Virgil's naturaL beats

[Richard Brekne]

While I will aggree that finding the right set of terms and language to fit the
concept, I am not so sure that we should jump right into declaring Virgils
"natural beats" as falling in whole into the category of psychoacoustics. For
that matter it seems like psychoacoustics is not exactly a totaly isolated field
to begin with. Just how much of this is or is not measurable is at the moment an
unknown and we are speculating at answers me thinks.

A couple of points... the cancelling out effect that Bill talks about is not
simply a matter of perception. If you fool around a bit with signwaves and a
wavegenerator you will quickly find this "effect" is real and tangeable enough on
its own. Very easy to "see" happening as well. Secondly its not hard to accept
the idea of this same affect being applied directly to differing intervals to
achieve some predictable result. If that is first possible...then it seems hard
to imagine that we could not come up with some kind of visual representation
similiar to ETD's to help us identify when such an optimum cancelling effect is
present.

I think sort of that thats whats happening with the use of the 1,4,5,8 as a
sounding base to tune a double or triple octave to the 1. Think about the
following for a second.  Using the 1,4,5,8, to tune the 16. What have we got in
terms of partials... just take the lowest coincidents to keep things simple. Now
I am going to take a little leap into the blue on this one so bear with me... The
4th and 5th relate to the 1 8 and 16 in sort of an opposite sense (the 4th wide
to the 1, the 5th narrow and so on). True we are dealing with different
coincident frequencies.. but they are all common to the octave sequence. I have
no problem seeing a very real possiblity that these differening frequencies can
be subject to these same canncelling effects and that an "optimal" combination
would  result in what Virgil calls a "beatless (natural beats) octave"  and that
further this "optimal" coincides with a well tuned octave. ( grin... I know ... a
mouthfull)

If we are going to figure out for sure what Virgil is talking about... we have to
be willing to admit to the possiblity that there is something there to look for.
This may include something very tangeable.. or it may not. We wont know
untill..... we know...grin.

As to your point about voicing.  You do throw a wrench into the works dont you...
:) I am not sure tho that voicing can change the frequencies of partials as much
as their volumes.... and I am not at all sure that a sumnation of "changed"
partial frequencies would then add up to show any significant difference.
Virigils concept is rather  wholistic in nature.... we need to look at coincident
partials in that same light if we are going to figure him out. The only way to do
that is to start putting many of them together and looking at their behaviour
instead of looking at each of them individually as we presently do in our work.


Grin.. I just gotta send this without too much proof reading... my brain is
aching...


Yardarm103669107@AOL.COM wrote:

> Richard:
> I suspect that ETD's aren't the tool to measure or see what might be going
> on. A spectrum analysis of some sort might be the way. If there are indeed
> groupings of predominant (formant) partials being compared in the two notes
> of the octave, it would be necessary to see the entire spectrum of each
> partial set to see the match up of the selected groupings. Again, I think
> much depends on voicing. If the piano is voiced unevenly, i.e. partial sets
> being randomly dispersed through the compass of the instrument, then even
> this won't work.
>
> If one assumes, correctly, that all partials sound simultaneously (a still
> amazing phenomenon), then spectral analysis should show the formant grouping;
> how well one can blend one set to the other in an octave, i.e. how well one
> can make these two or three or perhaps four partials in the formant set of
> one note sound "beatless" with the other set of the other note is a
> psychoacoustic phenomenon of even more amazement. I still do not like the use
> of the word "beat" here. I still believe that it is a category mistake, that
> there is other language which would make the whole conceptual underpinning of
> Virgil's argument (sic) more palatable and open to a different kind of
> understanding.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Paul Revenko-JonesBillbrpt@AOL.COM writes:
>
> << However, from a practical point of
>  view, there is nothing to prevent any interval from being *perceived* as
>  beatless.   >>
>
> Bill:
>
> You've hit the nail on the head. It is the whole area of perceived
> beatlessness that is problematic even for those who agree wholeheartedly with
> Virgil. What indeed is perceived beatlessness? I suspect that the answer
> falls more in the psychoacoustic realm than in a tuning theory realm. This
> makes it no less real, no less effective in the real world, nor any less real
> as a reportable sensation by Virgil or any other listener, technician or not.
> But it does beg for a category shift and language clarification. How the
> individual chooses to hear is purely that--individual. Neither way of hearing
> is better or worse. Nor does either way of hearing create necessarily a
> better outcome; the whole idea of "tune-offs" has always had just a bit too
> much of the carnival sideshow for my taste. Be that as it may, we need to
> look at this phenomenon in a context that allows for clear terminology and
> specification.
>
> This is all to the good, Bill. Thanks.
> Paul R-J

--
Richard Brekne
RPT, N.P.T.F.
Bergen, Norway
mailto:Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no