Talk:Combination tone

Tartini's tones

There seems to be some confusion on this issue, but the book I referenced, (Beament 2001), suggested that these are three seperate phenomena. The headphone experiment didn't completely falsify the physical explanation, as I don't think the headphone experiment generated any sum tones, or any of the various other linear combination tones for that matter. However, I don't really know as I have no idea what experiment(journal/date) it was; the article currently neglects to mention this and I'm too lazy to google it :) Intangir 07:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

From the book "Sound" by John Tyndall, p399 NEW YORK P. F. COLLIER & SON MCMII (which I interpret to be 1902)

"They were discovered, in 1745, by a German organist named Sorge, but the publication of the fact attracted little attention. They were discovered independently, in 1754, by the celebrated Italian violinist Tartini, and after him have been called Tartini's tones."

"Sound" book is being proofread currently (Mar, 2007) at Distributed Proofreaders.

Perhaps the page could be called "Tartini's tones". Geoff Cutter 2007-03-01 Gcutter 08:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I vote no for that. They were only called Tartini's tones in England and only for a while, and besides, Tartini only noticed the difference tones, while combination tones also include summation tones. Helmholtz as translated by Ellis actually used the terms "combinational tones", "differential tones", and "summational tones". The modern reduction to "sum and difference tones" is more efficient, but means the same thing. The inclusive umbrella term "Combination tones" is a good title for the article. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

This page is a stub as it stands (e.g. "at least three" begs for some kind of enumeration). Editors might have a look at Helmholtz (1875), who also mentions Sorge and goes into the phenomena at length. Twang 20:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user deleted the rather critical section on binaural difference tones. Originally there were three paragraphs, one for each phenomena: for missing fundamentals, for Tartini tones, and for difference tones arising when combining from each ear. It lacked(and still lacks) a good reference, perhaps he thought I made it up :P To avoid this happening again, I have added a weblink to some lecture notes mentioning it... but my google-scholar-fu is too weak to find actual journal reports. Intangir 01:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope not to be too obtuse here, but what difference is there between Tartini tones, missing fundamentals, and difference tones combining from each ear? All, including most remarkably the last, are described in detail by Tartini, who does not distinguish between them. Is there any reason for us to do so? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of binaural difference tones in any weblinked lecture notes, or anywhere else for that matter, so I'm inclined to delete the claim too. If they existed, binaural difference tones would be a very different phenomenon from binaural beats. See this article by me: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tuning/conversations/messages/105488 D.keenan (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

When I refined the intro, I removed the snippet that said there are three separate phenomena that cause combination tones, because it's the only sentence in the article that said that, it didn't name them, and there was no citation. I won't mind at all if anyone reintroduces the three phenomena, but only if they are actually separate mechanisms to produce combination tones (not just different names for combination tones) and do please explain them. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I did some binaural tests with myself. I was able to perceive one ore more additional tones (difference tone or missing fundamental) clearly when two sine waves are presented in "mono" fashion both to both ears. However, I cannot perceive any additional tone when the same two sine waves are presented separately, one to each ear. Like D.keenan, I also require a proper citation for this effect. BTW: The German version of this page does not contain any mentioning about "neural" genesis of hearing missing fundamentals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8071:BC5:B900:A522:1B7A:E7A5:EC9B (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Houtsma's dissertation bears on this. But I don't think I'd call that combination tones. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. MartinZ02 (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

---

I've suggested merging Subharmonic and Resultant tone here, as both are stub-sized and deal with essentially the same topic as this. Others might consider whether Missing fundamental, which is I think a rather better article, treats anything but the same topic again, and whether it too might be included in a potential merge. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My preference is to keep them separate, since "combination tone" is a music subject, while subharmonics also occur in dynamics (physics) outside music, e.g. as infragravity waves in ocean waves. But one could merge the music part into here, and keep the other physics occurrences in a separate "subharmonics" article (possibly in combination with superharmonics). -- Crowsnest (talk) 18:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. If there is any content relating to dynamics (and to be honest, I can't tell whether there is or not) in Subharmonic, it should be left there. My suggestion concerned only the musical aspect. On which topic I note that Grove has no entry for Subharmonic. Perhaps in fact the term is not much used in music? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pro keeping it separated as well. The overlap is big, but different topics clarify the difference somewhat better than putting it all in one article. Sam River (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to help me understand, how in your opinion does having four articles apparently all about the same topic aid understanding? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Subharmonic needs to be kept as a separate article, as it's not primarily a psychophysical or musical concept; but some of its content, like on Tartini tones, doesn't really belong there and should be merged to a better place. The bit on producing subharmonics from a violin can be kept; that's physical dynamics. And Missing fundamental should probably merge to Pitch (music). Dicklyon (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Resultant tone" merged. Hyacinth (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just piling on a late vote never to merge subharmonic here. There seems to be a bad meme infecting the culture that any lower frequency is somehow a "subharmonic". Not true. A subharmonic would be a member of the subharmonic series, just as a harmonic is by definition a member of the harmonic series. Remember, the intervals between adjacent members of a harmonic series become narrower as you go up. In a theoretical subharmonic series, the intervals would narrow as you went down. The subharmonic series is not produced by resonating acoustic bodies. Combination tones are also not subharmonics. They are missing harmonics from a harmonic series that the original, real tones would belong to. In other words, notice that when you examine the relationship between all the combination tones (including the further combination tones generated by combining the combination tones together) you end up with what looks like a harmonic series, not a subharmonic series. You can artificially produce a sound sample of a virtual instrument containing subharmonic partials using software by additive synthesis of sines of specific frequencies (I've done it, and it sounds awesome), but I dare you to try to produce that by natural resonance in an acoustic instrument. There's no way. It can't be done! 38.86.48.38 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any parts of this article should be merged there (to the subharmonic article) either. The terms are discreet. Both terms do have multiple meanings, and some of their loosest meanings overlap in some ways, but only because the loosest meanings are the most poorly defined and are therefore broader. The most well defined meanings are quite distinguishable and do not support thinking of subharmonics and combination tones as synonyms. Merging the articles would imply that they are synonyms. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose merge of Subharmonic here. Subharmonics are specific frequencies based on a fundamental. Combination tone is a separate frequency created by the combination of others. ~Kvng (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mathematical foundation missing?

Since the mathematics/physics of this phenomenon is pretty well explained in the article Beat (acoustics), shouldn't we at least reference that article?

Pnutus (talk) 11:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Beats aren't really the same thing as combination tones, since what is perceived with beats is a change in volume and tone as the phase relationship continually drifts and you get constructive and destructive interference that alternately amplifies and silences different frequencies within the tones. However, they are similar in that they happen when you play two notes at the same time. I think you could put the link in See also section. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of new section Power chords

A new paragraph on the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music, created by playing a fifth interval on the low register of the guitar, was added (see below), and then reverted by another editor with the edit summary saying "stable version." Wikipedia is based on editors improving articles by adding pertinent, reliably-sourced material to the articles. In this case, a well-known music scholar, Robert Walser (musicologist), described the use of, and importance of resultant tones in heavy metal.

• One of the key harmonic features of heavy metal music is the power chord, which consists of a fifth or fourth interval played on the electric guitar, sometimes with the root note doubled an octave above. When the power chord (using a fifth) is played on the lower strings at high volumes with distortion (from an overdrive pedal or an overdriven amp), a resultant tone an octave below the root is produced. The lower frequency resultant tones in power chords add to the "...weight of the sound" of heavy metal.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about any genre. Its about 2 Notes and the resultant tone. As usual this will be some kind of drawn out nonsense more than likely. Its safe to say its not about making it confusing or complex. The organ tone is an example. A professional one that covers all genres. wow.go ahead and do the usual where you post this everywhere so there can be some people who are on the level, contributing. Just because anyone can find a reference and edit any page doesn't mean it should be or is accurate. I have a career in music for over 40 years. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

It may as well include guitar + distortion, as just mentioning pipe organ is only part of the story. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We need a Music Scholar

This article covers all it needs to, doesn't go on about heavy metal or any genre and is less professional after those last edits.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is a Start-Class article. It is not finished yet (actually, even a Featured article is not "finished"). It needs additional contributions from editors. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:20, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Editors who know what they are doing. Just because its start class doesn't mean it can be screwed up.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is about combination tones. One of the important types of combination tones is the resultant tone. The reader is told that resultant tones are used in organ music. A reliable source says resultant tones are an important part of heavy metal. It directly connects to the article. Adding pertinent, reliably sourced information is not screwing up the article, this is how articles are improved.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article is not about any Genre. What are you not understanding besides this article is Not about any genre. That this article is not about any genre, right. You have no clue what you are typing about here. This article is Not About any Genre. Most people never heard of Robert whoever, this is about two notes and the resultant tone. This article is not about a Genre.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I think readers are interested in more than just the phenomena (play two notes, get resultant tone). It is also of interest to readers what musicians do with the resultant tones. The article already describes one practical application of the resultant tone, in pipe organs, to produce a lower-pitched bass sound. The following message was sent to editors who have made the most recent edits to this article, to seek the views of other editors who are interested in this article. "Should the Combination tone article you edited, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here." This message was also posted at WP:Village pump.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a separate article about "Power Chords", especially as used in heavy metal, so the mention here seems sufficient IMO in context. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Combination tone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212152545/http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q26.html to http://www.patmissin.com/ffaq/q26.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Resultant tone

Why is this marked obsolete? Resultant tone pedal ranks are commonly in current use in small to medium size organs, so the concept is certainly not obsolete. If the terminology is obsolete, let's update it! D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added the use of harmonics besides the 3rd (fifth above the base note) to represent current practice; my source is not good, so I would welcome help in providing better refs. Unfortunately, the site I rely on most, http://www.organstops.org/ is down at the moment. D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)