I don't think sonoluminiscence is very relevant in this discussion but of course I recognize its existence.
Talking about peceiving wavelength or frequencies actually the concept of frequency in music did not crystalize before 1636 where Marin Mersenne measured a tone of 84 Hz. Before that time it would be much more obvious to relate to music as space ... (wave-) lengths.
We all agree that it is the frequency which is preserved when sounds are played in the water, causing the wavelength to rise. The point is that no matter whether we listen through air or through water the relation of f x λ = v is indispensable. f x λ = 1,481 m/s in water at 20 degrees C
f x λ = 343 m/s in atmospheric air at 20 degrees C.
So as the frequency remains, the wavelength rises 4.32 times if you drop your sound emitter in water.
The important point is, that the identity of the tone is composed by both time (frequency) and space (wavelength). It is rather dubious to claim that anything meaningful is obtained by looking solely at the frequency aspect.
I am all in for sensing wavelengths! Also in water!
Percieving wavelenght as a sensation is an interesting field too. We are used to frequency perception. The frequency doesn't change if we change the fluid from air to water. I learned to feel the wavelength in air. It's a completely different sensation than hearing. I feels more like a mechanical vibration which I cannot realy describe.
There in fact are mechanical connections between light and sound. In photo acoustic spectroscopy you use sputtered light to induce thermal effects that can be measured as sound. Also if you go into the vibration of molecules the movements relate to microwave spectrum. And by inducing cavities in liquids by application of standing ultra sound waves you can induce light emission. But I don't think any of this is meant by the octave principle.
Who would argue in favour of a claim that our musical perception is conditioned by the fact that the utility frequency of the AC power system in most of Europe is 50 Hz?
Should the fact that we live in Europe lead us to favour notes of 50, 100, 200, 400, 800,... Hz when singing in electrically lit rooms here and to favour notes of 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, ... Hz when singing in North America, where the utility frequency of the AC power system is 60 Hz?
I welcome your comment. It seems to me, though, that you don't mean "But I agree to Skye (...)" as your arguments prior to that are also in favour of my viewpoint. I would suggest "And I also agree to Skye (...)"
And thanks for nuancing that the octave is not all that universal.
If someone puts forward in a discussion that classical indian musicians tune their instruments to an octave of the tropical year that must be considered as claim which needs substantiation. Before that I can't relate to it as anything but myth, no matter if the claim is to be found in a book about octavation. What is needed is plausibility from a descent and reliable source, not rambling claims. I am not unfamiliar with Indian classical tradition.
Skye, the octave is not a stable fact in music anyway. As pointed out by W.A. Sethares in his brilliant book Tuning, Timbre, Specturm, Scale the perception of an octave intervall is related to the 2/1 ratio of matching overtones rather than to 2/1 frequency ratio. If you stretch the overtone scale of the sounds you can percieve an octave even if the fundamental frequencies have a ratio of 9/4.
Comparing different wave forms and frequencies to tones is an interesting concept from the viewpoint of psychic or psycho acoustic perception. Physics is by now not able to explain beauty. And their is beauty in the concept as is in the underlying numbers and mathematics.
And it's stunning if Indian musicians tune their instruments to octaves of planet moves. Is this fact proven? I saw it only in books about the octave principle. How precise are those tuning frequencies related to the planet tones?
A tolerance of alone 12 Cent up or down (1/8 of a halftone step) would mean a difference of 5 days in the tropical year. I could imagine that the planet system wouldn't stay stable with such a tolerance. 12 Cent is about the smallest tone difference to be distinguished if you play a single tone. Hearing is better when comparing two tones, but in tuning the first note you only have the reference of a however percieved planet tone. How do those musicians tune? And how reproducible is the tuning? Was this investigated, Planetware? Would be interesting to know.
But I agree to Skye that some people when speaking about planet tones tent to point out a physical connection while misunderstanding the underlying concepts of physics. I would rather look for synesthetic, subconcious or metaphysical connections.
" (...) wie von Herrn Løfvander fälschlich behauptet, mit einer Vermischung von Frequenzen und Wellenlängen."
No matter if a tone is sounding in air, in water (liquids) or in solids it will be subject to the frequency-wavelength relation, f x λ = v (frequency x wavelength = velocity)
”Vermischung”?? - It is a question of the nature of tone. You cannot separate the two!
”fälschlich behauptet”?? - If you could point to a situation where the frequency and wavelength of a tone or a colour are not interdependent, I think you should do that!
I actually don't think I am destructive. I am critical, yes, and I am being honest about it. What is essential is that I am not just sneering and calling names. I allow myself to point at what you and Mr. Cousto and thousands of others either do not understand or don't bother about even though it is extremely basic and very essential to the understanding of our perception of waveforms.
One reason why you may find it destructive is, that you are in it for economical profit whereas I am concerned about disseminating of misunderstandings and a simplistic view which can only add to alienation. I am right now not having a conversation with a person but with a business trademark - Planetware.
And actually talking about methods is not the point. We are talking about one method, that of octavation. I could also octavate my body temperature or shoe size to the number of calories in my breakfast but the result wouldn't really be meaningful, would it? However it is not much different from what you are suggesting we should should do by comparing properties of hydrogen with those of tonal frequencies.
And let me repeat: You cannot - and I mean not - just octavate a frequency without simultaneously octavating the wavelength. These two aspects are absolutely fundamental components of the identity of a tone or a colour. You can not isolate the one from the other neither in gasses, fluid nor solids. Frequency and wavelength are indisputably interconnected.
Whenever you octavate a tone so that its frequency matches a value from the colour spectrum, you end up with a value of the wavelength which deviates by the factor of one million from the wavelengths of the colour spectrum. So you have something which is neither viable as a tone nor a colour.
Furthermore you completely ignore: - that the two waveforms are fundamentally different: One is disemminated transversally, the other lonngitudinally - our sensory perception of the fields have very different bandwidth. We can hear more than 10 octaves tones but only see just short of one octave colours. That is crucial to how we structure our concept of the two wave expressions.
- An octave is not always just 1:2. On all pianos, no matter of tuning, the higher octaves are tuned wider than 1:2 and the lower octaves more narrow.
- The distance between the the wave fields - tone and colour - is enourmous 2^40
- The natural division of the tonal spectrum is the harmonic series. Fundamentally the octave here is divided in 2-4-8-16-... In your iColour Piano you frankly claim that you can ignore that structure and apply it to the 7/12-divided piano.
- The natural division of the colour octav is not in 7. Newton happened to be wrong at this point. Indigo is not a primary colour.
... etc., etc.
To repeat: I honestly don't think I am destructive, I am calling out for soberness and conscientiousness!
Comments
I don't think sonoluminiscence is very relevant in this discussion but of course I recognize its existence.
Talking about peceiving wavelength or frequencies actually the concept of frequency in music did not crystalize before 1636 where Marin Mersenne measured a tone of 84 Hz. Before that time it would be much more obvious to relate to music as space ... (wave-) lengths.
We all agree that it is the frequency which is preserved when sounds are played in the water, causing the wavelength to rise.
The point is that no matter whether we listen through air or through water the relation of f x λ = v is indispensable.
f x λ = 1,481 m/s in water at 20 degrees C
f x λ = 343 m/s in atmospheric air at 20 degrees C.
So as the frequency remains, the wavelength rises 4.32 times if you drop your sound emitter in water.
The important point is, that the identity of the tone is composed by both time (frequency) and space (wavelength). It is rather dubious to claim that anything meaningful is obtained by looking solely at the frequency aspect.
I am all in for sensing wavelengths! Also in water!
Percieving wavelenght as a sensation is an interesting field too. We are used to frequency perception. The frequency doesn't change if we change the fluid from air to water. I learned to feel the wavelength in air. It's a completely different sensation than hearing. I feels more like a mechanical vibration which I cannot realy describe.
There in fact are mechanical connections between light and sound. In photo acoustic spectroscopy you use sputtered light to induce thermal effects that can be measured as sound. Also if you go into the vibration of molecules the movements relate to microwave spectrum. And by inducing cavities in liquids by application of standing ultra sound waves you can induce light emission. But I don't think any of this is meant by the octave principle.
Improved version of the image.
Who would argue in favour of a claim that our musical perception is conditioned by the fact that the utility frequency of the AC power system in most of Europe is 50 Hz?
Should the fact that we live in Europe lead us to favour notes of 50, 100, 200, 400, 800,... Hz when singing in electrically lit rooms here and to favour notes of 60, 120, 240, 480, 960, ... Hz when singing in North America, where the utility frequency of the AC power system is 60 Hz?
Well, I think not!
Hello Wolfgang,
I welcome your comment. It seems to me, though, that you don't mean "But I agree to Skye (...)" as your arguments prior to that are also in favour of my viewpoint. I would suggest "And I also agree to Skye (...)"
And thanks for nuancing that the octave is not all that universal.
If someone puts forward in a discussion that classical indian musicians tune their instruments to an octave of the tropical year that must be considered as claim which needs substantiation. Before that I can't relate to it as anything but myth, no matter if the claim is to be found in a book about octavation. What is needed is plausibility from a descent and reliable source, not rambling claims. I am not unfamiliar with Indian classical tradition.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan).
Skye, the octave is not a stable fact in music anyway. As pointed out by W.A. Sethares in his brilliant book Tuning, Timbre, Specturm, Scale the perception of an octave intervall is related to the 2/1 ratio of matching overtones rather than to 2/1 frequency ratio. If you stretch the overtone scale of the sounds you can percieve an octave even if the fundamental frequencies have a ratio of 9/4.
Very interesting discussion!
Comparing different wave forms and frequencies to tones is an interesting concept from the viewpoint of psychic or psycho acoustic perception. Physics is by now not able to explain beauty. And their is beauty in the concept as is in the underlying numbers and mathematics.
And it's stunning if Indian musicians tune their instruments to octaves of planet moves. Is this fact proven? I saw it only in books about the octave principle. How precise are those tuning frequencies related to the planet tones?
A tolerance of alone 12 Cent up or down (1/8 of a halftone step) would mean a difference of 5 days in the tropical year. I could imagine that the planet system wouldn't stay stable with such a tolerance. 12 Cent is about the smallest tone difference to be distinguished if you play a single tone. Hearing is better when comparing two tones, but in tuning the first note you only have the reference of a however percieved planet tone. How do those musicians tune? And how reproducible is the tuning? Was this investigated, Planetware? Would be interesting to know.
But I agree to Skye that some people when speaking about planet tones tent to point out a physical connection while misunderstanding the underlying concepts of physics. I would rather look for synesthetic, subconcious or metaphysical connections.
" (...) wie von Herrn Løfvander fälschlich behauptet, mit einer Vermischung von Frequenzen und Wellenlängen."
No matter if a tone is sounding in air, in water (liquids) or in solids it will be subject to the frequency-wavelength relation, f x λ = v (frequency x wavelength = velocity)
”Vermischung”??
- It is a question of the nature of tone. You cannot separate the two!
”fälschlich behauptet”??
- If you could point to a situation where the frequency and wavelength of a tone or a colour are not interdependent, I think you should do that!
Hello Planetware,
I actually don't think I am destructive. I am critical, yes, and I am being honest about it. What is essential is that I am not just sneering and calling names. I allow myself to point at what you and Mr. Cousto and thousands of others either do not understand or don't bother about even though it is extremely basic and very essential to the understanding of our perception of waveforms.
One reason why you may find it destructive is, that you are in it for economical profit whereas I am concerned about disseminating of misunderstandings and a simplistic view which can only add to alienation. I am right now not having a conversation with a person but with a business trademark - Planetware.
And actually talking about methods is not the point. We are talking about one method, that of octavation.
I could also octavate my body temperature or shoe size to the number of calories in my breakfast but the result wouldn't really be meaningful, would it? However it is not much different from what you are suggesting we should should do by comparing properties of hydrogen with those of tonal frequencies.
And let me repeat:
You cannot - and I mean not - just octavate a frequency without simultaneously octavating the wavelength. These two aspects are absolutely fundamental components of the identity of a tone or a colour. You can not isolate the one from the other neither in gasses, fluid nor solids.
Frequency and wavelength are indisputably interconnected.
Whenever you octavate a tone so that its frequency matches a value from the colour spectrum, you end up with a value of the wavelength which deviates by the factor of one million from the wavelengths of the colour spectrum. So you have something which is neither viable as a tone nor a colour.
Furthermore you completely ignore:
- that the two waveforms are fundamentally different: One is disemminated transversally, the other lonngitudinally
- our sensory perception of the fields have very different bandwidth. We can hear more than 10 octaves tones but only see just short of one octave colours. That is crucial to how we structure our concept of the two wave expressions.
- An octave is not always just 1:2. On all pianos, no matter of tuning, the higher octaves are tuned wider than 1:2 and the lower octaves more narrow.
- The distance between the the wave fields - tone and colour - is enourmous 2^40
- The natural division of the tonal spectrum is the harmonic series. Fundamentally the octave here is divided in 2-4-8-16-... In your iColour Piano you frankly claim that you can ignore that structure and apply it to the 7/12-divided piano.
- The natural division of the colour octav is not in 7. Newton happened to be wrong at this point. Indigo is not a primary colour.
... etc., etc.
To repeat:
I honestly don't think I am destructive, I am calling out for soberness and conscientiousness!
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next