To those with visual tuning devices:
I would like to confirm some research I have been doing on
measurement of inharmonicity for the TuneLab97 program. A few
months ago Jim Coleman, Sr. and I had some exchanges on this list
regarding the issue of how voicing might affect inharmonicity.
While that particular question may have been left undecided, the
more general question that interested me was "How accurately can you
measure inharmonicity anyhow?" A related question is "How
accurately do you need to measure inharmonicity in order to use
those measurements to construct good tunings?"
Although I have not had personal experience with either the SAT or
the RCT, I gather that the operation of these two devices is
different regarding the measurement of inharmonicity. It seems that
the SAT relies on the tuner to push buttons to stop the display.
The RCT, on the other hand, "listens" for a period of time and then
automatically makes calculations of all significant partials. It
seems that each of these methods has its own advantages. The
automatic method is obviously more convenient for the tuner, since
only one sound sample needs to be taken and the computer calculates
all partials from that sample. But false beats can confuse such
algorithms, making the measurement unreliable. (I have heard that
the RCT detects this condition and warns the tuner to take a better
sound sample.) With the more manual method used in the SAT, the
tuner has the opportunity to see the irregular movement of the
lights caused by false beats and either pick another string or use
his judgement about when the lights are the closest to being
"stopped". My question is, which of the two methods is most
reliable on the average.
I have attempted to implement the automatic method in the next
version of the TuneLab97 program and have gotten mixed results. It
seems that when I pick very good and stable strings (no false
beats), I get excellent repeatability in the inharmonicity
measurements. My measurements are based on a 3 second sound sample.
But when I try to measure strings with a little wobble in them, the
inharmonicity measurements are more variable. The following
repeated inharmonicity measurements were made. The notes and the
partials that I selected just happen to correspond to the FAC
measurements in order to make it easy to compare my measurements to
SAT measurements. The measurements were made on a Kawai 650.
Note 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 8th-4th
--- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -------
F3 -0.42 1.25 2.20 3.20 4.45 5.89 8.01 5.81
F3 -0.23 1.30 2.06 3.22 4.46 5.86 7.95 5.89
F3 -0.45 1.29 1.98 3.23 4.44 5.82 7.92 5.94
F3 -0.38 1.33 2.04 3.32 4.46 5.88 7.94 5.90
F3 -0.41 1.25 1.99 3.32 4.40 5.86 7.91 5.92
F3 -0.19 1.33 2.03 3.33 4.44 5.89 7.93 5.90
F3 -0.19 1.34 2.01 3.33 4.42 5.89 7.95 5.94
F3 -0.28 1.29 1.89 3.22 4.34 5.79 7.93 6.04
...a different unison:....
F3 0.64 1.84 2.38 3.72 5.11 6.78 7.97 5.59
F3 0.63 1.80 2.37 3.70 5.07 6.74 8.65 6.28
F3 0.63 1.79 2.37 3.69 5.08 6.73 8.02 5.65
F3 0.64 1.73 2.38 3.67 5.08 6.67 8.61 6.23
F3 0.65 1.84 2.39 3.73 5.11 6.78 8.02 5.63
F3 0.56 1.67 2.30 3.61 4.96 6.61 8.55 6.25
Note 2nd 3rd 4th 4th-2nd
--- ---- ---- ---- -------
A4 1.20 3.27 6.72 5.52
A4 1.12 3.27 6.74 5.62
A4 1.11 3.24 6.72 5.61
A4 1.22 3.36 6.88 5.66
A4 1.00 3.19 6.73 5.73
A4 1.34 3.58 7.00 5.66
A4 1.31 3.69 6.99 5.68
Note 2nd
--- ----
C6 3.34
C6 3.23
C6 2.86
C6 2.55
C6 2.26
C6 2.80
..a different unison:...
C6 5.95
C6 6.00
C6 6.55
C6 6.15
C6 5.81
I would appreciate any confirming or contradicting information on
this subject. In particular, I would like to know how much
variation there would be if two or three different tuners measured
the FAC numbers on the same piano. I want to know how much a factor
individual judgement plays when strings are less than perfect.
Bob Scott
Ann Arbor, Michigan
(Detroit-Windsor PTG)
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC