But why did the sound at 200 Hz seem lower when compared to the fluctuating frequency of 4 Hz, even though the original 1000 Hz is the same...?
Human hearing is fundamentally designed to capture cycles. The pitch of a sound is nothing but a cycle. However, as we approach the lower limit of audible frequencies and the cycles become longer, what we hear is not a pitch but a pattern with a certain rhythm.
"The 'hum' follows that pattern too. A sound at 4 Hz, as a pitch, is inaudible to humans, so the sound at 1000 Hz, with a cycle of 4 Hz, is perceived as a pattern, right? But that has nothing to do with the fact that a sound at 200 Hz is heard as low, does it?"
Somehow, when there are two sounds with close frequencies, one sound masks the other.
That's right. The lower sound masks the higher sound.
I see. I understand. In this graph, a sound at 1200 Hz is masked by a sound at 1000 Hz, but a sound at 800 Hz is not masked, so does that mean sounds lower than 1000 Hz can be heard?
Correct! If the difference in frequencies is within the critical bandwidth (the range within which human hearing can separate pitch), masking occurs. In this case, it can be considered that the frequencies are just within that range, so the masking effect is thought to be in play.
Dad said that the frequency is gradually becoming lower from around 30 Hz, and that the peak sound we hear is lower than 1000 Hz by the amount of the frequency variation, which is why the difference becomes larger as it moves down from 1000 Hz.
Exactly. In fact, when the difference between the two sounds that Oto first asked about expands, the superposition of the two sounds takes on a shape almost identical to that of an amplitude-modulated waveform. This diagram (Figure 4) shows the overlapping waveforms of the sounds at 1000 Hz and 1200 Hz.