26

Essentially all instruments produce overtones, which are frequencies other than the dominant frequency of the note.

-- How do harmonics work?

The use of "essentially" there got me thinking. Are there any instruments which do not produce overtones?

Wyrmwood
  • 199
  • 4
Joseph Lennox
  • 371
  • 3
  • 6
  • The "essentially" essentially(!) means the overtone spectrum for say piano and clarinet will be different. But all acoustic instruments (I believe) will have overtones. (unless you use a sine wave generator as instrument ) – Rusi Jun 01 '19 at 17:47
  • 23
    No overtones == exact sinewave. A synthesizer producing a sine wave (as some do) will thus fit the bill. *(also silence has no overtones, so technically a completely broken and thus silent instrument will also fit the bill!)* – abligh Jun 02 '19 at 12:12
  • 5
    Are you allowing electronic instruments? A theremin produces a sine wave I believe. – marcellothearcane Jun 02 '19 at 19:50
  • 2
    @marcellothearcane I think digital theremins are often sampled, and analogue ones use some circuits to get a more interesting waveform. I'm not a hundred percent sure though. – Nobody Jun 02 '19 at 20:39
  • 1
    I have heard that in theory, a perfectly hemispherical bell (possibly made from an ideal, vanishingly thin material) will vibrate with a perfect sine wave. I haven't checked the calculations on this myself, though. – Arthur Jun 03 '19 at 08:00
  • A digital synthesizer producing a sine wave is as close as you're going to get... It sounds rubbish! Acoustic instruments won't do this. – AJFaraday Jun 03 '19 at 09:28
  • 4
    There is another way to make an instrument *appear* to have no overtones, and that is to only play notes in the top octave of your hearing. Since the first harmonic is one octave above the fundamental, it will then be out of your hearing. This is why many instruments with big ranges sound rather plain at the top - they simply aren't producing harmonics you can hear. This is why it can be quite difficult to tell the difference between one instrument and another in the your top octave. So if its bottom note was in your top octave, it would appear to have no harmonics at all. – David Robinson Jun 03 '19 at 14:28
  • 1
    @marcellothearcane an analog theremin has a knob to modify the waveform and another to modify the brightness. Only one setting would be a sine wave. – Davidmh Jun 04 '19 at 14:13
  • @Arthur I don't see why that would be the case. The wave equation has infinite stable solutions (harmonics) on the sphere. In a fixed ring hemisphere you are just fixing m=0. If the semisphere is free, you'd allow higher values of m. – Davidmh Jun 04 '19 at 14:26
  • @abligh Even a synthesizer can have non-linearities, if processed through an amplifier and recorder with a mic through a speaker it can pick up all types of colour. Even if recorded directly as a digitally "perfect" sine wave you still need to play it through a speaker of some sort to hear it. That will introduce some distortion and harmonics. A pure sine wave is like a [perfect sphere](https://www.nist.gov/si-redefinition/kilogram-silicon-spheres-and-international-avogadro-project) - it's effectively impossible to produce one in the real world. – J... Jun 04 '19 at 16:46
  • From reading the texts, I get the impression that members are talking about sine waves OR other waves. This is not the case. ANY wave can be broken down into its sine wave components, and likewise any set of sine waves can be combined to produce any wave desired. Even a square wave is made up of sine waves. To make any wave you add sine waves of different frequencies, phases, and amplitudes. – A. Programmer Dec 25 '20 at 17:23

10 Answers10

34

A tuning fork comes close, though amplifying it by placing it on some resonating object - a wooden table, piano case, or try your head :-) - will add some harmonics.

The sound-producing element of a Fender Rhodes electric piano is essentially a tuning fork, though other parts of the instrument are designed to 'dirty up' the pure tone.

The tone of a flute, especially in the higher register, is close to a sine wave.

Note that we're talking about the sustain portion of a note. Both tuning fork and flute produce much more complex sounds as a note is attacked. You could mistake a tuning fork for a flute if the attack portion of a note was chopped off. I don't think you'd confuse the two if the attack was also heard though!

This principle was put to good use in 'Hybrid Synthesisers' like the Roland D50 or Yamaha SY range. A short sampled attack was followed by a synthesised sustain and release. It combined a remarkable degree of realism and controllability with economical use of sample memory.

So your answer is: although some instruments have a sustain close to a sine wave, I can't think of one outside the test bench that lacks a more complex attack.

Stormblessed
  • 440
  • 4
  • 14
Laurence
  • 84,790
  • 5
  • 59
  • 178
  • Hope you don't mind me dropping a link there. I searched around to verify that tuning forks do indeed produce a sine-wave, and found this. – user45266 Jun 03 '19 at 00:56
  • 2
    "The tone of a flute, especially in the higher register, is close to a sine wave." Is that really true, or is it just because our ear fails to pick up many of the harmonics? – Arthur Jun 03 '19 at 08:01
  • 1
    @Arthur I wouldn't be surprised if spectral analysis of flute tone showed a decrease in higher harmonics regardless of the human hearing range, but I bet that does contribute to the perceived effect... Image result for flute timbre – user45266 Jun 03 '19 at 17:13
22

I've heard it claimed that human whistling comes very close to being a perfect sine wave:

Spectrograph

The video here seems to show only one peak on the spectrograph, supporting a nearly perfectly sinusoidal waveform.

user45266
  • 12,289
  • 2
  • 27
  • 78
  • 2
    For an instrument, flute and piccolo are very close to whistling and to fairly pure sign waves with breath noise on top. – Todd Wilcox Jun 02 '19 at 03:43
  • 2
    @ToddWilcox flutes, at least in low register, produce something closer to triangle than sine spectrum-wise. The linear (cylindrical or conical) pipes support overtones quite well, they just aren't excited as strongly as in reed woodwinds. Whistling (and, I'd suspect, ocarina) is different, because the resonance chamber isn't tube-shaped at all. – leftaroundabout Jun 02 '19 at 10:57
13

As far as I know every instrument produces overtones. Some might think that unpitched percussion don't have overtone, but they produce them as well.

However, there are some electronic instruments, such as synthesizers (sine waves) which can be played without producing any overtones, but every acoustic instrument does.

If I'm correct the ocarina might be the instrument which come as close as possible to creating 'no overtones'. In fact, they do create overtones as well, but because of their shape, the overtones are actually many octaves above the keynote scale.

Andy
  • 2,891
  • 7
  • 36
  • 15
    The whole reason we call those instruments "unpitched" is because of their numerous inharmonic overtones. +1 – user45266 Jun 01 '19 at 20:25
  • Sine waves from synths and unpitched percussion would have been my guess as well. Nice answer – Shevliaskovic Jun 02 '19 at 08:05
  • 4
    @Shevliaskovic Synths yes (or at least maybe) - unpitched no. As user45266 says: unpitched instruments have many overtones but they are not integer multiples of the fundamental as usual. It is these non-integer harmonics that make it "untuned". The ear cannot make sense of these harmonics. – badjohn Jun 03 '19 at 15:35
8

It is worth looking at the reason WHY there are so few instruments that produce sine waves. It is clearly fairly difficult, from the point of view of physics, to make a sine wave without electronics, but people could have tried to get close if they wanted to.

The psycho-acoustic answer is that few attempted this because it does not sound interesting. It is notable that, of the examples suggested, most are:

Not designed for human entertainment (e.g. tuning fork)
Designed as part of something (e.g. one stop on a synthesizer, to be played with others)
Designed with other features to make the sound more interesting (e.g. theramin)

One instrument that gets fairly close is the Stylophone. This produces a sine wave - in theory - simply because this was the cheapest sound to aim for in an electronic instrument. Any deviation from the sine wave is not caused by aesthetic considerations, but by an over-riding desire for cheapness in the design brief. That is to say, the overtones are caused entirely by the cheap amplifier, cheap speaker and cheap plastic case.

  • 1
    Circuits to produce clean sine waves whose amplitude is consistent over a range of frequencies are nowhere near as cheap as circuits to produce pulses at an adjustable rate. Pulse waves and square waves are much cheaper and easier to produce, and are what I'd expect from a simple stylophone circuit. – supercat Jun 03 '19 at 19:39
  • @supercat But the problem with pulses is that you would get a huge amount of higher harmonics and you would need to attenuate these. Doing this in a way that produced a similar tone at different frequencies would have been very difficult. In my experience a harmonic oscillator was the standard frequency generator before ICs and I am reasonably certain this is what the link means by a voltage control oscillator, even though I cannot find this stated specifically. – David Robinson Jun 03 '19 at 21:25
  • 2
    An LC harmonic oscillator using a tuned coil can be a very stable way of generating a continuous reasonably-clean sine wave at one particular amplitude and frequency, but there are trade-offs between speed of start-up, ability to adjust the output frequency, and purity of the output waveform. Toys like otamatones use relaxation oscillators (such oscillators have a distinctive, decidedly non-sinusoidal sound), and I would expect that stylophones would too. – supercat Jun 03 '19 at 22:25
  • 2
    You win. @supercat. I have managed to find a website where it has been [reverse engineered](https://www.waitingforfriday.com/?p=334) and it was a relaxation circuit powered by a Programmable Uni-junction Transistor. Not surprisingly, it was replaced with a 555 at some stage after the invention of [the most successful chip ever](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/555_timer_IC). – David Robinson Jun 04 '19 at 00:05
  • I'd not seen the actual schematic for the original Stylophone, but it's interesting to note that the output of the vibrato circuit is much closer to sinusoidal than the audio output of the Stylophone (possible because it only has to operate at one rate). To help it start quickly, though, the loop gain is set high enough to cause distortion which is visible on the scope trace. – supercat Jun 04 '19 at 15:39
7

frequencies other than the dominant frequency of the note

Any finite wave has frequencies other than the dominant frequency. Single frequency is only possible for a sinusoid that has lasted since forever with constant amplitude and will continue to do so.

For any finite wave you will be able to perceive (with your ear or any physical measuring device) a bundle of neighbouring frequencies like seen in the image included in another answer. The width of the bundle is limited by duration of the signal.

NOTE: This answer does not discuss overtones in the common meaning of the term (multiples of fundamental frequency) but the definition from the question (quoted above).

Džuris
  • 427
  • 2
  • 8
  • 5
    Yeah, though this is a bit pedantic. By making the tone last long you can easily push all the “side channel” content below the audibility threshold. – leftaroundabout Jun 02 '19 at 11:05
  • @leftaroundabout That's why I added "much" in my answer. – badjohn Jun 02 '19 at 12:40
  • 1
    Is this really true from the point of view of a listener? I'd find a little more explanation useful here. – Нет войне Jun 02 '19 at 20:27
  • 1
    @topomorto It is true from a mathematical point of view, not from a listener's point of view. It's trivial to develop sounds whose harmonics due to this effect are so far outside the human hearing range that we can effectively ignore them. But when doing other things (such as working with pulsed lasers), these extra harmonics are an incredibly important nuance. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 04:35
  • @CortAmmon what I'm wondering is whether it really is philosophically true from a mathematical point of view, or if it's only true from the point of view of a certain analysis technique. It's possible to generate a finite number of cycles of a sine wave of any frequency; that will be heard as a sine wave persisting for a certain duration. If there's any energy at a different frequency, where has it come from? – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 05:45
  • @topomorto It's true from a mathematical point of view. We *define* overtones in terms of the Fourier transform of the signal over time. Fourier transforms only (properly) operate on signals of infinite duration. To do a Fourier transform of a finite signal, we multiply that sine wave by a "window function," such as a step from 0 to 1 when the signal starts and 1 to 0 when it ends. Mathematically, multiplying two signals in the time domain is the same as *convolving* them in the frequency domain. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 06:04
  • If you use a brutal edge, like a step function, this will put energy on all sorts of higher overtones. There are other envelopes, like Chebychev windows, that have better properties in this way, but they all have some strange overtones which appear due to the window.. Of course, generally speaking, the human ear does process them differently, so we don't notice them as overtones. We notice them as starting and stopping of sounds. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 06:06
  • @CortAmmon Thanks for the expansion. It does sound to me like these other frequencies are artefacts of a particular analysis method. I don't see that overtones in a musical sense are *defined* in terms of the Fourier transform - e.g. it's possible to generate a signal with sinusoidal components that couldn't perfectly be detected by the Fourier transform, but to say that the transform is the *definition*, rather than the original synthesis, seems a bit backwards - isn't it more that the Fourier transform isn't the perfect tool for the job? – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 06:29
  • @topomorto your ear senses only changes in air pressure. You perceive these changes in terms of frequencies (or tones) because your inner ear does pretty much a hardware Fourier transform which is subject to at least the same limitations and artefacts as the mathematical tool. – Džuris Jun 03 '19 at 08:35
  • @Džuris the inner ear does do a frequency analysis - but it does so via the hair cells in the organ of Corti, which detect energy at different frequencies. That's a completely different method to the Fourier transform, so it's not clear that it is subject to the same limitations and artefacts. – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 08:48
  • Each of the hair cells measures the power transferred via changes in frequency that corresponds to it. That's the same as finding Fourier coefficients. In this [answer](https://music.stackexchange.com/a/85443/10325) the spike is wide. The transform picked up not only 1458Hz, but also 1460Hz and other neighbouring frequencies. And your ear would do the same. – Džuris Jun 03 '19 at 09:03
  • @Džuris Yes, in that sense the ear's resolution (and arguably in some cases its ability to detect what's "actually there") is limited, as is the Fourier transform's. – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 09:40
  • @topomorto I say it is by definition because, from a physics perspective, Fourier transforms were constructed to match our intuitive concept of frequency (which is the basis for how we define overtones). If you ask a physicist to calculate the frequency of a signal, they'll use a Fourier transform (or a derivate like FFT). If you tell them to do it using something other than Fourier, they'll shrug and ask you to define frequency, since physics pretty much all use the same definition of frequency, which is the ω in A*sin(ωt+b). The purpose of a Fourier transform is to decompose... – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 15:07
  • .. a time based signal into a series of A*sin(ωt+b) terms added together. There is only one valid set of A(ω) and b(ω) terms for any given time based signal, and Fourier transforms provide it. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 15:08
  • There are other approaches, such as Wavelet analysis, which use other orthogonal waveforms, but their properties are almost universally described using their effect on Fourier transforms and their transient behavior. Wavelets are probably a better match for biological sensing, due to the imperfection of our senses, but defining frequencies and overtones is a bit more difficult due to the time dependent outputs wavelet transforms provide. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 15:12
  • Oh, and for those who are interested, the hair cells in the organ of Corti are apparently active amplifiers, not just passive ones. The cells actually change shape in response to the sound, generating more sound. (which obviously leads to the need to tune those amplifiers to not have too much feedback... the human ear is amazing!) – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 15:15
  • @CortAmmon I do understand that Fourier transforms are quite a good conceptual match for our hearing - I just don't see that the 'closeness' of the ear's mechanism necessarily goes as far as experiencing exactly the same window-related phenomena that you mentioned earlier (maybe it does, but it's not intuitive to me why). I'd be happier to accept the idea of any analysis as the basis of an overtone *definition* if I'd heard any Fourier analyser that was able to analyse well enough to create an *indistinguishable* resynthesis - I've heard some good ones (e.g. Spear) but nothing *that* good. – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 19:19
  • @topomorto The reason you don't hear it is because it is true mathematically, but is meaningless in most practical situations. It is trivial to construct windows where these effects drop off to -100dB or more within a fraction of a Hz. Other effects always dominate before that effect matters. But it is a true mathematical pattern and something that is important to filter designers. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 20:14
  • As for an indistinguishable resynthesis, I'd point out that MP3 uses these transforms. While many do feel they can hear the difference between a MP3 and the original, one has to admit that the higher bit-rate MP3s get pretty darn close unless you have some substantially good audio equipment at your disposal. – Cort Ammon Jun 03 '19 at 20:15
  • @CortAmmon I need to learn more about MP3 I think! – Нет войне Jun 03 '19 at 21:02
5

You can create pure a sine wave with some electronic generators. Another way is to use software. I created a series of pure sine waves in wav files at various frequencies for a hearing test. They don't sound like any real instrument that I have ever heard. So, that says that no instrument that I have heard produces a pure sine wave. Of course, I have not heard all instruments but I have heard many. The closest might be a flute but it still was recognisably different. I do not find a pure sine wave appealing.

Note that there is more to the difference between the sounds of various instruments than the harmonics: e.g. attack, decay, stability of pitch, etc. Back in the days of cassette tapes I had a tape of piano music stretch badly. It no longer sounded at all like a piano, it sounded like a musical saw. The harmonics would not have been changed (much) by the stretching. It indicated that an essential part of the piano sound is the stability of the pitch. For that reason, since then, I always used solo piano music to assess turntables. It is a long time since I did that though as I was an immediate convert to CDs. Partly due to this experience.

badjohn
  • 4,163
  • 1
  • 18
  • 41
  • 1
    I can confirm your observations about piano: it's an instrument that always makes it obvious when a turntable isn't spinning at a perfectly steady rate. – jberryman Jun 02 '19 at 20:10
  • One reason your sine waves may not sound like any real instruments is because musical instruments can be distinguished by any other factors. (Check this out: https://youtu.be/thD6TNUoyIk) – user45266 Jun 03 '19 at 01:05
  • @user45266 Did you read my second paragraph? – badjohn Jun 03 '19 at 06:41
  • @badjohn Yes. Just wanted an excuse to drop that link there :) – user45266 Jun 03 '19 at 14:56
3

There are already quite a number of "instruments" listed in other answers but I think a subset of organs may reproduce an sinusoid approximate.

On the electrical side of things the Hammond organ used a spinning tonewheel and electrical pickup to generate near sines. Each key had several wheels spinning at multiples of the fundamental frequency. You could adjust valves controlling the strength (amplitude) of each harmonics -- an early prototype of additive synthesizers. Hence I will argue that the Hammond organ, unlike other instruments, was designed with sinusoidal production in mind. You could also argue that the Hammond was simply an attempt to replicate the fuller feel of true pipe organ.1 A live demonstration of can be found on youtube (with accompanying spectrogram).

There's also the original Telharmonium, a gargantuan factory-sized machine that produced near sines in a similar way.

On the Aerophone side of the things, there are certain pipes which are highly sinusoidal including the Tibia pipes of which you can hear a bit in the first 30 seconds of this video.

1You could also argue that the Hammond was simply an attempt to replicate the fuller feel of true pipe organ.

nabulator
  • 193
  • 6
2

See also the lasso d'amore at which reference is stated "the timbre of the notes [...] are 'almost all fundamental,' according to Fourier analysis (similar to sine waves)." It is possible to play the instrument at a speed so near the transition from one resonance to another that two simultaneous pitches are produced. (This tends to be possible at higher speeds, at which it is difficult to prevent having different speeds in different arcs of the arm movement producing different tones from each arc.)

Eric Towers
  • 169
  • 3
0

A pure sine wave is the only instrument that plays a tone without any overtones. This isn't a strange coincidence. An instrument's timbre is the consequence of its unique overtones - which ones it has, which ones are loudest, whether some overtones are slightly flat or sharp, and how the overtones mutate over time. Since there's only one timbre profile that can come from having no overtones, it shouldn't come as a surprise that there's only one sound that fits the bill. And when you strip all overtones from a sound wave, a sine wave is exactly what you get.

Kevin
  • 3,065
  • 5
  • 22
  • 34
-2

By far, I'm no expert in this, but here's my best shot.

Timbre is the result of a specific series of overtones sounding off louder than others. We are looking for a timbre that only has the fundamental sounding off and nothing sounding above it. I suppose anything that could produce a single sine wave would be your answer. Perhaps an organ with only one tone sounding?

  • 2
    No, because even a single organ pipe (a giant whistle) will generate some overtones. – Carl Witthoft Jun 03 '19 at 13:39
  • As @CarlWitthoft noted, organ pipes generate overtones, too. In fact, the organ stops (registers) are distinguished by their overtones. See http://www.pykett.org.uk/tonal-structure-of-organ-strings.htm#ToneQuality for a few examples. – Melebius Jun 04 '19 at 12:34
  • @CarlWitthoft some organ pipes are tiny little whistles. And some have reeds, so, regardless of their size, are not whistles at all. – phoog Dec 26 '20 at 03:53