Frequencies....Absolutes....Debates...

Well, the difference between 440Hz and 442Hz is roughly 8 cents, which is definitely distinguishable. Actually, the ear could distinguish between 440Hz and 440.5Hz or even 440.38Hz (about 1.5 cents is the limit for human ears to distinguish between pitches). So yeah, the human hear would not consider them to be identical.

But now I'm being like everyone and splitting irrelevant hairs just for the sake of being contradictory.

Even though in just the sake of being contradictory... you're casting doubt on absolute this and that. Hmmm.

Well, the difference between 440Hz and 442Hz is roughly 8 cents, which is definitely distinguishable. Actually, the ear could distinguish between 440Hz and 440.5Hz or even 440.38Hz (about 1.5 cents is the limit for human ears to distinguish between pitches). So yeah, the human hear would not consider them to be identical.

This is actually good to know. If the two frequencies sounded simultaneously, the human ear would hear and perhaps distinguish the two from each other. What about if they sounded successively? Would the human ear be able to determine a difference when hearing them independently from one another?

Also, do you have a good resource for me to do more introductory reading into it? As in, not a textbook, maybe something as simple as a website?

This is actually good to know. If the two frequencies sounded simultaneously, the human ear would hear and perhaps distinguish the two from each other. What about if they sounded successively? Would the human ear be able to determine a difference when hearing them independently from one another?

Yes. Actually, just for fun I did a bit of an experiment and quickly plugged it in before my first post and could distinguish between both, as could my roommate (who is not so musical) -- I started with 442Hz and 440Hz and worked my way closer. Actually I imagine successively is more difficult to distinguish the closer you get (2 cents, 1.5 cents) than simultaneously (beating, etc.) -- I only tried the former though. Either way, its still quite clear.

Also, do you have a good resource for me to do more introductory reading into it? As in, not a textbook, maybe something as simple as a website?

Probably. But not off the top of my head. I'll have to look through some stuff and get back to you.

You are taking a big burden with sayings such as "always" and "forever", because basically you'll have to explain "how come?".

How can something be more [or] less absolute? This is an oxymoron. It is either absolute or not absolute at all.

The only correct thing to me is to agree that mathematics seems to be the only candidate for absolutism.

And no, when you produce a sound of 440 Hz again and again, you won't produce exactly the same sound. Every other 440 Hz sound would be different, placed differently in space-time.

Since human hearing is logarithmic, the difference of 2 Hz would be hearable at 400 Hz, more hearable at 60 Hz and indistinguishable at 16 kHz. And since cents are a logarithmic unit, they basically help people to deal easily with frequencies and intervals as they perceive them.

As for frequencies, beats, critical bandwidths, masking thresholds, units and so on - just get a reading on acoustics. Musically-wise, Helmholtz's "On the Sensations of Tone" is a very important book.

You are taking a big burden with sayings such as "always" and "forever", because basically you'll have to explain "how come?".

How can something be more [or] less absolute? This is an oxymoron. It is either absolute or not absolute at all.

The only correct thing to me is to agree that mathematics seems to be the only candidate for absolutism.

And no, when you produce a sound of 440 Hz again and again, you won't produce exactly the same sound. Every other 440 Hz sound would be different, placed differently in space-time.

Since human hearing is logarithmic, the difference of 2 Hz would be hearable at 400 Hz, more hearable at 60 Hz and indistinguishable at 16 kHz. And since cents are a logarithmic unit, they basically help people to deal easily with frequencies and intervals as they perceive them.

As for frequencies, beats, critical bandwidths, masking thresholds, units and so on - just get a reading on acoustics. Musically-wise, Helmholtz's "On the Sensations of Tone" is a very important book.

that's what i was saying all the way. agreed.

And no, when you produce a sound of 440 Hz again and again, you won't produce exactly the same sound. Every other 440 Hz sound would be different, placed differently in space-time.

What? So, because the 'pitch' of the frequency of 440 occurs at a different point in a span of time, it is all of a sudden a 'different pitch'? Really? So, how does this span of time 'change' the frequency of 440 to something else? I think you're making up crap... just to insist that no absolute exists and completely ignore objective truth entirely. :headwall:

-----------------------------

See, Pliorius, this is what is wrong in the 'Postmodern' world, if you'll remember that thread from a few months back? Just because a great deal of subjectivity is out there doesn't render certain grounded scientific principles like sound and physics completely open to interpretation and subjectivization.

There are 'truths' about sound and about music that hold true because you can reproduce the same results over and over again, ad finitum. When sound waves move at a frequency of 440, no matter how many different times it occurs, as long as the frequency remains constant at 440 you'll hear the exact same pitch... each and every time. There's nothing 'subjective' about this... it just 'is'. The end. There is nothing about this that is left open to interpretation other than the units of measure you use and what you call 'the pitch' created by the frequency 440...

AA, I think what pliorius is getting at is in the grand scheme of all of physics, in the entire physical world, the world is relative because of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, where space and time are connected relatively not absolutely. Certainly our little planet would be subject to the same laws. Now, if we were thinking in terms of our little planet alone, then that relativity becomes to irrelevant (opps, pun) to our perception of a sound, i.e. "A" at 440 will sound the same to us always on earth, but perhaps not on Mars or the moon. Unfortunately we can't know because there isn't enough atmosphere there to sustain musical pitches since sound travels through media, not vacuum, which leads me to how looking at the bigger picture is utterly, again, irrelevant.

man, you still don't grasp the idea, do you? objective isn't the same absolute. and what i said has nothing to do with subjectivity, to me, you completely misunderstand the topic of subjectivity.

again, in a world where no pitch of 440 exists, truths of math would still hold, this is absolute as close as we can get to. the pitch of 440 is a result of many relative properties that happen to be valid in our physically thus constructed world. there's no ground to believe that it would hold true in any possible world, since it's easy to imagine worlds that have no pitches at all. thus the objecytive truth (to me - rather a fact and not truth, since i do not think of truth in a bigger picture as words adequate at things) about pitch is objective precisely because it hold true for our world at a given time and at a given space. it is an aposteriori necessary sort of truth. it has nothing to do with absolute. sorry, man, you are still messing things up.

and no there's nothing wrong with postmodern world in this respect, and yes, all grounded principles of physics and sound are open to interpretation. as have always been in open societies and science. without that you are falling into dogma. ask galileo. so, you are wrong again, misusing a concept, providing not logical arguments and being pretty much pain in the lower part of a back :D

Absurdity is still absurd no matter what you call it. Unless there is evidence that contradicts the fact that whenever frequency 440 is reached the same pitch is produced, then I'm going to chalk everything 'relative' and 'subjective' up to 'negative proof'. Quite frankly, you can't say that it won't be the same anymore than I could say 'it should be the same if ALL THE VARIABLES are the same'.

If the variables are exactly the same and a frequency 440 produces a different 'pitch' than another frequency 440, you would have a point. Now, all I'm waiting on is for those of you insisting this can occur to 'prove' it. Show us where one 440 frequency sustains a different pitch than another 440 frequency using the exact same variables. Because my definition of 'absolute' is not, "It's absolute no matter what variables you use to change it..." Absolute is when all variables are constant, results are infinitely the same.

Absurdity is still absurd no matter what you call it. Unless there is evidence that contradicts the fact that whenever frequency 440 is reached the same pitch is produced, then I'm going to chalk everything 'relative' and 'subjective' up to 'negative proof'. Quite frankly, you can't say that it won't be the same anymore than I could say 'it should be the same if ALL THE VARIABLES are the same'.

If the variables are exactly the same and a frequency 440 produces a different 'pitch' than another frequency 440, you would have a point. Now, all I'm waiting on is for those of you insisting this can occur to 'prove' it. Show us where one 440 frequency sustains a different pitch than another 440 frequency using the exact same variables. Because my definition of 'absolute' is not, "It's absolute no matter what variables you use to change it..." Absolute is when all variables are constant, results are infinitely the same.

prove that this applies to what you're saying, at first. i.e. prove that there are worlds that fall under the property you describe. that you can construct linguistic tautologies is no secret, are they of any use, well, from a philosophical standpoint of view, no, since they are tautologies. again, you still misuse the concept 'absolute'. if you want to call something absolute you can, well, you are doing it, it just has no informational or explanational value, that's all.

again, you need to prove that there exists worlds where ALL VARIABLES are the same at different points in time and space, at first. you base your argument on the assumpion you must prove (and taking no beef wih the fact that nothing in our world is the same ever) thus simply entering a vicious circle.

Goddamn, do I have to get involved into this as well? Well here's the summary:

A frequency is a frequency. The frequency is simply the description of a physical phenomenon. Certainly you can reproduce this phenomenon in various ways and in almost identical ways (you can't replicate it 100% identical as that would involve exact identical molecular movement, which we of course can't have.)

Of course there's is no way to really assert with 100% certainty that X is X forever and ever. No. Instead we can only say that X is quite likely to be X and remain X for the foreseeable future, which is not infinite.

The moment you start talking about absolutes is the moment you stopped talking about science in general, since there is no way to know 100% that tomorrow the laws of physics may change or WHATEVER may happen that can alter our concepts of any given number of things. It's not probable, sure, but asserting it impossible is incorrect.

again, you need to prove that there exists worlds where ALL VARIABLES are the same at different points in time and space, at first.

Why do I need to 'prove' this? Essentially, the whole objection to this is, "Well, it's not an absolute if there exist worlds where all variables are the same at different points in time and space. You have to prove this first." No, actually, I just need to show that a frequency of 440 creates the same pitch when replicated. It does. Case closed. Beyond that, any objection you have to this is your burden to prove.

You can base your objection on negative proof all day (please Google this so you know what it is), but until you supply this proof for your objection, there's no sense in being antagonistic about it. What we know now holds this frequency issue to be consistent, constant, an 'absolute' if you will. If you have 'proof' to the contrary, let's hear it. I'm not about to bend over backward supplying you with proof you need to make your point.

it's not absolute, that's all. since the frequency of 440 does not have to create the same pitch in all possible worlds. i mean, how clearer can one be? what do you want me to do? go and find a world where 440 does not create the same pitch as on our planet earth? it's enough to thin that possibility and see no logical contradiction there to say that your argument is wrong, since what you claim is not absolute (i'e' not the same in all worlds).

again, here's a line from wiki, regarding pitch and it's relation to frequency,

Pitch is a subjective sensation in which a listener assigns perceived tones to relative positions on a musical scale based primarily on the frequency of vibration.

it seems that even in our world, where subjects differ so may their assigments of pitch. clearly, our brains change the world we live in. most probably we can communicate because we have developed language and brains that are maybe not so drastically different, though i would not be so sure. and to speak here of absolutes is to create metaphysics of simple physical and empirical degrees.

as i told there's no fact that physical world is closed and finite, you simply assume it for the sake of your hypothesis, this is a mistake. and i'm not using proof by negation, since you lack enough empirical data to force your thesis. jesus, man, no there is no 'absolutes' in music. there might be in physics (yet,not here, since we do not inhabit the world where variables are constant), but no one knows yet. there is most probably 'absolutes' in math, but still i would not talk about absolutes there.

the only absolute i know is goddamn good vodka.

Pitch is a subjective sensation in which a listener assigns perceived tones to relative positions on a musical scale based primarily on the frequency of vibration.

Yes, we as individual people 'perceive' pitches differently. That's why tools exist that can, based on analyzing frequency, tell us what frequencies are produced in various cases. The simple issue here is whether an absolute exists between frequency and pitch. And we know that through perception, ear training, and a measurable phenomenon like frequency that we can reproduce exactly the same pitch with these tools we use. Thus, we can say that the frequency of a pitch created using exactly the same frequency as before will produce the exact same results when exactly the same variables apply. Yes, this is an absolute.

it seems that even in our world, where subjects differ so may their assigments of pitch. clearly, our brains change the world we live in. most probably we can communicate because we have developed language and brains that are maybe not so drastically different, though i would not be so sure. and to speak here of absolutes is to create metaphysics of simple physical and empirical degrees.

To speak here of absolutes is to say what I just said above. Given the same exact variables and the same exact frequency, you can recreate the same exact pitch. This isn't subject to anything other than observing data. It is objectively true in all cases where all the variables apply. It is... absolute. I fail to see how you can make the claim it is not when the frequency 440 produces the same 'pitch' over and over, no matter what we call that pitch.

as i told there's no fact that physical world is closed and finite, you simply assume it for the sake of your hypothesis, this is a mistake. and i'm not using proof by negation, since you lack enough empirical data to force your thesis. jesus, man, no there is no 'absolutes' in music. there might be in physics (yet,not here, since we do not inhabit the world where variables are constant), but no one knows yet. there is most probably 'absolutes' in math, but still i would not talk about absolutes there.

I assume a closed system because we don't have access to space or time travel to otherwise verify what I have said. If, on another planet, the frequency 440 produces something other than the pitch it otherwise produces in every other case, then a variable is at work that we either have never encountered before or have not had reason to consider before. Physics and science will account for it and life will move on. I'm still firmly grounded in the idea that as we have explored sound to the degree we have already, we can say with absolution that a pitch created by a frequency of 440 will always be reproduced the same way by recreating the frequency of 440. It makes no sense to not view this as absolute when any deviance from this absolution requires a known or unknown variable to make it 'not absolute'.

the only absolute i know is goddamn good vodka.

I agree that this is absolute as well. :D

no, again, no. there's no absolute here. this is truth imanent to certain system of objects. there's completely no room or need to speak about absolutes here. you only do it because of a logical inclination - we cannot imagine two things being different at the same time and space, this is what grounds your tautological thinking - if A is A, A=A for all possible As. view it as a constant we must deal with when thinking.

now the same does not so easily apply to physical world, because of so many reasons that were stressed here. there is no inductional process to grant the absolute validity of any statement of physics. sadly, we are dealing here of things that are in time and space and which are time and space as well. thus, it's not even clear what you mean here about 'absolute'. no, you cannot import any logical statement to fit the hypopthesis if there is not enough empirical data. the absolute identity thesis does not work in relative world, which is the world of physics. again, you construct your thesis about absolute in physics regardless of the fact that it is logically contradictive - that soemthing is true does not make it absolutely true, it may be necessary true for given object, but not absolutley true, since absolutley true must apply to any imaginable world.

i really have nothing else to say.

I really have nothing else to say.

Nor do I. It's simply not evident in the world as we observe it that a frequency of 440 produces two different results when all variables are the same. When that changes, we'll have something to discuss.