Talk:Overtone
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Definition
[edit]uncontested (basic definition rewritten) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I changed the basic definition of overtone as the orginal was very misleading. 12:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin aylward (talk • contribs) 11:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC) |
Formulas
[edit]A recursive arithmetic formula for the overtone series:
- an=an-1+x, for a1=x
A recursive geometric formula for the octave "series":
- an=an-1*2, and/or
- an=an-1/2
I don't know if there is a way to do this in one formula.
Here's another formula for the overtone series for one-dimensional standing waves on a medium of length L and wave speed v:
- fn=(nv/2L)
from Intervals, overtones, and axis PDF Hyacinth
http://www.chanceandchoice.com/ChanceandChoice/chapter2.html
- Hyacinth, I think you mean harmonic series, not overtone series. Overtones can be inharmonic and overtones don't include the fundamental. Another Stickler (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
resolved ("overtone" not confined to acoustic waves) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The opening statement "Use of the term overtone is generally confined to acoustic waves, especially in applications related to music" is simply not correct. Overtones bands are extremely important in infrared spectroscopy. Overtone bands are used because they give nearly repetitive information at a variety of concentration ranges. They are therefore helpful when one cannot control either the pathlength or concentration of a particular sample or when one wishes to compare within one sample two species that have significantly different absorbtivities at their fundemental frequencies. unsigned |
resolved (use f, 1f, 2f, etc. instead of f1, f2, f3, etc.) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
hmm... i don't think saying (f1, f2, f3) is any better. that looks to me like just any arbitrary frequencies. the idea is to show that the overtones are integer multiples of the fundamental frequency, like 100, 200, 300, 400 is f, 2*f, 3*f, 4*f, and going up by octaves yields 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, or f, 2*f, 2*2*f, 2*2*2*f, etc. the formulas are right, though. maybe they could be put in the article? Again, I think using f1, f2, f3, f4 isn't very clear. they could just represent frequency variables (f1 = 434 Hz, f2 = 12345432 Hz, etc.). 1f, 2f, 3f, 4f would at least be correct mathematically. - Omegatron "Since the overtone series is an arithmetic" So technically that should say harmonic series anyway... - Omegatron |
Octave Series
[edit]I thought "overtones" were an integer power of two multiplied by the fundamental frequency, so for example, the 'second overtone' of a fundamental frequency would be the fundamental frequency multiplied by two to the power of two, and the 'fourth overtone' would be the fundamental multiplied by two to the power of four, etc. Denelson83 01:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- so the overtone series would be 2f, 4f, 8f, 16f, 32f? that's the octave series. what field is this definition in? - Omegatron 15:44, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Denelson83, there can't be any single series defined for all overtones for all resonating systems because overtones can be any frequency that a resonating system produces (that is higher than the fundamental). Depending on the system, that can include octaves of the fundamental (as in your proposed series), harmonics of the fundamental, or frequencies that are not multiples of the fundamental (inharmonic partials). It all depends on what the actual system produces. Another Stickler (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
resolved (not only "peculiar to barbershoppers") |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
== Barbershop sense ==
I remember in high school, one of my chorus teachers talked about an "overtone" in this sense. He demonstrated it by playing a note on the piano, then playing a loud chord that did not include that note, but it was still audible. We were not studying barbershop (in fact, I didn't even learn about barbershop until later on), so my question is, are we certain that this is generally called an "overtone" only in the context of barbershop? - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
|
resolved (discussion integrated into article) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
fundamental sound physics question[edit]If I understand correctly from the innuendo in the passege. Physically all Overtones are prodcued when a fundamental is played -Is that true? Are they less dominant because of their lesser energy in contrast to the fundamental which is played directly? If so, playing the same note on different instrument have a different "sound flavour" because of the non precise production of overtones of that specific instrument? if not, what causes it then ? --Procrastinating@talk2me 22:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Now i'm even more confused.[edit]
This article lacks references and order. Corrections needed namewise ("overtone is wrong - correct scientific name is "partial") to reflect scientific practice (this is an encyclopedia), mentioning IN PASSING the usage in common practice (musical or other). --David Be (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
Notation
[edit][[1]] Notation und MIDI-Sound --88.73.222.2 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- That link points to a nice illustration of a Harmonic series (music) compared with 12-tone equal temperament, but it's not usable in this article to illustrate overtones because overtones are not necessarily harmonic, and the illustration includes the fundamental, which by definition is not an overtone. Another Stickler (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Guitar string
[edit]"This means that halving the physical string length, does not halve the actual string vibration length, and hence, the overtones will not be exact multiples of a fundamental frequency. The effect is so pronounced that well set up guitars will angle the bridge such that the thinner strings will progressively have a length up to few millimeters shorter than the thicker strings. Not doing so would result in inharmonious chords made up of two or more strings. Similar considerations apply to tube instruments."
The angle of the bridge isn't really for correcting overtone-problems, but for correcting intonation problems (relating to the fundamental more than the overtones that is) resulting from difference in mass etc. of the strings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.57.162 (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that guitar strings are slightly inharmonic, especially depending on how dirty and old they are, but it is also true that bridge intonation adjustment is not related (much) to this inharmonicity. Instead, bridge intonation compensates for stretch in the fretting of notes primarily, which differs based on string mass and material.Backfromquadrangle (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
resolved (overtone versus partial) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Excellent - now go over to the 'harmonics' section and rewrite that ...[edit]This is a fine example of good, clear writing. I have just come from the 'harmonics' article and its a mess. Could the guy who wrote this article please go over there and clean it up? The harmonics article seems to have been put together by a room full of monkeys. Thanks! --Dpolwarth (talk) 07:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Actually, "Overtone" and "Overtones" NEEDS TO HAVE ITS NAME CHANGED TO "PARTIAL" (with redirects created), because IT IS AN INCORRECT and SUPERFLUOUS name for "partial". I don't know how to do it (name change), and unfortunately lack time and references, but have done some editing (albeit, and alas, here and there)to reflect the scientific standing. Common practice notwithstanding, this IS an encyclopedia, and should show correct usage of terms keeping into account (but NOT furthering) common practice when erroneous. --David Be (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
|
resolved ("overtone" not recommended) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
overtone is deprecated[edit]I was taught that overtone and overtones are poor terms to use because overtones refers to all the sines making up a complex tone except the fundamental. That's why there's "over" in "overtones". (See [3] for multiple dictionaries defining it so.) This makes it confusing when trying to relate it to partials and harmonics, because the first overtone is the second partial. If there are people who think overtones is synonymous with partials or harmonics, it's because of inaccuracy in teaching/learning. Even if the term were ever to be redefined as a synonym, it would become redundant, and still deprecated. Though obsolete, it still has its place; you need to know it to understand what old books are saying. -- Another Stickler (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC) |
Overtone singing
[edit]"Overtone singing (wrongly known also as throat singing)..." Tuvan's and Mongol's Overtone singing IS called Throat Singing, it is NOT only the Inuit Katajjaq... (Written by someone from Finland and who is a practitioner of TUVAN THROAT SINGING.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.175.200.134 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Circular drums
[edit]The article claims that the first overtone of a circular drum is 2.4 times the fundamental frequency. But from the Vibrations of a circular drum article, it seems that it should be a11/a01, where amn is the n-th positive zero of the Bessel function Jm. This is 1.5933..., so I think "2.4" should be changed to "about 1.6". --Zundark (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed it to "about 1.6", and added a reference (which says 1.593). --Zundark (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
"Overtone" was deprecated in the 19th century!
[edit]I dare say that any competent and intelligent student of musical acoustics at least understands that "overtone" was deprecated over a century ago. Please see the note in the article about Ellis' translation of Helmholtz (which I have read, some time ago). I'm EXTREMELY* disappointed that Wikipedia seems to still give this term so much credence. *I use all caps only very rarely!
Such a respected author as Thomas Rossing, co-author of a fine book about acoustics, as I understand it (I don't own a copy) uses the term "partials", instead of "overtones", pointing out that there are two kinds: harmonic, and inharmonic. The almost-harmonic partials of plucked or struck strings do not detract from a sense that the notes produced have a definite pitch, as hammered dulcimers, pianos, and harpsichords -- as well as guitars, lutes, banjos, and many others plainly demonstrate.
There are certain choices our society stubbornly holds on to, even though there are quite-good reasons to change. (Consider the ridiculous arrangement of the letters on nearly all keyboards, for instance.) If Helmholtz is not good enough of a reference, what is? (Rossing, et al?)
Moreover, the notice at the top of the article that says that no references are cited ignores Ellis. Seems to me that it should be taken down. Nikevich (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Added comments
[edit]I tried to rewrite, substituting "partial" for "overtone", essentially where it didn't violently clash with how musicians use the term. I also added some text. However, it seems that, when nearly done, I created an editing conflict with myself (all too doggoned easy to do, hang it!) and lost about four hours' work.
Some more references, inexact (I'm running out of energy; sorry!):
- Juan G. Roederer, Intro. to the Physics and Psychophysics of Hearing (approx. title, possibly correct)
- Arthur [ ] Benade, Horns, Strings, and Harmony (I think that is the title of his- book on musical acoustics)
- Ganot's Physics (Google books; 19th-century text) -- Very popular in its time; of interest partly for illustrations and descriptions of scientific apparatus)
- Rossing, Moore, and Wheeler, The Science of Sound -- Excellent work on acoustics
One of these (Roederer?) points out that, as only fairly-recently learned, perceived timbre is influenced a great deal by initial transients that start a musical note; these die out within a fraction of a second.
As well, please, let's not help perpetuate the "(n-1)" nonsense of calling, say, five times the fundamental the fourth overtone (or harmonic). While it seems odd to designate the first harmonic as the fundamental, that's not much of a nuisance, imho.
No mention of Chladni figures? Good gosh.Nikevich (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
resonating strings
[edit]Instruments such as cellos show spontaneous vibration of adjacent open strings when certain notes are being played and music written in certain keys seems to exploit this property for a richer sound (i.e. the prelude to Bach cello suite 1 in G major). Instruments like sitars use resonating strings. Are these also examples of overtones?
"...sharpness or flatness of... overtones [makes] waveforms not perfectly periodic"?
[edit]In Musical usage term, it states "The sharpness or flatness of their overtones is one of the elements that contributes to their unique sound. This also has the effect of making their waveforms not perfectly periodic."
I think that if the fundamental, and the overtones, are constant over time, then the resultant waveform will be perfectly periodic, but the period will simply be longer than if the overtones were exact multiples.
In a physical instrument the waveform is very unlikely to be perfectly periodic, but for other reasons: the amplitudes, and to a certain extent frequencies, of the fundamental and various overtones vary over time. FrankSier (talk) 12:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Harmonics, overtones, partials
[edit]I can't make sense of the lead's attempt to distinguish these terms: "Using the model of Fourier analysis, the fundamental and the overtones together are called partials. Harmonics, or more precisely, harmonic partials, are partials whose frequencies are integer multiples of the fundamental (including the fundamental which is 1 times itself)." Anyone interested in helping me make this easier to understand? ~Kvng (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
===============================================
[edit]There seems to be an inconsistency between the text on overtones and the table under "Musical Usage Term":
The text states: "Because "overtone" makes the upper partials seem like such a distinct phenomena, it leads to the mathematical problem where the first overtone is the second partial." whereas The table lists the second overtone as being the same as the second partial. I believe that the text is correct.
Another issue is that the article takes a particular usage of "harmonic" that is not universal; i.e.
"A harmonic frequency is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency." A lot of technical work concerns the harmonics of resonators, which are not integer multiples. I think this is the reason for the term "true harmonic", in which case the sentence should read "A true harmonic frequency is an integer multiple of the fundamental frequency".
I note that the whole area of harmonics, overtones and partials is already full of semantic inconsistencies (possibly due to the terms having been redeveloped by multiple independent sources).
I believe that this makes it advisable to use only those few terms that are well-defined (note?1) for developmental text, and describe the possible multiple meanings of ambiguously defined terms under their separate headings?
Note?1: i.e. true harmonic, overtone and (possibly) partial (though I personally remain uncomfortable with the use of overtone number because it so distorts the numeric relation between overtones of the fundamental and overtones of its harmonics)PhysicistQuery (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- C-Class Professional sound production articles
- Mid-importance Professional sound production articles
- WikiProject Professional sound production articles
- C-Class physics articles
- Low-importance physics articles
- C-Class physics articles of Low-importance
- C-Class acoustics articles
- Acoustics articles
- C-Class Music theory articles
- Unknown-importance Music theory articles
- WikiProject Music theory articles