Cyber ears

[Richard Brekne]

Hi Newton. Lets see. where to begin ? You make two points that I need to deal with separatly, and then there are different uses
for this idea for software (or machine) that also need seperate disscussions. So I will give it a wing.

Newton Hunt wrote:

> > Compare the frequences of coincidents and calculate the difference, and finally present the resulting data in terms of bbs.
> >
> > Does this sound do-able ?
>
> Frequency counters take several seconds to a few minutes to get a  reliable sample to display.  The lower the frequency the
> higher the display time. If you want to compare fifths or fourths you will have to wait an amount of time that would make the
> measurements almost meaningless.
>
> Yes, it could be done but I don't want to wait for 50 to 75 seconds for a fourth to display or 15 to 20 seconds for a third to
> display.

I aggree of course that waiting so long for results is impossibly to long for use as a direct tuning aid. Even as a tool to help
one get used to beat rates. If what you say is true and there is no hardware available to getting accurate enough results within
say 10 seconds then, well then it cannot be done. Perhaps this is the case I do not know.

>
>
> So, OK, you have a number.  THis number is useless unless you have an adequate number of other samples for comparison.  What
> are you going to do with the numbers.  Beats represent the difference between to frequencies and if you change one all the
> other beats in all the other related intervals change as well.
>

But it is precisely this information aural tuners process and use in tuning.

> You are talking about a massive amount of information that is difficult to acquire and not as
> informative as you might think because EDTs think in terms of cents and beats represent frequencies.  The two are NOT linearly
> linked.

.Hmmm... what can I say here.. <grin> To begin with we are moving over to another use of such a device. Assembling all the data
by sampling an entire piano isnt neccessary for tuning it, at least not with a "Beat Reader" if I may use the term.  Software can
be written to sample frequencies (correct me if I am wrong) both of fundementals and the partials they generate.

> Steve Fairchild has worked out a spread sheet to do just what you suggest but peering at several columns of numbers
> representing 'theoretical' numbers are, in my view, useless in a practical sense.  I think you would find yourself mired in
> numbers the confuse and a time investment that is of no value to you except as an intellectual exercise.

What one person sees as a bunch of sensless numbers another may find insight in. On they otherhand it may indeed turn out to be
an exercise in intellectual futility as you suggest.. But then I dont imagine anyone would be upset at me wasteing my time except
me if that be the case. Personally I love such things and have learned a lot through the years by never hesitating following up
on an idea. I have also often learned what I can-not do this way. I believe I am not alone in this. We all learn differently. In
any case for such information to become meaningfull one would need several pianos tuned and sampled and the information organized
in a meaningfull way. Also I am not looking for theoretical numbers, rather real measured results of tunings.

> Get in touch with Steve Fairchild if you want to find out what he has
> done.  Jim Colemen, Sr. is far more familiar with the work of Steve than am I.

I started this discussion by asking for just such a "spread sheet", and I have a very good idea of what I am looking for, and how
to arrange the data so as to easily see this. I'd go into it further but my posts get to lengthy as it is I deem. <grin> Tho
there is much more I'd like to touch on I think I'd better stop at this point for now. Thanks for the input.

> IM not so HO.  (Opinions are like are pits, everyone has them and most
> are unpleasant.)

what is this IMHO thing mean ??

>                 Newton