Deduction of the equation of frequencies of a piano

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruno Tolentino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequencies Piano
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the function f(n) related to piano key frequencies, questioning its origin and whether it stems from a differential equation. It is clarified that f(n) is based on equal temperament, where each octave doubles the frequency with twelve equal steps, rather than a differential equation. The concept of 'Keyboard Stretch' is introduced, explaining how tuners adjust frequencies to avoid discordant resonances, leading to variations in tuning accuracy. Personal experiences with developing an electronic tuner highlight the challenges of achieving precise tuning in a noisy environment. Ultimately, advancements in technology have led to more accurate and accessible tuning solutions, such as smartphone apps.
Bruno Tolentino
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I'd like of know from where originated the funcion f(n) presented in this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano_key_frequencies)!?

Probably, f(n), is the solution of some differential equation and I'd like of understand how this diff equation was architected.

If someone can answer this doubt I will be so much happy!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
There's no differential equation. This is just equal tempement - you have twelve equal steps every octave, and each octave doubles the frequency.
 
  • Like
Likes Bruno Tolentino
Unless it's on a piano. The region known as the temperament is tuned in a logical manner, but from then on, the tuner applies a bizarrely difficult series of modifications to obviate discordant resonances. This is known as 'Keyboard Stretch'. For example, A 440 could still be near to 440, but by the time one had reached 1760, it could be as high as 1765! I have no idea how this seems to gel with the rest of the orchestra.

I once spent a year or so developing an electronic tuner - one which resonated the string continuously while tuning or analysis of case resonance was undertaken. The head of electronics at Essex University UK thought the chip was made by Fairchild and had gone the same route while a graduate student. The chip wasn't totally accurate, but human ability to sense frequency it seems is limited to about 6 cents so it was better than a lot of tuners.

Despite months of trying, I was never able to master the skill of a classical tuning.

I later caused the main oscillator to be allowed to swing 100 cents either side of the main frequency. (100 cents is a half tone) This allowed sustained investigation into unwanted resonances. There was a well known case of a plastic chocolate box in a cupboard causing tuners much grief.

The whole idea of my machine was to tune concert grands in a noisy environment but I concluded it was not a viable investment. A while later a tuner turned up at my home in Texas and the subject of electronic aids came up. He then demonstrated a tuner which he used 'When tired.' After tuning the temperament, he let the device run and it then produced the stretch for that particular piano. My device would have been totally out-classed.

An App for my phone now produces a frequency counter and generator that's more accurate. And it was free.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?
Back
Top