Subject: Re: Partials of Forks?

[Mark Schecter]

Hi, Robert.

Well, that's very nice in theory. But I have RCT, and I have used its 
component Pianalyzer to measure the sound output from a fork, both held 
in the air next to the microphone, and held in physical contact with the 
computer case that contains the microphone. I assure you that in both 
cases, there is not only second, but third partial present, in varying 
degrees depending on exactly how the fork is presented to the mic. And 
in no case were the frequencies measured exactly harmonic - sometimes 
they were slightly sharp and sometimes slightly flat, but never exactly 
zero. The fact that they do vary suggests some possibility of anomalies 
in either the measuring or the calculating, and I have no way of 
determining what those may be, but there is not nothing there, even when 
the fork is held between two fingers in air.

Having said that, suppose we accept that the fork does produce 880.0. If 
you use the Yamaha method, you are tuning A3 such that its 4th partial 
is 880.0. If you then tune A4 to that, how do you know when you have 
A4's fundamental at 440? If you tune a 2:1, A4 will be flat, because 
there is more than an octave between A3's 2nd and 4th partials. If you 
tune a 4:2, A4 will be even flatter, amount depending on inharmonicity. No?

My point is, you have a fork, supposedly producing exactly 440.0. Why 
not use it directly, as in F2-A4=F2-Fork, instead of interposing at 
least one (string inharmonic) or two (fork inharmonic) variables?

I know all this has been discussed before, perhaps ad nauseum. But I 
think it's rather fundamental, so to speak, to the whole process, so it 
deserves to be free of distortions. That's all I'm reaching for. Thanks.

-Mark Schecter

Robert Scott wrote:
> Forks do not have partials - at least not in the same sense that piano 
> strings have partials.  When a fork is struck and held in the hand, the 
> only sound coming from that fork is A-440.  There is no 880 at all.