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