distortion well I'll be darned

[Lunahorum]

I was messing around with sine waves with distortion and a spectrum viewer playing the notes C and G. With no distortion, the notes C and G played together (5th) would just be C and G still. With distortion however, a C an octave below the C appeared on the spectrum viewer. I then raised the C to a D and played D and G (4th). This time with distortion, a G both one octaves and two octaves below the G being played appeared.

I never knew distortion could add frequencies below what was being played. Well that explains why a 1 4 powerchord on the guitar (e.g. D G) sounds lower than the notes being played. Oh it also doesn't seem to work as well when the higher note has more amplitude than the lower note.

[analoq]

IIRC this is determined by the difference of the frequencies.

If you have a 200hz sine and a 300hz sine, that's a perfect fifth. Their difference is 100hz, which is an octave below the tonic.

make sense?

[Drack]

IIRC this is determined by the difference of the frequencies.

If you have a 200hz sine and a 300hz sine, that's a perfect fifth. Their difference is 100hz, which is an octave below the tonic.

make sense?

Frequencies do not rise linearly with pitch.

For example, take the 440 Hz A. The A an octave above that is 880 Hz. The A an octave below 440 Hz is 220 Hz. The frequency *doubles* every octave.

This does not disprove the core concept analoq is alluding to, it just means that if it's true, it refers to *fractions* rather than *differences* in frequency.

[Lunahorum]

Frequencies do not rise linearly with pitch.

For example, take the 440 Hz A. The A an octave above that is 880 Hz. The A an octave below 440 Hz is 220 Hz. The frequency *doubles* every octave.

This does not disprove the core concept analoq is alluding to, it just means that if it's true, it refers to *fractions* rather than *differences* in frequency.

edit: analoq is right. It's a textbook physics example. It's like tuning a guitar, when the two pitches are almost the same, say 440hz vs 441hz, you clearly hear another 1hz clicking sort of sound.

Yes analoq I got that thanks. I am just wondering why the "undertone" (is that the right word?) isn't showing unless I add distortion. Maybe it is audible, but will not show up on the FFT Spectrum without distortion.

Let me check again listening carefully without distortion. It isn't showing on the spectrum, but I should be able to hear this "undertone".

I'll get back to you

[analoq]

Drack, was there anything in my post to even suggest a linear relationship between pitch and frequency? I'll give you the answer: No there was not.

So instead of jumping to the conclusion that I don't know what I'm talking about and therefore I'm wrong regarding 'difference', why don't you try to actually do some research for yourself?

In fact I'll give you a hand, start by looking up 'difference tones'. Let me know how it goes.

[audio fidelity]

saturation like distortion amplifies the overtone spectrum so thats why your seeing the freqs more pronounced.

[Lunahorum]

Hmm I cannot hear it. I can hear it with distortion. It is there, but it is just so weak I can't hear it I guess. I even boosted by 36 dB where the frequency should be appearing but still nothing. I don't know anything really about it so don't let me mislead you, but I think it is because when the 300hz and 200hz combined complex wave is split apart, it splits into 300hz and 200hz even though there is a 100hz difference wave there so an equalizer boosting at 100hz is not boosting anything because there is no frequency at 100hz there. I could almost guarantee this is the wrong way of thinking about it though. I need some help.

But catch this, and hear (hah...) is where it gets interesting. If I apply distortion on the 300 and 200 seperately then mix the two channels, there is no 100hz showing up on the frequency spectrum even though there is a light 100hz there (barely audible). Again, boosting at 100hz does nothing.

Just messing around, I played a minor 3rd instead of a 5th. Then I loaded up the distortion after the two channels were mixed. I was getting all sorts of information all across the spectrum and the sound was like poop. Then I put the distortion on each channel individually then mixed them together. No longer all sorts of frequencies showing up on the spectrum and it sounded better too. This is probably the reason that playing 3rds on a distorted guitar sounds like crap, but when playing each note of the 3rd seperately sounds awesome.

[analoq]

My thinking is the additional harmonics are only audible as a psychoacoustic effect without distortion.

I would liken it to distorting a single sine wave: you get a bunch of odd-ordered harmonics as the waveform becomes more square-like when flattened.

As the waveform of two sine waves gets flattened, the phantom 'difference' oscillation gets squeezed into existence.

[Lunahorum]

My thinking is the additional harmonics are only audible as a psychoacoustic effect without distortion.

I would liken it to distorting a single sine wave: you get a bunch of odd-ordered harmonics as the waveform becomes more square-like when flattened.

As the waveform of two sine waves gets flattened, the phantom 'difference' oscillation gets squeezed into existence.

That's that's what I am coming up with too. It sounds like a reasonable explanation.

[Drack]

You're right; I misread the post.

Specifically, I misread it as you saying the new tone was an octave lower just because it was a 100 Hz difference, instead of it being an octave lower because 100 is half of 200.

[Lunahorum]

You're right; I misread the post.

Specifically, I misread it as you saying the new tone was an octave lower just because it was a 100 Hz difference, instead of it being an octave lower because 100 is half of 200.

sort of like explaining the difference between multiplication and addition by using 2 and 2 as an example. There's bound to be some confusion.

[analoq]

You're right; I misread the post.

Specifically, I misread it as you saying the new tone was an octave lower just because it was a 100 Hz difference, instead of it being an octave lower because 100 is half of 200.

sort of like explaining the difference between multiplication and addition by using 2 and 2 as an example. There's bound to be some confusion.

Ah but for that misinterpretation to be reasonable you would have to have not read, not understood or just plain ignored the part where I referred to a 200/300 pair as representing a perfect fifth. If I thought a 100hz difference was equal to an octave, then the difference of 200 and 300 certainly wouldn't be a fifth!

Does the excuse have an excuse?

[Lunahorum]

Ah but for that misinterpretation to be reasonable you would have to have not read, not understood or just plain ignored the part where I referred to a 200/300 pair as representing a perfect fifth. If I thought a 100hz difference was equal to an octave, then the difference of 200 and 300 certainly wouldn't be a fifth!

Frequencies do not rise linearly with pitch. 200 and 300 is not an octave distance. An octave would be say 200 and 400 (200x2)

[analoq]

(completely missing the point)

oh! I just realized you're the guy formerly known as maxZipcode. I had been wondering why you're such a twit, now it all makes sense.

anyway, glad to help,

cheers.

[Lunahorum]

oh! I just realized you're the guy formerly known as maxZipcode. I had been wondering why you're such a twit, now it all makes sense.

anyway, glad to help,

cheers.

Drack misinterprets what you say.

You criticize him for "jumping to the conclusion that [you] [don't] know what [you're] talking about"

Drack then politely acknowledges that he misinterpreted you.

You then say this: "Ah but for that misinterpretation to be reasonable [he] would have to have not read, not understood or just plain ignored the part where [you] referred to a 200/300 pair as representing a perfect fifth. Does the excuse have an excuse"

--

I don't know why you are in such a bad mood. I've seen much better from you. There's no reason to behave this way toward other people.

[analoq]

Drack misinterprets what you say.

You criticize him for "jumping to the conclusion that [you] [don't] know what [you're] talking about"

Drack then politely acknowledges that he misinterpreted you.

And then you claim, by example, that Drack's misinterpretation is logical and "bound to happen". So I reply with...

You then say this: "Ah but for that misinterpretation to be reasonable [he] would have to have not read, not understood or just plain ignored the part where [you] referred to a 200/300 pair as representing a perfect fifth. Does the excuse have an excuse"

... in order to demonstrate that you are wrong to apologize for Drack, since there was only one logical way to interpret my post had it been read from beginning to end.

Then you come in completely oblivious to this point and make the same mistake Drack does and assume I don't know what I'm talking about. Understandably, I find this repeated chain of events frustrating. So I call you a twit.

There's no reason to behave this way toward other people.

Of course there is. I'm not going to coddle you like a child. If you do something stupid I'm going to call you on it. I'm going to negatively reinforce your behavior in hopes that you'll be more mindful not to make the same mistake in the future. I'm going hold you responsible for what you say whether you like it or not.

cheers.

[Lunahorum]

Then you come in completely oblivious to this point and make the same mistake Drack does and assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

I was trying to get a rise out of you. I was being a dick, and I apologize.

[analoq]

And the censuring of my "bad mood" behavior? Was all that just insincere fodder to get a rise out of me? Or are you that big of a hypocrite?

I really want to believe you were being a dick the whole time, but it appears more likely you're just a twit.

[Eshmasesh]

[analoq]

arguing logic in regards to unprovable statements such as "God exists" - and conversely, "God doesn't exist" - is an exercise in futility. Logic (and burden of proof) can really only apply to ideas that physically exist, such as enforcing law. In regards to religion...

oh wow, a post in PPR; you sure have the high ground. So do you have anything to offer to the Remixing forum other than xkcd clichés?

anyway, the OP got his questioned answer on the first page. any mods out there?

cheers.

[Eshmasesh]

oh wow, a post in PPR; you sure have the high ground. Do do you have anything to offer to the Remixing forum other than xkcd clichés?

I lurk more than I post. How is that relevant?

It may be cliché, but it perfectly applies to this thread and you. Why would you nerdrage over a mere misinterpretation? Chill out.

[analoq]

Why would you nerdrage over a mere misinterpretation?

a) You're not very good at lurking. The whole point is it was not a "mere misinterpretation". It was a case of not reading the entire post, which is poor etiquette and a pet peeve of mine.

Another cliché, "nerdrage." I've been quite level about this. I called Lunahorum a twit but he claims he was trying to "get a rise out of" me, if that's the case then I have been victimized.

c) I work from home and I'm sick. Unfortunately, I can make time for this discussion.

d) Notice the banter only comes after I helped the OP and answered his question. I'm not interfering with the topic. Criticize me as you like, but I offered something of value to this forum.

So far, you have still offered nothing of value.