suggest "the ratio is the same" as an improvement?
– luser droog
yesterday
add a comment
|
The division of notes has to do with human perception and psychoacoustics. One description of human perception is the Weber-Fechner law, where a human will perceive equal changes in some sensory input, such as sound level or sound pitch, not by absolute level or value difference, but by the ratio of the change. e.g. larger values need a proportionately larger change for the change be perceived (if small) or perceived as about the same, within some reasonable range (e.g. audible, but not causing ear damage, etc.)
Thus, for a semitone (forth, fifth, etc.) interval to sound the same, no matter which base note one starts from, in the equal temperament scale, the notes have to differ not by equal absolute frequency differences (as would be created by equal Hz deltas between notes), but by equal ratio differences (the 12th root of 2, so that twelve equal multiplications will equal one octave).
e.g. the "equality" in equal division has to be in equal in ratio, not additive absolute value.
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
add a comment
|
The division of notes has to do with human perception and psychoacoustics. One description of human perception is the Weber-Fechner law, where a human will perceive equal changes in some sensory input, such as sound level or sound pitch, not by absolute level or value difference, but by the ratio of the change. e.g. larger values need a proportionately larger change for the change be perceived (if small) or perceived as about the same, within some reasonable range (e.g. audible, but not causing ear damage, etc.)
Thus, for a semitone (forth, fifth, etc.) interval to sound the same, no matter which base note one starts from, in the equal temperament scale, the notes have to differ not by equal absolute frequency differences (as would be created by equal Hz deltas between notes), but by equal ratio differences (the 12th root of 2, so that twelve equal multiplications will equal one octave).
e.g. the "equality" in equal division has to be in equal in ratio, not additive absolute value.
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
add a comment
|
The division of notes has to do with human perception and psychoacoustics. One description of human perception is the Weber-Fechner law, where a human will perceive equal changes in some sensory input, such as sound level or sound pitch, not by absolute level or value difference, but by the ratio of the change. e.g. larger values need a proportionately larger change for the change be perceived (if small) or perceived as about the same, within some reasonable range (e.g. audible, but not causing ear damage, etc.)
Thus, for a semitone (forth, fifth, etc.) interval to sound the same, no matter which base note one starts from, in the equal temperament scale, the notes have to differ not by equal absolute frequency differences (as would be created by equal Hz deltas between notes), but by equal ratio differences (the 12th root of 2, so that twelve equal multiplications will equal one octave).
e.g. the "equality" in equal division has to be in equal in ratio, not additive absolute value.
The division of notes has to do with human perception and psychoacoustics. One description of human perception is the Weber-Fechner law, where a human will perceive equal changes in some sensory input, such as sound level or sound pitch, not by absolute level or value difference, but by the ratio of the change. e.g. larger values need a proportionately larger change for the change be perceived (if small) or perceived as about the same, within some reasonable range (e.g. audible, but not causing ear damage, etc.)
Thus, for a semitone (forth, fifth, etc.) interval to sound the same, no matter which base note one starts from, in the equal temperament scale, the notes have to differ not by equal absolute frequency differences (as would be created by equal Hz deltas between notes), but by equal ratio differences (the 12th root of 2, so that twelve equal multiplications will equal one octave).
e.g. the "equality" in equal division has to be in equal in ratio, not additive absolute value.
edited 2 days ago
answered 2 days ago
hotpaw2hotpaw2
1,2272 gold badges15 silver badges22 bronze badges
1,2272 gold badges15 silver badges22 bronze badges
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
add a comment
|
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
7
7
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
This answer nails the error in the thought behind the question — intervals are defined by human perception, and human perception of intervals is logarithmic as to frequency, not linear. Octave above 440 is 880. Octave below 440 is 220. Same with all the intervals — equal interval means same ratio of frequencies. Where it gets interesting is that perfect 4ths and 5ths are not equal to 5 and 7 well-tempered half-steps, respectively.
– Jeff Y
yesterday
3
3
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
external link with audio examples: what does a linearly spaced sequence sound like vs. a logarithmic one
– Cee McSharpface - it
yesterday
add a comment
|
What happens if you go down by the same steps:
- 440Hz
- 1 step down : 403.33Hz
- 2 steps down : 366.67Hz
- 3 steps down : 330.Hz
- ...
- 11 steps down : 36.67Hz
- 12 steps down : 0Hz
- 13 steps down : -36.67Hz
So, using your "equally divided" logic, we are at zero Hz after 12 steps, and the next step beyond that is minus 37 Hz! What does that even mean? But ok, let's follow your logic a little bit ... what's the frequency exactly in the middle of the octave 440 - 880 Hz, that would be 660 Hz. What's an octave above that? That would be 2 * 660 Hz = 1320 Hz. What would be the steps in that octave - 660 Hz / 12 = 55 Hz? Ok, then let's take one step up from 660 Hz, that's 660 Hz + 55 Hz = 715 Hz. But wait ... the step was supposed to be 37 Hz, not 55 Hz??? Does your step size depend on the start and end points of the octave? Or does it take a sudden jump at 880 Hz - steps below 880 would be 440 / 12, but above 880 they would be 880 / 12? Where does such a divider come from, is it embedded in nature? I thought A = 440 Hz was only an agree-upon convention, not a law of nature.
Where did you get the 880Hz? By multiplying by 2, i.e. one octave higher. I guess the same has to apply for any frequency, not only 440Hz? For example, one octave higher from 880Hz has to be 880Hz * 2? And any other frequency like 1000Hz... one octave above that must be 2000Hz. If the interval of an octave is calculated with multiplication, how could other intervals be calculated with addition?
So, ask yourself: if F1 and F2 are the frequencies of two consecutive semitones, what is the relationship between F1 and F2, if (F1 * 2) and (F2 * 2) has to have the same relationship?
You're looking for a function f(F) such that f
applied 12 times gives 2*F.
f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(F)))))))))))) = 2 * F
If you step up one semitone from F, you get a frequency f(F). The frequency one octave higher from that is 2 * f(F).
If you first step up an octave, you get F*2. And if you step up one semitone from that, you get f(F*2), which should be the same frequency, so:
2 * f(F) = f(2 * F)
What might function f be like?
From the subject line "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?" I assume that you already know that consecutive semitones have a ratio of 2^(1/12).
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
What happens if you go down by the same steps:
- 440Hz
- 1 step down : 403.33Hz
- 2 steps down : 366.67Hz
- 3 steps down : 330.Hz
- ...
- 11 steps down : 36.67Hz
- 12 steps down : 0Hz
- 13 steps down : -36.67Hz
So, using your "equally divided" logic, we are at zero Hz after 12 steps, and the next step beyond that is minus 37 Hz! What does that even mean? But ok, let's follow your logic a little bit ... what's the frequency exactly in the middle of the octave 440 - 880 Hz, that would be 660 Hz. What's an octave above that? That would be 2 * 660 Hz = 1320 Hz. What would be the steps in that octave - 660 Hz / 12 = 55 Hz? Ok, then let's take one step up from 660 Hz, that's 660 Hz + 55 Hz = 715 Hz. But wait ... the step was supposed to be 37 Hz, not 55 Hz??? Does your step size depend on the start and end points of the octave? Or does it take a sudden jump at 880 Hz - steps below 880 would be 440 / 12, but above 880 they would be 880 / 12? Where does such a divider come from, is it embedded in nature? I thought A = 440 Hz was only an agree-upon convention, not a law of nature.
Where did you get the 880Hz? By multiplying by 2, i.e. one octave higher. I guess the same has to apply for any frequency, not only 440Hz? For example, one octave higher from 880Hz has to be 880Hz * 2? And any other frequency like 1000Hz... one octave above that must be 2000Hz. If the interval of an octave is calculated with multiplication, how could other intervals be calculated with addition?
So, ask yourself: if F1 and F2 are the frequencies of two consecutive semitones, what is the relationship between F1 and F2, if (F1 * 2) and (F2 * 2) has to have the same relationship?
You're looking for a function f(F) such that f
applied 12 times gives 2*F.
f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(F)))))))))))) = 2 * F
If you step up one semitone from F, you get a frequency f(F). The frequency one octave higher from that is 2 * f(F).
If you first step up an octave, you get F*2. And if you step up one semitone from that, you get f(F*2), which should be the same frequency, so:
2 * f(F) = f(2 * F)
What might function f be like?
From the subject line "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?" I assume that you already know that consecutive semitones have a ratio of 2^(1/12).
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
What happens if you go down by the same steps:
- 440Hz
- 1 step down : 403.33Hz
- 2 steps down : 366.67Hz
- 3 steps down : 330.Hz
- ...
- 11 steps down : 36.67Hz
- 12 steps down : 0Hz
- 13 steps down : -36.67Hz
So, using your "equally divided" logic, we are at zero Hz after 12 steps, and the next step beyond that is minus 37 Hz! What does that even mean? But ok, let's follow your logic a little bit ... what's the frequency exactly in the middle of the octave 440 - 880 Hz, that would be 660 Hz. What's an octave above that? That would be 2 * 660 Hz = 1320 Hz. What would be the steps in that octave - 660 Hz / 12 = 55 Hz? Ok, then let's take one step up from 660 Hz, that's 660 Hz + 55 Hz = 715 Hz. But wait ... the step was supposed to be 37 Hz, not 55 Hz??? Does your step size depend on the start and end points of the octave? Or does it take a sudden jump at 880 Hz - steps below 880 would be 440 / 12, but above 880 they would be 880 / 12? Where does such a divider come from, is it embedded in nature? I thought A = 440 Hz was only an agree-upon convention, not a law of nature.
Where did you get the 880Hz? By multiplying by 2, i.e. one octave higher. I guess the same has to apply for any frequency, not only 440Hz? For example, one octave higher from 880Hz has to be 880Hz * 2? And any other frequency like 1000Hz... one octave above that must be 2000Hz. If the interval of an octave is calculated with multiplication, how could other intervals be calculated with addition?
So, ask yourself: if F1 and F2 are the frequencies of two consecutive semitones, what is the relationship between F1 and F2, if (F1 * 2) and (F2 * 2) has to have the same relationship?
You're looking for a function f(F) such that f
applied 12 times gives 2*F.
f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(F)))))))))))) = 2 * F
If you step up one semitone from F, you get a frequency f(F). The frequency one octave higher from that is 2 * f(F).
If you first step up an octave, you get F*2. And if you step up one semitone from that, you get f(F*2), which should be the same frequency, so:
2 * f(F) = f(2 * F)
What might function f be like?
From the subject line "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?" I assume that you already know that consecutive semitones have a ratio of 2^(1/12).
What happens if you go down by the same steps:
- 440Hz
- 1 step down : 403.33Hz
- 2 steps down : 366.67Hz
- 3 steps down : 330.Hz
- ...
- 11 steps down : 36.67Hz
- 12 steps down : 0Hz
- 13 steps down : -36.67Hz
So, using your "equally divided" logic, we are at zero Hz after 12 steps, and the next step beyond that is minus 37 Hz! What does that even mean? But ok, let's follow your logic a little bit ... what's the frequency exactly in the middle of the octave 440 - 880 Hz, that would be 660 Hz. What's an octave above that? That would be 2 * 660 Hz = 1320 Hz. What would be the steps in that octave - 660 Hz / 12 = 55 Hz? Ok, then let's take one step up from 660 Hz, that's 660 Hz + 55 Hz = 715 Hz. But wait ... the step was supposed to be 37 Hz, not 55 Hz??? Does your step size depend on the start and end points of the octave? Or does it take a sudden jump at 880 Hz - steps below 880 would be 440 / 12, but above 880 they would be 880 / 12? Where does such a divider come from, is it embedded in nature? I thought A = 440 Hz was only an agree-upon convention, not a law of nature.
Where did you get the 880Hz? By multiplying by 2, i.e. one octave higher. I guess the same has to apply for any frequency, not only 440Hz? For example, one octave higher from 880Hz has to be 880Hz * 2? And any other frequency like 1000Hz... one octave above that must be 2000Hz. If the interval of an octave is calculated with multiplication, how could other intervals be calculated with addition?
So, ask yourself: if F1 and F2 are the frequencies of two consecutive semitones, what is the relationship between F1 and F2, if (F1 * 2) and (F2 * 2) has to have the same relationship?
You're looking for a function f(F) such that f
applied 12 times gives 2*F.
f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(f(F)))))))))))) = 2 * F
If you step up one semitone from F, you get a frequency f(F). The frequency one octave higher from that is 2 * f(F).
If you first step up an octave, you get F*2. And if you step up one semitone from that, you get f(F*2), which should be the same frequency, so:
2 * f(F) = f(2 * F)
What might function f be like?
From the subject line "why hertz differences are not the same but element 12th of two?" I assume that you already know that consecutive semitones have a ratio of 2^(1/12).
edited yesterday
answered Oct 11 at 15:40
piiperipiiperi
6,6031 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges
6,6031 gold badge9 silver badges26 bronze badges
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
Not quite qhat OP means! 440>880 = 440, so each of the 12 steps should be 36.66Hz. In the lower octave, between 220 and 440, there's only 220 Hz difference, so each of the 12 steps should be 18.33 Hz.
– Tim
Oct 11 at 16:29
3
3
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim I think this is what the OP means. He means that he's trying to figure out things and wants help doing that. Looking at the subject line, he already has the solution, and he wants to find the right perspective for understanding why it is like it is. Which is what I'm trying to provide. YMMV but I was able to figure this out in high-school when writing a music player program, having only the information that an octave higher is multiplying by two, and applying the same relationship 12 times brings you there, an octave higher. :)
– piiperi
2 days ago
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
@Tim : Does this mean I get incompatible step sizes if I take my octaves to be C-to-C?
– Eric Towers
yesterday
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
Negative frequency means that the music is played backwards, revealing hidden Satanic messages.
– dan04
4 hours ago
add a comment
|
A simple way is to look at ratios as suggested above. One can divide an interval equally arithmetically such that the length (size, or more technically "measure") of each subinterval is identical. Dividing an interval arithmetically in 12 pieces (I can explain the 12 but it takes more math.) yields, 1=12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12, 19/12, 20/12, 21/12, 22/12, 22/12, 24/12=2. However people's hearing seems (experimentally) to distinguish ratios of frequencies rather than differences as being more identical. For example (Taking A=440cps), the fifth above A is E at 660cps not 19/12*440=696.666....
If we want equal ratios for each half-step, instead of (2-1)/12, we 2^(1/12). The point is that the ratio of G to C is constant for all fifths (A-D, C-F, etc.). Since antiquity, the ratio of a fifth is 3:2 (or 3/2 times the frequency of the lower note.) This comports with dividing a string into intervals and listening to the frequency of the two shorter pieces. (Aside: Vincenzo Galilei suggested using 18/17 as a approximation to the twelfth root of two; it's remarkably good.)
However: for computational work, we can use logarithms; the logarithm of a ratio is the difference in the logarithms of that ratio's constituents. One divides the octave into 1200 cents (the 1200th root of 2) and assigns 100 cents to the equal-tempered semitone. This allows one to easily (at least when using pencil and paper instead of a calculator) compute interval sized for varying tunings.
So, even though our ears hear by ratio (experimentally), we can calculate by ratios or addition. Wiki has a bunch of articles qG (quod Google in analogy with qv) which give a more comprehensive explanation.
add a comment
|
A simple way is to look at ratios as suggested above. One can divide an interval equally arithmetically such that the length (size, or more technically "measure") of each subinterval is identical. Dividing an interval arithmetically in 12 pieces (I can explain the 12 but it takes more math.) yields, 1=12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12, 19/12, 20/12, 21/12, 22/12, 22/12, 24/12=2. However people's hearing seems (experimentally) to distinguish ratios of frequencies rather than differences as being more identical. For example (Taking A=440cps), the fifth above A is E at 660cps not 19/12*440=696.666....
If we want equal ratios for each half-step, instead of (2-1)/12, we 2^(1/12). The point is that the ratio of G to C is constant for all fifths (A-D, C-F, etc.). Since antiquity, the ratio of a fifth is 3:2 (or 3/2 times the frequency of the lower note.) This comports with dividing a string into intervals and listening to the frequency of the two shorter pieces. (Aside: Vincenzo Galilei suggested using 18/17 as a approximation to the twelfth root of two; it's remarkably good.)
However: for computational work, we can use logarithms; the logarithm of a ratio is the difference in the logarithms of that ratio's constituents. One divides the octave into 1200 cents (the 1200th root of 2) and assigns 100 cents to the equal-tempered semitone. This allows one to easily (at least when using pencil and paper instead of a calculator) compute interval sized for varying tunings.
So, even though our ears hear by ratio (experimentally), we can calculate by ratios or addition. Wiki has a bunch of articles qG (quod Google in analogy with qv) which give a more comprehensive explanation.
add a comment
|
A simple way is to look at ratios as suggested above. One can divide an interval equally arithmetically such that the length (size, or more technically "measure") of each subinterval is identical. Dividing an interval arithmetically in 12 pieces (I can explain the 12 but it takes more math.) yields, 1=12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12, 19/12, 20/12, 21/12, 22/12, 22/12, 24/12=2. However people's hearing seems (experimentally) to distinguish ratios of frequencies rather than differences as being more identical. For example (Taking A=440cps), the fifth above A is E at 660cps not 19/12*440=696.666....
If we want equal ratios for each half-step, instead of (2-1)/12, we 2^(1/12). The point is that the ratio of G to C is constant for all fifths (A-D, C-F, etc.). Since antiquity, the ratio of a fifth is 3:2 (or 3/2 times the frequency of the lower note.) This comports with dividing a string into intervals and listening to the frequency of the two shorter pieces. (Aside: Vincenzo Galilei suggested using 18/17 as a approximation to the twelfth root of two; it's remarkably good.)
However: for computational work, we can use logarithms; the logarithm of a ratio is the difference in the logarithms of that ratio's constituents. One divides the octave into 1200 cents (the 1200th root of 2) and assigns 100 cents to the equal-tempered semitone. This allows one to easily (at least when using pencil and paper instead of a calculator) compute interval sized for varying tunings.
So, even though our ears hear by ratio (experimentally), we can calculate by ratios or addition. Wiki has a bunch of articles qG (quod Google in analogy with qv) which give a more comprehensive explanation.
A simple way is to look at ratios as suggested above. One can divide an interval equally arithmetically such that the length (size, or more technically "measure") of each subinterval is identical. Dividing an interval arithmetically in 12 pieces (I can explain the 12 but it takes more math.) yields, 1=12/12, 13/12, 14/12, 15/12, 16/12, 17/12, 18/12, 19/12, 20/12, 21/12, 22/12, 22/12, 24/12=2. However people's hearing seems (experimentally) to distinguish ratios of frequencies rather than differences as being more identical. For example (Taking A=440cps), the fifth above A is E at 660cps not 19/12*440=696.666....
If we want equal ratios for each half-step, instead of (2-1)/12, we 2^(1/12). The point is that the ratio of G to C is constant for all fifths (A-D, C-F, etc.). Since antiquity, the ratio of a fifth is 3:2 (or 3/2 times the frequency of the lower note.) This comports with dividing a string into intervals and listening to the frequency of the two shorter pieces. (Aside: Vincenzo Galilei suggested using 18/17 as a approximation to the twelfth root of two; it's remarkably good.)
However: for computational work, we can use logarithms; the logarithm of a ratio is the difference in the logarithms of that ratio's constituents. One divides the octave into 1200 cents (the 1200th root of 2) and assigns 100 cents to the equal-tempered semitone. This allows one to easily (at least when using pencil and paper instead of a calculator) compute interval sized for varying tunings.
So, even though our ears hear by ratio (experimentally), we can calculate by ratios or addition. Wiki has a bunch of articles qG (quod Google in analogy with qv) which give a more comprehensive explanation.
answered 2 days ago
ttwttw
11.8k13 silver badges42 bronze badges
11.8k13 silver badges42 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Possibly a simple way to look at it is to look at a guitar neck. An octave there is divided into 12 parts - equal as far as each fret is a semitone away from its neighbour. But looking carefully, it's fairly obvious that each fret isn't the same size. In fact, the eleventh fret is very nearly half the size of the first one, from nut to fret 1. Go further, and the 12th (octave) is actually half the size of the first.
Your hypothesis is that they would all be the same size - one twelfth of the half length of the open string? Were that the case, what woud happen at fret 13? And apart, each fret would produce a note that was out of tune. So there needs to be a ratio of each fret against its neighbour, as pointed out in other good answers.
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
add a comment
|
Possibly a simple way to look at it is to look at a guitar neck. An octave there is divided into 12 parts - equal as far as each fret is a semitone away from its neighbour. But looking carefully, it's fairly obvious that each fret isn't the same size. In fact, the eleventh fret is very nearly half the size of the first one, from nut to fret 1. Go further, and the 12th (octave) is actually half the size of the first.
Your hypothesis is that they would all be the same size - one twelfth of the half length of the open string? Were that the case, what woud happen at fret 13? And apart, each fret would produce a note that was out of tune. So there needs to be a ratio of each fret against its neighbour, as pointed out in other good answers.
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
add a comment
|
Possibly a simple way to look at it is to look at a guitar neck. An octave there is divided into 12 parts - equal as far as each fret is a semitone away from its neighbour. But looking carefully, it's fairly obvious that each fret isn't the same size. In fact, the eleventh fret is very nearly half the size of the first one, from nut to fret 1. Go further, and the 12th (octave) is actually half the size of the first.
Your hypothesis is that they would all be the same size - one twelfth of the half length of the open string? Were that the case, what woud happen at fret 13? And apart, each fret would produce a note that was out of tune. So there needs to be a ratio of each fret against its neighbour, as pointed out in other good answers.
Possibly a simple way to look at it is to look at a guitar neck. An octave there is divided into 12 parts - equal as far as each fret is a semitone away from its neighbour. But looking carefully, it's fairly obvious that each fret isn't the same size. In fact, the eleventh fret is very nearly half the size of the first one, from nut to fret 1. Go further, and the 12th (octave) is actually half the size of the first.
Your hypothesis is that they would all be the same size - one twelfth of the half length of the open string? Were that the case, what woud happen at fret 13? And apart, each fret would produce a note that was out of tune. So there needs to be a ratio of each fret against its neighbour, as pointed out in other good answers.
answered 2 days ago
TimTim
116k12 gold badges113 silver badges290 bronze badges
116k12 gold badges113 silver badges290 bronze badges
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
add a comment
|
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
4
4
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
@AlbrechtHügli The frets on a guitar neck illustrate the physical relationship between the notes of an equal-tempered scale, but they don't explain it. The explanation goes in the opposite direction: The scale explains the spacing of the frets.
– Solomon Slow
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
I agree, but it is a good analogy and shows that the differences of the steps aren't continuous.
– Albrecht Hügli
2 days ago
add a comment
|
Start by considering the equal division of octaves into one part. That is, think about changing pitch by octaves only.
If we start with A1=55 Hz, we have the following pitches:
Pitch Frequency
----------------
A1 55 Hz
A2 110 Hz
A3 220 Hz
A4 440 Hz
A5 880 Hz
...
You can see that when you increase the pitch by an equal additive amount, you increase the frequency by an equal multiplicative factor. That is, every time you increase the pitch by one octave, you double the frequency. This means that the relationship between pitch and frequency is logarithmic.
From there, it is fairly easy to reach the conclusion that to divide the octave into some number of equal parts, you need to find the factor that, when multiplied by itself that number times, yields 2. In other words, the frequency factor corresponding to a division of the octave into n parts is the nth root of 2.
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
add a comment
|
Start by considering the equal division of octaves into one part. That is, think about changing pitch by octaves only.
If we start with A1=55 Hz, we have the following pitches:
Pitch Frequency
----------------
A1 55 Hz
A2 110 Hz
A3 220 Hz
A4 440 Hz
A5 880 Hz
...
You can see that when you increase the pitch by an equal additive amount, you increase the frequency by an equal multiplicative factor. That is, every time you increase the pitch by one octave, you double the frequency. This means that the relationship between pitch and frequency is logarithmic.
From there, it is fairly easy to reach the conclusion that to divide the octave into some number of equal parts, you need to find the factor that, when multiplied by itself that number times, yields 2. In other words, the frequency factor corresponding to a division of the octave into n parts is the nth root of 2.
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
add a comment
|
Start by considering the equal division of octaves into one part. That is, think about changing pitch by octaves only.
If we start with A1=55 Hz, we have the following pitches:
Pitch Frequency
----------------
A1 55 Hz
A2 110 Hz
A3 220 Hz
A4 440 Hz
A5 880 Hz
...
You can see that when you increase the pitch by an equal additive amount, you increase the frequency by an equal multiplicative factor. That is, every time you increase the pitch by one octave, you double the frequency. This means that the relationship between pitch and frequency is logarithmic.
From there, it is fairly easy to reach the conclusion that to divide the octave into some number of equal parts, you need to find the factor that, when multiplied by itself that number times, yields 2. In other words, the frequency factor corresponding to a division of the octave into n parts is the nth root of 2.
Start by considering the equal division of octaves into one part. That is, think about changing pitch by octaves only.
If we start with A1=55 Hz, we have the following pitches:
Pitch Frequency
----------------
A1 55 Hz
A2 110 Hz
A3 220 Hz
A4 440 Hz
A5 880 Hz
...
You can see that when you increase the pitch by an equal additive amount, you increase the frequency by an equal multiplicative factor. That is, every time you increase the pitch by one octave, you double the frequency. This means that the relationship between pitch and frequency is logarithmic.
From there, it is fairly easy to reach the conclusion that to divide the octave into some number of equal parts, you need to find the factor that, when multiplied by itself that number times, yields 2. In other words, the frequency factor corresponding to a division of the octave into n parts is the nth root of 2.
edited 20 hours ago
Dom♦
38.5k20 gold badges117 silver badges238 bronze badges
38.5k20 gold badges117 silver badges238 bronze badges
answered yesterday
phoogphoog
2,0608 silver badges12 bronze badges
2,0608 silver badges12 bronze badges
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
add a comment
|
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
Stackexchange bug, is anyone else seeing this? The contents of the table disappear after page load.
– whatsisname
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
@whatsisname yes, I'm seeing it inconsistently, too. I'll try modifying the table to see if I can work around it.
– phoog
yesterday
add a comment
|
Our note system is a logarithmic scale for frequency. A logarithmic scale turns equal fractions into equal distances. You can define equal temperament as a constant step size of 1/12
on the log_2
scale of frequency.
Going back to the linear scale, this means that a semitone translates into a factor of 2^(1/12)
(the twelfth root of two).
The reason for this is, that the sound of an interval depends on how the overtone spectra of the two nodes match up.
The octave has the unique feature that all harmonics of the higher note match up with some harmonic of the lower note. Likewise, if you have a perfect fifth (factor 3/2), every second harmonic of the upper note coincides with every third harmonic of the lower note. Similar relations hold for the perfect fourth (factor 4/3), the mayor third (5/4) and the mayor sixth (5/3). And so on, and so forth. The pattern of how the harmonics match up defines the sound of the interval, and the harmonics are defined by factors of frequency.
Thus, only a logarithmic scale can be used to describe intervals well (our note system). And by consequence, equal temperament must be defined on the logarithmic scale.
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequenciesf1-f0
andf0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.
– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
Our note system is a logarithmic scale for frequency. A logarithmic scale turns equal fractions into equal distances. You can define equal temperament as a constant step size of 1/12
on the log_2
scale of frequency.
Going back to the linear scale, this means that a semitone translates into a factor of 2^(1/12)
(the twelfth root of two).
The reason for this is, that the sound of an interval depends on how the overtone spectra of the two nodes match up.
The octave has the unique feature that all harmonics of the higher note match up with some harmonic of the lower note. Likewise, if you have a perfect fifth (factor 3/2), every second harmonic of the upper note coincides with every third harmonic of the lower note. Similar relations hold for the perfect fourth (factor 4/3), the mayor third (5/4) and the mayor sixth (5/3). And so on, and so forth. The pattern of how the harmonics match up defines the sound of the interval, and the harmonics are defined by factors of frequency.
Thus, only a logarithmic scale can be used to describe intervals well (our note system). And by consequence, equal temperament must be defined on the logarithmic scale.
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequenciesf1-f0
andf0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.
– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
Our note system is a logarithmic scale for frequency. A logarithmic scale turns equal fractions into equal distances. You can define equal temperament as a constant step size of 1/12
on the log_2
scale of frequency.
Going back to the linear scale, this means that a semitone translates into a factor of 2^(1/12)
(the twelfth root of two).
The reason for this is, that the sound of an interval depends on how the overtone spectra of the two nodes match up.
The octave has the unique feature that all harmonics of the higher note match up with some harmonic of the lower note. Likewise, if you have a perfect fifth (factor 3/2), every second harmonic of the upper note coincides with every third harmonic of the lower note. Similar relations hold for the perfect fourth (factor 4/3), the mayor third (5/4) and the mayor sixth (5/3). And so on, and so forth. The pattern of how the harmonics match up defines the sound of the interval, and the harmonics are defined by factors of frequency.
Thus, only a logarithmic scale can be used to describe intervals well (our note system). And by consequence, equal temperament must be defined on the logarithmic scale.
Our note system is a logarithmic scale for frequency. A logarithmic scale turns equal fractions into equal distances. You can define equal temperament as a constant step size of 1/12
on the log_2
scale of frequency.
Going back to the linear scale, this means that a semitone translates into a factor of 2^(1/12)
(the twelfth root of two).
The reason for this is, that the sound of an interval depends on how the overtone spectra of the two nodes match up.
The octave has the unique feature that all harmonics of the higher note match up with some harmonic of the lower note. Likewise, if you have a perfect fifth (factor 3/2), every second harmonic of the upper note coincides with every third harmonic of the lower note. Similar relations hold for the perfect fourth (factor 4/3), the mayor third (5/4) and the mayor sixth (5/3). And so on, and so forth. The pattern of how the harmonics match up defines the sound of the interval, and the harmonics are defined by factors of frequency.
Thus, only a logarithmic scale can be used to describe intervals well (our note system). And by consequence, equal temperament must be defined on the logarithmic scale.
answered yesterday
cmastercmaster
2475 bronze badges
2475 bronze badges
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequenciesf1-f0
andf0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.
– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequenciesf1-f0
andf0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.
– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
2
2
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
Good idea to talk about log scale. You could even show one graph with equal spacing on a log scale and one with uneven spacing on a linear scale, like a guitar neck.
– Eric Duminil
yesterday
1
1
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
The pitch-class equivalence of octaves is not related to overtones. It is apparent even in sine waves, which have no overtones. Conversely, a "real life" pitch of 220 Hz has an overtone at 660 Hz, yet 660 Hz isn't an equivalent pitch class to 220 Hz.
– phoog
yesterday
2
2
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequencies
f1-f0
and f0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.– cmaster
yesterday
@phoog 660 Hz is one octave + one fifth above 220 Hz, and it does blend excellently. You even have a stop for this interval in many pipe organs because it blends so well. The organist uses this stop to change the sound of the fundamental stop, not to get a transposition. Also, did you ever try to tune two sines to an octave? You can do it if you run the signal through a distorting guitar amp (at the very least this adds the frequencies
f1-f0
and f0+f1
to the signal), but I know that I won't be able to do it precisely without technological help.– cmaster
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@cmaster of course it blends excellently, but it isn't equivalent in the way that 440 and 880 are. They're both A, but 660 and 1980 are E and B. Three instruments playing pitches in parallel separated by factors of two sound more unified than three instruments separated by factors of three, even if the instruments are sine wave generators (relatively easy to achieve with waveform synthesis or Hammond organs). Pipe organ stops for non-octave harmonics only blend in certain registrations. A 5 1/3' stop with a single 8' stop is likely to sound like parallel fifths rather than a richer tone.
– phoog
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
@phoog For a 5 1/3' stop you need the 16' stop to blend. And, yes, a 3 1/5' stop and a 5 1/3' stop blend perfectly with a 16' stop. What makes it difficult to use that combination, is that stops are usually either on or off with nothing in between, and the high stops are just too loud in the combination. I once played an electronic organ that allowed partly pulling a stop, allowing me to reduce the volume of the high stops, and I used that combination quite frequently for its nice sound. With only on/off stops, you'd need to pull some more 16' stops to get the right relative volume.
– cmaster
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
This is another answer trying to help understanding also the question to people who can't cope with ratios and other abstract terms:
Imagine you have a tone of 12 Hz frequency (a string waving 12 times/second).
How must the 12 half steps between the octava (24 Hz) be tuned, so that the differences between all half steps are equal?
The question implies: If the range between the octava is 12 Hz, why is the difference between the 12 half steps not always just 1 Hz?
root=12Hz
minor second 13Hz
major second 14Hz
.
.
.
.
perfect fifth 18Hz
.
.
.
major seventh: 23Hz
octave: 24
We can see that the difference between the first half 12Hz and 13Hz is just 1/10 of 12Hz (10% of the whole octava), while the additional difference between the octava 24Hz and the precedent half tone (23Hz) would have been almost only a 1/20 (=5%) of the difference between the next upper half tone above the octave will be 2Hz more - because this must be a 1/10 of the next octava of 48Hz, as the difference between of ocatava' (24Hz) and octava'' (48Hz) is 24Hz! (48-24=24) and a half step of 1/12 between octava' and octava'' will be 2?
From this we can derive that the differences between the half steps are not additional of 1/12 but proportional by multiplying each half step with 1/12.
Hope this is not droning and confusing. TLDR?
add a comment
|
This is another answer trying to help understanding also the question to people who can't cope with ratios and other abstract terms:
Imagine you have a tone of 12 Hz frequency (a string waving 12 times/second).
How must the 12 half steps between the octava (24 Hz) be tuned, so that the differences between all half steps are equal?
The question implies: If the range between the octava is 12 Hz, why is the difference between the 12 half steps not always just 1 Hz?
root=12Hz
minor second 13Hz
major second 14Hz
.
.
.
.
perfect fifth 18Hz
.
.
.
major seventh: 23Hz
octave: 24
We can see that the difference between the first half 12Hz and 13Hz is just 1/10 of 12Hz (10% of the whole octava), while the additional difference between the octava 24Hz and the precedent half tone (23Hz) would have been almost only a 1/20 (=5%) of the difference between the next upper half tone above the octave will be 2Hz more - because this must be a 1/10 of the next octava of 48Hz, as the difference between of ocatava' (24Hz) and octava'' (48Hz) is 24Hz! (48-24=24) and a half step of 1/12 between octava' and octava'' will be 2?
From this we can derive that the differences between the half steps are not additional of 1/12 but proportional by multiplying each half step with 1/12.
Hope this is not droning and confusing. TLDR?
add a comment
|
This is another answer trying to help understanding also the question to people who can't cope with ratios and other abstract terms:
Imagine you have a tone of 12 Hz frequency (a string waving 12 times/second).
How must the 12 half steps between the octava (24 Hz) be tuned, so that the differences between all half steps are equal?
The question implies: If the range between the octava is 12 Hz, why is the difference between the 12 half steps not always just 1 Hz?
root=12Hz
minor second 13Hz
major second 14Hz
.
.
.
.
perfect fifth 18Hz
.
.
.
major seventh: 23Hz
octave: 24
We can see that the difference between the first half 12Hz and 13Hz is just 1/10 of 12Hz (10% of the whole octava), while the additional difference between the octava 24Hz and the precedent half tone (23Hz) would have been almost only a 1/20 (=5%) of the difference between the next upper half tone above the octave will be 2Hz more - because this must be a 1/10 of the next octava of 48Hz, as the difference between of ocatava' (24Hz) and octava'' (48Hz) is 24Hz! (48-24=24) and a half step of 1/12 between octava' and octava'' will be 2?
From this we can derive that the differences between the half steps are not additional of 1/12 but proportional by multiplying each half step with 1/12.
Hope this is not droning and confusing. TLDR?
This is another answer trying to help understanding also the question to people who can't cope with ratios and other abstract terms:
Imagine you have a tone of 12 Hz frequency (a string waving 12 times/second).
How must the 12 half steps between the octava (24 Hz) be tuned, so that the differences between all half steps are equal?
The question implies: If the range between the octava is 12 Hz, why is the difference between the 12 half steps not always just 1 Hz?
root=12Hz
minor second 13Hz
major second 14Hz
.
.
.
.
perfect fifth 18Hz
.
.
.
major seventh: 23Hz
octave: 24
We can see that the difference between the first half 12Hz and 13Hz is just 1/10 of 12Hz (10% of the whole octava), while the additional difference between the octava 24Hz and the precedent half tone (23Hz) would have been almost only a 1/20 (=5%) of the difference between the next upper half tone above the octave will be 2Hz more - because this must be a 1/10 of the next octava of 48Hz, as the difference between of ocatava' (24Hz) and octava'' (48Hz) is 24Hz! (48-24=24) and a half step of 1/12 between octava' and octava'' will be 2?
From this we can derive that the differences between the half steps are not additional of 1/12 but proportional by multiplying each half step with 1/12.
Hope this is not droning and confusing. TLDR?
answered 8 hours ago
Albrecht HügliAlbrecht Hügli
9,3961 gold badge10 silver badges31 bronze badges
9,3961 gold badge10 silver badges31 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Tukkan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tukkan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tukkan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Tukkan is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Music: Practice & Theory Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmusic.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f90613%2fif-equal-temperament-divides-octave-into-12-equal-parts-why-hertz-differences-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
9
Because 'equal' refers to a geometric progression, not an arithmetic progression.
– user207421
18 hours ago
The frequency ratio of ANY 2 notes N notes apart is the same. This is because all notes are based on a ratio of frequencies. If you used equal magnitude spacings the ratios between notes would vary continually.
– Russell McMahon
4 hours ago