In article <mwspitze-171194113442 at phar2.medsurge.hsis.uci.edu>,
mwspitze at uci.edu (matt spitzer) wrote:
> In article <3aei0b$76t at news.cs.brandeis.edu>, bradw at cs.brandeis.edu (Brad
> Wyble) wrote:
> >
> > More
> > specifically, its easy for an individual to maintain a 60 Hz beat, but
> > as the frequency decreases, it becomes increasingly difficult to stay
> > with it and predict the next beat without maintaining an internal
> > counting mechanism of some kind that divides the intervals between
beats into
> > subintervals.
>> 60 Hz? As in 60 cycles per second? I would be suprised if a human could
> resolve individual acoustic events occurring at a rate above about 10-20
> Hz. Could you please expand upon this statement? If it's true, I would be
> very interested in finding out more.
>
Betcha the original poster meant 60 beats per _minute_, which is about as
slow as is easy to count regularly. A really slow piece of music, like a
funeral march, is around 60 bpm.
Hannah
--
Hannah Dvorak |
DvorakH at starbase1.caltech.edu | Ceci n'est pas un .sig.
Division of Biology, Caltech, Pasadena CA |
