Inharmonicity

[Mike and Jane Spalding]

Ric,

Looks pretty good to me.  You've aligned the second partial of each note to the 1st partial of the octave higher, indicating pure 2:1 octaves, and you're showing narrow 4:2, narrower 6:3, etc.  Is this what you intended us to see?

Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Richard Brekne <Richard.Brekne@grieg.uib.no>
To: PTG <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 5:20 PM
Subject: Inharmonicity


> Hi folks.
> 
> Been looking at some numbers and running them through excell
> and have come up with the following which I want to confirm
> or de-confirm as it were with those of you who have this
> stuff down pat.
> 
> Given the following notes and <<usual>> inharmonicity
> constants for them the spread of the partials if you match
> the lowest coincident for each successive note should look
> more or less like this in ascii art.... Or it shouldnt :) ie
> I am out to lunch again...grin.
> 
> Numbers denote partials and the farther to the right the
> higher the frequency.
> 
> A3) 1    2          4           6           8
> 12               16
> 
> A4)       1       2         3          4
> 6                   8
> 
> A5)                1                2
> 3                 4
> 
> A6)                                  1
> 2
> 
> 
> 
> Is this more or less right or do I have the darn thing
> backwards ?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> RicB
> 
> 
> 
> 
>