Yes except for the Rudhall treble (3/8), hum still 77 cents sharp. The
figures: (Hertz)
Bell H P T Q N
1 372 706 883 1136 1491
2 352 651 830 1058 1408
3 327 574 742 940 1251
4 278 556 657 839 1110
5 250 497 586 763 993
6 250 432 558 732 840
7 209 414 503 595 836
8 187 372 437 551 746
Tonal Analysis table (errors in cents from ideal):
Bell N Q T P H
1 -1 27 -23 -94 -6
2 0 3 -31 -136 0
3 -5 3 -20 -149 77
4 -12 13 -24 3 3
5 -5 42 -29 2 12
6 0 65 -19 -146 107
7 -3 -91 5 -17 0
8 0 -27 -41 -5 5
1,2 Taylor 1892; 6 Taylor 1850; 7 "old-style" Whitechapel 1977; rest Rudhall
1732. Tenor hum originally 186 cents sharp; the nominal was lowered from 783
Hz to 746 Hz, the weight being reduced from 9-2-4 to 8-2-8. Something
similar has been done with the Thomas Rudhall six at Michaelston-y-Fedw.
Originally left untuned when rehung, at the behest of some ignorant
"conservationalists", the bells were badly out of tune and the tenor had a
very sharp and very loud hum note. However, the fifth had very nearly
exactly true harmonics. When two trebles were added, Taylors were able to
retune the back six, and the transformation has been remarkable - an
out-of-tune, sour-toned six is now a delightful octave. The tenor harmonics
are now remarkably close to true, the hum being only 7 cents sharp.
Andrew Bull
________________________________________
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: 23 November 2008 21:40
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
Did they really manage to get octave hum notes out of the Rudhall bells at
Quedgley?
R
________________________________________
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Bull
Sent: Monday, 24 November 2008 12:55 AM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
I imagine that the present 5th and treble will have to be recast, as they
would need to be sharpened by a semitone to make 9th and 4th of ten with the
present 7th as tenor. Presumably the others would be retuned as well, though
I believe they were in fact retuned in 1988 (as well as 1890). It would be
interesting to know who is doing the job, and whether the new bells will be
old-style or true-harmonic. Quedgeley, in Gloucester, also largely Rudhall
1732, were retuned in 1993 and converted into a true-harmonic ring, which
the exception of the 1850 Taylor sixth, which obviously caused the tuned
some problems.
Andrew Bull
________________________________________
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Richard Offen
Sent: 23 November 2008 15:42
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
I hope they are going to be tuned, the present 6th is horribly flat (almost
a ¼ semitone)!
R
________________________________________
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Watkins
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 11:46 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
Ludlow are going to be made into a 10, with the present 7th as the tenor.
The bells are coming out on the 3rd December. Sorry I can't tell you much
more at present.
Andrew Watkins
========================================
Message Received: Nov 23 2008, 12:58 PM
From: "Richard Offen"
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: RE: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
I guess they are either going up to ten or twelve, as has been planned for
the last five years or so - they have two of the Gillett bells from the old
ring at Kidderminster in store.
R
-----Original Message-----
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com [mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of David Bryaant
Sent: Sunday, 23 November 2008 9:41 PM
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Bell Historians] Ludlow
What's happening at Ludlow, then?
http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.aspx?Code=74540
<http://www.campanophile.co.uk/show.aspx?Code=74540>
Is the augmentation to 12+2# proposed a few years ago now going ahead?
David
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1806 - Release Date: 11/22/2008
6:59 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1806 - Release Date: 11/22/2008
6:59 PM
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.9/1808 - Release Date: 11/23/2008
6:59 PM