Hi, Rons; > Things can go wrong when writing off the top of the head when tired. Sure! (insert bad pun here) > Detuned length option = (((lower harmonic length)/(next higher > harmonic length))^(0.5))*(HIGHER harmonic length) Yes, but it's like for pitches and this would simplify, where dlo = sqrt(lower/higher)*sqrt(higher^2) dlo = sqrt(lower*[(higher^2)/higher]) dlo = sqrt(lower*higher) Less entry is nice, but I prefer less clutter, too (despite which, most of my spreadsheets barely are parsable). The quadratic I posted takes the form n^2+n+(l^2)/(tdl^2) = 0 where [n] is a partial, [l] speaking length, and [tdl] is a target length as permitted by design constraints and preference, has a positive solution n = (-1+sqrt[1-4*([l^2]/[tdl^2])])/2 To be useful, this needs to be a whole number, so adjacent cells might read [r1c1={l}] [r1c2={tdl}] [r1c3=int((-1+sqrt[1-4*((r1c1^2)/(r1c2^2))))/2)] [r1c4=r1c1*sqrt(1/((r1c3)*(r1c3+1)))] where the third column shows the lower partial closest to the target length entered to the second column, and the fourth column shows the corresponding detuned length option. I wonder, what would be the results of making front duplexes proportional to strike lengths? Research I've encountered looks farther back. Did I post already about that Taskin fp at Cité de la musique? Clark
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC