[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: errors in harmonic chord identification
It's interesting that you bring up the point of Seebeck, Ohm, Helmholtz,
and the missing fundamental. I refer to "The neuronal representation of
pitch in primate auditory cortex." by Daniel Bendor and Xiaoqin Wang in the
August 25 issue of Nature. They demonstrate that the missing fundamental is
a valid neural percept and is not an hallucination as was implied by Ohm
and Helmholtz in order to justify their dismissal of Seebeck's experiment.
This paper is also summarized in "Finding the missing fundamental." by
Robert Zatorre in that same issue.
It seems that after 150 years the lack of a general theoretical explanation
for the missing fundamental, as well as all other pitch-related phenomena,
says that something is wrong in the Helmholtzian signal processing
paradigm. Now let's try Seebeck's approach. Something completely different.
Robert Gjerdingen wrote:
> Currently the very best software for comparing the actual pitch
> ideal pitch is known as a musician :)
Because pitch is a perception, the ultimate judge will ALWAYS be the human
ear-brain system. Already Seebeck was wrongly blamed wrong for the sake of an
(Recall: Ohm dismissed Seebeck's discovery of an audible missing fundamental,
and Seebeck 1844 replied that the word illusion was inappropriate since
ear could decide how tones should be heared.)
Having suggested a joint autocorrelation mechanism including a real-valued
cochlear analysis as well as a subsequent also real-valued analysis within
brain, I would appreciate any study or comment on the possibility that the
predominant physical correlate to pitch is not really frequency but something
like autocorrelation lag.
I just amended
Be not mislead by further imperfections. My basic ideas might nonetheless be
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 09/19/2005