Talk:Eight-foot pitch

Metric

Use metric where possible. 209.121.8.96 13:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello, this is a historical term, which existed long before the metric system was invented. We can't rewrite history. Opus33 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I added a reference but there is not a clear connection between all the content and the references I was looking at. The term is often used and clearly notable. Not sure the content of the article is accurate, and not sure it is not. Needs more references that support the content as written. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Opus33 pointed out on my talk page that the book description Google used did not match the book I used as a reference. While the book looks like a good reference i removed it as it was confusing and sufficient detail was not available in the book scans to give author and book detail. A search for a another good reference did not immediately turn up a up a good choice to replace it with. Jeepday (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, Jeepday's reference was just fine -- in fact a very credible source, Frank Hubbard's 1965 book Three Centuries of Harpsichord Making. Google committed the insane-seeming error of not scanning the title page (so you can't tell what book it is from the Google Books site), and then saying the untitled book was by Lord Byron! I could identify the book since I own a copy, so I put back in the references.

Thanks to Jeepday for taking on this sourcing problem. I'll poke around for some further references. Opus33 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Input from Tinsukia

I have three comments :

1) As soon as physical (acoustical) calculations are made, these should be in International Units (ISO units as defined by the International Standard Organization) Sound speed is m/s, length in m etc "Old units" do not matter : Just convert them into IS0 units ! From my long experiece in international data exchange between engineers, I can tell you that this is the ONLY way to avoid misunderstandings and errors

2) My second comment requires correction of the article : A (normal) organ pipe is OPEN at both ends The open pipe length contains half the wave length An organ pipe that is open at one end and closed at the other end is called a "Bourdon" The end of such a Bourdon pipe is closed and contains a quarter of the wave length The formula in the article is for an organ pipe that is open at both sides The formula for an organ pipe open at one side is F = V / (4 x L) The ISO organization has also defined recommendations for the use of units The symbol for frequency is the greek letter ν (nu), length shall be "l" (not a capital letter), velocity can be v, sound velocity symbol is c, also not a capital letter. Capital letters are reserved for units derived from names of persons (W for Watt, V for Volt etc) There aree a few exceptions to this rule : G for Giga, M for Mega etc)

3) For the correlation between the lenght of the pipe and the frequency of the note, the physical pipe lenght shall be increased by a certain factor, that also depends on the diameter The same is true for flutes The "formula" therefore gives only a rough idea that can be used for basic learning The real acoustics of organ pipes is far more complicated and requires more detailed knowledge of acoustics and mathematics But these acoustical calulations result in accurate results

Hope that this was useful and would like the original author to make the corrections so that the text remains coherent in style Tinsukia (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've tried to implement these suggestions faithfully, but with two exceptions: (1) I favor mnemonically appropriate abbreviations, given that the audience for the article is likely to be musical rather than scientific; (2) I think it's best to calculate in traditional units because, after all, we're trying to derive a final result roughly equal to eight feet. Opus33 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Tinsukia's second round of complaint

I am completely ignorant on how Wikipedia works, but am very enthousiastic about the concept Am having the greatest difficulties in understanding where to post (type) my comments I published some comments on an original article about "8 ft pitch" and now see that the author has read my comments and corrected his article (I thought that there would be an email if there was a reaction) I however completely disagree with a comment he (or is it "she" ?) made at the bottom of his (or is it "her" ?) last remark Here is what I want to say : I like history and find it also amusing to read about "feet", "inches", miles, wersts and so on But if you use such terms, it only makes sense if the reader understands what it means Roman Emperors all had different feet lengths and historians have put considerable effort in trying to trace back how long these feet actually were I am a so called "scientist" (who likes to play piano) and have been involved in many international/intercultural projects All these mnemonics, "nice terms" and other "feet" sound nice in poetry, but are not helpful in understanding Wikipedia is a magnificent tool to increase knowledge and it is therefore imperative that we speak a common language The confusion and errors caused by differences in perception of units have caused billions in terms of financial damage, caused physical damages and slowed evolution down Therefore, the International Standards Organisation (ISO) has put considerable effort into agreeing on common units and especially into defining precisely what they mean If you are not sure on what the speaker means with his term, you will never understand what he means Being both a musician and a "scientist" I have to say that musicians almost never understand the importance of this subject This is fine as long as the music sounds nice, but it does not bring us any further in understanding te basics of acoustics The basic importance of the Wiki page is to explain, which presumes understanding In conclusion 1) All historical data need to be converted to ISO (not "metric", that's something else) units 2) All calculations and measurements must be made in ISO units 3) If you want, you can convert the results into "cocktal party" units With my best regards Tinsukia (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinsukia (talk • contribs) 22:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 

---

Dear Tinsukia,

Actually, this is where we would normally communicate. There is no way to email me, since like many editors I don't share any personal data (it's a complicated world, and I have my reasons). I'm not even telling if I am male or female!

Concerning your remarks: ok, you've persuaded me. Please check the following for whether it is accurate, and then I will post it.

Physics tells us that if a pipe is open at both ends, as is true of most organ pipes, its fundamental frequency f can be calculated (approximately) as follows:

• $f={\frac {v}{2l}}$

where

• f = fundamental frequency
• v = the speed of sound
• l = the length of the pipe

v is assumed to be 343 meters per second (this is the speed of sound in dry air at 20°C). The pipe length l is assumed to be 2.4384 meters (the metric equivalent of eight feet, if the feet assumed are those of the modern customary unit).

With these values, the formula yields 70.33 hertz (Hz; cycles per second). This is not far from the pitch of the C two octaves below 440 Hz, which (when concert pitch is set at A = 440 Hz) is 65.4 Hz. The discrepancy may be related to various factors, including effects of pipe diameter, the historical differing definitions of the length of the foot, and variations in tuning prior to the setting of A = 440 Hz as standard pitch in the 20th century.

Opus33 (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)