monochord

I built a monochord quickly and cheaply with an 18" pine 2x2, a
nickel-wound guitar string (low E), 2 eye screws, an autoharp tuning
peg, and a wood screw. You can sort of imagine how it all goes together,
but some tips are that I threaded the guitar string through its own bead
to creat a loop that went around the screw. I put the screw in the side
angling down and the eye screws just in from the top (long) ends and
angled out so that the string would have more or less 18" of resonating
length. The autoharp peg was opposite the screw, also angled down. I
divided and marked the board in 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5...1/9 lengths and
when plucked on a table for resonance each of those nodes produces a
very clear partial up through the 9th. WHen the board is held to my ear
I can clearly hear through the 19th. Excellent project!
Erik Nauman
>----------
>From: tuning@eartha.mills.edu[SMTP:tuning@eartha.mills.edu]
>To: Erik Nauman
>Subject: TUNING digest 1405
>
> TUNING Digest 1405
>
>Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Reply to Graham Breed
> by "Paul H. Erlich"
> 2) Reply to Paul Hahn
> by "Paul H. Erlich"
> 3) Frequency tolerance, limits (was Optimal Integer Ratios for 12et)
> by Steven Rezsutek
> 4) TransTrem
> by "Paul H. Erlich"
> 5) RE: Open letter to Ken Wauchope and Dave Hill
> by "Paul H. Erlich"
> 6) Re: Reply to Paul Hahn
> by Paul Hahn
> 7) re: Buzz and other tuning related stuff
> by Xou Oxno
> 8) Re: TUNING digest 1404
> by A440A
> 9) Re: Csound
> by J P Fitch
> 10) Chaos, octave equivalence, and subharmonics
> by "Paul H. Erlich"
> 11) Steve Vai in Guitar World. and other babbel...
> by Xou Oxno
> 12) Monochord
> by Allen Strange
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 1
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 15:50:17 -0400
>From: "Paul H. Erlich"
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'"
>Subject: Reply to Graham Breed
>Message-ID:
>-asset.com>
>
>>I mentioned this business with conical tubes to show that there is
>>a quantifiable physical origin for inharmonicity.
>
>I maintain that any systematic inharmonicity in brass instruments, =
which
>is either nonexistent or extremely small, has little or nothing to do
>with the failure of the resonant modes of the instrument to form an
>exact harmonic series.
>
>>The periodicity
>>of the sounds presumably defaults to the player's ability to
>>blow a raspberry.
>
>Right.
>
>>Does this mean the resulting overtone series
>>is constructed from undertones of the original vibration?
>
>Can you rephrase/clarify this question?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 2
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:08:37 -0400
>From: "Paul H. Erlich"
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'"
>Subject: Reply to Paul Hahn
>Message-ID:
>-asset.com>
>
>>'Scuse me for butting in, but it was an open letter. I certainly =
agree.
>>I'm not sure what I can contribute to such an effort, but I'm on your
>>side at least.
>
>Well, I'm not sure what this effort will be or how best to focus it; =
the
>misunderstanding that needs to be combatted here is diffuse and
>widespread. I almost wanted to include you, but your concept of
>higher-level consistency seems to support the other side. For example,
>insisting that the approximations to 3-limit intervals be level-2
>consistent means that you care about approximating certain 9-limit
>intervals. But I claim that in order for any 9-limit intervals become
>relevant (that is, for any just 9-limit ratios become relevant in
>describing the effect/affect of any tempered intervals), all 7-limit
>ratios would already be considered consonant (by an acoustical, not
>cultural, evaluation), and therefore should be consistently expressed.
>So insisting on full 9-limit consistency in this case would be more
>appropriate.
>
>Of course, you may simply want to exclude the number 7 from the
>harmonies and include the number 9. I can understand if there is a
>particular odd number that one wishes to exclude from the harmony and
>therefore one does not need consistency for. Well, aside from my usual
>consistency definition, which means all odd numbers up to the limit can
>be included in ratios that are all consistent with one another, one can
>concoct a more general definition based on any set of odd numbers. For
>example, 22tET is consistent over the set of odd numbers
>{3,5,7,9,11,15,17} -- 17-limit consistent if 13 is excluded.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 3
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Steven Rezsutek
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Frequency tolerance, limits (was Optimal Integer Ratios for =
12et)
>Message-ID: <199805042011.QAA26690@doghouse.hq.nasa.gov>
>
>"Benjamin Tubb" writes:
>
>> Does anyone know what the physical "tolerance" of the human ear is
>> to pitch/frequency/cents variations with the range of MIDI note
>> (0-127) frequencies from 8.175 Hz to 12543.853?
>
>I can't recall the reference off hand, but I've seen an article which
>gave this as a function of frequency. From what I remember though, it
>isn't exactly linear, with the greatest sensitivity being in the range
>typical of human voices, as one might expect, and getting worse on the
>extremes of the range. I suspect that in the 8 HZ region it may or may
>not even exist (i.e. the frequency is too low to be perceived as a
>distinct tone to begin with.), but I'll defer to those more
>knowledgable.
>
>
>This does, however, open the door to something I've been curious
>about, but haven't felt important enough to ask: What do folks out
>there consider as a useable lower limit in frequency? IOW, "How low
>do you go?" :-). =20
>
>Personally, I find the "D" below bass "E", (roughly 37HZ?) to be
>rock-solid, the "C" below that to be just on the limit of what I
>perceive as a distinct *musical* tone, and the "B" below that (typical
>of most 5 string basses) to provide a nice rumble when it's supporting
>something an octave up, but lacking something as a musical note on its
>own. [That's why my 5 stringers both have high Cs ;-)] By the time I =
get
>to the low "A" on a piano, it's pretty much a growl that happens to =
have=20
>some semblence of pitch to it.
>
>Granted, this certainly has as much to do with the method of
>[re]production as the actual pitch and the limits of my particular set
>of ears, but moving significant amounts of air in the 8-32 Hz range
>can get pretty costly, not to mention heavy, if you have to cart it
>around. :-(
>
>This is more "practice" than "theory", but as painfully few home
>systems can do what pipe organs can, most PA speakers cut out around
>60Hz, and even the boxes some of us bottom-dwellers schlep around lose
>it below 35Hz, how do you all handle the bottom end in your music? Do
>you treat it differently for effect ("subsonics") and for melodic or
>harmonic needs?
>
>Aspiring bassist wants to know...
>
>Steve
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 4
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:26:53 -0400
>From: "Paul H. Erlich"
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'"
>Subject: TransTrem
>Message-ID:
>-asset.com>
>
>>Adjustment of the position of the fulcrum of the nut along the length=20
>>of the string might assist in retuning out of tune thirds in common =
barre=20
>>chords. This is "the same" principle that Steinberger uses in their=20
>>TransTrem whammy bar (by the way, I have always thought that a=20
>>Steinberger guitar with a transtrem would make a great microtonal=20
>>instrument, since you can adjust the pitch of each string separately =
when=20
>>modulating to one of five new key centers).=20
>
>Can you elaborate (I thought the TransTrem just bent all the strings =
the
>same amount)?
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 5
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:52:24 -0400
>From: "Paul H. Erlich"
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'"
>Subject: RE: Open letter to Ken Wauchope and Dave Hill
>Message-ID:
>-asset.com>
>
>Ken wrote,
>
>>Another example is the pair of neighbors 24/13 - 13/7, which I heard
>>as respectively "medium" - "easy" despite 24 being just an even
>>multiple of 3. So I would go a step beyond odd/prime and allow as how
>>evenness can't be ignored in this either -- it all just seems to boil
>>down to how many partials are involved and how faint and far out in =
the
>>spectrum they are.
>
>I have to agree. The "integer-limit" seems an even better
>characterization of harmonic fusion. However, given the pervasiveness =
of
>octave equivalence on the level of musical composition, the
>considerations that go into designing a tuning system should typically
>consider all inversions and extensions of an interval to be an
>equivalence class. Thus the odd-limit concept gains its practical
>relevance.
>
>But see the "BUT" below.
>
>Gary wrote,
>
>>I personally am pretty much a fence-sitter on the prime vs. odd
>>question, but perhaps it's worth asking: Do you perceive that there's =
any
>>mechanism in our auditory system for detecting powers of two (i.e.,
>>octaves)? If so, then why not powers of three or five?
>
>There does seem to be a brain-based mechanism for detecting powers of
>two, even in some animals exposed to pure sine waves. It may be that as
>a way of efficiently processing auditory information, the factor of two
>was chosen by evolution as a period of repetition; that way, (a) the
>redundant information contained in the 2nd, 4th, 8th, etc. partials =
need
>not confuse the system; and (b) the pitch space is reduced from some 10
>octaves down to one octave, feasible since any particular stimulus
>(especially a given human voice) tends to stay within a one-octave =
range
>anyway.
>
>BUT, I read that the cochlea actually winds around once per octave. If
>there is any cross-stimulation between one turn of the cochlea and
>adjacent ones, then there is a mechanism for at least some degree of
>octave equivalence even on the level of the auditory stimulus, which
>would of course affect harmonic fusion as well as pitch recognition. If
>such a phenomenon exists, then there is no reason to postulate a
>brain-based mechanism for recognizing powers of two.
>
>Ken wrote,
>
>>However this was a very narrowly defined exercise concentrating only
>>on beating, roughness and harmonic fusion, without addressing any
>>other aspects of interval recognition, such as whether it's easier to
>>tune a 15/8 than a 13/7 based on affect, and if so, why. On the =
prime/odd=20
>>controversy, I'm still an agnostic. I've certainly noticed how 7, 11 =
and
>>13 sound exotic to me and 9 and 15 sound familiar, but just why that =
is,
>>I haven't decided.
>
>Fair enough. I attribute this familiarity to the diatonic grammar with
>which we were brought up. This grammar is very powerful and has some
>amazing properties, as I point out in my paper. The psychological =
effect
>of these properties is profound. 7 and 11 are usually not =
understandable
>in terms of this grammar and so sound exotic, regardless of the degree
>of harmonic fusion of these intervals.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 6
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 16:56:34 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Paul Hahn
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Reply to Paul Hahn
>Message-ID: =

>
>On Mon, 4 May 1998, Paul H. Erlich wrote:
>> I almost wanted to include you, but your concept of
>> higher-level consistency seems to support the other side. For =
example,
>> insisting that the approximations to 3-limit intervals be level-2
>> consistent means that you care about approximating certain 9-limit
>> intervals.
>
>The implications of higher levels of consistency are varied, and I =
don't
>want to get into another flamewar about it at this point, but just let
>me say this:
>
>(a) I wish to go beyond basic (level 1) consistency because it is
>possible for an ET to be level 1 consistent and still err from a given
>just ratio by nearly half the stepsize of the ET. An extreme example:
>18TET is consistent to the 7-limit, but its 11-step "fifth" is only
>barely better as an approximation to the 3/2 than its 10-step interval.
>One is over 31 cents high, the other more than 35 cents low; the
>difference between the two errors is less than four cents!=20
>
>(b) There is no inconsistency ( 8-)> ) in supporting both higher-level
>consistency and the use of odd limits over primes. In fact, it would =
be
>rather difficult to adapt the idea of higher-level consistency to a
>prime-limit paradigm.
>
>(c) (semi-serious) I said I was on your side; isn't that good enough =
for
>you? Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. 8-)>
>
>--pH http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
> O
> /\ "Churchill? Can he run a hundred balls?"
> -\-\-- o =20
> NOTE: dehyphenate node to remove spamblock. <*>
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 7
>
>Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 19:06:22 -0700
>From: Xou Oxno
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: re: Buzz and other tuning related stuff
>Message-ID: <354E741E.4A41@virtulink.com>
>
>Thee Eternal Hstick writes:
>
>>For Feiten to devise a system that helps working musicians=20
>>sound better on a gig, I have only good feelings...again, though, I=20
>>personally feel it's time that the music world begins to understand =
what=20
>>12 eq is, how and why it came into being, and that there are other=20
>>options. Unfortunately, the magazine editors that I am in contact with =

>>seem uninterested in pursuing the subject...and that does piss me off, =

>>because they make it seem like 12eq is IT, and it surely is only one=20
>>tuning out of zillions...Hstick
>
>They ARE editors of a GUITAR MAGAZINE. Come on!
>
>Instead of writing an article on theory try this...
>
>Write an article on John Schneider. He's been performing=20
>the music of this centuries ground breaking microtonal
>composers (Lou Harrison, Harrry Partch, La Monte Young)
>for a couple of years now, has a few cd's out with plans
>for more. Next cd he releases - write an article about
>him and his guitars and shop it around. If you get more=20
>room than a half page, a feature even! - maybe you can=20
>convince them that you should also write a side bar on
>the short history of tuning.
>
>You could even write about Rod Poole, hopefully=20
>his next cd will come out this year. If GP still doesn't
>go for it, try Musician magazine. They seem to be interested
>in the educational aspect of magazine content. If it=20
>goes that far, maybe the article should be written by somebody
>else so that Neil Haverstick fellow (who?) can be included
>with Jon Catler (that Birdhouse cd should be out this year),=20
>John Schneider, Dan Stearns and other microtonal guitarists.
>At that point - maybe, if it gets that far - Johnny
>Reinhard or John Chalmers or some aspiring theorist
>could write the side bar or even a full separate article.
>
>Don't forget to include URLs like: 1/1, Starrett's Tuning Links page,
>The main Partch site - Corpreal Meadows,=20
>the La Monte site - MELA Foundation,
>info about joining the list.
>
>I know a bit about the magazine biz: I'm in it.
>
> "Now stop it. You've proved your point."
>
> Jimmy Brown
> Guitar World/Maximum Guitar editor
> after I showed him how to tune a guitar=20
> to upper harmonics.
>
>
>
>Thee Eternal Hstick also wrote:
>
>>PS...Foote's accidental post about trolls was appreciated
>>..this list is usually very peaceful; occasionally a=20
>>personal dig surfaces, and it always says more about=20
>>the digger than the digee...no need for personal=20
>>attacks...HHH
>
>You're way too fragile for the net Neil!=20
>
>Maybe it would make you happy if you knew that=20
>I finished writing this whole letter and Netscape=20
>made my computer crash - I had to start all over.
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
>And some other things...
>
>If you (that means anyone reading this!) catch a microtonal
>concert in your neighborhood, maybe you can sit down at
>the computer and wack out an in depth review for us?
>There was a concert in Southern California last month
>and it was hardly mentioned. Neil Haverstick (aka Hstick,
>HHH, Aline Surman, any more?) has to review his own concerts. Sheesh!
>If 100 people came: not one of them is on this list and=20
>they can't write a review???
>
>Before I step down off of my soap box...don't forget:
>AFMM, this Thursday & Friday, Columbia U.,=20
>Saint Paul's Chapel NY, NY 8pm.=20
>
>Be there or be out of town. ;)
>
>=20
>* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
>* xouoxnoREMOVE-THIS@virtulink.com
>*
>* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
>* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
>*
>* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 8
>
>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 20:27:33 EDT
>From: A440A
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: TUNING digest 1404
>Message-ID:
>
>Bruce writes:
>>Actually it seems to me that the fascination with polyphony along with
>>12ET's somewhat universal simplicity, has caused the predominance of
>>12TET-- it has taken 250-300 years to somewhat exhaust the rich =
endowment
>>of this tuning.=20
>=20
> If I understand Bruce to mean that ET has been used for 250-300 =
years, I
>must respectfully disagree. There is more than ample evidence to show =
that,
>while theorized about much earlier, the use of 12 TET didn't actually =
come
>to
>prominence before 1850. =20
> True, we have evidence that lutes and viols were capable of ET shortly =
after
>the Mersenne ratios were published, (1636?), but Mersenne himself said =
that
>keyboards could not use the numbers because they must be tuned by ear, =
not
>linear measurements. =20
> I hope we are not on a semantic loggerhead here, but the tunings =
that
>evolved out of the restrictive meantone tunings were often called =
"equal" for
>their modulatory freedom, but there was distinct differences between =
the
>level
>of tempering in the various keys. =20
>Regards,=20
>Ed Foote=20
>Precision Piano Works
>Nashville, Tn.=20
>http://www.airtime.co.uk/forte/history/edfoote.html
> =20
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 9
>
>Date: Tue, 5 May 98 12:06:59 BST
>From: J P Fitch
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Re: Csound
>Message-ID:
>
>I think I fixed the bug with rounding for cpsxpch but I will check.
>=3D=3DJohn
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 10
>
>Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 10:58:06 -0400
>From: "Paul H. Erlich"
>To: "'tuning@eartha.mills.edu'"
>Subject: Chaos, octave equivalence, and subharmonics
>Message-ID:
>-asset.com>
>
>One of the major results in chaos theory is the universality of certain
>features of non-linear dynamical systems. In virtually all dynamical
>systems which can behave chaotically, there is a phenomenon called
>period-doubling which describes the transition from stable, periodic
>behavior to chaotic behavior. As a relevant parameter of the system is
>increased from a stable to a chaotic value, the system repeats itself
>every 2, 4, 8, 16, . . . periods of the stable period. The transitions
>from one power of two to the next occur closer and closer together; the
>changes in parameter values required to produce each successive period
>doubling approach a decreasing geometric sequence with scaling =
parameter
>equal to the Feigenbaum constant (4.6692016091029 . . . ). This means
>that at a finite value of the parameter, the period will be infinite,
>i.e., we have chaos.
>
>There may be many stages in the hearing process in which non-linear
>dynamics come into play. It would probably be counterproductive to =
allow
>this non-linearity to be enough to lead to chaos, while a parallel
>structure of processors with different, lesser degrees of non-linearity
>might actually aid in the recognition of pitch. It is known that when a
>(not too high) pitch is heard, there are neurons that fire at the same
>rate as the vibration rate of the pitch itself. Other neurons in the
>brain are known to have a non-linear response to their input from other
>neurons. Since a response non-linear enough to lead to chaos would
>essentially be destroying all frequency information, most of the =
neurons
>would oscillate at the input frequency or at octave equivalents below
>that frequency. Perhaps a certain, low octave range is where pitch
>judgments are actually made. Notice how very high tones seem ambiguous
>in pitch.
>
>Whether this or the winding of the cochlea explains octave equivalence,
>there may have been evolutionary advantages conferred by the ability to
>reduce unimportant information and potential confusion from overtones =
by
>compressing pitch information to within one octave, which led to the
>brain or ear being designed the way they are.
>
>As for the apparantly irregular "subharmonic" which Gary observed in =
the
>bassoon waveform, this can easily be explained by assuming some
>parameter of non-linearity (perhaps lip pressure) was hovering around a
>value at which an initial period doubling occurs. So the amplitude of
>this period-2 subharmonic could have been changing, and it could cease
>to exist for a while, returning again just as easily after either an =
odd
>or even number of period-1 oscillations.
>
>Here's an observation about instrument or vocal "subharmonics": Beyond
>the onset of chaos, chaotic regions alternate (in a fractal pattern)
>with regions whose periods are non-power-of-two multiples of the stable
>period. The last of these subharmonic periods to occur, but the =
broadest
>in allowed parameter values, is period 3. So within a wide enough range
>of highly chaotic parameter values, one is likely to stumble upon
>period-3 behavior. Increasing the parameter value further leads to the
>period doublings, which in this case means period-6, period-12,
>period-24, . . . with the same Feigenbaum constant, and back to chaos.
>But decreasing the parameter leads directly back to chaos, via a
>phenomemon known as intermittency, where very nearly period-3 behavior
>persists for stretches of time, unpredictably alternating with =
stretches
>of chaotic behavior. (The same thing is true for every odd number above
>3, although the smallest parameter value needed to achieve a given odd
>subharmonic, and the range of parameter values in which it persists, =
are
>decreasing functions of that odd number). Therefore, assuming the
>parameter value varies smoothly with time, and at some times takes on
>values corresponding to simple period-1 vibration, the only =
subharmonics
>which can exist without chaos ever occuring are the subharmonics
>corresponding to powers of 2. Period-3 oscillation (or, to a lesser
>extent, periods of higher odd numbers) can be relatively common but
>cannot smoothly connect with simpler behavior.
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 11
>
>Date: Tue, 05 May 1998 11:10:24 -0700
>From: Xou Oxno
>To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
>Subject: Steve Vai in Guitar World. and other babbel...
>Message-ID: <354F5610.1289@virtulink.com>
>
>In my ever ending quest to effectively waste
>time more efficently, I found this program
>this morning and have managed to waste 4 hours so far.
>
>Steve Vai in Guitar World. http://www.guitarworld.com
>
>Here's the original text:
>
>VAI: I've done some kooky things that involved dividing=20
>up the fretboard. I have a guitar that has 24 frets to=20
>the octave and one that has 16 frets to the octave, so
>they're untempered. They sound like divine=20
>dissonance from Venus. And I'm working on a=20
>new triple-neck that has a six-string, a fretless=20
>and a 12-string. It has three individual outputs=20
>for three different amps. I'm writing material where=20
>I'll be using all three necks at the same time.
>
>
>I then sent it through the The Altavista Language Transmorgrafier:=20
>
>http://www.archive.org/%7Eart/babelphone.html
>
>And came up with a couple of different translations:
>
>
>VAI: I made some things kooky which implied to divide the fretboard.
>I have a guitar which A 24 hoops with the octave and one which have
>16 hoops with the octave, thus they are not soaked. They resemble
>divine dissonance of dome. And I work with a new triple-neck which
>has a six-chain of characters, a fretless and with a 12-string. It
>has three various outputs for three different amps. I am material of
>writing where I will use each of the three necks at the same time.
>
>VAI: I made some things kooky that implied to divide fretboard. I
>have a guitar that the hoops of A 24 with eighth and one that they
>have 16 hoops with eighth, therefore they do not soak themselves.
>They are resembled come divine dissonance of. And work with a new
>triple-neck that a six-linking of characters has, fretless and with
>12-string. It has three several exits for three diverse amperes. I
>am material of the writing where I will use each one of the three
>necks in the same time.
>
>VAI: I formed some things kooky, those suggest, in order to divide
>fretboard. I have a Guitarre, which the tapes of A 24 do not soak
>themselves with eighth and one, which they have 16 tapes with
>eighth, therefore them. They are resembled to come divine Dissonance
>of. And work with a new three-fold beginning, which has six six
>linking the characters, fretless and with 12-string. It has three
>some outputs for three different ampere. I am material of the
>writing, in which I use each of the three beginnings in the same
>time.
>
>VAI: I have formed some things kooky, those I suggest, in order to
>divide the fretboard. I have a Guitarre, than the tapes of To 24 not
>inzuppareano same they in eighth and one, than 16 tapes with eighth,
>therefore they. They are been similar in order coming dissonance
>divine of. And job with a new triple beginning, that it has six six
>to connect the characters, fretless and with 12-string. It has three
>some escapes for three to amp=E8re different. They are material of the
>writing, in which use everyone of the three inizii at the same time.
>
>--=20
>* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
>* xouoxnoREMOVE-THIS@virtulink.com
>*
>* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
>* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
>*
>* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm
>
>------------------------------
>
>Topic No. 12
>
>Date: Tue, 05 May 98 09:08:34 PDT
>From: Allen Strange
>To: Folks
>Subject: Monochord
>
>Folks:
>
>Here at San Jose State Univ. the first thing we teach our freshmen =
students
>in
> their theory courses are interval ratios. We need to build a monochord
>(obviou
>sly!) I am the type who can't hammer a nail in the side of a barn - is =
there
>an
>yplace I can go (on the net or elsewhere) to find a kit, model, plans,
>whatever
> My wife works in a violin shop so I can get pegs and bridges and such =
with
>n
>o problem. Thanks to anyone who can help.
>
>Allen Strange
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of TUNING Digest 1405
>*************************
>