In article w075g.18460$fG3.5768@dukeread09,
"ScottW" wrote:

"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
.
com
In article EeWdnaxxDsHs8c ZnZ2dnUVZ ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

gy.co
m
In article 4 KdnYpQD lqn8 ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

digy.
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.

Yep, obviously I was premature in stating that the terms are used in the
same way universally. There obviously not agreement in music circles in
how to use the terms. For example, from Wikipedia:

"Harmonic vs. partial. Harmonics are often called partials. In some
contexts, "partial" may refer to an overtone that is not an integer
multiple of the fund amental frequency, but this can be confusing in
wire-stringed instruments where, due to inharmonicity, none of the
harmonics vibrate at exact integer multiples of the fundamental. In
music, and especially among tuning professionals, the words "harmonic"
and "partial" are generally interchangeable.
Likewise, many musicians use the term overtones as a synonym for
harmonics. For others, an overtone may be any frequency that sounds
along with the fundamental tone, regardless of its relationship to the
fundamental frequency. The sound of a cymbal or gong includes overtones
that are not harmonics; that's why the gong's sound doesn't seem to have
a very definite pitch compared to the same fundamental note played on a
piano.
Harmonic numbering. In most contexts, the fundamental vibration of an
oscillating body represents its first harmonic. However, some musicians,
tuners, and even developers of piano tuning software do not consider the
fundamental to be a harmonic; it is just the fundamental. For them, the
harmonic one octave above the fundamental (the second mode of vibration)
is the first harmonic or first partial. There are logical arguments for
both approaches to numbering, but in this article, the fundamental
vibration is referred to as the first harmonic for simplicity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmoni...29#Terminology

So, I guess that I have the answer to my original question: musicians
and audio people may or may not be speaking of the same thing when, for
example, they refer to "second harmonic distortion".

On the other hand, as opposed to what someone else said, what both camps
are speaking of IS based on physics. It might be interesting for those
of you who aren't musicians to know how the concept affects music, music
making and how we deal with this aspect of acoustics. If the interest
isn't there, feel free to skip, of course :-)

How a particular instrument, voice, or space emphasizes or de-emphasizes
the overtones (partials, harmonics) of a fundamental pitch affects
everything about timbre. For example, almost every instrument and voice
can perform A=440. But it's the overtone structure of the
instrument/voice (the "dut"?) that tells us that a clarinet sounds like
a clarinet, a trombone a trombone, a piano a piano, etc. (also involved
is the style of articulation, etc. of course). But it get much more
subtle than that: it makes the difference between the same trumpet
played by player A vs. player B. More subtle: the same trumpet played
by the same player but in a different performance space, the
construction of which has its own overtone signature. More subtle: the
same player in the same space but playing a Bach trumpet as opposed to a
King. More subtle: same player, same space, same model of Bach, but
one is brass color and one is silver. More subtle, same player, same
space, same model Bach, same finish, but made on, for example, different
days. Plus, players (especially brass players) have to deal with the
"out of tuneness" of the overtones, based on the modern intonation
systems. For example, the 4th partial on brass instruments is some 14
cents flat and has to be adjusted on the fly, or else the result will be
a note that EVERYONE will hear as out of tune. This is an example of
the musician dealing with physics on a moment to moment basis. I know
that everyone here already understands all of this (or doesn't care), so
sorry for the rant. I'm just attempting to find common ground, which
I'm sure is a fool's pursuit.