Autocorrelation — where it appears
Named by 3 essays across 2 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.
A pitch with nothing to match
Filter a click train into a band where no partial is separable from its neighbours and it still has a pitch at its repetition rate. Displace each click by a fraction of a millisecond, leaving the average rate and the long-term spectrum exactly where they were, and the pitch goes. The mechanism is reading the timing — which bounds the account endorsed here from the start.
The pitch that moves the wrong distance
Take three partials two hundred hertz apart and move every one of them up by forty. The spacing has not changed, so anything reading the pitch off how often the waveform repeats must give the same answer as before. The pitch moves to 204 — the shift divided by the harmonic number — which is what a harmonic template predicts and what listeners report. Push the shift to a hundred and a second reading overtakes the first, so there are two pitches and neither is the spacing. This is the measurement that closes the question, and it closes it by ruling out one mechanism rather than by choosing between the two that are left.
The pitch that does not wobble
Three earlier essays have treated a vibrato as a modulation of roughness. The reason singers use one is what it does to the note, and there is an extractor here that turns a set of partials into a pitch and has never been asked what it does with partials that will not hold still. The period survives, at a cost that rises with the extent — and the practice stops within a hair of where the cost becomes total.
Named alongside it
The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.
Residue pitchCritical bandwidthPeriodicityResolvabilityTemporal codingHarmonicityIntegration windowJitterMissing fundamentalOctave ambiguityPitch perceptionThe voice