h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Concert Pitch – a Variable Standard - A87761352
Author: h5ringer (Scout, Sub-Editor) - The Maestro Cat - U3386111

A contribution to this month's Creative Challenge.

Oh well done - love all these entries. Am only halfway through and must get on with work here. One typo "Embouchure" has an "r" too many.

More later.

PS - I don't know much about oboes, but it's French, which I do know about.

Thanks TC. Typo fixed

Excellent article, Maestro!
Not one I'm able to comment on other than to mention 'the the pitch of military bands', which has a the too many.

<BB<

A 'the' despatched to the virtual grey filing cabinet on the floor

Standard? Fiddlers who want to "shine" still tune their whinewood a small tad higher and drive the conductor nuts.

Can you explain this sentence please:

<>

I translate that as : The further the listener is away from the instrument, the quieter he hears it. Especially for higher notes. Larger concert halls and longer distances between instrument and listener meant that instruments had to be tuned higher to be heard.

Which seems contradictory. Or have I not understood what is meant by "the perceived sound balance"?



And - out of interest: Does <> mean that the Queen of the Night was not really supposed to sing top "d"?



It was most interesting to discover that the standard pitch was not decided on until 1939. And something tells me that even today things are not quite settled. Piano tuners seem to vary the pitch a bit too - obviously some older pianos can't take the tension. So that's fine until you start trying to accompany your kids' recorder playing.



Is there any controversy today? If so, would it be relevant to add something about that to the entry?



Your own entry on the tuning fork is "approved" now - could you link to that at the appropriate place? And, whilst we are on that subject, you mention here that a standard tuning fork was kept in Paris, but there is no mention of this in the tuning fork entry.

<>
Your 'translation' is almost spot-on TC, at least the first two sentences are. The ear (or more accurately the brain) is a clever but inaccurate device. When strings (particularly violins) are heard in unison, a slightly higher pitch is perceived as a brighter sound which tends to compensate for the 'dulling' caused by the high frequency attenuation. These effects are very small in absolute terms but are significant aurally. I shall rewrite that bit in words quite close to yours My excuse is that I (finished) writing it in rather a hurry and didn't allow it to mature as long as I usually do before putting it into PR.

The Queen of the Night has always sung top Ds, it's just that the frequency of those top Ds was lower in Mozart's day than what was expected subsequently. Hence the voice strain that singers often experienced in the 19th C.

Piano tuning has always been an art not a science. The tuning is complex. As just one example, the bass keys on a piano strike three strings per key in order to generate the necessary power. If they were all tuned to the same frequency, there would be little sustain available and the note would die away quite quickly. To avoid this two of the three strings are slightly mis-tuned, one high one low, but not by the same amount. The piano's complexity, and the enormous forces it has to withstand, is one of the reasons why you have to pay in excess of £100,000 for a Steinway Concert Grand.

Is there any controversy today?
Not really. There is some minor deviation from A440 by some of the world's major orchestras, especially in the US, but nothing of significance.

I had linked to my Tuning-fork Entry, but further down rather than where it should be. I've now moved it up to the first mention.

Thanks for your attention to detail TC. Much appreciated

Good entry H5, just a couple minor points

>US: Concertmaster.<

In the US, the Concertmaster is the First Chair violin, assistant to the conductor. He or She usually gives the tuning note with a stroke of the "A" string. The oboe is more a European standard.

> In the case of the note A above middle C, there are about 440 of these waves impacting on our eardrum every second. We say the note is A440.<


I might be less awkward to introduce the term "Hertz" and briefly explain that while the sound heard does not change, the name of the corresponding note has. I became a bit confused with A440, A439.5 and A453. I notice you do use the Hz notation further in the entry.


FS

In which case I'd best remove the US reference footnote.

I've also cleaned up the description of frequency (440Hz) and its equivalence to pitch notation (A440) in the early part of the Entry. Once we get into discussing pitch however A453 is the correct musical terminology.

Thanks for your helpful comments FS

Good entry, h5!

You haven't mentioned modern Baroque pitch, but maybe it's better that way.

I can't believe the move from A439 to A440 was because 439 is a prime number. If you're using a 1 million hertz crystal, you need to divide this by 2273 to get a 439.95 Hz signal, or by 2278 to get a 438.98 Hz signal. The latter is closer to the whole number frequency. So it is easier to get a 439 Hz signal than a 440 Hz one.

Can you please check the spelling of "consequence" in this quote:

"That in order to annul the great inconvenience consequence on the discrepancy of pitch"

-- should it not be "consequent"?

Please use the &deg; code to produce the degree sign:

59 deg F --> 59&deg;F
20C --> 20&deg;C

One tiny typo that might not be picked up later:

evermore pressing --> ever more pressing

The method used to derive the 440Hz tone is given in a footnote: divide by 1000, multiply by 11 then divide by 25. This gives exactly 440Hz from a 1,000,000Hz starting frequency signal.

consequence --> consequent
Done. Good spot

deg --> &deg;
Done

'evermore' as one word is in the handy Oxford Pocket dictionary I keep on my desk and in the OED.

Evermore is a word, but it doesn't mean what you're using it for. It means "forever".

I'd never heard of a frequency multiplier.

Evermore: Drat, you're right

When I used to fix analogue TVs, they almost all had frequency doublers derived from the 50Hz mains input frequency. Today I believe they are a key design element in microwave communications equipment.

<> frequency *multipliers* that is, generating the required nth harmonics of the input signal.

Frequency multipliers...tube amps () give you the harmonics CDs cut off.

This is good.

I can't really swallow the story that the oboe is "one of the few instruments that is not tunable to any significant degree. It plays at the pitch at which it was manufactured". The oboe is tuned exactly the same way as the other wind and brass instruments are, by sliding a pipe in or out near the mouthpiece: in the case of oboe and bassoon, the staple which holds the reed. The range available is perhaps not great, but great enough! Significant certainly.

And the reason for choosing the oboe to give the A is surely that it is easily heard, being the most focussed sound. Nowadays the oboist can check the A on an electronic tuner as it is being given out; but it is also true that the staple pulled out to the normal extent will give the same pitch as yesterday, pretty reliably.

Also some mention could be made of the constant arms race that goes on in orchestras. The strings tune sharper than the oboe, for 'brilliance', and pretty soon the woodwind instruments all have to be replaced with sharper ones, and then the ratchet is reapplied by the strings. Many orchestras have standard pitches higher than 440.

I think my clarinet is manufactured at 443 because that is fairly normal for orchestras in Europe.

Also, they make them on the sharp side because you can flatten by pulling out but you can't sharpen (if you have to accompany a sharper instrument).