"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
.. .
"ScottW" wrote in message
news:HrY4g.17624$fG3.16089@dukeread09...
"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:
Jenn wrote:
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:
In article
,
Jenn wrote:
In article 0YadnWTbRvNLWc ZnZ2dnUVZ ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
In article EeWdnaxxDsHs8c ZnZ2dnUVZ ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
m
In article 4 KdnYpQD lqn8 ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message
.
com
Hi everyone,
I have a question about HD. I know very well of the
implications of the harmonic series (or overtone
series) in music making and acoustics. My question
is: when one refers to, for example, "second harmonic
distortion" in terms of audio, does "second harmonic"
mean the same thing that it means in music and
acoustics, i.e. an octave plus a perfect fifth above a
fundamental?
Thanks for any help.
The posts from SHP and I say about the same thing. This
points out the fact that until engineers realize that
musicians have their own special meanings for common
engineering words of art, it can be really strange to
talk to them.
Except that you're wrong. This is EXACTLY how the terms
are used in music; I simply misspoke in my question.
There is evidently NO difference in how the terms are
used. I wrote "second harmonic" when I meant to write
"second overtone".
Whatever. :-(
I'm sorry, what do you mean? The terms are used EXACTLY
the same.
Which terms?
Harmonics, harmonic series, etc.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...stortion&ct=eb
Another term sometimes applied to these standing waves is
overtones. The
second harmonic is the first overtone, the third harmonic is the
second
overtone, and so forth. ³Overtone² is a term generally applied to
any
higher-frequency standing wave, whereas the term harmonic is
reserved
for those cases in which the frequencies of the overtones are
integral
multiplesS
End quote.
Stephen
Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics interchangeably; the
numbers are just different.
I can see the reason Arny is frustrated (to put it gently) with you.
First you say you misspoke and inadvertently used overtones when you
meant harmonics claiming there is no difference in useage between
engineers and musicians.... yet now you claim musicians use these
terms interchangeably.
The point is quite clear. Musicians DO use those terms interchangeably,
because they are the same thing.
No, they are not the same thing.
from Wikipedia (again).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone
"Not all overtones are necessarily harmonics,
or exact multiples of the fundamental frequency"
The numbering is simply different
between the two. When one is speaking of harmonics, one calls the
fundamental pitch "1". When speaking of overtones (i.e. harmonics
"OVER" the fundamental), the one ABOVE the fundamental is numbered as
"1". That's all.
You seem to be implying now that harmonics are a subset of overtones
which of course requires your original defintion of overtone
as an octave plus a fifth to be incorrect.
The second overtone above the fundamental frequency is indeed an octave
plus a fifth.
and that is definitely not a harmonic.
ScottW
Scott,
musicians have a different terminology
harmonics means something else to them than it does to engineers.
to them, its thirds, fifiths, sevenths
to engineers 'whole order" harmonics are whole number multiples of
frequencies.
engineers tend to abbreviate'whole order harmonics' into the term
'harmonics'
so, 'harmonics' are two different animals to the two different worlds
So you disagree with Jenn when she said,
"Except that you're wrong. This is EXACTLY how the terms are
used in music" clearly stating that musicians and engineers have the
same definition for the term harmonic even though she
subsequently insisted that harmonic and overtone are interchangeable.
Are all musicians this confused
? In any case the proper term for
non-interger multiples of the fundamental is inharmonic.
ScottW