Guitar tuner that uses phone accelerometer(tautme.github.io) |
Guitar tuner that uses phone accelerometer(tautme.github.io) |
When the right defender is near the center I'm reading ~24.74Hz, so slightly above G.
2011 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221609349_spiPhone_...
0) https://www.usenix.org/conference/usenixsecurity14/technical...
1) https://infocondb.org/con/black-hat/black-hat-europe-2014/gy...
but I don't think it will work well for this case.
My 6-string Kiesel Kyber bass would like a word with you while it sounds 41Hz.
Not a very good method, prone to octave errors (showing pitch one octave lower than the correct one). Furthermore, the "delay" is an integer which limits the precision, so you need to use some form of interpolation. Also it doesn't allow to recognize multiple notes sounding together. Also, slow.
You can read the paper on the "YIN" pitch estimation algorithm which describes the method in details.
I think FFT-based methods are more reliable. I did little experimentation and when measuring a pure sine wave, the frequency can be determined with high precision (tenths-hundredths of a Herz). Not so good in presence of a noise or multiple instruments - I tried to use descending from the hill optimization to figure out the pitch of each harmonic, but it didn't work out.
And if you don't even have that, use a speaker/headphone as the microphone, probably also better results.
Seriously, this is the very definition of a shallow dismissal.
Absolutely. In orchestral band back in my high school days, between songs I would ask my friend on the tuba to give me a note for reference so I could tune the timpani. If you are in a band you should be able to manage to take a one second note and hold that by humming or something and tune up. I can't even read real music (I was a "percussionist" ie incompetent except at rhythms) and even I could do that. Better trained musicians than I could expand from there to the other notes you need.
You just need a single reference pitch. You can literally just play a sine wave into your headphones for a second on stage, or have your audio engineering guy feed you one. Or you have one of those dirt cheap tuners that clips to the fretboard to get you started.
The lead singer is engaging in stage banter partially to give you the time and space to do this. If your ensemble includes a pianist or a synth, you just have them slap a note for a reference.
I haven't touched a tuner in about half a decade.
i'm also the one at rehearsal literally throwing TU-3s at my bandmates who don't have tuners on their boards for some reason. you have to have a tuner if you play with others. no question.
Unless it didn't function like a string at all, then the harmonics would be all wrong.
I think it's not that simple. A tuner is "hearing" the fundamental and all of the harmonic overtones combined. It has to guess at which frequency is the fundamental, even if the overtones are actually stronger than it amplitude-wise, and it does that by looking at the nature of the repeating overtone pattern and extrapolating back to the fundamental.
I think you can end up an octave too low (half the actual frequency) if the waveform repeats in a way that implies a different overtone repetition pattern, for example if there's an every-other-cycle artifact to the waveform.
https://physics.aps.org/articles/v12/24
>> They tapped into the feedback system that helps control the position of the read head above the magnetic disk. When the head is buffeted by sound waves, the vibrations are reflected in the voltage signal produced by the drive’s position sensors. By reading this signal, Fu and his colleagues were able to make high-quality recordings of people speaking near the drive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...
What would that filter look like?
Tangentially, I didn't know this (from Wikipedia):
> The Thing was designed by Soviet Russian inventor Leon Theremin, best known for his invention of the theremin, an electronic musical instrument.
Idk though when I read it, it seems like it's literally an antenna attached to a can "resonator" is that electronics? It is I guess since it can carry an RF wave? Electronics I think of a chip or circuitry. I get it has to be some form of a circuit to work even as a monopole.
The article says it though: "...hung in his office behind his desk, and which contained an electronic device"
A resonator is both a component in the circuit (the case is a cavity resonator) and the type of circuit this is. When illuminated (or hooked up to a power supply on the bench), it produces a sine wave, and holding all else equal the frequency is a function of the capacitance of our membrane capacitor. That membrane is flapping about due to sound, changing the distance between the plates of our capacitor and thus it's capacitance. So this shifts the frequency we're resonating at and encodes the audio into our output signal (frequency modulation).
So it's very similar to a standard LC resonator circuit you might make on a breadboard.
I'll leave you with another story of clever KGB sabotage. The KGB controlled facilities used to construct the US embassy in Moscow in 1979. They were able to extensively bug the building. They were also able to mix thousands of diodes into the concrete. This defeated NLJD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_junction_detector) based bug detection because they detected the diodes in every direction.
Some equal temperament intervals are narrower than their just-intonation (nonbeating) counterparts, for example an ET perfect fifth (2.996614:2) and just perfect fifth (3:2). But others are wider, for example an ET perfect fourth (4.00452:3) and just perfect fourth (4:3), and an ET major third (5.039684:4) and just major third (5:4).
If you tune each string sequentially (low E to high E, or vice versa) and eliminate all of the beating each step of the way, the effect adds up to the point where it's quite noticeable, meaning that your low E and high E will sound like garbage when played together because that ratio should be precisely 4:1 but now you've accidentally made it narrower than that. How much narrower?
For a guitar going from low E string to high E string, we need to stack 3 perfect fourths, a major third, and another perfect fourth -- and end up at 4x the starting frequency. If we use those non-integer ratios of the 12 TET system (intentional beating), we end up with 4.00452/3 * 4.00452/3 * 4.00452/3 * 5.039684/4 * 4.00452/3 = 4.00000. That's what we want. But if we use the integer ratios of just-intonation (no beating), we end up with 4/3 * 4/3 * 4/3 * 5/4 * 4/3 = 3.95062 and that's going to sound like complete ass. This is why just-intonation is not used for instruments like piano and guitar that are designed to play in all keys. It's used by choirs and barbarshop quartets without piano accompaniment, since they can adapt on the fly, and it's glorious.
An electronic tuner is the most practical way to avoid this problem. Alternatively, you could just get the perfect fourths nonbeating, get the double-octave nonbeating, and let the major third beat however it wants -- this works because rounding the ~4.005:3 perfect fourth to 4/3 is somewhat acceptable but rounding the ~5.04/4 major third to 5/3 is not.
I can believe this is possible. But I don't think this is a reasonable thing as a baseline expectation for a player with 6 weeks of experience, which was the original comment in this thread.
I don't know the details, but I imagine you're feeling beats transmitted through the neck or something. But if that is the case (an assumption) it still requires you to have at least one known-good string, unless you're playing solo.
So, for these circumstances, and others, a pedal-based or clip-on headstock tuner seem like they still have plenty of practical application.
Diagram: https://i.sstatic.net/8rSD2.jpg
This is basic physics controlling the effect here, not electrical routing. Speakers are microphones by their very design. To make them work as a microphone, you merely speak into them with them plugged into an input jack that provides at minimum a line level electrical signal to be modified by wiggling the speaker cone/diaphragm back and forth.
If you click "record" on your computer, there's no way to tell it to record signal from the speaker output channels, even if you write a custom low-level application directly making OS calls. The OS can't even do it, because it's not supported by the firmware.
Dynamic loudspeakers and dynamic microphones are the same thing. They always have been the same.
They've got the knobs for the design variables turned in different directions, but they're still the same.
They even have the same frequency response whether they're being used as speakers or microphones at the moment.
Which brings up a valid way to measure the response of a microphone's design:
Use two of them. One as a speaker, and the other as a microphone. Play measurement-sounds out of one, and record the results on the other. Plot it out.
The deviations are magnified, but eliminating that magnification is just a math problem -- not an instrumentation problem. :)
I had been thinking about listening for beating in the 5:4 and 4:3 intervals using open strings, which does present the just temperament problem, and harmonics on open strings to make a unison unfortunately shares this problem 100%.
No, you plug directly into the microphone jack, that is what is providing your line level reference signal that gets changed by motion in the diaphragm. Zero rewiring required.
