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.

True, but I think that the 880 and 440 in question are actually the
period, not the frequency, so get rid of the Hz and Ryan's got it right
:-)
 
> 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.

Yep.

-- 
Colin Wood                                 cwood@ichips.intel.com
Component Design Engineer - PMD                 Intel Corporation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I speak only on my own behalf, not for my employer.