Tuning fork is totally different from piano string. One of the main reasons we use tuning fork as a pitch source is the tuning fork has a very strong fundamental and much weak partials. The frequency of second partial of a tuning fork is about two (or three, I can not remember exactly) octaves higher above its fundamental. The third or higher partials are mostly unnoticeable to human ears. Thus, to match the beat rates of F3-Fork and F3-A4 is impractical for some tuners/forks. Even someone can hear the beats well, it is still an unreliable method, because no manufacture cares about the second partial when they make/calibrate their forks Baoli --- Andrew and Rebeca Anderson <anrebe@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Is the fork's inharmonicity what we are also > comparing too? If so, > how does this influance the direction of deviation? > > Andrew Anderson > > At 10:57 AM 1/9/2006, you wrote: > >A small correction. Recently I have read: > > > >"Therefore, if you very accurately match the beat > rates of F3-Fork and > > F3-A4, you will tune A4 sharp every single time!" > > > >and > >"If f3 a5 method is used with A5 as the coincident > partial then A4 will be > >sharp." > > > >Not meaning to embarrass anyone, but just to avoid > confusion to > >those learning the trade, this is not correct. A > perfectly tuned 440 > >A4 on the piano produces a second partial which is > slightly sharp of > >880. IF the fork produces 880 at A5 (which has > recently been called > >into question), we would have to bring A4 DOWN > (under 440) to match > >its 2nd partial to the fork's 2nd partial. > > > >Bob Davis > > __________________________________________ Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less. dsl.yahoo.com
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC