Don A. Gilmore wrote: >This is very interesting. 457.4 Hz seems ridiculously high, doesn't it? It >makes you wonder what their reasoning was. > >457.4 is 66 cents sharper than 440. That would mean that it is closer to A# >than to A! > >In fact, if you called the system A#-457.4, then A-nat would be 431.73 Hz, >or about 33 cents flatter than 440. That makes me think. Why couldn't you >just rename the system like that? You get the same notes (well, the same >frequencies anyway). You get an A closer to the A that the piano was >designed for. And you can get it by going flatter instead of sharper. >Technically you would be transposed a half step from what the music would >have sounded like if A-natural had been tuned to 457.4, but hey, you're >still closer to the original A-440. > > Grin... lets take that basic thought a step futher... Lets say you had A 466. Thats A# when A is at 440. So everything would be transposed one note up. No real problem of the hat... but if you were used to playing in 2 #'s and had to go to 3 #'s to get the same thing then what would the real point be ??.... just to change fingering ? And course it get more interesting for some other key signatures. >But then I guess you wouldn't really get the "benefit" of tuning the >orchestra string section higher. Oh well, I tried. How about if they >transpose the music of the stringed instruments down a semitone and left the >rest of the orchestra scores alone? Then the strings could tune to the >higher, better sounding tension without annoying the rest of the orchestra. >That way when everyone else is playing A, the violins would see Ab on their >score; but since their instruments are tuned a semitone high, it would sound >like the same note...and everyone is happy! > > Grin... exactly... ! >I too am alarmed at the tendency to go sharp with tunings because of the >obvious encroachment upon the ultimate tensile strength of the strings, >which are ostensibly pretty close to the breaking point anyway. Since the >relation between tension and frequency is an exponential one, the tension >increases drastically as we raise in pitch. For example, to raise the pitch >one octave (2 x frequency) requires a fourfold increase in tension! The >tension has already doubled by the time you get an augmented fourth up. >Bang! > > > I would suppose thats a design issue that could be dealt with. The way I understand it... the << benifit >> of higher pitches is the degree of beating between intervals that in turn add an element of <<tension>> or <<excitement>> to the music... sort of like what hippies used to do with anfetamines if you get my meaning :) >To raise the pitch from 440 to 457.4 would increase the string tension by >about 8%. If the string had a tension of 150 lbs, this would increas it by >12 lbs. Multiplied by, say, 215 strings, this amounts to 2600 lbs more >compression on the harp! No thank you! > > Depends on the strings used ... eh ? >Don A. Gilmore >Mechanical Engineer >Kansas City > Cheers RicB
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC