The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: email@example.com (Gibbo)
Date: 14 Jan 2003 21:47:51 GMT
Organization: AOL, http://www.aol.co.uk
Subject: Re: Acoustic Feedback reduction
John Woodgate wrote:
>I read in sci.electronics.design that Gibbo
>wrote (in <firstname.lastname@example.org>) about 'Acoustic
>Feedback reduction', on Tue, 14 Jan 2003:
>>Unless there is some major difference between the above experiment and a
>>5Hz frequency shifter designed for feedback reduction then I really fail to
>>how one could *ever* be used for anything involving music.
>I think you had access to both the original and the frequency-shifted
>signals. Without that, there is a LARGE tolerance on the pitch of any
>note. For example, before everyone agreed on the A = 440 Hz standards, C
>could be anything between 256 Hz and 270 Hz.
Absolutely *but* if A=440 then its first octave harmonic = 880Hz. If A=441
(still perfectly acceptable) then its 1st octave harmonic = 882Hz. If we now
shift the whole thing up by 5Hz then A=446 Hz (still fine by my ear) but its
first octave harmonic is now at 887Hz which sounds absolutely shite. This
effect becomes worse as we get lower down the musical scale. A low E on a
double bass will be roughtly a full tone sharp yet it's octave harmonic will be
a semitone sharp. Despite Mr Wombat's assertions to the contrary. He's
obviously not a musician (or just a very bad one).
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup