M&A A

[RicB]

Hi Dave

Jims Article was entitled "Unisons - The effect of tuning on persistence 
and timbre"  September 1982.

Its a good read and it shows (I think) where the present idea that the 
pin is the kind of support the article refers too in the pendulum 
analogy, and that falseness is caused by horizontal movment of same 
support.  Give it a read.

My take is that, well aside from the obvious observation that loose pins 
and the presence of false beats do not occur simultaneously more then 
what can be called randomly, the article just shows how a termination 
for an oscillating object can alter the period of the object. A better 
interpretation to translate to pianos IMHO would be to say that the 
bridge and pin assembly as a whole can come to oscillate in phase with 
one (or more) frequencies of the string and in one (or more) direction.  
This fits better with the more technical article in the 5 lectures, and 
explains why loose pins can not be statistically associated with false 
beats.  It also eliminates the whole problem with this horizontal motion 
of the pin thing.

Your comments relative to longitudinal modes are interesting, and I see 
where you are going. Tho the longitudinal modes are very much higher 
frequencies then the transverse we ultimately hear in much of the 
piano....especially where the classic false beat is usually a big 
problem... there is perhaps no reason why these could not create a false 
beat.... if and only if there are two horizontals at nearly the same 
frequency... and I dont think they function this way... but perhaps I am 
wrong.

In anycase one is still confronted with some clear observational data 
that as I mentioned cant be ignored.

Cheers
RicB


    Ric, Paul, & All -
    Shooting from the hip, so to speak. I've been accurately (but
    well-meaningly) chastised in the past for not actively trying to find
    the answers to the questions I ask.  I'm coming to accept that
    answers are not my roll. Perhaps something to aspire to.  In any
    case, I'll pick through Ric's post below and refer to one item of
    Paul's.  For the sake of space, I'm deleting all but the specific
    quote, so it would be necessary for a reader to access the original
    post to fully understand (if that ware possible)'

    At 06:41 AM 2/18/2007, you wrote:
     >Hi Paul.
     >
     >  Jim Ellis's article from way back.
    Can you better identify the source?