John Alexander Blyth <BLYTHE@B...> wrote:
> high notes seem to carry further than low notes, and middle notes seem to
> have more (subjective) power. Is there anything in print, online or in a
> lister's imagination quantifying this?
I can talk about this a little bit. Middle notes (for most people) have
power because they are optimized in terms of resonance. The cords
vibrate at close to full length. A long vibrating body has more timbral
complexity since it has a fuller array of partials as compared to a
shorter vibrating body, which still must top out at the upper range of
human hearing, while missing out on the lower frequency bands (except
for some difference tones, which are not very strong). Did that make any
sense at all?
The highest notes are technically less complex, but carry best because
the high partials created by them are lower order in relation to the
fundamental, meaning higher relative amplitudes to the same band created
by a lower fundamental. Since the high band is where the "ring" is, high
notes tend to produce a more prominent "ring" and thus carry better.
The reason low notes are not that powerful (for most people): The only
way that already full length cords may produce lower pitches is to
slacken a bit. Looser means softer (like baroque strings) and again,
less timbral complexity. Larger men like Krause and Moll can get past
this since: A) they probably have longer, thicker cords in the first
place (lower native frequencies) so the cords don't have to slacken
until they get really low and B) larger resonant spaces to allow the
lower partials to find a home, enriching the fundamentals.
Most men can slacken their cords to "Slavic" depths, but building an
operatically convincing resonance upon those notes is another matter...
I was originally misdiagnosed as a bass because I could do this (and I
hadn't discovered my head voice) but I have never been able to project
in that range.
Hope this helps!
-Tako
|
