Richard Brekne wrote: >Hi list > >Not so long ago there was some talk about the phenomenon refered to by >some as >para inharmonicity. The reasons, descriptions, what-to-dos about it, etc >seemed >pretty vague, as if folks are just starting to get a grip on this. Jim >Coleman >contributed with an interesting bit on ploting measured harmonicity against >squared partial numbers, describing para-inharmonicity as any deviation >from the >straight line in the resulting graph. > >My query is simply is there any more specific information about >para-inharmonicity. Do we really know what causes it, or how predictable >it is. >Has there been any serious research done, if so where can one read about >this. > >Richard Brekne >Sydneskleiven 1 >5010 Bergen, Norway > >E-mail Richard Brekne >Richard Brekne Website Para-harmonicity is the termed coined by Marty Reyburn, Dean Reyburn's wife, to explain a phenomenon that Dean became aware of while developing CyberTuner. Here is his definition: "Para-harmonicity is inharmonicity which is not explained by the usual formulae (it can be negative or positive)." The phenomenon that Dean became aware of is a simple one -- the inharmonicity constant isn't constant. Chameleon, the tuning calculator that is a part or RCT, measures multiple partials of multiple notes in order to have plenty of data with which to calculate an accurate tuning. After Dean started having these measurements of all these partials at hand he became aware that it made a difference what partials were used to calculate the inharmonic "constant". If you understand the concept of the inharmonic constant you know that according to the theory, if you know the placement of any two partials of a given note, you should be able to predict where any of the other partials will be. This turns out to be quite untrue in practice. (This is one of the reasons that Chameleon is a superior tuning calculator. It measures the actual placement of multiple partials rather than simply measuring the deviation between single pairs of partials and then calculating the tuning based on an inharmonic constant that has proven to be inaccurate.) There is a demonstration in RCT of para-harmonicity that I would love to show you. There is a page in RCT called Pianalyzer which will listen to a single piano note and automatically measure most of the partials (1-8 plus 10 and 12). It then automatically calculates the inharmonic constant for each partial. All of the numbers are generally different from every other one, the lower partials being more inconsistent than higher partials. So, to answer your question about how predictable para-harmonicity is, it is inherently unpredictable. As to what to do about para-harmonicity, I have found the best approach to these vagaries is to tune every day with RCT. I have developed a number of RCT-specific techniques that I believe let me tune well despite para-harmonicity. Kent Swafford
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC