Alan and David on F3/A4

[baoli liu]

Tuning fork is totally different from piano string.
One of the main reasons we use tuning fork as a pitch
source is the tuning fork has a very strong
fundamental and much weak partials.

The frequency of second partial of a tuning fork is
about two (or three, I can not remember exactly)
octaves higher above its fundamental. The third or
higher partials are mostly unnoticeable to human ears.

Thus, to match the beat rates of F3-Fork and F3-A4 is
impractical for some tuners/forks. Even someone can
hear the beats well, it is still an unreliable method,
because no manufacture cares about the second partial
when they make/calibrate their forks
Baoli



--- Andrew and Rebeca  Anderson <anrebe@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> Is the fork's inharmonicity what we are also
> comparing too?  If so, 
> how does this influance the direction of deviation?
> 
> Andrew Anderson
> 
> At 10:57 AM 1/9/2006, you wrote:
> >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
> 
> 



		
__________________________________________ 
Yahoo! DSL – Something to write home about. 
Just $16.99/mo. or less. 
dsl.yahoo.com