[[email protected]]

I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it, but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one (without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for software for a laptop or smartphone, but a dedicated piece of hardware that's easy to carry).

TIA for any info!

dan

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own spe=
aker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, =
that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine=
wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or o=
ther system to it.

For acoustic testing, or the speaker is just to provide a check signal to
make sure everything is okay?

Some of the NTI testers have speakers for checking signal, but they are never
going to accurately reproduce 261 Hz.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about eve=
rything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a so=
und, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

Oh, you want a tuner! Get a Roland one from your local MI store. Aside
from the frequency discriminator they also will act as an infinite set of
tuning forks.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

On 22/05/2017 2:56 PM, wrote:
I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its
own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my
hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will
play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to
attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just
about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the
woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match
its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it,
but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that
includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one
(without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of
software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but
that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for
software for a laptop or smartphone,

Strange, this is the sort of thing that's pretty easy to do on a smart
phone with speaker phone ability (most of them) without spending
anything if you already have the phone, and nothing extra to carry if
you usually have your phone on you.

Trevor.

[geoff]

On 22/05/2017 4:56 PM, wrote:
I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it, but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one (without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for software for a laptop or smartphone, but a dedicated piece of hardware that's easy to carry).

TIA for any info!

dan



iPod running Signalsuite or Android equivalent ( I have both) and an
active speaker that is capable of the frequency range you require.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/05/2017 6:41 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
..

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about eve=


Oh, you want a tuner! Get a Roland one from your local MI store. Aside
from the frequency discriminator they also will act as an infinite set of
tuning forks.
--scott


.... or an app for your phone. Probably free.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/05/2017 10:21 PM, Trevor wrote:


Strange, this is the sort of thing that's pretty easy to do on a smart
phone with speaker phone ability (most of them) without spending
anything if you already have the phone, and nothing extra to carry if
you usually have your phone on you.

Trevor.


Hey, we agree on something ! Though we often do, but we are each a bit
pedantic on the minutae .

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2017 2:41 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Oh, you want a tuner! Get a Roland one from your local MI store. Aside
from the frequency discriminator they also will act as an infinite set of
tuning forks.

Or if you have a smart-ish phone, try a spectrum analyzer app. Then, not
only do you have a way of determining a frequency, you have a recorder,
so you don't have to determine the frequency in real time, you can study
it later.

Now, if that was just an example and you really want it for something
else, tell us more.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 21 May 2017 21:56:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it, but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one (without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for software for a laptop or smartphone, but a dedicated piece of hardware that's easy to carry).

TIA for any info!

dan

Your application doesn't really match what you are asking for. Typing
in a frequency would be a poor way to do this. You need a knob you can
turn quickly to match the frequency, then a readout of what it is.

Alternatively, how good a musical ear do you have? Carry a tuning fork
and get the note from the pitch interval. Bird song is all pretty
approximate so this would work well.

No batteries to worry about either.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

Or if you have a smart-ish phone, try a spectrum analyzer app.

+1

N track studios tuner app has a nice portable spectrum analayzer.

m

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:04 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



Or if you have a smart-ish phone, try a spectrum analyzer app.

+1

N track studios tuner app has a nice portable spectrum analayzer.

m

Bird song tends to be a bit dynamic in frequency for spectrum analyser
apps to be particularly useful. Also the background noise doesn't
help. I reckon something that involves listening is more likely to
work.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Richard Kuschel]

On Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 10:56:13 PM UTC-6, wrote:
I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it, but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one (without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for software for a laptop or smartphone, but a dedicated piece of hardware that's easy to carry).

TIA for any info!

dan

The Pano Tuner tuner app on my iPhone will do that. It has a few things that you can do with it.

First of all it has a reasonably decent frequency reader. Also you can go into the app and set "A" for any frequency you desire and play it back.

My friends and I have checked out about 10 different apps for guitar tuning and found this one to be the most accurate along with being the easiest to use.

I find it really handy for setting playback speed on my cassette decks from a 3kHz test tape, lots easier than hooking up the Sound Technology or a computer.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 12:56:13 AM UTC-4, wrote:
I'm looking for a handheld audio test signal generator that has its own speaker.

That is, i'm looking for a device small enough that i can hold in my hand, that i can enter a frequency in (such as 261 Hz), and that will play a sine wave with that frequency, and does not require me to attach a speaker or other system to it.

So i'd like it to be entirely self-contained, independent of just about everything, so that, e.g., if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound, i can play a sine tone to see if i can match its pitch, on the spot.

Does such a thing exist?

I've been looking around on amazon and youtube and cannot find it, but my searches all return either no results, or some huge set that includes lots of poor matches.

If there is no such thing, what's the nearest i can get to one (without building one myself --- i suppose i could write a piece of software and put it on a laptop, and lug around the laptop, but that's not the sort of thing i'd like to do: i'm not looking for software for a laptop or smartphone, but a dedicated piece of hardware that's easy to carry).

TIA for any info!

dan

I have an old Eico tube signal tracer, maybe 5 pounds, even a cats eye tuning thing. Oh, here it is!!!....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2T7j48FPXA

Oh, you want a signal generator! Whoops!

Jack

[geoff]

On 23/05/2017 12:22 AM, Don Pearce wrote:


Your application doesn't really match what you are asking for. Typing
in a frequency would be a poor way to do this. You need a knob you can
turn quickly to match the frequency, then a readout of what it is.

Alternatively, how good a musical ear do you have? Carry a tuning fork
and get the note from the pitch interval. Bird song is all pretty
approximate so this would work well.

No batteries to worry about either.

If the sound tyoo quiet or masked by background noise, just basic
personal pitch acuity whistle the first or one significant note along
with the bird and check the freq on the SA running on your phone .


geoff

[[email protected]]

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2017 12:22 AM, Don Pearce wrote:


Your application doesn't really match what you are asking for. Typing
in a frequency would be a poor way to do this. You need a knob you can
turn quickly to match the frequency, then a readout of what it is.

Alternatively, how good a musical ear do you have? Carry a tuning fork
and get the note from the pitch interval. Bird song is all pretty
approximate so this would work well.

No batteries to worry about either.

If the sound tyoo quiet or masked by background noise, just basic
personal pitch acuity whistle the first or one significant note along
with the bird and check the freq on the SA running on your phone .


geoff

Thanks Scott, Don, Mako, Trevor, Geoff, Mike, Richard, and Jack.

A tuner (meaning a piece of electronics that reports the frequency) is along the right lines --- thanks Scott for suggesting that. That's not what i want, but it sounds useful, and i'm so out of it i didn't know that they exist so commonly and cheaply.

I don't want anything that requires a smart phone, because although i have a smart phone, i want to minimize my dependence on it (and for a lot of reasons would like to get rid of it completely). Nevertheless i appreciate knowing about what smartphones can do, so thanks for all of the smart phone suggestions everybody.

A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle, except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)

Thanks again for posting!!!

dan

[Trevor]

On 22/05/2017 9:16 PM, geoff wrote:
On 22/05/2017 10:21 PM, Trevor wrote:
Strange, this is the sort of thing that's pretty easy to do on a smart
phone with speaker phone ability (most of them) without spending
anything if you already have the phone, and nothing extra to carry if
you usually have your phone on you.

Hey, we agree on something ! Though we often do, but we are each a bit
pedantic on the minutae .

:-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 23/05/2017 1:17 AM, Richard Kuschel wrote:
I find it really handy for setting playback speed on my cassette
decks from a 3kHz test tape, lots easier than hooking up the Sound
Technology or a computer.

Haven't used my cassette deck for a decade, hope I never have to find
out if it still works, but can't see why I'd ever want to! :-)

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 23/05/2017 1:17 PM, wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2017 12:22 AM, Don Pearce wrote:

Your application doesn't really match what you are asking for.
Typing in a frequency would be a poor way to do this. You need a
knob you can turn quickly to match the frequency, then a readout
of what it is.

Alternatively, how good a musical ear do you have? Carry a tuning
fork and get the note from the pitch interval. Bird song is all
pretty approximate so this would work well.

No batteries to worry about either.

If the sound tyoo quiet or masked by background noise, just basic
personal pitch acuity whistle the first or one significant note
along with the bird and check the freq on the SA running on your
phone .

Thanks Scott, Don, Mako, Trevor, Geoff, Mike, Richard, and Jack.

A tuner (meaning a piece of electronics that reports the frequency)
is along the right lines --- thanks Scott for suggesting that.
That's not what i want, but it sounds useful, and i'm so out of it i
didn't know that they exist so commonly and cheaply.

I don't want anything that requires a smart phone, because although i
have a smart phone, i want to minimize my dependence on it (and for a
lot of reasons would like to get rid of it completely). Nevertheless
i appreciate knowing about what smartphones can do, so thanks for all
of the smart phone suggestions everybody.

A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle,
except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune
to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i
had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)


Personally if I wanted to do anything like that, I'd simply record it
with a Zoom or similar, and use all the tools I need to analyze it later
at my leisure. With the benefit of having the actual recordings to
archive. You'll probably need a more directional mic, or reflector though.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:

A tuner (meaning a piece of electronics that reports the frequency) is alon=
g the right lines --- thanks Scott for suggesting that. That's not what i =
want, but it sounds useful, and i'm so out of it i didn't know that they ex=
ist so commonly and cheaply.

As I said in the original post, most tuners will also produce a reference
tone, like an infinite set of tuning forks. You set the note on the front,
and with one switch it produces that note and with another it reads your
pitch with respect to it. As I said in the original post, try the Roland.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2017 11:17 PM, wrote:
A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle, except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)

How's your memory for pitch? If you had a bag full of tuning forks,
unless you were measuring something that produced a constant pitch for a
fairly long time (as long as it took to find a tuning fork that was
close enough) you'd need to be able to remember the pitch you heard that
you want to measure. If you're really talking about bird chirps, that's
practically instantaneous. If you're talking about a babbling brook,
that contains a lot of frequencies.

There are ear training programs, some probably even on line by now, that
will help you to learn absolute, or at least accurate relative pitch.
You don't have to be born with "perfect pitch," but you can learn to
detect an interval relative to a standard like a tuning fork. I don't
know how well you can learn to estimate how far off standard pitch but
you can certainly learn to tell if what you're hearing is between C and
C#, and which is closer.

So you don't need a smart phone if you make your ears or brain smarter.

Have you considered an inexpensive handheld recorder? Unless whatever
you're doing must be done in real time, bringing home a recording will
let you do as detailed analysis as you want. A Zoom H1 or TASCAM DR-5
are under $100



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[[email protected]]

On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 11:17:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Monday, May 22, 2017 at 1:08:46 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2017 12:22 AM, Don Pearce wrote:


Your application doesn't really match what you are asking for. Typing
in a frequency would be a poor way to do this. You need a knob you can
turn quickly to match the frequency, then a readout of what it is.

Alternatively, how good a musical ear do you have? Carry a tuning fork
and get the note from the pitch interval. Bird song is all pretty
approximate so this would work well.

No batteries to worry about either.

If the sound tyoo quiet or masked by background noise, just basic
personal pitch acuity whistle the first or one significant note along
with the bird and check the freq on the SA running on your phone .


geoff

Thanks Scott, Don, Mako, Trevor, Geoff, Mike, Richard, and Jack.

A tuner (meaning a piece of electronics that reports the frequency) is along the right lines --- thanks Scott for suggesting that. That's not what i want, but it sounds useful, and i'm so out of it i didn't know that they exist so commonly and cheaply.

I don't want anything that requires a smart phone, because although i have a smart phone, i want to minimize my dependence on it (and for a lot of reasons would like to get rid of it completely). Nevertheless i appreciate knowing about what smartphones can do, so thanks for all of the smart phone suggestions everybody.

A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle, except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)

Thanks again for posting!!!

dan

Allow me to ramble ( signal generator).
I was heavily into CB radio. Even met my wife there.
Anyway, I knew enough to replace a "crystal" with a LC circuit, so I could go "in between" allotted CB channels. My first attempt failed, because I used "audio" coax cable to connect. Later tried a piece of, what was the number, RG58U coax cable and it worked, but so, so unstable!!

One Sunday morning, I decided to use my Dad's old vacuum tube driven signal generator to replace the crystal. Though it probably required LONG warm-up period to stabilize output frequency, I managed to talk to someone in Texas from New Jersey! Okay, so the 150W linear amplifier helped, too :-)

Jack

[geoff]

On 24/05/2017 12:20 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2017 11:17 PM, wrote:
A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle,
except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune
to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i
had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)

How's your memory for pitch? If you had a bag full of tuning forks,
unless you were measuring something that produced a constant pitch for a
fairly long time (as long as it took to find a tuning fork that was
close enough) you'd need to be able to remember the pitch you heard that
you want to measure. If you're really talking about bird chirps, that's
practically instantaneous. If you're talking about a babbling brook,
that contains a lot of frequencies.

There are ear training programs, some probably even on line by now, that
will help you to learn absolute, or at least accurate relative pitch.
You don't have to be born with "perfect pitch," but you can learn to
detect an interval relative to a standard like a tuning fork. I don't
know how well you can learn to estimate how far off standard pitch but
you can certainly learn to tell if what you're hearing is between C and
C#, and which is closer.

So you don't need a smart phone if you make your ears or brain smarter.

Have you considered an inexpensive handheld recorder? Unless whatever
you're doing must be done in real time, bringing home a recording will
let you do as detailed analysis as you want. A Zoom H1 or TASCAM DR-5
are under $100

How bizarre. Record the birds for later analysis, and/or run an SA (or
tuner) on smartphone.

Anything else then ask yourself how much you really need to find out
about what you are trying to do versus the reason for smartphone disdain.

If the real reason is simply ear-training, then there are more
straightforward methods.

geoff
PS Smartphones need only be as smart as a smart user wants them to be.

[Matt Faunce]

geoff wrote:
On 24/05/2017 12:20 AM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2017 11:17 PM, wrote:
A set of tuning forks would be ideal (thanks Don), in principle,
except that the number required would be very large (i'd like to tune
to within 1%, so considerably closer than a semitone). (So even if i
had a knob, i'd want to be able to fine tune it.)

How's your memory for pitch? If you had a bag full of tuning forks,
unless you were measuring something that produced a constant pitch for a
fairly long time (as long as it took to find a tuning fork that was
close enough) you'd need to be able to remember the pitch you heard that
you want to measure. If you're really talking about bird chirps, that's
practically instantaneous. If you're talking about a babbling brook,
that contains a lot of frequencies.

There are ear training programs, some probably even on line by now, that
will help you to learn absolute, or at least accurate relative pitch.
You don't have to be born with "perfect pitch," but you can learn to
detect an interval relative to a standard like a tuning fork. I don't
know how well you can learn to estimate how far off standard pitch but
you can certainly learn to tell if what you're hearing is between C and
C#, and which is closer.

So you don't need a smart phone if you make your ears or brain smarter.

Have you considered an inexpensive handheld recorder? Unless whatever
you're doing must be done in real time, bringing home a recording will
let you do as detailed analysis as you want. A Zoom H1 or TASCAM DR-5
are under $100

How bizarre. Record the birds for later analysis, and/or run an SA (or
tuner) on smartphone.

Anything else then ask yourself how much you really need to find out
about what you are trying to do versus the reason for smartphone disdain.

If the real reason is simply ear-training, then there are more
straightforward methods.

geoff
PS Smartphones need only be as smart as a smart user wants them to be.


Why not a phone?

Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?

1% of what?

Regarding the phone, I'd give him a pass on that and not even ask: It could
be that he's trying to get over an addiction of sorts that's facilitated by
his phone. E.g., it could be work calling when he's "off-call" and he has a
hard time not worrying about whether they need him; it could be he just
broke up with his girlfriend but can't stop hooking up even though it's
mentally unhealthy. It could be anything.

But, answers to the other questions I listed might help him get a better
answer to his question, especially "1% of what?"

--
Matt

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/23/2017 7:30 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?
1% of what?

There's always the possibility that he doesn't know quite what he's
talking about, but it could be interpreted as 1% of the number of Hz, or
1% of a musical half-step, or 1 cent. That's pretty darn close - one
study suggests that most humans can detect a change of 5 or 6 cents.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Matt Faunce]

Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/23/2017 7:30 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?
1% of what?

There's always the possibility that he doesn't know quite what he's
talking about, but it could be interpreted as 1% of the number of Hz, or
1% of a musical half-step, or 1 cent. That's pretty darn close - one
study suggests that most humans can detect a change of 5 or 6 cents.


That sounds about right for melodic differences, but, when two tones are
heard harmonically, i.e., at the same time, then finer differences can be
judged by listening to the interference beats.

For example, on a perfectly equally tempered guitar the fifth harmonic of
the low E string against the seventh fret harmonic of the low A string,
will be 1.98 cents different, and will make beats frequency (I think) a
little over a second long.

(Gerald Klickstein wrote a book on how to tune the guitar, and he has you
tune so those beats are timed to occur with a specific metronome setting. I
kinda wish I knew what that setting was, but not so much that I'll buy the
book.)

--
Matt

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 9:29:39 PM UTC-4, Matt Faunce wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/23/2017 7:30 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?
1% of what?

There's always the possibility that he doesn't know quite what he's
talking about, but it could be interpreted as 1% of the number of Hz, or
1% of a musical half-step, or 1 cent. That's pretty darn close - one
study suggests that most humans can detect a change of 5 or 6 cents.


That sounds about right for melodic differences, but, when two tones are
heard harmonically, i.e., at the same time, then finer differences can be
judged by listening to the interference beats.

For example, on a perfectly equally tempered guitar the fifth harmonic of
the low E string against the seventh fret harmonic of the low A string,
will be 1.98 cents different, and will make beats frequency (I think) a
little over a second long.

(Gerald Klickstein wrote a book on how to tune the guitar, and he has you
tune so those beats are timed to occur with a specific metronome setting. I
kinda wish I knew what that setting was, but not so much that I'll buy the
book.)


Maybe like the whining noise when the different carrier frequencies of two AM radio stations are mixed, the difference is heard or maybe beat frequency? I hear it in music, too, sometimes I think I hear a phone ringing or my watch alarm going off!!

Strange.

Jack

--
Matt

[Matt Faunce]

Matt Faunce wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/23/2017 7:30 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?
1% of what?

There's always the possibility that he doesn't know quite what he's
talking about, but it could be interpreted as 1% of the number of Hz, or
1% of a musical half-step, or 1 cent. That's pretty darn close - one
study suggests that most humans can detect a change of 5 or 6 cents.


That sounds about right for melodic differences, but, when two tones are
heard harmonically, i.e., at the same time, then finer differences can be
judged by listening to the interference beats.

For example, on a perfectly equally tempered guitar the fifth [fret] harmonic of
the low E string against the seventh fret harmonic of the low A string,
will be 1.98 cents different, and will make [the] beats frequency (I think) a
little over a second long.

Correction: I meant "fifth fret harmonic", not "fifth harmonic." I fixed it
above.


(Gerald Klickstein wrote a book on how to tune the guitar, and he has you
tune so those beats are timed to occur with a specific metronome setting. I
kinda wish I knew what that setting was, but not so much that I'll buy the
book.)


--
Matt

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 03:53:49 -0000 (UTC), Matt Faunce
wrote:

Matt Faunce wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/23/2017 7:30 PM, Matt Faunce wrote:
Why does the accuracy needs to be within 1%?
1% of what?

There's always the possibility that he doesn't know quite what he's
talking about, but it could be interpreted as 1% of the number of Hz, or
1% of a musical half-step, or 1 cent. That's pretty darn close - one
study suggests that most humans can detect a change of 5 or 6 cents.


That sounds about right for melodic differences, but, when two tones are
heard harmonically, i.e., at the same time, then finer differences can be
judged by listening to the interference beats.

For example, on a perfectly equally tempered guitar the fifth [fret] harmonic of
the low E string against the seventh fret harmonic of the low A string,
will be 1.98 cents different, and will make [the] beats frequency (I think) a
little over a second long.

Correction: I meant "fifth fret harmonic", not "fifth harmonic." I fixed it
above.


(Gerald Klickstein wrote a book on how to tune the guitar, and he has you
tune so those beats are timed to occur with a specific metronome setting. I
kinda wish I knew what that setting was, but not so much that I'll buy the
book.)


This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song. What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible. Far
better is the suggestion to record it and try to make sense of it
later. To do this I would probably not use a spectrum analyser -
because of the chirp - but the spectrogram view on a DAW. That would
present the frequency as it changes against time. Exactly what is
needed to extract the information the OP is after (although he hasn't
really made it very clear what he is trying to achieve).

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

Very true for birds, and, in fact, almost any natural sound.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible.

Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.



--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 24/05/2017 10:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.



All starting to sound maybe a little bit wacky to me.

OP - maybe a follow-up post with exactly what you are attempting to do,
why, and why excluding several of the easiest (and best ?) methods
suggested ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 24/05/2017 10:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:


Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

I walk in the bush often, and where I am there are many birds that
whistle easily repeatable and identifiable series of pitches.

Granted, some trills may be a little trickier to pin down to a
particular prime note, but most not.

geoff

[geoff]

On 23/05/2017 3:17 PM, wrote:


I don't want anything that requires a smart phone, because although i have a smart phone, i want to minimize my dependence on it (and for a lot of reasons would like to get rid of it completely). Nevertheless i appreciate knowing about what smartphones can do, so thanks for all of the smart phone suggestions everybody.

OK then, go retro. Take a recording-walkman, record whatever, take it
home, and nut out the notes comparing on a piano or other keyboard.

If 'electronic' itself is a problem, then you may be stuck with Scott's
tuning forks ....

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 24/05/2017 11:54, geoff wrote:
On 24/05/2017 10:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:


Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

I walk in the bush often, and where I am there are many birds that
whistle easily repeatable and identifiable series of pitches.

Granted, some trills may be a little trickier to pin down to a
particular prime note, but most not.

For many birds I hear, the frequency modulates many times a second, and
for decent analysis, the sound needs to be slowed down to reveal even
the basic note in the sequence.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 24 May 2017 06:27:10 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

Very true for birds, and, in fact, almost any natural sound.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible.

Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 7:35:35 AM UTC-4, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 06:27:10 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

Very true for birds, and, in fact, almost any natural sound.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible.

Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png

d


here is another intresting link

http://www.avisoft.com/compression.htm

m

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, May 24, 2017 at 6:51:48 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 24/05/2017 10:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.



All starting to sound maybe a little bit wacky to me.

I liked to hear the Byrds sing, Turn, Turn, Turn!!

Jack


OP - maybe a follow-up post with exactly what you are attempting to do,
why, and why excluding several of the easiest (and best ?) methods
suggested ?

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 24/05/2017 10:27 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

All starting to sound maybe a little bit wacky to me.

Much of the problem is that people think they have a good memory for pitch,
but really they don't. Play someone a note and then play the same note 20
seconds later and unless they are very good they will not be able to tell if
one is slightly sharp or flat of the other. My ex could tell, but she was
pretty amazing at assessing pitch, and I'm not sure how much was learned vs.
innate.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png

Clearly this depends on the bird, though. Here is Coco, the electus:
http://www.panix.com/~kludge/beep.mp3
Warning: this is a very loud and annoying beeping noise that comes from
a bird.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 25/05/2017 12:22 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:
Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png
Clearly this depends on the bird, though. Here is Coco, the electus:
http://www.panix.com/~kludge/beep.mp3
Warning: this is a very loud and annoying beeping noise that comes from
a bird.
--scott


Here is what I get at 5AM in summer :

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/con...ui-song-50.mp3


geoff

[Gray_Wolf]

On 5/24/2017 6:35 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 06:27:10 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

Very true for birds, and, in fact, almost any natural sound.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible.

Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png

d

I wonder if the OP is related to JackA or thekmanrocks?
I have to wonder about someone that says he needs 1%
and the simplest, most portable equipment and has no idea
how to achieve this not to mention what he intends to do
with the data.

[Matt Faunce]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 24 May 2017 06:27:10 -0400, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 5/24/2017 1:41 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
This thread appears to have got away from itself. This is about
assessing the frequencies of bird song.

Do we really know it's about bird sounds? In the original post, he wrote
"if i'm out taking a walk in the woods and hear a sound . . . " Maybe
he's talking about a bear growling, a snake slithering, a twig snapping,
or a tree falling.

What we know about bird song
is that it is typically brief, and it chirps. And chirping is a rapid
frequency sweep contained within the actual pulse. What this means is
that the concept of "within 1%" may be literally meaningless.

Very true for birds, and, in fact, almost any natural sound.

The idea of doing this on the fly is really not very sensible.

Agreed. But maybe he walks in some magic woods where birds whistle
sustained, single frequencies.

Here is a spectrogram of birdsong, and it makes it pretty easy to see
why a) the idea of 1% matching is crazy, and b) this kind of
spectrogram is the only sensible way to look at it

http://www.soundthoughts.co.uk/look/birdsong.png

d


After learning that Mozart and other composers would take a notebook out on
walks and jot down birdsongs, I listened to birds myself while thinking
about what those composers' notations probably looked like. I quickly
realized that in most cases if I wanted to capture it into conventional
notation, both in pitch and time, I'd have to do some 'active
interpretation', by which I mean something analogous to looking at a cloud
that kinda looks like a car then drawing that car but with much more
definition than the cloud. This active interpretation comes naturally, and
in many cases it needs to be unlearned. I've read that most people think
snow is pure white, but a trained artist will see it as the yellowish it
actually is, or the something-slightly-other-than-white it is. Proofreaders
need to unlearn automatically correcting mispelled words. I assume that
recording engineers hear what is actually sounded much better than lay
people; contrasted with amateur musical composers -- i.e., those who think
in melodies creatively but aren't trained to meticulously copy other music
like the pros are -- who probably very actively listen without realizing
it.

So, if the OP's intention is to listen to a birdsong, repeat the melody as
he actively hears it by whistling it, and then match what he whistles with
a device he's asking about, then the most sophisticated device he needs is
a simple chromatic pitch pipe and the simple ability the transpose octaves.
If I'm right about this, he thinks he needs more accuracy because he
doesn't realize that his active listening is not only artificially
rendering the melodies as discrete tones but also that it's almost
certainly ramrodding them into the equal-tempered 12-pitches-per-octave
system.

--
Matt