"To change the subject a little bit, we're all used to tuning to "415", but
how many of you actually use 415 vs 415.3? It's a small difference, but, in
the all-too-common case of university instruments that have to transpose
back and forth without retuning, tuning to 415 leaves you under 440 -
certainly not desirable, especially when much of the 'modern' crowd seems
expects 441 or 442 these days... I usually tune to 415.3, and never get
complaints about the pitch being too high. But it certainly is a small
difference....."
Hello Jonathan,
No offense, but I guess in the age of Internet, people scan and don't read
responses through to the end? Makes discussions somewhat problematic....
As I mentioned earlier this morning, the human ear cannot hear fractional
vibrations, period.
It is a physcial impossibility, like a statistical family of 2.3 children,
you either have 2 or 3.
A discrete wavelength must have a full cycle on the tympanum in order to
register pitch in the cochlea.
Furthermore, regardless of the above, 0.3 Hz is less than the pitch
deflection as a result of the plucking of the harpsichord string, so
0.whatever is a useless fact.
Cheers,
Theodore
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note: opinions expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the individual con-
tributors and not necessarily those of the list owners nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa. For a brief summary of list commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask] saying HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|