Mixing
Is it possible hear an audio wave group?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If you have multiple waves of different frequencies, the interference from the different waves cause "beats" and wave groups.
(Animation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity)
Let's say that the wave groups happen often enough to be in an audible frequency (for example, if a green dot in the above animation reaches your ear a few hundred times per second).
Is it possible to hear the wave groups?
waves acoustics
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If you have multiple waves of different frequencies, the interference from the different waves cause "beats" and wave groups.
(Animation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity)
Let's say that the wave groups happen often enough to be in an audible frequency (for example, if a green dot in the above animation reaches your ear a few hundred times per second).
Is it possible to hear the wave groups?
waves acoustics
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
1
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
4
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
3
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
If you have multiple waves of different frequencies, the interference from the different waves cause "beats" and wave groups.
(Animation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity)
Let's say that the wave groups happen often enough to be in an audible frequency (for example, if a green dot in the above animation reaches your ear a few hundred times per second).
Is it possible to hear the wave groups?
waves acoustics
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
If you have multiple waves of different frequencies, the interference from the different waves cause "beats" and wave groups.
(Animation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity)
Let's say that the wave groups happen often enough to be in an audible frequency (for example, if a green dot in the above animation reaches your ear a few hundred times per second).
Is it possible to hear the wave groups?
waves acoustics
waves acoustics
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
asked 2 hours ago
Daniel M.
1235
1235
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
1
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
4
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
3
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
1
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
4
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
3
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
1
1
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
4
4
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
3
3
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 3 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, one cannot hear the beat frequency. For example, if both waves are ultrasonic and the difference in frequency is 440 Hz, you won't hear the A (unless some severe nonlinearities would come into play).
When two ultrasonic waves are close in frequency, the amplitude goes up and down with the beat frequency. A microphone can show this on an oscilloscope. But the human ear does not hear the ultrasonic frequency. It is just silence varying in amplitude :)
(I know a physics textbook where this is wrong.)
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Hearing 'beats' at a frequency n, as in the above example, is not the same as hearing a note at that frequency. In the example you give, there is no actual note present at the lower frequency, i.e. the air is not being excited at that frequency. All you are hearing is an interference effect at frequency n. For example, if you were to convert that example waveform to the frequency domain (i.e. spectral analysis), you would see two higher-frequency spikes very close together, but there would be no spike present at the lower frequency n.
Your ear would hear and interpret the interference effect as the volume of the note increasing and decreasing at the frequency n. This effect can be used, for example, when tuning a guitar string - play two notes that are supposed to be the same on two different strings simultaneously and you will hear beats if they are slightly out of tune.
If you were to superimpose a lower-frequency note on top of a higher-frequency note (i.e. two notes played simultaneously), the waveform would look quite different (more like a high-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency wave, as shown in the image below). In that case, your ear would hear the two different notes simultaneously.
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, one cannot hear the beat frequency. For example, if both waves are ultrasonic and the difference in frequency is 440 Hz, you won't hear the A (unless some severe nonlinearities would come into play).
When two ultrasonic waves are close in frequency, the amplitude goes up and down with the beat frequency. A microphone can show this on an oscilloscope. But the human ear does not hear the ultrasonic frequency. It is just silence varying in amplitude :)
(I know a physics textbook where this is wrong.)
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, one cannot hear the beat frequency. For example, if both waves are ultrasonic and the difference in frequency is 440 Hz, you won't hear the A (unless some severe nonlinearities would come into play).
When two ultrasonic waves are close in frequency, the amplitude goes up and down with the beat frequency. A microphone can show this on an oscilloscope. But the human ear does not hear the ultrasonic frequency. It is just silence varying in amplitude :)
(I know a physics textbook where this is wrong.)
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
No, one cannot hear the beat frequency. For example, if both waves are ultrasonic and the difference in frequency is 440 Hz, you won't hear the A (unless some severe nonlinearities would come into play).
When two ultrasonic waves are close in frequency, the amplitude goes up and down with the beat frequency. A microphone can show this on an oscilloscope. But the human ear does not hear the ultrasonic frequency. It is just silence varying in amplitude :)
(I know a physics textbook where this is wrong.)
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
No, one cannot hear the beat frequency. For example, if both waves are ultrasonic and the difference in frequency is 440 Hz, you won't hear the A (unless some severe nonlinearities would come into play).
When two ultrasonic waves are close in frequency, the amplitude goes up and down with the beat frequency. A microphone can show this on an oscilloscope. But the human ear does not hear the ultrasonic frequency. It is just silence varying in amplitude :)
(I know a physics textbook where this is wrong.)
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
answered 2 hours ago
Pieter
5,87431026
5,87431026
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
1
1
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
What is "silence varying in amplitude"? Or am I missing your joke?
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago
1
1
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@sammygerbil It is one way of explaining this to my students. Their textbook says that they should hear the beat frequency. Then I have them do the experiment. They see the signal on the oscilloscope, but all they hear is silence. "Silence varying in amplitude." So yes, a bit of a joke, but it helps them understand.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
What do you mean by not being able to hear beat frequencies? Do you mean you won't hear an audible pitch? Because you can definitely hear the beating depending on the frequency difference. This is how people tune instruments based on a certain frequency.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@AaronStevens Of course one can hear beats. One hears it as a modulation of the average frequency, a tone varying in amplitude. The poster knew that too.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
You should clarify in your answer.
– Aaron Stevens
1 hour ago
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Hearing 'beats' at a frequency n, as in the above example, is not the same as hearing a note at that frequency. In the example you give, there is no actual note present at the lower frequency, i.e. the air is not being excited at that frequency. All you are hearing is an interference effect at frequency n. For example, if you were to convert that example waveform to the frequency domain (i.e. spectral analysis), you would see two higher-frequency spikes very close together, but there would be no spike present at the lower frequency n.
Your ear would hear and interpret the interference effect as the volume of the note increasing and decreasing at the frequency n. This effect can be used, for example, when tuning a guitar string - play two notes that are supposed to be the same on two different strings simultaneously and you will hear beats if they are slightly out of tune.
If you were to superimpose a lower-frequency note on top of a higher-frequency note (i.e. two notes played simultaneously), the waveform would look quite different (more like a high-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency wave, as shown in the image below). In that case, your ear would hear the two different notes simultaneously.
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Hearing 'beats' at a frequency n, as in the above example, is not the same as hearing a note at that frequency. In the example you give, there is no actual note present at the lower frequency, i.e. the air is not being excited at that frequency. All you are hearing is an interference effect at frequency n. For example, if you were to convert that example waveform to the frequency domain (i.e. spectral analysis), you would see two higher-frequency spikes very close together, but there would be no spike present at the lower frequency n.
Your ear would hear and interpret the interference effect as the volume of the note increasing and decreasing at the frequency n. This effect can be used, for example, when tuning a guitar string - play two notes that are supposed to be the same on two different strings simultaneously and you will hear beats if they are slightly out of tune.
If you were to superimpose a lower-frequency note on top of a higher-frequency note (i.e. two notes played simultaneously), the waveform would look quite different (more like a high-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency wave, as shown in the image below). In that case, your ear would hear the two different notes simultaneously.
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Hearing 'beats' at a frequency n, as in the above example, is not the same as hearing a note at that frequency. In the example you give, there is no actual note present at the lower frequency, i.e. the air is not being excited at that frequency. All you are hearing is an interference effect at frequency n. For example, if you were to convert that example waveform to the frequency domain (i.e. spectral analysis), you would see two higher-frequency spikes very close together, but there would be no spike present at the lower frequency n.
Your ear would hear and interpret the interference effect as the volume of the note increasing and decreasing at the frequency n. This effect can be used, for example, when tuning a guitar string - play two notes that are supposed to be the same on two different strings simultaneously and you will hear beats if they are slightly out of tune.
If you were to superimpose a lower-frequency note on top of a higher-frequency note (i.e. two notes played simultaneously), the waveform would look quite different (more like a high-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency wave, as shown in the image below). In that case, your ear would hear the two different notes simultaneously.
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
Hearing 'beats' at a frequency n, as in the above example, is not the same as hearing a note at that frequency. In the example you give, there is no actual note present at the lower frequency, i.e. the air is not being excited at that frequency. All you are hearing is an interference effect at frequency n. For example, if you were to convert that example waveform to the frequency domain (i.e. spectral analysis), you would see two higher-frequency spikes very close together, but there would be no spike present at the lower frequency n.
Your ear would hear and interpret the interference effect as the volume of the note increasing and decreasing at the frequency n. This effect can be used, for example, when tuning a guitar string - play two notes that are supposed to be the same on two different strings simultaneously and you will hear beats if they are slightly out of tune.
If you were to superimpose a lower-frequency note on top of a higher-frequency note (i.e. two notes played simultaneously), the waveform would look quite different (more like a high-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency wave, as shown in the image below). In that case, your ear would hear the two different notes simultaneously.
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
answered 1 hour ago
Time4Tea
2,181930
2,181930
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
The figure shows propagation in a very dispersive medium, where the group velocity is different from the phase velocity. This 'riding' does not happen in air.
– Pieter
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
@Pieter I will add a image to illustrate what I mean by a higher-frequency wave 'riding' a lower-frequency one. My point is that the waveform of two frequencies superimposed would look very different to the 'beats' example given in the question.
– Time4Tea
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f432766%2fis-it-possible-hear-an-audio-wave-group%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Are you asking if you can hear the beats? If so, then yes you can.
– Aaron Stevens
2 hours ago
No, is it possible to hear the wave groups themselves. So if the green dot reaches your ear 440 times a second, would you hear an "A"?
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
1
@sammygerbil Hearing beats = the sound fades in and out at n times a second. Hearing wave groups themselves = hearing the tone for n Hz (where n is the number of wave groups per second)
– Daniel M.
2 hours ago
4
'Hearing' something simply means that the air pressure vibrates your eardrum. In the above example there is no pressure or 'sound' at 440Hz. The absence of a sound at 440Hz is not going to let you hear an A.
– CramerTV
2 hours ago
3
Perhaps the question you are asking is the same as Do we hear anything special when the beat frequency is in audible range, but the sounds producing the beats are not? That is a clearer question, although I think Pieter's answer is better.
– sammy gerbil
1 hour ago