Hi Bob: You are right about the main two kinds of 5ths. In my second article I give primary tests as the 6th 10th test to give prominence to the lowest coincident partials of the 5ths. When I have more experience with this system, I may come to a combination conclusion. I just don't know at this time. Thanks for your input. On the subject of TuneLab, I guess I am experiencing a comedy of errors. I downloaded your new version, and when I tried to load it on my son's computer, I had a disk read error. I have re-downloaded it and hope to get it up and running soon. Jim Coleman, Sr. On Wed, 21 May 1997, Robert Scott wrote: > When we talk about pure octaves we have the distinction between > 2:1 octaves (where the 2nd partial of the lower note zero beats > with the fundamental of the higher note) and 4:2 octaves (where > the 4th partial of the lower note zero beats with the 2nd partial > of the higher note. Due to the variability of inharmonicity these > two tunings are not necessiarily the same. > > Doesn't the same consideration hold true for pure 5ths? There > can be a 3:2 pure fifth (where the 3rd partial of the lower note > zero beats with the 2nd partial of the higher note) or a 6:4 pure > fifth (where the 6th partial of the lower note zero beats with > the 4th partial of the higher note). I suppose you could even > talk about 9:6 and 12:8 pure fifths too, but by the time the > partials get that high they are probably too weak to need > special attention. How does this impact the discussion of > tuning by pure 5ths? > > Bob Scott > Ann Arbor, Michigan > >
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC