Abraxas post_id=63274 time=1538291039 user_id=1190 said:
I asked earlier, but didnt hear back as to whether anyone knew where my link to manufacturer associated wet tuning charts was ? I lost it. It listed how many cents were found for various manufacturers. I did stumble on some more info here though:
http://forum.melodeon.net/index.php?topic=2306.0 . I cant believe nobody has put together a more organized instructional for this issue. Im getting crumbs from various sources and methinks a consolidation is in order.
While I dont have any specific links, my opinion on those various numbers out there is that they dont actually say all that much. Except that X is wetter than Y. When you are given only a single value, say 16 cents, then that really only tells you what its like at that one specific note. In order to draw a curve you need one more point (or at least some other well defined parameters like gradients, curve function, etc), unless you go with the same number of cents all across the full range.
Here are some graphs I built based on a bunch of different tremolo tunings (MM only). They are intentionally messy to show that things are not as discrete as wed like.
Hertz:
<ATTACHMENT filename=Hertz.png index=0>
Cents:
<ATTACHMENT filename=Cents.png index=1>
(This graph messes up at the low end, but that is because the formula seems to break down when you extend it that far past the normal range.)
The ones labelled Tabelle and Scwebetontabelle are based on a single exponential curve with input values determined primarily from Hohners. This research was done and published by Toni Schwall. I rebuilt the formulas and used only his 2 data points (A4 and A5) to regenerate the curves.
He also mentions other curves where you could have a simple linear Hertz increase, a stepped increase (e.g. using the same Hertz for one octave and then increasing for the next), and more complicated exponential curves where you have two or three together in order to allow for a different rate of increase for each. Toni also writes a bit about MMM tuning, but I skipped that part as Im not too interested in that kind of tuning.
The next 4 are my attempted approximations using Schwalls exponential formula, but based on the rough graphs on the
Accordion Revival website (based on Thierry Benetouxs book). I dont have Thierrys book, and I dont plan on getting it, so my curves should be taken with quite a few grains of salt.
Mengozzi is a relatively wet tuned accordion I have. That line was an attempt to find a simple exponential matching the current tuning, but due to some outliers it might be slightly wrong.
The Porvenkov lines are based on research done by Russians on optimal tremolo tuning. I wrote more about it on a
different thread.
Which is all really to say that if youre going to be mathematical about this, then those numbers out there arent all that useful. And its also not really that simple to say Hohner tuning is X cents and Scandalli tuning is Y cents.
On the other hand, once you look at accuracy realistically, a lot of those lines will overlap neatly at various points (because you probably wont be tuning to sub-cent accuracy), but Id still maintain its not enough to have just a single number unless the tuner has those other parameters in mind and uses your single number as input. But then again, Ive done this for only a few months now and Im sure experts will call this overanalysing.