harmonics vs. partials

[Carl Meyer]

Tim:  Terminology will bite you in the rump every time won't it?

I worked most of my life in electronics.  Here's the way I've understood it.

If you record 500 hertz on a tape recorder, the second harmonic distortion
at playback  will be an unwanted content of 1000 hertz.  The amount of 1500
hertz in the signal will be third harmonic distortion.  For a quality tape
recorder the third harmonic will be higher than the second.
It is standard procedure in analog data recording to adjust the level to
produce 1 % third harmonic distortion.  This is the optimum gain for
calibration.

Years ago I was perplexed by the statement that vacuum tube amplifiers
sounded better that transistor amplifiers.

I now know why.

Vacuum tube amplifiers at high levels produce  second harmonic distortion.
Transistor amplifiers produce third harmonic distortion.  It's their nature.

Now, here's the key factor.    "EGO"   No matter how much power is
available, the musicians and the sound guys will inevitability turn the
volume up to distortion
and since second harmonic distortion is octave related to the music, it
don't sound too bad.  The third, however, sounds terrible.

Solution!  Keep the dam volume control down below distortion, reverberation
and feedback and you couldn't tell the difference between a tube or
transistor amplifier.

BBBUUUUTTTTT!!!  Ego trumps science.  Nobody listens to me.  That's why I'm
still the Rodney Dangerfield of the PTG as well as the sound reinforcement
profession and probably the rest of the world.

Oh well,  Richard Brekne accused me of thinking I'm right and the rest of
the world being wrong.  I accept that, but the rest of the world still has
problems with it.

Hi!! Richard!!  Enjoyed meeting you at Reno!!!

Carl



----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Hoover" <tim@timhoover.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: harmonics vs. partials


> Oops...got my own terminology messed up before thinking. 1st partial is
> fundamental...2nd partial is 1st OVERTONE.
>
> Tim
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Hoover" <tim@timhoover.com>
> To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:35 PM
> Subject: Re: harmonics vs. partials
>
>
> > Close...the 1st partial is the fundamental, the 2nd partial is the 1st
> > harmonic...etc.
> >
> > Tim Hoover
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Ron Newman" <ronman@imt.net>
> > To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
> > Sent: Monday, July 23, 2001 12:00 PM
> > Subject: harmonics vs. partials
> >
> >
> > > Hello all,
> > > I dimly remember from school something about the term "partial" not
> being
> > > synomonous with the term "harmonic", i.e. the fundamental is harmonic
1,
> > > but partial 0, harmonic 2 is partial 1, etc.
> > >
> > > Am I making this up?  Is the difference in meaning consistently
adhered
> to
> > > in the documentation for electronic tuning devices?
> > >
> >
>