By the way he seems that our friend dletch2 need to refresh his knowledge about hearing... This is the post he wrote about pitch after my defense of Essien he characterize to be a fraud :
https://www.amazon.ca/Human-Machine-Hearing-Extracting-Meaning/dp/1107007534
All the book is free to read here: ( uppercases are mine)
http://dicklyon.com/hmh/Lyon_Hearing_book_01jan2018_smaller.pdf
«Ohm’s and Helmholtz’s view of hearing as Fourier analysis, and THE CONFUSION OF FREQUENCY WITH PITCH, continued to permeate, if not dominate, thinking about hearing
in the early twenty-first century, even though problems with the approach had been
repeatedly demonstrated, and arguments against it published continually over a century
and a half.» P16 in "the hear as a frequency analyser?"
Then perhaps if our friend is WRONG about pitch being equal to frequency and if his immediate judgement about someone research is so expeditive without even trying to study it for a few minutes, is it possible than his judgement about Anton_Stepichev experiments and ideas coming from the same arrogance perhaps are also wrong?
I will add another reference to enter the nail in his hole and this remark will contradict our friend about the fact that we are supposed to know WHAT PITCH IS WITHOUT DEBATE today, a view totally opposing the book of Essien our friend describe being a fraud and this world authority in the field Erik Heller:
«Since melody is based on pitch, there must be a pitch present—at least when it is called to our attention. There is no correct answer to whether a pitch is present in the sound of a wood block, since the human subject is the ultimate authority, by definition. If the pitch was not heard, it was not present.
It is difficult to reason in a detached way about subjective sensations. If two people are coming from a different place in that debate, then something obvious to one person might be vehemently rejected by the other. This is a recipe for debate going around in circles, and INDEED TODAY YOU CAN FIND THE SAME CONTROVERSIES that flared up in the mid-1800s....
The subject of pitch perception heated up in the mid-nineteenth century with a debate between physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and Georg Ohm on one side and Rudolf Koenig and August Seebeck on the other (figure 23.5). They went to extreme lengths to try to achieve control of sound sources in order to settle ambiguities of human hearing. At some risk of oversimplification, we can state in a few words what the controversy is all about: Are human beings essentially walking Fourier analyzers?
The debate continues today, although it is slightly more subdued.»
P.549
Why You Hear What You Hear An Experiential Approach to Sound, Music, and Psychoacoustics by Eric J. Heller
These 2 writers are top notch acoustic world known researchers...The two dont equal pitch and frequency at all like Essien....
Then Essien is perhaps Not just a " fraud from a third class university from Nigeria"....like claimed our friend in a past post 😁
And if his judgements are so wrong and expeditive and his claim simplistic, like equating pitch with frequency, and reducing any human perception to be ONLY an impediment and less accurate than a simple measuring tool, PERHAPS he is also wrong about Anton-stepichev experiments...
I have no opinion myself but i like truth and truth is never a number...
The brain is effectively a computer, I don’t think that is disputable and pitch, by definition at least is, quite literally, frequency. You can dispute how the brain computes, but still a computer.now this is from this very interesting book of 2017 :
https://www.amazon.ca/Human-Machine-Hearing-Extracting-Meaning/dp/1107007534
All the book is free to read here: ( uppercases are mine)
http://dicklyon.com/hmh/Lyon_Hearing_book_01jan2018_smaller.pdf
«Ohm’s and Helmholtz’s view of hearing as Fourier analysis, and THE CONFUSION OF FREQUENCY WITH PITCH, continued to permeate, if not dominate, thinking about hearing
in the early twenty-first century, even though problems with the approach had been
repeatedly demonstrated, and arguments against it published continually over a century
and a half.» P16 in "the hear as a frequency analyser?"
Then perhaps if our friend is WRONG about pitch being equal to frequency and if his immediate judgement about someone research is so expeditive without even trying to study it for a few minutes, is it possible than his judgement about Anton_Stepichev experiments and ideas coming from the same arrogance perhaps are also wrong?
I will add another reference to enter the nail in his hole and this remark will contradict our friend about the fact that we are supposed to know WHAT PITCH IS WITHOUT DEBATE today, a view totally opposing the book of Essien our friend describe being a fraud and this world authority in the field Erik Heller:
«Since melody is based on pitch, there must be a pitch present—at least when it is called to our attention. There is no correct answer to whether a pitch is present in the sound of a wood block, since the human subject is the ultimate authority, by definition. If the pitch was not heard, it was not present.
It is difficult to reason in a detached way about subjective sensations. If two people are coming from a different place in that debate, then something obvious to one person might be vehemently rejected by the other. This is a recipe for debate going around in circles, and INDEED TODAY YOU CAN FIND THE SAME CONTROVERSIES that flared up in the mid-1800s....
The subject of pitch perception heated up in the mid-nineteenth century with a debate between physicists Hermann von Helmholtz and Georg Ohm on one side and Rudolf Koenig and August Seebeck on the other (figure 23.5). They went to extreme lengths to try to achieve control of sound sources in order to settle ambiguities of human hearing. At some risk of oversimplification, we can state in a few words what the controversy is all about: Are human beings essentially walking Fourier analyzers?
The debate continues today, although it is slightly more subdued.»
P.549
Why You Hear What You Hear An Experiential Approach to Sound, Music, and Psychoacoustics by Eric J. Heller
These 2 writers are top notch acoustic world known researchers...The two dont equal pitch and frequency at all like Essien....
Then Essien is perhaps Not just a " fraud from a third class university from Nigeria"....like claimed our friend in a past post 😁
And if his judgements are so wrong and expeditive and his claim simplistic, like equating pitch with frequency, and reducing any human perception to be ONLY an impediment and less accurate than a simple measuring tool, PERHAPS he is also wrong about Anton-stepichev experiments...
I have no opinion myself but i like truth and truth is never a number...