How you're creating the frequency has a lot to do with it... (which I've said many times...)
But the formula for determining standing waves/frequencies in a tube/cone is pretty rock solid mathematics - and if it was incorrect for such a fundamental object then someone ought to put it in to the nobel prize committee. Right? Plus the PDF that CJ Wolfe posted did show that the partials on a double horn are indeed well enough accurate on the 8th partial that it is not a bad idea to tune to them - which is also what I've said. Bottom line - my point is why tune 8th and 6th partials together when you can tune 8th and 8th and be done with it? If you lower the 6th partial then all your other partials will be lower - and to me that is just useless because then you end up every other partial which isn't sharp flat. I must be either a really poor communicator or what, I don't know - but I don't see why my method of making sure 8th harmonics are in tune first (and expecting the Cs to not match on both sides of the horn) is met with such animosity. -William In a message dated 11/19/2009 8:41:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Hi, If this is the case, what is the deal with, say, cheap tubehorns composed of rubber hose or whatever. I'll admit to making a few of these in my day, and even to playing some copper tubes at hardware stores when I had my mouthpiece on me (college days). The one thing uniting all these beasts was that the harmonics were ridiculously skewed, beyond out of tune. It is also my understanding that one of the major challenges facing a horn maker is getting the harmonics - including the "standing wave" ones 1,2,4,8 etc in tune. How can we reconcile this "fact" with what you are saying, William (or any other physic gurus out there) Curiously yours, Marc _______________________________________________ post: [email protected] unsubscribe or set options at https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
