<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>Newton Hunt wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>OK, Richard, I begin to see the real reasons you
are wanting such a
<br>machine as you describe.
<p>Forgive my delayed response to your personal posts. Jim and others
<br>what done an admirable job of answering your questions.
<p>Aural tuners can evaluate a beat in, generally, less than a second,
<br>especially thirds. Waiting ten seconds or so will be an unacceptable
<br>impediment to getting on with the job. So, there are other means
of
<br>finding and correcting errors in tuning.
<p>First there are contiguous intervals. These are same type intervals
<br>with a common note. Example, C4, G3 and C4, F4 4ths. C4,
F3 and C4,
<br>G4 5ths.</blockquote>
<p><br>Thanks for the input Newton. But I am afraid my problem areas are
a bit to the side of the basic test intervals. I left your discription
in cuz from personal experience I know how easy to have missed this particular
test depending on where you got your basic training.
<p>When we are first on the subject, where I run into difficulties are
the transitional areas where we decide to move over from one test interval
type to another.. I find it difficult to smooth these areas out to my satisfaction.
Whats more I react the same way regardless of who does the tuning. Another
area that I can easily enough get frustrated with is the lowest 4 or 5
bass notes on short stringed instruments. I think this is common enough.
<p>One thing that has bothered me up to the present day is the quad octave.
Say C4,C5,C6,C7 in the high treble area. My tendency has always been to
tune that last octave high, to get away from that "horrible" beating
between C4 and C7. I'm left trying to find some middle ground where none
of the relationships between C7 and the remaining three are too bad. My
reading on tuning theory has always suggested that the higher partials
of the lower string in an octave should beat faster then the theoretical
correct in relationship to the lower partials of the the same string. Thus
the need to tune the higher string. This is in keeping with what my first
teacher said, and also with what every tuner I have ever met says. Yet
upon stumbling upon Dr. Sandersons work from 1978 in the journal, I see
that actually this isnt quite the case. The fourth partial of C5 beats
almost 5bps <i>slower</i> then the 8th partial of C4. Also, seen as a 4:8
octave the higher note of the octave interval is significantly flat. This
is opposite of what I have been led to believe.
<p>Ok you say, but we dont tune that way. Up there we are using the 4:2
and then higher up the 2:1. You ignore have to just put up with the others.
My point is that this would be easier to do if I at least had clearly understood
what to expect of the other partial relationships in that range. Now dont
misunderstand. I have tuned these octaves useing mostly the 2:1, where
I should, and the 4:2 where I should, roughly anyways. But many a time
it would have been helpfull to understand that these higher partials function
in the opposite direction of the way "they're supposed to".
<p>The reason I have asked for frequency tables, is to find out these kinds
of things, because they are not adequatly described in the "textbooks",
<i>and</i> because they represent a problem to me. (<grin>, not everybody
has these kinds of problems I guess).
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>When you learn to use these methods (<i>contiguous
intervals</i>) you will find that they are faster and more informative
than any machine unter would be.</blockquote>
I aggree one million percent. It was ten years after I started tuning before
I was told about these. They are not mentioned in Howe, White or (I am
pretty sure) Reblitz. A fellow I work with weekly is widely considered
to be one of the best tuners in Western Norway makes no use of them and
never has. This fellow is highly recommended by Steinway Hamburgs "main
man" in Norway. You figure it out. I first bumbed into them going through
some papers and old journals given to me some years back. I believe a nice
explanation is to be found in the Acutuner manual.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Go try them and then let us know what you have observed.</blockquote>
They certainly help a lot. To a point.
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
Newton</blockquote>
<p><br>Well well, here I go again, rambling on not getting said a half
of what I want. <grin>. I appreciate your thoughts, and the time it
takes you to share them with me.
<p>By the way, the machine I propose is really thought of as a kind of
third ear. If it existed I would use it just like I use my own ears. It
just would be a bit more accurate I imagine. Isnt that the nature of machines
?
<p>Richard Brekne
<br> </html>