"So, here we have two sides living in very different worlds. Can we co-exist peacefully enough to accept how different our worlds are, even as we work on identical objects?"
We can. But when one argues every counter point of view, not willing to accept that there are different opinions, it makes it difficult to co-exist peacefully.
Original Message:
Sent: 2/2/2024 4:19:00 PM
From: Ed Sutton
Subject: RE: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
The functional proclivities of our minds will lead us into fields of work which nurture our particular modes of thought into lengths of development which, to someone else, if not to ourselves, appear extreme. From here we may speak what appears to be a somewhat common language, but in fact there may be little commonality between the perceived worlds we are trying to share.
A while back I was involved in a year-long community governance dispute which led to much attacking and hurt because of people not understanding that counter proposals were not attacks, but just different ways of seeing things, which many people could not see at all. "Visual Thinking" by Temple Grandin helped me to see what can happen when people with different ways of thinking don't understand each other's basic modes of seeing and organizing experience.
So, here we have two sides living in very different worlds. Can we co-exist peacefully enough to accept how different our worlds are, even as we work on identical objects?
I, for one, am grateful for the roles Paul McCloud and Kent Swafford have taken in exploring the use of this technology. I especially look forward to hearing Kent's thoughts when he feels he has something to share.
Elsewhere in CAUT I called attention to Jim Ellis's laboratory work in understanding false beats. I am rather sad that, although several very fine technician/engineers collaborated with Jim to write and publish this work, it seems to have been forgotten in 16 years. Jim's lab monochord used sensors which, I believe, were similar to PianoSens. Interested folk can read the articles in the August and September 2008 Journals.
------------------------------
Ed Sutton
ed440@me.com
(980) 254-7413
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: 02-02-2024 01:20
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
Dear Fred,
Engineers and researchers do not (should not) engage without data and analysis that is comprehensive enough to be trusted, not 'just take my word for it' like I usually see on the PTG forums.
I honestly thought people would appreciate the detailed analysis, showing in the time and frequency domains, how these waveforms can be seen and understood. I even backed up the string sensor with the mic as well. In my limited experience with the PTG, by and large, the majority under-appreciate how much work goes into something like this. It takes years of specialized training the field of 'signal processing' to be able to do this. It is hard and detailed work. The tools needed such as Matlab and great hardware to capture the data, are not accessible to most, so I now doubt that most members have no clue about this. I am in the wrong place in many ways. I do hope (and indeed am finding) receptive people. There have been many people privately contacting me and appreciating the things I am revealing with actual analysis and actual data. My hope is to keep finding the 5% or 10% of the viewers who gain value from it. I am a life learner myself, as any researcher must be. It comes with the territory. We affirm people doing good work, not tearing them down and diminishing them.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101
Original Message:
Sent: 02-01-2024 23:27
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
This is merely a semantic argument. It has been known for many years that the fundamentals of the lowest bass notes are present in large instruments. They are far weaker than upper partials, but they are present. In smaller instruments they are often not present (not detectible) at all.
Your "discovery" is not a wonderful breakthrough. You are merely confirming what others have known for years. It is true that is is commonly said that all low bass fundamentals are non-existent, but while that is not literally true, for practical purposes, and in most pianos, it is true enough.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
"Believe those who seek the truth; doubt those who find it." Gide
Original Message:
Sent: 2/1/2024 10:32:00 PM
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: RE: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
Fred,
Didn't you see the mic results also? I think you did not follow me. I re-did the mic experiment that I did 20 years ago, same result. As a matter of fact, the mic experiment showed that the ratio of the fundamental to 2nd harmonic was even a little greater that it was with the sensor, furthering my point.
My major frustration with the PTG forums is 'lots of conjecture and opinions' but 'lack of experimental data'.
Steve
Original Message:
Sent: 2/1/2024 10:26:00 PM
From: Fred Sturm
Subject: RE: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
Yes, there is a string vibration at the fundamental frequency, as Scott Murphy showed in a high speed video, looking at the string at the bridge pin. He also demonstrated that the bridge pin moves at that frequency. However, audio analysis shows that the fundamental frequency as heard (by a microphone, or by the ear) is very weak, really imperceptible among the various upper partials. Presumably the weakness is due to the soundboard/bridge system's inability to project that frequency.
So, yes, the pianosens sensor is verifying the presence of the vibrational frequency, but that doesn't mean the fundamental is present for practical purposes (ie, heard by the ear). Your "proof" applies to string movement, as that is what pianosens is measuring. String movement is not sound.
Sound at the fundamental frequency can be present in large pianos, but it is so weak that we can say that it is essentially missing relative to the rest of the spectrum.
------------------------------
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm@unm.edu
http://fredsturm.net
http://www.artoftuning.com
"We either make ourselves happy or miserable. The amount of work is the same." - Carlos Casteneda
Original Message:
Sent: 01-22-2024 03:16
From: Steven Norsworthy
Subject: Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
- Dispelling the 'Myth' of the Missing Fundamental
- Video Presentation YouTube Link:
- https://youtu.be/Gj0xobcBpdM
- There is a widely held 'myth' called 'the missing fundamental' in the bass register of a piano.
* This myth is very unfortunate and very untrue.
* I am here today to dispel that myth once and for all with irrefutable evidence.
* Is the fundamental present all the way down to A0. Of course!
* This evidence was collected from a PianoSens sensor on a large concert grand, a Fazioli F308. However, I did a similar experiment over 15 years ago using an instrumentation quality microphone on a Steinway D and got a similar result.
* As you watch the video and hear the explanation, you will clearly and unequivocally see that there are clean, pristine periods of repetition at the fundamental frequency all the way down to A0.
* You will see the spectral view of the time domain showing that the fundamental A0 is down only 9 dB from the 2nd harmonic A1. A factor of 9 dB is still very easily heard by human perception even at that frequency.
* I also show just how 'messy' the transient response is from the hammer strike moment, compared with the PianoSens sensor.
------------------------------
Steven Norsworthy
Cardiff By The Sea CA
(619) 964-0101
------------------------------