Alan and David on F3/A4

[Alan Barnard]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
Okay, I was wrong, it'd be flat ...

UNCLE, UNCLE! 

Alan Barnard
Still Happy in Salem, Missouri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Alan Barnard 
To: Pianotech
Sent: 01/09/2006 11:39:08 AM 
Subject: Re: Alan and David on F3/A4


Ah, but remember we are tuning the fundamental, not the second partial while, in this case, listening to a 2nd partial beat. Moving the fundamental to match the beat rate at the sharp 2nd partial forces you to tune sharp. This stuff does get confusing, but I think that's right.

Alan Barnard
Salem, Missouri


----- Original Message ----- 
From: 
To: pianotech@ptg.org
Sent: 01/09/2006 10:57:19 AM 
Subject: Re: Alan and David on F3/A4


A small correction. Recently I have read:

"Therefore, if you very accurately match the beat rates of F3-Fork and
 F3-A4, you will tune A4 sharp every single time!"

and
"If f3 a5 method is used with A5 as the coincident partial then A4 will be
sharp." 

Not meaning to embarrass anyone, but just to avoid confusion to those learning the trade, this is not correct. A perfectly tuned 440 A4 on the piano produces a second partial which is slightly sharp of 880. IF the fork produces 880 at A5 (which has recently been called into question), we would have to bring A4 DOWN (under 440) to match its 2nd partial to the fork's 2nd partial.

Bob Davis
---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/97/29/59/f9/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--