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.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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.

No, second harmonic in audio means a single octave up, ie., the frequency
doubled. The third harmonic is the frequency tripled, etc.

"Jenn" wrote in message

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?

The second harmonic of a fundamental tone is exactly one octave higher. The
frequency ratio is 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic

"Jenn" wrote in message

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.

One other help would be that this definition of harmonic is peculiar to
music, and not characteristic of acoustics. If an acoustician uses the
musical definition of second harmonic, its probably only because he's
talking to musicians.

Acousticians generally use word meanings drawn from Physics, not music.

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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

If you have an audio question about perfect fifths, ask Pinkerton.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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?

The second harmonic of a fundamental tone is exactly one octave higher. The
frequency ratio is 2:1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic

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".

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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".


One other help would be that this definition of harmonic is peculiar to
music, and not characteristic of acoustics.

Incorrect; see above.

If an acoustician uses the
musical definition of second harmonic, its probably only because he's
talking to musicians.

Acousticians generally use word meanings drawn from Physics, not music.

They are the same. The pattern is octave, fifth, fourth, third, third,
etc. This applies to instruments, concert halls, any sympathetic
vibration. It's nice to know that we're dealing with the same physical
properties of nature, which is what I was trying to find out.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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. :-(

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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.

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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?

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:19:50 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


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.

Ever feel you're being led by the hand into a strange country, Jenn?

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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
multiplesŠ

End quote.

Stephen

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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
multiplesŠ

End quote.

Stephen

Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics interchangeably; the
numbers are just different.

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 06:19:50 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


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.

Ever feel you're being led by the hand into a strange country, Jenn?

Constantly.


Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I'm hip :-)

Jenn wrote:
In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
m
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

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
multiplesŠ

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.
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.

In any case.. they really aren't intechangeable IMO.

ScottW

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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
multiplesŠ

End quote.

Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics interchangeably; the
numbers are just different.

Octave doubling is easy to hear in underpowered bass amps.

The listener's perception can reduce the separate pitch components into
a single sensation of timbre. This is a commonplace for conductors,
organists and players of chording instruments.

Stephen

"Jenn" wrote in message
...

I'm sorry, what do you mean? The terms are used EXACTLY
the same.

Which terms?

Harmonics, harmonic series, etc.

Ever feel you're being led by the hand into a strange country, Jenn?

Constantly.

you need to master KSL before citizenship can be granted.


BTW, here is the Krooglish version of the National Anthem:

oh, say blindly we hear, by the basement's dim light
oh so proudly we rail, even though the subjectivists are right

who's fine tuned hearing, w'ell never comprehend
oe'r the internet we argue, insults and Kroologic we send

and the tubes orange glow, and the highs so mellow
high end is the foe, second order distortion, oh no!

oh say does that solid state bring edge and irritants
oe'r the land of the borgs, and the home of the dense



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"ScottW" wrote in message
oups.com

I can see the reason Arny is frustrated (to put it
gently) with you.

Me frustrated with Jenn?

LOL!

She just wrote something vague and I asked for clarifcation.

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
multiplesŠ

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. 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.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:24:45 -0400, "Clyde Slick"
wrote:


BTW, here is the Krooglish version of the National Anthem:

oh, say blindly we hear, by the basement's dim light
oh so proudly we rail, even though the subjectivists are right

who's fine tuned hearing, w'ell never comprehend
oe'r the internet we argue, insults and Kroologic we send

and the tubes orange glow, and the highs so mellow
high end is the foe, second order distortion, oh no!

oh say does that solid state bring edge and irritants
oe'r the land of the borgs, and the home of the dense


I'll pay that one, Art!

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Scott:
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.

Scott probably doesn't play clarinet...

Stephen

MINe 109 said:

Scott probably doesn't play clarinet...

I thought clarinets are banned in polite company.





--
A day without Krooger is like a day without arsenic.

In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said:

Scott probably doesn't play clarinet...

I thought clarinets are banned in polite company.

I wouldn't know, but they're required in Brave Combo.

Stephen

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Jenn wrote:

Scott:
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.

Scott probably doesn't play clarinet...


I do, I should have played it for him 2 weeks ago.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

MINe 109 said:

Scott probably doesn't play clarinet...

I thought clarinets are banned in polite company.

I wouldn't know, but they're required in Brave Combo.


but I hear they're banned in Wittevrongel Condo.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

"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

"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



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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
multiplesŠ

End quote.

Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics interchangeably; the
numbers are just different.

Octave doubling is easy to hear in underpowered bass amps.

Yep.

The listener's perception can reduce the separate pitch components into
a single sensation of timbre. This is a commonplace for conductors,
organists and players of chording instruments.

Of course.

"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

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

The second overtone above the fundamental frequency is indeed an octave
plus a fifth.

ScottW:

and that is definitely not a harmonic.




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.

It goes like this:

http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/atmi...dex-audio.html

"When musicians use the term overtone series, they are generally
referring to a set of frequency components that appear above a musical
tone. The related term harmonic series is a more precisely defined
concept with applications in both music and mathematics. Though
musicians sometimes use these terms interchangeably, the term harmonic
series specifically refers to a series of numbers related by
whole-number ratios."

Musicians get to juggle overtones, intervals, partials, harmonics,
frequencies, pitches, and "whole-number ratios." There's the practical
relationship of playing the instrument, brass overtones, string
harmonics, etc. (Can fretted instruments ever really be in tune?)

Be sure to read down to Pythagoras. These mathematical concepts
originated in music philosophy back to the Greeks and continuing through
Tartini (difference tones described by a violinist) and the ongoing
interest in tuning systems.

I am confused about the octave-and-a-fifth thing. Isn't it the third
partial and the second overtone, representing a frequency three times
the fundamental tone? If three is a whole number, how is that not a
harmonic?

Stephen

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.

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

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

The second overtone above the fundamental frequency is indeed an octave
plus a fifth.

ScottW:

and that is definitely not a harmonic.




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.

It goes like this:

http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/atmi...dex-audio.html

"When musicians use the term overtone series, they are generally
referring to a set of frequency components that appear above a musical
tone. The related term harmonic series is a more precisely defined
concept with applications in both music and mathematics. Though
musicians sometimes use these terms interchangeably, the term harmonic
series specifically refers to a series of numbers related by
whole-number ratios."

Musicians get to juggle overtones, intervals, partials, harmonics,
frequencies, pitches, and "whole-number ratios." There's the practical
relationship of playing the instrument, brass overtones, string
harmonics, etc. (Can fretted instruments ever really be in tune?)

No, it's all a compromise.

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

(Can fretted instruments ever really be in tune?)

No, it's all a compromise.

Reminds me of my now-long-ago music history classes and "chromatic
keyboards" used when F# and Gb just aren't the same pitch.

One advantage of some electronic instruments is the ability to change
tuning systems at the touch of a button.

Stephen

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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".

It's really quite simple. Harmonics are integer multiples
of a fundamental. Anything else that is related to a fundamental
by a non-integer multiple should be referred to as an inharmonic
or a partial or an overtone, but not as a harmonic.

Not to muddy the water with another inappropiate use
of terminology, but WTH. Why would any musician describing
the output of an acoustic
instrument refer to any aspect of the instruments output
as distortion?

ScottW

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

In article ,
MINe 109 wrote:

(Can fretted instruments ever really be in tune?)

No, it's all a compromise.

Reminds me of my now-long-ago music history classes and "chromatic
keyboards" used when F# and Gb just aren't the same pitch.

Yeah.


One advantage of some electronic instruments is the ability to change
tuning systems at the touch of a button.

Yes, that's one big advantage for sure. But there's that SOUND thing...
;-)

In article YV85g.18478$fG3.15052@dukeread09,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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".

It's really quite simple. Harmonics are integer multiples
of a fundamental. Anything else that is related to a fundamental
by a non-integer multiple should be referred to as an inharmonic
or a partial or an overtone, but not as a harmonic.

But again, not always for musicians.


Not to muddy the water with another inappropiate use
of terminology, but WTH. Why would any musician describing
the output of an acoustic
instrument refer to any aspect of the instruments output
as distortion?

Well, we don't really, as it relates to individual performance except as
in "the sound is distorted"...raspy, overblown, too much bow pressure,
etc. We DO however refer to a room distorting the second harmonic, for
example.

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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 multiplesŠ

End quote.

Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics
interchangeably; the numbers are just different.

Octave doubling is easy to hear in underpowered bass amps.

As it tripling.

However, saying that doubling or tripling is easy to hear in "bass amps" is
a bit misleading, because the doubling and tripling is mostly likely in the
speaker portion of the so-called amp.


The listener's perception can reduce the separate pitch
components into a single sensation of timbre. This is a
commonplace for conductors, organists and players of
chording instruments.

Fact of the matter - as a rule bass acoustic instruments produce far more
harmonics than fundamental.

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MINe 109" wrote in message

In article
,
Jenn wrote:

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 multiplesŠ

End quote.

Yep, we use the terms overtones and harmonics
interchangeably; the numbers are just different.

Octave doubling is easy to hear in underpowered bass amps.

As it tripling.

Fourth harmonic distortion?

However, saying that doubling or tripling is easy to hear in "bass amps" is
a bit misleading, because the doubling and tripling is mostly likely in the
speaker portion of the so-called amp.

For one thing, the amp has to be "on" and receiving input. It's easiest
to hear doubling or tripling in the acoustic output, or "sound," of the
speaker.

Adding to the confusion, musicians often refer to preamp/amp/speaker
combos as "amps," often specifying what instrument is likely to plugged
into into its input by an instrument cord, ie, "bass amp" or "guitar
amp."

I was wrong not to be sufficiently specific in my first mention of a
"bass amp" and to imply that one can hear distortion in an amp without
hooking it up to a speaker.

The listener's perception can reduce the separate pitch
components into a single sensation of timbre. This is a
commonplace for conductors, organists and players of
chording instruments.

Fact of the matter - as a rule bass acoustic instruments produce far more
harmonics than fundamental.

Yes, indeed. Electric, too, when heard through an "amp."

Stephen

"ScottW" wrote in message
news:YV85g.18478$fG3.15052@dukeread09...

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
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".

It's really quite simple. Harmonics are integer multiples
of a fundamental. Anything else that is related to a fundamental
by a non-integer multiple should be referred to as an inharmonic
or a partial or an overtone, but not as a harmonic.

Not to muddy the water with another inappropiate use
of terminology, but WTH. Why would any musician describing
the output of an acoustic
instrument refer to any aspect of the instruments output
as distortion?


Because they are not engineers and they are not speaking engineerspeak.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access