Tyler: The only time you can hear the beat rate of two fundamentals is when tuning a unison, but then you are probably listening to higher partials because they beat faster, unless you are tuning unisons in the high treble. This may be the only place that fundamentals are actually tuned together. What you are describing may be what I guess others call “whole tone” tuning: listening to the most obvious beat(s). I had many of the same questions at one time, and still have a few. I worked out many answers by studying a paper on inharmonicity (see link below) and looking at the iH graphs of many pianos (see other link below). http://www.afn.org/~afn49304/youngnew.htm http://www.goptools.com/gallery.htm I may be able to respond in more detail later, but I hope that others more knowledgeable than me will answer your questions so that I can learn more, too. On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:24 AM, Tyler Ferrari <tylerferrari at hotmail.com> wrote: > I have a few questions and observations I wanted to post, and hope to hear > some replies. > > If a string is said to have a lot of inharmonicity, does that mean that all > of its partials are always sharp? As the partial being listened to moves > further away from the fundamental, does it get progressively and > proportionately sharper (as if it were based on a simple multiplication of > constant), or does it get 'exponentially' sharper depending on how much > inharmonicity the string has? I'm finding when listening to certain strings > that certain partials are sharper than others (in a single string). The > octave partial in a single string may be quite close, but the 10ths (or > 17ths) (for example) may be quite sharp. Am I hearing things, or can one > partial be quite sharp compared to another? > > I don't quite know how to word that question, so if someone thinks they > might have an answer if I can better clarify it, let me know. > > Next, > > It appears that most notes lower than C4 have partials that are more > noticeable than others, as well as multiple audible partials. How does one > choose where to split the difference, and choose which partial they are > going to leave flat, or sharp? This becomes much more of an art when > compared to the simple task of eliminating beat rates in the fundamental. > Obtaining certain beat rates when listening to the fundamentals appears to > be child's play compared to the task of choosing which partial to use as the > reference for the quality of the unison, as well as the quality of an > interval being played. Listening to the beat rate between fundamentals when > playing an interval (at least in my case) does not provide me with the best > sound. I usually need to add a slight beat to the interval to remove the > issues with the partials that appear to be beating a rate much greater than > the fundamental. > > It appears that at the cost of introducing a small beat rate into the > fundamental, I can reduce the beat rate of the partials by a much larger > amount. That seems like an advantageous trade-off. I don't believe that it > is a proportional reduction. If I introduce (for example) .5 BPS into an > octave, I may in fact reduce a particular partial's beat rate by 3-5 BPS. > I'm certain that I'm hearing this, and it really makes a world of a > difference when trying to objectively view the 'quality' of an interval. > > I've been reading the discussions and information that people have been > posting regarding 'whole note' or 'whole tone' listening, or tuning. There's > a lot of information and reference to information that I don't understand, > but here is what I have to say about that. > > This may be a bold statement, but this is how it appears to me: > > If strings have inharmonicity, they cannot be properly tuned by listening to > beat rates of fundamental tones alone. Maybe I'm totally dropping the ball > on this one, but do some tuners only focus on the fundamental when tuning an > interval or unison? If so, that REALLY does not seem right to me. In my > case, the quality of the note is based on the fundamental beat rate as well > as partial beat rates, and often sacrificing one or the other to obtain the > best possible quality of tone. > > Eventually, I will learn the special circumstances with my piano well enough > to be able to know how I want to tune certain unisons and intervals to > compensate for the issues with the partials. That's just practice. > > But, I cannot imagine getting the point when I could walk into a customer's > house, hear their piano for the first time and immediately have a good sense > of how I need to tune the piano to best suit its particular situation > regarding partial inharmonicity. A person who is doing that, is someone who > I would consider a master-tuner. Is that the point when you become a Jedi > Master Guru tuner, and you can simply tune a piano by looking at it? haha > > Thanks for reading my rant/journal on my findings and observations. I'm > still a newbie, but I think I'm really getting the hang of things. I > appreciate the criticism and support I'll receive from this message. > > -Tyler > > ________________________________ > Communicate, update and plan on Windows Live Messenger. Get started today. -- Regards, Jeff Deutschle Please address replies to the List. Do not E-mail me privately. Thank You.
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC