[sdiy] Request brain dump on balanced lines -- harmonic numbering

[Dave Krooshof]

Glen:
>>http://users.ezwv.com/~mclilith/12345.wav
point proven.

John:
>But, of course. Try 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800 Hz sine waves
>mixed together. Should sound like a major seventh chord ++ a bottom end.
>Major triad = 4:5:6
You are aware you are suggesting to mix _sine_ waves, aren't you?
We're talking harmonic contents of an ideal tone here.
We're using additive synthesis as a research method.

>Appreciation of more complex ratios, moving towards dissonance versus
>Consonance (1:1) is at least in part learned.
>Cowboys generally don't like Thelonious
This a whole new issue: piano tones.
First of all, piano strings produce a lot of overtones, and due to
it's so called richness, it's not only the fundamentals that beat,
but also the overtones. This sounds _a lot_ rougher to the ear
then the same music on -say- a DX7 playing sines.

>H^)  harry    (who thinks the harmonic series starts to get a little
>non-harmonic at the seventh harmonic... lucky the amplitude is way
>down by then, huh ???  ;^)
The amplitude thing was not mentioned. Now it is, I fear a discussion
about weather amplitude is linear. "My volume knob has numbers
and that one sounds pretty linear."

But to stick to the subject:
Even when you crack up the volumes of the overtones, the sound
stayes pretty normal.

John again:
>That is my point exactly, 4:5:6 major triad, not too interesting. 4:5:6:7
>major seventh starts to sound interesting. Those that freak out at
>freqeuncy play C, E, G, B flat. Pretty basic.
Apart from that, harmonic content is not a chord!
<dramatic mode on> It's simply not fair to compair sine-based
additive synthesis with chords of natural sounds. </drama>



Dave
--