|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Combination tone article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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)
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)
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)
- 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)
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?