Ghosts of impedance past, and yet to come

[Ron Nossaman]

>Ron,
>Interesting! Do you suppose that wire size changes, minute differences of
>strike point or shape of the string at the termination point could cause the
>different results? 

Hi Joe. Maybe, but I don't think so. If it were wire sizes, there would be
a pattern correlating to wire changes in some way. There isn't. I also
don't believe it's minute differences in strike point and string
termination because I can't hear phasing problems, like from a string
leveling twang, and the unisons tune very cleanly, so I doubt the
termination thing. It's just about got to be a coupling effect. I'm just
trying to find any sort of cause and effect relationship as a starting point.

>That is only a few posibilitys.
>I do not know where this statement comes from but " the theory of three,
>any three tones sounding together closely in tune will sound in tune."
>This is why I choose to tune one string to a target point and the other
>strings one at a time to the target string. The results are most of the
>time, but not always, a better unison.
>Joe Goss

Yes, and with the coupling through the bridge, et al, each string pulls the
other to it (frequency), so there is a slight deviation range either side
of an absolute frequency match where they have met in the middle and sound
passably pure. I played with that a little in the first round and couldn't
make an appreciable difference, but I tried something else today while I
was waiting for my glue pot to heat up. I taped off the back scale and
tuned an octave in the 5 1/2 through 6 killer octave area. On each and
every unison I could tune in the second and third strings without
detectably altering the unison pitch established by the first string! I'll
try the same area again later with the back scale open again and see what I
get. Then I'll have to try it on a piano with known soundboard impedance
problems and active front and rear duplexes that I can tape off as
controls, and see what that one tells me. I have just the piano in mind.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Ron N