Sin harmonic components are used in sound synthesis ?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the psychoacoustic significance of using sine versus cosine harmonic components in sound synthesis. It is generally agreed that if the phases of harmonic components remain static and are not subjected to non-linear processing, the phase differences are not perceptible. However, when harmonic components are time-varying, changes in phase can create noticeable frequency offsets, affecting the perceived sound quality. The conversation also highlights that while absolute phase may not matter, variations in phase can lead to audible differences, especially when processed through non-linear elements. Overall, phase information should not be disregarded in sound synthesis, as it can influence the auditory experience.
tiffney
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
pyschoacoustically is it important wether cos or sin harmonic components are used in sound synthesis ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't imagine any way that it would make a difference. The 2 only differ by phase.
 
Last edited:
tiffney said:
pyschoacoustically is it important whether cos or sin harmonic components are used in sound synthesis ?

if the phases of the harmonic components are static and if the harmonic waveform does not pass through some non-linear processing element (which might be difficult, considering practically any loudspeaker system), then the phase or phase differences is nearly always not detectable. that is, in general:

x(t) = \sum{r_{n} \cos \left(n \omega_0 t + \phi_{n} \right)}

will sound about the same, no matter what \phi_n is.

BUT the waveform will not look the same for all possible values of \phi_n, and if x(t) is passed through some non-linearity (that might flatten out the peaks a little), a variant of x(t) that is has more prominant peaks will sound different (after the non-linearity) than the variant of x(t) that is less peaky.

also, if you are doing musical synthesis, then r_n and \phi_n are (slowly changing) functions of time. that is

x(t) = \sum_{n=1}^{N}{r_{n}(t) \cos \left(n \omega_0 t + \phi_{n}(t) \right)}

then your phase of each harmonic changes in time, and the derivative w.r.t. time of \phi_{n}(t) is a frequency offset or "detuning" of the n^{th} harmonic. that is perceptually salient. how each harmonic is slightly detuned from the exact harmonic frequency (that is an integer multiplying the fundamental frequency) is something that affects the sound of a tone. if they all are perfectly harmonic, the tone sounds a little "dead" compared to a tone with detuned "harmonics". in a real piano, the upper harmonics get sharper and sharper as you get to the 20th harmonic and higher.

so absolute phase, might not matter, but the change of phase does matter. i would not throw phase information away.

try Googling a paper i wrote: "Wavetable Synthesis 101". it lives at the harmony-central.com website somewhere, to get my spin on this issue.

r b-j
 
Except in rather odd cases, the ear is not sensitive to phase.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
Except in rather odd cases, the ear is not sensitive to phase.

it's more an issue of what the brain decodes. the ear is a sort of really "only" a sophisticated transducer. of course a phase change that is equivalent to a pure delay is inaudible (unless you notice the delay, but that is not at issue here).

also some waveshapes are audibly indistinguishable from others where the difference is phases of different harmonics. such as

x_1 (t) = \sum_{n=0}^N { \frac{(-1)^n}{2n+1} \cos \left( (2n+1) \omega_0 t \right)}

is usually audibly indistiguishable from

x_2 (t) = \sum_{n=0}^N { \frac{1}{2n+1} \cos \left( (2n+1) \omega_0 t \right)}

yet the waveforms clearly look different. x1(t) approaches a square wave as N -> infinity but x2(t) is much more spiky.

however, what would happen if x1(t) and x2(t) are passed through an identical gentle non-linearity, such as

y_n (t) = \frac{1}{\alpha} \arctan \left( \alpha x_n (t) \right) ?

as alpha gets larger, this nonlinearity will start to kick in and you will hear a clear difference between what happens to x1(t) and x2(t).


well, here's another odd case for you, Warren (and this one is purely linear):

All-pass Filter (APF):

H(z) = \frac{z^{-N} - p}{1 - p z^{-N}}

the frequency response of a digital filter (more precisely called a "discrete-time filter") is evalutated as

H(z) \mid_{z=e^{i \omega}} = H \left( e^{i \omega} \right)

where \omega = \frac{2 \pi f}{F_s} , f is the frequency, and F_s is the sampling frequency. F_s / 2 is the so-called "Nyquist" frequency and all frequencies must be less than Nyquist in magnitude (or you get aliasing).

z^{-N} represents a delay element of N samples and 0 \leq p < 1 is a number that represents a "pole" if N were 1. (there are N poles, in reality.)

it turns out that

| H \left( e^{i \omega} \right) | = 1

for all |f| \leq F_s / 2 so this all-pass filter changes nothing (other than possibly phase).

for F_s / 2 equal to, say, 44100 Hz, and if p = 0.95, then if N = 1, then i would agree that, for the most part, the inclusion or removal of this APF would normally be inaudible. however, if N = 22055 (the delay element was 1/2 second) and p = 0.95 , i must steadfastly disagree with any notion that the inclusion or removal of this APF would be inaudible.

so here is an example of where changing nothing other than phase, creates a clearly audible difference.

r b-j
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...

Similar threads

Back
Top