Re: Human Language. (long post)
Thomas Clarke (clarke@acme.ucf.edu)
13 Jan 1997 13:49:40 GMT
In article <schmal-1201971328400001@ppp-14192.firstnethou.com> schmal@firstnethou.com (T&B Schmal) writes:
>> In article <32D6F804.C82@earthlink.net> Michael McBroom
><bodhi@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >>Your question suggests that the human voice would be loudest
>> >at its deepest pitch. This is most definitely NOT the case.
>Toastmasters recommends that to be heard well speaking into a large area
>one should raise the pitch of his voice. Politicians do it all this
>time. Now, I don't know about the physics, but I believe my own ears.
>Higher pitches are better for hearing.
I think this is the same reason that Opera singers manipulate their
vocal tracts to produce that tonal quality (which I personnaly find
distasteful, try as I do to not be a cultural philistine).
When trying to be heard above ambient noise (AC noise in a hall, the
orchestra in opera) if vocal energy can be gotten into the 1000-3000
Hz range at which the ear is most sensitive, then the intelligibility
above the noise will be improved.
As I said in the post I just finished, thought I think that sound
absorbtion in air would favor lower frequencies at longer ranges.
Of course I have no measurments etc so the optimum may well be
not much different than the range favored by opera singers.
Tom Clarke
|