Effects of relative phases on pitch and timbre in the piano bass range
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piano bass tones raise questions related to the perception of multicomponent, inharmonic tones. In this study, the influence of the relative phases among partials on pitch and timbre was investigated for synthesized bass tones with piano-like inharmonicity. Three sets of bass tones (A0 = 27.5 Hz, 100 partials, flat spectral envelope) were generated; harmonic, low inharmonic, and high inharmonic. For each set, five starting phase relations among partials were applied; sine phases, alternate (sine/cosine) phases, random phases, Schroeder phases, and negative Schroeder phases. The pitch and timbre of the tones were influenced markedly by the starting phases. Listening tests showed that listeners are able to discriminate between tones having different starting phase relations, and also that the pitch could be changed by manipulating the relative phases (octave, fifth, major third). A piano-like inharmonicity gives a characteristic randomizing effect of the phase relations over time in tones starting with nonrandom phase relations. A measure of the regularity of the phase differences between adjacent partials is suggested for quantifying this randomization process. The observed phase effects might be of importance in synthesizing, recording, and reproducing piano music.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".