[CAUT] coupled motion and other myths

[Keith Roberts]

I would love a project that would result in a bringing together of the words
we so loosely toss around and the concepts or postulates as I would call
them. Hopefully after trying to define some of the concepts they become
theorums that we can use to carry on decent discussions.

One another note. I was at the convention where Virgil Smith was going to
show the difference between one string and the drop in pitch when adding the
second string. Dr Sanderson was there to measure the difference and somehow
I was lucky enough to be sittting right next to him.

So Virgil played the checks that aurally, everyone in the room could hear
the difference. Then Dr Sanderson tried to measure it and there was no
difference. He changed the note he was reading, moving up the partial chain
and low and behold the note was flatter at the the 4th partial. At least I
think it was the 4th, may be the 3rd. Certainly some ETDs will not focus on
the proper partial so the operater has to override.

The change in the partial structure will certainly make a tuner alter his
tuning and I think that is the point Virgil was trying to make.

Keith Roberts


On 6/13/07, Richard Moody <remoody at midstatesd.net> wrote:
>
>  I am thinking about a research project hopefully resulting in an article,
> to get interaction from piano technicians about  such concepts as, "coupled
> motion"  "para inharmonicity", "longitudinal vibration" (did you really
> understand that article in PTJ?), "reverse well", "well temperament", and
> why the 3 string unison is flat from the first string tuned. I forget what
> they call that but I have a tuning machine that shows it isn't true.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/caut.php/attachments/20070614/d35fd544/attachment.html