Using tuning forks

[Bill Hibbert <bill@h...>]

CSZ:

> Has anyone ever done experiments to compare
> tuning fork methodologies with EFMD methodologies?

In every comparison I have done, of bells whose frequencies I've 
measured electronically, against the original tuning records measured 
with either with forks (typically a century ago), or with the modern 
electronic methods used by the founders, I have found no difference 
worth the mentioning. The only exception to this is doublets, where 
sometimes the founders tune one half, when the other is more audible 
in the tower.

> Which methodologies require the use of the
> human ear, and how do they compare with
> methodologies which don't? What about transient
> frequencies versus resonant frequencies?

What the measurement of individual partial frequencies with forks or 
electronics will not tell you is whether the overall sound of the 
bell is 'better' or 'worse'. Several factors affect this, such as the 
relative partial intensity and duration, the frequencies of higher 
partials etc. The tower makes a big difference too.

Also, knowing the frequencies of the 'Simpson' partials will not tell 
you, except in the grossest terms, whether a bell will match others 
in a peal.

Steve Ivin:

> It is not completely established that the
> pitch when the bell is 'driven' by the probe
> is exactly the same as the bell struck with
> a clapper however.

I would say that it is conclusively proved that the pitch of a bell 
struck with a clapper is _not_ the same as any of the frequencies 
detected when a bell is driven with a probe - because the pitch is 
affected by more than one partial. Were I not busy starting a new 
job, I would be completing the work to demonstrate this to the 
satisfaction of all . . .

Bill H