Sound & Music - Ptolemy Reduced Frequency

In summary, the conversation is about a homework assignment where the student was instructed to make a monochord and find and mark specific notes by multiplying the starting length with length ratios. The student then used an application to measure the sound frequency and calculated the frequency ratio by dividing the frequency by the inverse of the length ratios. However, when dividing the measured frequencies, there was no clear pattern and the frequencies did not match the expected values. The student suspects that the length of the vibrating string may be longer than measured.
  • #1
Torrie
29
2

Homework Statement


This is a homely. We were instructed to make a monochord and find and mark C5, G4, F4, E4, D4 & C4 by multiplying our starting length with the length rations (C5 = 1/2, G4 = 2/3, F4 = 3/4, E4 = 4/5, D4 = 8/9, C4 = 1)
Then we used "Ravenlite" the application to measure the sound frequency after holding the string at the note, and dampening the opposite side. From there, we needed to divide the frequency by the Frequency Ratio, which were the inverse of the length ratios. Then we were asked to plot the ratios.

Homework Equations


We were supposed to tune C4 to 300 Hz. Done.

The Attempt at a Solution


I have measured the frequency of each note.
(C4= 300Hz, D4 = 317, E4 = 348, F4 = 390, G4 = 419, C5 = 531)
But when I divide those measured frequency there seems to be no pattern at all with the frequencies. And I can hear that the the frequency gets higher, as the string gets shorter, but the reduced frequency doesn't come off that way.
(c4 = 300 Hz, D4 = 281.78, E4 = 278.4, F4 = 292.5, G4 = 279.3, C5 = 265.5)

Am I on the right track? Or doing something wrong??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Torrie said:
c4 = 300 Hz, D4 = 281.78, E4 = 278.4, F4 = 292.5, G4 = 279.3, C5 = 265.5)
It looks like the length of vibrating string is a bit longer than you think. E.g. if you measured it as L, but it's really L+x, then when you halve it to go up an octave you get a length of L/2+x instead of L/2+x/2. If that is the right explanation then x is approximately L/6.
 
Back
Top