On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dan McMahill wrote:

> In message <Pine.GSO.3.96.980507023105.6514A-100000@user2.teleport.com>, SamMaEl writes:
> >On Thu, 7 May 1998, Colin Wood wrote:
> >
> >> beep [frequency [volume [duration]]]
> >> 
> 
> >	"Higher" frequency, lower pitch. Just like when you pluck a
> >string, then shorten the string by a half, the note will sound an octave
> >higher. Or, so said Pythagoras. And just the same, cutting the
> >frequency in half raises the pitch an octave. So, 880 Hz would be the A
> >above middle C, and 440 Hz would be the A an octave higher than the 880 A.
> >
> 
> I don't really want to start an argument, but thats simply wrong.
> 440Hz will sound an octave _lower_ than 880Hz.  It is true that
> plucking a string and then shortening it by 1/2 (keeping tension
> constant) that you will get a note an octave higher, but the frequency
> is twice as well.

	Sorry, for the confusion... I had put the "Higher" in quotes
meaning that the higher NUMBER didn't mean it was a higher pitch, but that
the higher the frequency that a note has, the LOWER the note will
actually be. This was the 2nd correction I got, so I thought I'd clear up the
confusion. So yes, 880 Hz would be an octave lower than 440 Hz... the 880
being twice that of 440. Sorry for not being more clear with my meaning
;-)

	Ryan

-----
HELO... my name is rewt... you have SIGKILLed my father... prepare to vi!