Pitch is by definition reducible to frequencies. Pitch is a definition. That does not mean we canât fool the brain, or distort the auditory system to create a perception of a pitch that does not match the true frequency components. But that is like trying to argue an optical illusion is the real result, not what is actually in the underlying image.
WOW!
You repeat it....It is very articulate and clear thanks....
i think we will have much to discuss .....
Perhaps i will learn something thanks to you....
But you are wrong i think....Very wrong....But for sure unlike Essien or Ansermet i am not competent in any way to say that.... I say it in a friendly manner in the discussion .... I hope you will understand....
Pitch is NOT a "definition" it is a particular specific perception non linearly reducible to frequencies... Nor for Essien neither for Ansermet...Between a definition and a perception there is an ocean ....
Anyway for you we are mystics.... đ
I am a disciple of Goethe and Husserl....And of Cassirer....
By the way in the master handbook of acoustics they are way more cautious than you:
" Because pitch is somewhat different from frequency" MASTER HANDBOOK OF ACOUSTIC
if pitch as his own UNIT the "mel" (because of this loudness conventional psychoacoustical treshold of 60 Db used in experiments), and described by this handbook as different from frequencies, how in the world could it be REDUCIBLE to frequencies like you just said?
explain please?
Oh! i know it is just psychoacoustic studying subjective illusory Auditive illusion of a bunch of humans....
is it not?
did i understand you correctly?