Pitch is perceptual while frequency is acoustic, and not all sounds have pitch

Evidence

The results of the simulation plotted in Fig. 2 evidence that, as in Santurette and Dau ( 2011 ), the predicted pitch values are always related to TE × TSFperiod and never related to TEperiod . This is strongly consistent with the results reported by the authors. The results of the simulation plotted in Fig. 3 are strongly consistent with Oxenham et al. ( 2011 ). Using a plausible refractory period of 2500 Hz, the simulation is able to extract the TE × TSFperiod even if the TSFperiod are too fast to be correctly encoded. The decrease in performances reported in Oxenham et al. ( 2011 ) when increasing the F0 from 1200 Hz to up to 2000 Hz is also simulated. This decrease is probably explained by a decrease in resolvability (less and less interactions between harmonic components) when increasing the F0. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 4638 (#expands, via linked claim)

In each case, the highest common factor of the components is f0. This method also provides a basis for understanding how a pitch is perceived for non-harmonic sounds, such as bells or chime bars, whose components are not exact harmonics (integer multipliers) of the resulting f0. — David Howard, Jamie Angus, coustics and Psychoacoustics, 864 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Human pitch sense spans 0 to roughly 5000 Hz, distinct from partial perception; Helmholtz wrongly assumed every heard pitch requires a physically present partial; Pitch maps to repetition frequency but is not a simple physical property. (+5 more)

Broader Connections