Talk:Fundamental frequency

"Pitch"
Is it save to define fundamental frequency using the term "pitch"? Typically I see the pitch defined in terms of perceived fundamental frequency. Is the circular definition avoidable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.84.180 (talk)

Java Simulations
These simulations need better labels to help make sense of them. You have to click and enlarge in order to understand that the curve indicates particle displacement as a function of (u,t). Labels or a caption should explain this without zooming in. Drummstikk (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Diagram
--СђrΐsτσρhΞr ScЋδlτξη] 08:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC) It would be good if a diagram was added to this article to explain the concept more clearly.

Velocity of a sound wave
From : "The velocity of a sound wave at different temperatures:

* V = 343 m/s at 20 °C * V = 331 m/s at 0 °C"

Are we to assume that that's at standard atmospheric pressure? I think that the pressure should be quoted as well as the temperature since it's a relevant quantity.

Also, I would be inclined to use a lowercase v for velocity, but that's probably more of a matter of opinion than relevant physics. Stuart Morrow 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The speed of sound is only dependent on the type of medium (or more specifically, the specific heat of it) and the temperature. The pressure doesn't affect the speed of sound unless it's great enough to change the matter itself (change of state or separating components). 164.107.197.169 20:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is dependent on pressure. But not all that much.128.95.209.67 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sound velocity is going to depend on atomic spacing, and the stiffness of atomic bonds. Since both temperature and pressure will alter these (esp. in materials with a low bulk modulus) pressure will have an effect. After all, the most obvious fact about sound is that it requires a medium in which to be transported and as pressure goes to zero, (i.e. vacuum) sound ceases to be transmitted at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.17.53.135 (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Speed of sound is a function of density and temperature. If you have a compressible medium then pressure will play into it. If it is an incompressible medium pressure will have nothing to do with it. So yes, for air, the pressure should be listed. Water, for example, being practically incompressible, has a speed of sound which is only a function of temperature (well, and density, which is also a function of temperature) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.65.240 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Expression for the string, and mass with spring
If the expression of an open tube and closed tube is in this article, should the expression for mass with a spring be included too? (w=sqrt(m/k) same for the string, that apears in the drawing. Trufetes 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Derivations of Formulae
It would be quite helpful to include mathematical derivations of the formulae presented, along with an intuitive explanation of the derivations. This would help the reader understand WHY things like tubes, etc. resonate. Tpkaplan (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Check calculations

 * At 70 °F the speed of sound in air is approximately 1130 ft/s or 340 m/s. This speed is temperature dependent and does increase at a rate of 1.1 ft/s for each degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, or 0.6 m/s for every increase of 1 °C.


 * The velocity of a sound wave at different temperatures:


 * * V = 343.7 m/s at 20 °C
 * * V = 331.5 m/s at 0 °C

(Check your calculation. 70 °F is 21.x °C. The calculation below [V = 343.7 m/s at 20 °C] contradicts the notion above that the speed of sound moves faster at higher temperatures. At 20 °C shows moving at a higher speed than 21.x °C). There is no question sound waves move at different speeds given temperature, but the example is flawed and needs to be addressed:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.183.11 (talk • contribs)


 * I replaced the numbers with more exact measurements based on the speed of sound page. The previous numbers were "approximate".--Dbolton (talk) 06:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This page needs work.
It is just a list of formulas. They need more explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.197.29 (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant Formulas
Of the first six formulas, only 3 are really independent - The two describing different fundamental frequencies of a tube with both ends closed or open and one end closed, and the relationship frequency * wavelength = velocity. The other three are repeats or circular through use of the fw=v relationship. Adam5980 (talk) 03:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ummm ... shouldn't there be "mention" that t = 1 / f ( or f = 1 / t) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.102.127 (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Two contradictory statements

 * "The fundamental frequency of a periodic signal is the inverse of the period length."
 * "The fundamental frequency is the lowest frequency component of a signal that excites (imparts energy) to a system."

The first one posits fundamental frequency as a quantitative property and the second one as a frequency component i.e. a kind of particular. Also removing the lowest frequency component from a complex (i.e. non-sinusoidal) periodic signal doesn't change its' period length. Fundamental frequency cannot be both of these things at the same time but the term "fundamental frequency" might mean both of these things. --Kalleaho (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've attempted to clarify this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.91.174 (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2010‎ 129

$f_{0}$ or $f_{1}$
The article uses $f_{0}$ for fundamental frequency, while $f_{1}$ would be more natural as the fundamental is the first harmonic and DC (0 Hz) is the 0th harmonic. Does the use of $f_{0}$ have its justification in avoiding a clash with symbols reserved for formant frequencies in speech signals? Olli Niemitalo (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources for Formulae?
What are the sources for the various formulae? The formula $$f=\frac{1}{T}$$ is almost common knowledge, yet is listed s requiring a source, but another one,


 * $$ f_0 = \frac{v}{4L} $$,

is something for which I looked through a few different textbooks and was unable to confirm. Question to the person who wrote this page: what is your source for this formula? Please respond... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsherwin (talk • contribs) 02:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * $$ f_0 = \frac{v}{4L} $$
 * is found in Understanding Physics For Advanced Level Fourth edition (2000) by Jim Breithaupt, page 338. Wavelength, lambda=4(L+e) and frequency=velocity/wavelength, e is the end correction, c is the speed of sound in the tube. This formula only works for a resonance tube closed at ONE end. (Taken from text) LimpSpider (talk) 04:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Expert attention
Why and where does this article need attention from an expert? What sort of attention should they give it? Hyacinth (talk) 06:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. Hyacinth (talk) 07:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

$f_{0}$ vs F0
Unless I am misunderstanding something, many sources style the fundamental frequency as "F0", rather than "$$f_0$$". E.g. (pulled from front page of search results). Is this worth a note? 82.22.13.151 (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing Animations
In the section on "Explanation" it references "first two animations" and "last two animations" yet no animation seems present on the page.

Chaojian Zhang (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2020 (UTC)