[pianotech] Fourths

BobDavis88 at aol.com BobDavis88 at aol.com
Tue Feb 17 22:11:10 PST 2009


Well, I hope not all the correspondence on this is from me. I must be tired  
from counting all those beats. "Second coincident  partial of those two notes 
(at A5)." Sigh. Sad when your errata have  errata.
Bob
 
In a message dated 2/17/2009 3:51:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
BobDavis88 at aol.com writes:

Oops, one error (at least), which will be confusing to those not having a  
lot of experience with octave types (2:1, 4:2, 6:3 etc.): Under the protocol,  
2nd paragraph, I have referred to a 4:3 octave. Typo. Ain't no such thang.  
Should be 4:2, of course. Sentence should read, "For instance, a  "4:2" A3-A4 
octave is measured by  listening at the lowest coincident partial of those two  
notes (at A5). 
Bob
 
 
In a message dated 2/17/2009 2:09:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
BobDavis88 at aol.com writes:

Okay, I did some actual measurements, as well as some better  calculations.
1) The speed of fourths does not double each octave, or anywhere close.  
Demonstration below.
2) The 12th root of 2 is indeed 1.059463, but is  irrelevant to our needs, 
even in equal temperament.
3) Geometric  progressions are harder to visualize than the simpler 
arithmetic ones  erroneously used in some textbooks.
4) Tuning is complex, and an  insoluble puzzle. Although the ear is always 
the final arbiter, I care about  this hair splitting, because facts and figures 
always show me something else  I should be listening to more carefully, which 
will make my tuning sound  better. I'm glad it came up.
 
My own experience had shown that fourths don't speed up like I thought  the 
theory predicted, but I had long been curious why. After reading and  
understanding why, in the math given in Dan Levitan's articles, I decided to  take some 
careful real-world measurements as a demonstration, and I see  David Andersen 
has offered to tune in person, which will show the same  thing. I consider 
myself an aural tuner, although I regularly use, and am  facile with, 
ETD-assisted tuning. Although I usually use Pocket Reyburn  Cyber Tuner, for this 
experiment I used my old AccuTuner II, for  repeatability, and because I'm faster at 
switching back and forth from  calculated tunings to direct interval 
measurement, and quicker at altering  the stretch to fit the piano (although PRCT will 
do this, too). 
 
To get to the meat first, here are the beat rates I measured, followed  by 
the methodology. The piano is my own Steinway A-3, so I could take as  long as I 
wanted, and it's not a bad piano. 
 
Fourth:          Beats per  second @ 4:3
A1-D2           1.2          
...
A3-D4          1.32         (#17  wire)
A#3-D#4       1.19
B3-E4          1.26
C4-F4          1.33
C#4-F#4        1.28
D4-G4           1.15
D#4-G#4      1.22
E4-A4          1.22
F4-A#4        1.13
F#4-B4         1.37
G4-C5           1.45
G#4-C#5      1.25    wire  size changes to 16.5 @  G#4
A4-D5          1.83     wire size changes to 16    @  D5
...
D5-G5          1.76
E5-A5           0    (yes, 0. Some higher fourths are  narrow.)
F5-A#5         0
 
These are not calculated, but actually measured. It is apparent that  the 
rate does not double every octave. In fact, it stays fairly constant,  with a 
couple of anomalies due to wire size, and perhaps very small  measurement errors 
in my interpretation of the movement of the lights.
 
To anybody reading this far, here's the protocol:
1) Tune A=440  Hz
 
2) Tune A4-A3 AURALLY so that it sounds cleanest. This was between 4:2  and 
6:3, slightly closer to 6:3.  I lowered the stretch on the SAT a  couple of 
tenths, so that it also produced this octave. Interval width was  then measured 
directly. For instance, a "4:3" A3-A4 octave is measured  by listening where 
they are coincident (at A5). On the SAT, it is set  to listen at A5 (in Tune 
mode) and we then subtract the  measurement of A3 (at A5, its fourth partial) 
from that of A4 (also at A5,  its second partial). It showed about 1.1 cents wide 
at 2:1, 0.5 cents wide  @4:2, and 0.3 cents narrow at 6:3. I think this is 
representative of what  most aural tuners do. It also produced an A3-D4 fourth 
of 1.32 beats/sec,  and a D4-A4 fifth of just under 1/2 beat/sec.
 
3) Divide the octave into 12 equal pieces. This was done at the 4th  partial 
for accuracy, but I also checked at the fundamental. A word about  that: 
Although the twelfth root of 2 is 1.059463, that is irrelevant, except  in 
instruments without inharmonicity. The actual ratio of equally tempered  minor 2nds is 
the 12th root of the octave ratio. For instance, if A4=440,  and A5=881, the 
m2nd is the twelfth root of 881/440, or 2.002272^(1/12).  Cents would be 
2.002272^(1/1200). This may not seem like much difference,  but higher up the piano 
it makes a greater difference. In the top 8ve it  might be the twelfth root 
of 2.0365. Math geeks please correct me if  I'm wrong. 
 
4) Check contiguous thirds F3-A3-C#4-F4-A4 by measurement. I got 13.6  cents, 
13.8, 13.6, 13.7. Close enough for me to assume smoothly progressing  thirds.
 

5) Tune notes of next octave up by ETD. This produced an A4-A5 between  2:1 
and 4:2, and an A3-A5 double 8ve about 1/2 beat wide at 4:1. It also  made 
D4-D5 just wider than 4:2, and a clean G3-D5 twelfth. A wider 8ve  might have kept 
the 4ths moving, but would have made a rough 8ve and double  8ve.
 
6) Start measuring 4ths. Again by actual measurement: set SAT in tune  mode 2 
8ves above lower note, read the difference between two notes of 4th @  
coincidence. Each 4th was retuned right before measurement. Convert cents  into 
beats = Actual frequency at coincidence * (octave ratio ^  (cents/1200)).
 
7) I haven't made the same careful measurement of 5ths yet, but they  
progress more normally with this stretch.
 
8) In the extremes of the scale, these measurements depend some on the  rate 
of change of inharmonicity (wire size, bridge progression), and  the amount of 
stretch chosen by the tuner, but there's really not much place  to go in the 
middle, so I think the principles hold, with most  reasonable tuning styles. 
Because inharmonicity is the cause, and varies  from piano to piano, 
progression of fourths will be different from piano to  piano. Fourths can even slow 
down. 
 
Any comments/corrections?
Bob Davis
 
 
 
 
 

 
____________________________________
Need a job? _Find  an employment agency near  you_ 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003) .


 
____________________________________
Need a job? _Find  an employment agency near  you_ 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003) .

**************Need a job? Find an employment agency near you. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000003)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech_ptg.org/attachments/20090218/b3d41291/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the pianotech mailing list

This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC