<HTML><HEAD> <META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; cha= rset=US-ASCII"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1106" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff= f"> <DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style">A small correction. Recently I have re= ad:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial>"Therefore, if you very accurately match the beat ra= tes of F3-Fork and</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial> F3-A4, you will tune A4 sharp every single tim= e!"</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style">and</FONT></DIV></DIV> <DIV>"If f3 a5 method is used with A5 as the coincident partial then A4 will= be<BR>sharp." </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style">Not meaning to embarrass anyone, but j= ust to avoid confusion to those learning the trade, this is not correct. A p= erfectly tuned 440 A4 on the piano produces a second partial which is slight= ly sharp of 880. IF the fork produces 880 at A5 (which has recently been cal= led into question), we would have to bring A4 DOWN (under 440) to match its = 2nd partial to the fork's 2nd partial.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face="Bookman Old Style">Bob Davis</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>