On Thu, 7 May 1998, Paul Goyette wrote:

> On Thu, 7 May 1998, SamMaEl wrote:
> 
> > 	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
> > ;-)
> 
> I think you still got it wrong, Ryan!  A tone at 880Hz will sound one
> octave HIGHER in pitch than will a tone at 440Hz.
> 
> As Bill Studenmund pointed out, the wavelength of an 880Hz tone will be
> half the wavelength of a 440Hz tone.  Shorter wavelength <==> Higher
> Pitch.  Higher Frequency <==> Higher Pitch.  Higher Frequency <==>
> Shorter Wavelength.

	Oh wait... that's what I meant, I think. I'm confusing myself
because Colin's beep is inverted or something. Or maybe it's my machine,
but an 880 Hz A is sounding an octave higher than a 440 one. I can't seem
to remember what I was thinking when I wrote the first message last night,
but you're right about the relationships between frequency wavelengths and
pitch. It's been awhile for me since physics and music theory too, but
whatever I said made sense to me last night at 3am ;-)

	Oh yeah... I just reread what I wrote to Ken Nakata:

On Thu, 7 May 1998 03:21:30 -0700 (PDT),
SamMaEl <rimsky@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>       Note the quotes... I actually meant the "higher" (not really
> higher, but the number is higher) the frequency the higher the pitch.	

	Maybe that's what I meant? Erk... my brain hurts 8-(

	Ryan

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