In article <317FF6C6.75E3 at mail.hh.provi.de>, "Andre Ch. Schnoor" (czesanne at mail.hh.provi.de) writes:
>I really don't know what you all are wondering about.
>If I mix two signals (300Hz and 303Hz) together I get a
>sum with an overall amplitude envelope of 3 Hz. Everybody can
>see that on an oscilloscope.
>>Therefore the brain does nothing more than just a dumb mixing (adding)
>of both signals and the sum is perceived as a beating envelope. There is
>really no mystic with "computing the difference" or so ...
>>>Andre "Czesanne" Ch. Schnoor
>Composer & Vocalist, Audioland International
>czesanne at mail.hh.provi.de>czesanne at proaudio.de>Reply to; gord at homostudy.win-uk.net
To put the matter this way is to miss the whole point of the
question, which concerns *not* the physical transmission of *sound*
per se, but of the *neural impulses* which have quite different
physico-chemical properties and travel at varying velocities that
can be controlled by *information*, not merely by *temperature* as
in the case of sound.
In other words, what is seen on the EEG is a *translation*
ofthe acoustic (and electro-magnetic) Beat Effect, so we must ask
what advantage does this ability have for the survival of the
orgnaism. The answer I gave is that the neural circuitry involved
was not "invented" to make life easier for piano tuners, etc.,for
other species have the same ability, but is a *by-product* of the
system which enables an animal to detect the *source* of a sound,
which can represent a danger or a meal.