The Journal
of the
Acoustical Society of America
Volume 24 Number 3
MAY 1952
Inharmonicity of Plain Wire Piano Strings
Robert W. Young*
*This work
was done privately without any official connection with the U. S. Navy
Department. U. S. Navy Electronics Laboratory, San
Diego 52, California
(Received February 18,
1952)
The inharmonicity of plain wire strings in situ has been
measured in six pianos of various styles and makes. By inharmonicity is
meant the departure in frequency from the harmonic modes of vibration
expected of an ideal flexible string. It is shown from the theory of
stiff strings that the basic inharmonicity in cents (hundredths of a
semitone) is given by 3.4*10^13*n^2*d^2/(nu-sub-0^2*l^4), where n is the
mode number, d is the diameter of the wire in cm, l is the vibrating
length in cm, and nu-sub-0 is the fundamental frequency. A value of
Q/rho = 25.5*10^10 (cm/sec)^2 was assumed for the steel wire, where Q is
Young's modulus and rho is the density. The observations are entirely
compatible with the relationship given. In general terms the
inharmonicity of the plain steel strings is about the same in all the
pianos tested. being about 1.2 cents for the second mode of vibration of
the middle C string. Above this point every eight semitones it is
doubled. Below middle C the inharmonicity is consistently less in large
pianos than in small ones.
INTRODUCTION
The simple theory for an ideal string depends upon the assumption
of a thin, flexible string vibrating transversely between rigid
supports. It has been pointed out*1 *1 W. E. Kock,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 8, 227-233 (1937). that these
assumptions are not entirely valid for actual piano strings, but there
has been little quantitative evidence as to the extent of the failure of
the simple theory for piano strings in situ. The ideal string
has modes of vibration whose frequencies form a harmonic series; any
departure from the series (i.e., any inharmonicity) is therefore
a measure of the failure of the simple theory. Moreover, as pointed out
in an earlier paper,*2 *2 O. H. Schuck and R. W. Young,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 15, 1-11 (1943). this inharmonicity
influences the tuning of the piano and also its musical quality.
In the present paper certain theoretical considerations are
organized to facilitate study of the underlying physics of the problem.
Detailed information is given herein about the inharmonicity of the
plain steel wire strings in six pianos. The theory is shown to provide
a very satisfactory explanation of the observed inharmonicity. In some
respects the problem of wound strings may be looked on as a starting
point for the more complex problem of wound strings.
THEORY OF INHARMONICITY
At least a century ago a formula was derived to predict how the
stiffness of a piano string can cause it to vibrate at frequencies
somewhat greater than those of the ideal string. It was Donkin's
opinion,*3
*3 W. F. Donkin, Acoustics (Clarendon Press, Oxford,
England, 1884), second edition, p. 187.
however, that "the deviation of the upper tones from the harmonic scale
is probably too small to be made sensible to the ear."
According to the usual simple theory, the fundamental frequency of
a thin flexible string vibrating transversely
between rigid supports is
Eq. 1nu-sub-0 = c/(2*l),
where
Eq. 2c = (T/[rho*S])^(1/2)
is the speed of wave propagation, l = free length of string, T =
tension, rho = density, and S = cross section. The frequency of the nth
normal mode of such a string is simply n*nu-sub-0.
The frequency vn of any given mode of vibration of an actual string
departs more or less from that of the corresponding mode of an ideal
string. It is convenient to call this departure the inharmonicity*2 and
to express it in cents (hundredths of an equally tempered semitone).
Thus the inharmonicity delta is given by
Eq. 3delta = 1200 log2 vn/(n*nu-sub-0) &eqapprox;
1731*[vn/(n*nu-sub-0 - 1)]
or
Eq. 4vn/(n*nu-sub-0) = 2^(delta/1200) = e^(delta/1731) &eqapprox;
1 +
delta/1731.
The fractional error in delta resulting from the approximations is less
than one percent if delta is less than 35 cents.
It may be noted in passing that according to the definition used
previously*2,*4
*4 Franklin Miller, Jr., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 21, 318
(1949).
the inharmonicity was expressed relative to an integral multiple of the
frequency of the first mode, rather than relative to n*nu-sub-0. It now
seems preferable to employ Eq. 3, in that the ideal string is taken as
the standard of comparison throughout.
It is well recognized that a stiff string acts as a dispersing
medium in which the speed of a transverse wave increases with frequency.
Suppose for the moment that this is the only effect of the stiffness on
the vibration of a piano string. Then the form of the standing wave is
(by assumption) the same*5
*5 P. M. Morse, Vibration and Sound (McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 1948), second edition, p. 84.
as for a flexible string, with nodes at x = 0 and x = l; namely,
Eq. 5y = A*sin(pi*n*x/l)*cos(2*pi*v*t - phi).
If this function be substituted in the usual (simplified) differential
equation for the vibration of a stiff string under tension,*6
*6 Reference 5, p. 166.
it follows at once that
Eq. 6vn = n*nu-sub-0*[1 + n^2*pi^2*Q*kappa^2*S/(l^2*T)]^(1/2).
Here Q is Young's modulus, and kappa is the radius of gyration about the
neutral axis of the cross section. For a wire of diameter d, kappa =
d/4.
Table I. Short-cut method of recording
observations and finding relative inharmonicity. Stroboconn readings on
line marked string. All entries in cents. See Text.
Mode &rtarrow; |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
String: A-sub-4 |
1 |
3 |
8 |
11 |
2 |
27 |
2 |
43 |
Difference |
0 |
2 |
7 |
10 |
1 |
26 |
1 |
42 |
Correction |
0 |
0 |
-2 |
0 |
14 |
-2 |
31 |
0 |
Relative Inharmonicity |
0 |
2 |
5 |
10 |
15 |
24 |
32 |
42 |
This Eq. 6 is intrinsically the one used by Schaefer*7 *7
Otto Schaefer, Ann. Physik 62, 156-164 (1920). which,
upon approximation by binomial theorem, yields also the form of
correction given by Donkin and said by him*8 *8 G. E. Allan,
Phil. Mag. 4, 1324-1337 (1927). to agree with
experiment for wires stretched over bridges. The form does not,
however, agree very well with that found satisfactory by Allan*8 for a
monochord.
With the help of the approximation in Eq. 4 it follows that
Eq. 7delta = (1731/2)*(pi^2*Q*kappa^2*S*n^2)/(l^2*T) = b*n^2.
The factor b defined by this equation is hereafter referred to as the
basic coefficient of inharmonicity. Its unit is cents per square of
mode number.
The coefficient of inharmonicity is a characteristic of the stiff
string. A comparison of the relationships usually quoted*9 *9 R.
S. Shankland and J. W. Coltman, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 10, 163
(1939). for the clamped and unclamped string indicates that
this basic inharmonicity, which changes with mode number, is the
same in both cases.
Ordinarily it is easier to determine the frequency than the
tension, so with the approximative nu-sub-0 from Eq. 1 it follows that
Eq. 8b = [1731/(2*64)]*[(pi^2*d^2)/(nu-sub-0^2*l^4)]*(Q/rho).
It is significant that the inharmonicity varies inversely as the fourth
power of the length&emdash;a marked dependence.
If one takes for steel wire, Q/rho = 25.5*10^10 (cm/sec)^2 and
expresses d and l in centimeters and nu-sub-0 in cycles per second,
Eq. 9b = 3.4*10^13*d^2/(nu-sub-0^2*l^4).
If d and l are in inches, then the constant 3.4*10^13 should be replaced
by 5.3*10^12.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Frequency measurements were made with a Stroboconn (chromatic
stroboscope). The readings appear directly as cents deviation from some
frequency of the standard equally tempered scale. In the frequency
range of present interest the error of measurement was ordinarily less
than one cent.
A filter such as the General Radio Type 760A was also used. The
frequencies of the approximate harmonic series to which the filter must be
set can be found with reasonable ease by a musical slide rule*10 *10
L. E. Waddington, J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 19, 878-885 (1947).
which contains the frequencies of the equally tempered scale. The slide
can be reversed so that the "mode of vibration" numbers can be matched
with a bit of Scotch tape placed properly for each string to be tested;
the frequencies then appear at the end of the slide. Table II. Statistics on
pianos under consideration.
|
| | | | String length in cm |
| | Dia. in mm | | K | q
| |
Maker | Style | No. |
| Date | A-sub-0 | A-sub-4 | A-sub-6
| A-sub-4 | A-sub-6 | cents/n^2 | s/m
|
Steinway | D | 273180
| G | 1931 | 201.9 | 40.5 | 11.7
| 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.61 | 0.038 |
Steinway | A | 145879 | G | 1911
| 141.5 | 39.3 | 10.6 | 0.97 |
0.86 | 0.67 | 0.041 |
Steinway
| 40 | 324766 | U | 1948 | 103.1
| 38.0 | 11.5 | 0.97 | 0.84 | 0.76
| 0.036 |
Mason and Hamlin | B |
56696 | G | 1949 | 122.0 | 41.2 |
10.8 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.57 | 0.047
|
Kranich and Bach | | 41215 |
G | 1903 | 122.5 | 41.4 | 11.0 |
0.99 | 0.91 | 0.58 | 0.042 |
George Steck | | 151288 | U | 1947
| 98.7 | 39.2 | 10.7 | 0.99 | 0.84
| 0.73 | 0.039 |
Starck |
| | G | | | | |
| 0.66 | | 0.029 |
Haddorff | | |
U |
1941 |
112.0 |
39.2 |
11.0 |
0.99 |
|
0.77 |
0.029 |
In this paper the name of the maker, the style, and serial
number of each piano are reported. There is no intent of introducing
any commercial bias. The information is simply offered as a weak
substitute for a complete physical description of each piano. A future
investigator may thereby be able to use the present data to better
advantage.
It is convenient to work with the relative inharmonicity,
i.e., the amount by which any given mode of vibration is more inharmonic
than, say. the first mode. In symbols, if delta-sub-3 and delta-sub-1
are the inharmonicities of the third and first modes of vibration,
respectively, then the relative inharmonicity is given by
Eq. 10delta-sub-3-1 = delta-sub-3 - delta-sub-1.
The relative inharmonicity was obtained by a short cut which
requires very simple operations but which gives the same result as the
method previously described.*2 It depends upon keeping track of notes of
the harmonic series. The method is illustrated in Table I for
observations on the A-sub-4 string of a Steinway concert grand piano.
(By the particular subscript notation here employed this is the A above
middle C.) The first mode of vibration happened to be 1 cent sharp in
comparison with the standard A of 440 cycles per second. The second
mode was measured A-sub-5 + 3 cents, the third mode E-sub-6 + 8 cents,
etc. The notes A-sub-4, A-sub-5, E-sub-6, A-sub-6, C-sub-7#, etc. are
the familiar ones of the harmonic series. Upon subtracting the reading
for the first mode from the others, the differences obtained are shown
on the next line of the table. These are the amounts, in cents, by
which each mode of vibration is sharper than its equally tempered
representation. Now the equally tempered interval between A-sub-4 and
E-sub-6 is 1900 cents (i.e., between the first and third modes), but
a true 3/1 frequency ratio corresponds to an interval of 1902 cents; a
correction of -2 cents must therefore be added to the 7 cents listed in
the "difference" line of Table II. Thus the relative inharmonicity is
delta-sub-3-1 = 5 cents. The method becomes particularly simple if only
the first four modes of vibration are involved because steps two and
three can be combined easily.
A check on a random sample of the data showed that the relative
inharmonicity of any one string does ordinarily vary with the square of
the node number as required by Eq. 7. Any constant is subtracted out
in the calculation of the relative inharmonicity, so empirically
Eq. 11delta = constant + b*n^2.
Thus the variable part of the inharmonicities of different modes of
vibration can be described by a single coefficient of inharmonicity
b.
If one wishes at any time to reverse the process to find the
relative inharmonicity from the coefficient, he merely multiplies the
coefficient of inharmonicity by the difference between the squares of
the respective mode numbers. Suppose, for example, that the coefficient
for a certain A-sub-7 string is 4.6 cents/n^2. Then the second mode is
more inharmonic than the first by delta-sub-2-1 = 4.6*(2^2 - 1^2) = 13.8
cents.
If one sets up the usual conditions (the "least squares" method)
for finding the coefficient which will minimize the sum of the squares
of deviations of observed values from those predicted by the assumed
relationship of Eq. 11, it follows that the "best" value of b is
Eq. 12b = -0.027delta-sub-2-1 + 0.012delta-sub-3-1 +
0.066delta-sub-4-1,
for observations on the first four modes of vibration.
THREE STEINWAY PIANOS
For later study in connection with tuning, inharmonicity
measurements were made on the plain wire strings of three sizes of
pianos by a single maker. More specifically, observations were made
only on the middle string of each group of three; also the inharmonicity
could not be determined for the top octave, because the upper limit of
the Stroboconn is B-sub-7. (The limit can be extended by a frequency
divider.)
Relative inharmonicities for the plain wire strings in a Steinway
concert grand piano are plotted in Fig. 1. Note that the inharmonicity
is very small below C-sub-4 (middle C) and that it increases rapidly
above this point. The smooth curves are drawn simply to aid the eye.
Remember that the measurements were recorded only to the nearest cent.
When the information displayed in Fig. 1 is treated in the manner
indicated by Eq. 12, one obtains the values for the coefficient of
inharmonicity which are plotted in Fig. 2. Now 194 observations are
simplified to a single set of points (the open circles) on an almost
straight line.
The change to a logarithmic scale for the ordinate has the
advantage of transforming the curve to a straight line. (Incidentally,
the semitone steps for the abcissa also create a logarithmic frequency
scale.) There is a slight nuisance, however, resulting from the fact
that the scatter appears to be sizable at the lower left of the
figure. Even though each point here is derived from four observations,
the estimated standard error in the coefficient is 0.1 cent/n^2, and
thus the scatter is actually reasonable. Increased scatter between
D-sub-6# and B-sub-6 is to be expected since each point here is derived
from observations on only the first two modes of vibration, and the
standard error in the coefficient is probably 0.5 cent/n^2.
Figure 2 is incomplete in two respects. There are plain wire
strings for still another octave up to C-sub-8, but to determine the
inharmonicity for this octave would require frequency measurements
another octave beyond B-sub-7. Furthermore, the plain wire strings
extend down to F-sub-2 in this particular piano, but for the sake of
uniformity with later figures, the grid for Fig. 2 is started at
C-sub-3. Excepting the measured coefficient for F-sub-2 which is 0.2
cent/n^2, both calculated and observed coefficients are less than 0.1
cent/n^2 for all strings not represented in the graph.
The solid line in Fig. 2 represents the basic coefficient of
inharmonicity as computed from Eq. 9 from the
dimensions and
frequency of each string. The individually computed coefficients do not
always increase regularly from string to string; when the wire diameter
is changed, it turns out that the coefficients are about the same for
the adjacent strings of differing diameters. Such irregularities have
been smoothed out in drawing the solid line. Nevertheless, at no place
does the solid line deviate from a computed coefficient by more than two
percent.
The agreement between theory and experiment is very good ‐ in
fact much better than could reasonably be anticipated. Published values
of Young's modulus and density vary several percent. A modulus of
20*10^11 dynes/cm^2 was measured on two samples of piano wire (diameters
0.64 and 0.99 mm, respectively) which happened to be at hand. This
value, in combination with the density of 7.83 g/cm^3 which is implicit
in tables of linear density published by the American Steel and Wire
Company, resulted in Q/rho = 25.5*10^10 (cm/sec)^2. There is no easy
way of knowing whether the wire in the pianos has exactly these same
characteristics.
The significance of the agreement between measured and computed
values is the indication that all the inharmonicity is basic;
there is practically nothing left to be attributed to other causes.
The order of magnitude may be remembered by noting that the coefficient
of inharmonicity is
0.1 cent/n^2 at C-sub-3 and that it doubles every 8 semitones.
Consider next inharmonicity data on a somewhat smaller grand piano,
as depicted in Fig. 3. The trend is very like that apparent in Fig. 2,
but the values of the coefficients are slightly greater. The solid
curve again passes within two percent of the coefficients computed for
each string by Eq. 9. There is a bar in the iron frame at the place
marked by a break in the solid curve.
In this piano the free string lengths in cm follow fairly well the
rule
Eq. 13 l = 39.4*(1.94)^(-S/12) = 39.4*2^(-0.96*S/12) =
39.4*10^(-0.024*S),
except below D-sub-3 where they are somewhat shorter. S is the number
of semitones above A-sub-4. The diameters in cm from E-sub-3 up are given within two percent by
Eq. 14delta = 0.096*(1.005)^(-S/12) = 0.096*2^(-0.08*S/12) =
0.096*10^(-0.002*S).
Of course,
Eq. 15nu = 440*2^(S/12) = 440*10^(0.025*S).
When these relations are substituted in Eq. 9, it turns out that the
basic coefficient of inharmonicity for this piano is
Eq. 16b = 0.67*2^(1.64*S/12) = 0.67*10^(0.041*S).
This is exactly the equation for the straight (solid and dashed) line of
Fig. 3.
The inharmonicity in an upright piano is shown in Fig. 4. Again
the solid curves depict the coefficient of inharmonicity computed from
Eq. 9. The gap left between G#-sub-5 and A-sub-5 accompanies a sudden
shift in the scaling of lengths occasioned by the presence of a bar in
the iron frame.
THREE PIANOS OF VARIOUS MAKES
In the previous section measurements on consecutive strings of
three pianos demonstrated that the existing
inharmonicity is well predicted by the equation
for basic inharmonicity. The three pianos were all of the same make.
In the present section pianos of three different makes are studied but
on only four strings per octave.
The coefficient of inharmonicity for a Mason and Hamlin medium
grand piano is shown in Fig. 5. This graph appears somewhat simpler
than the previous ones because it contains fewer points. Also the
calculated (solid) curve was based only on dimensions and frequencies of
the C-sub-3, A-sub-3, A-sub-4, A-sub-5, and A-sub-6 strings.
For the Kranich and Bach grand piano represented by Fig. 6 the
coefficient of inharmonicity was calculated for at least four strings in
each octave. The gap left in the calculated curve between D-sub-5 and
D#-sub-5 corresponds to the position of a bar in the iron frame. The
general trend is fairly well represented by the straight line, part of
which is dashed.
The calculated curve in Fig. 7 for the George Steck upright piano
is based only on dimensions and frequencies of the G-sub3, A-sub-3,
A-sub-4, A-sub-5, and A-sub-6 strings. In accordance with the practice
followed earlier, the smooth curve is drawn within two percent of the
calculated values. Here the coefficients of inharmonicity were derived
from measurements of only the first, second, and fourth modes of vibration, but the fit
between observed and computed values is still very good.
COLLIGATION
It is a time-consuming job to collect data on the inharmonicity of
piano strings in situ. It seems worthwhile, therefore, to tie
together all information available to see what general principle may be
formulated thereby.
Table II gives the names of the pianos discussed above, their style
designations, serial numbers, and other collateral information. G or U
indicates whether grand or upright. The year in which the piano was
made is included if perchance any evidence should be forthcoming as to
any effect ascribable to a change in design over the years. The length
of the longest string (A-sub-0) is offered as a rough index of the
"size" of the piano.
Superficial comparison of the preceding graphs reveals that (aside
from minor interruptions) the coefficient of inharmonicity in all pianos
increases regularly as strings become shorter and that the inharmonicity
is roughly the same in all pianos from middle C upward. At this
point the coefficient of inharmonicity is of the order of 0.3 cent/n^2.
This is equivalent to an inharmonicity of 1.2 cents for the second mode
of vibration of the middle C string. There is a region where, at least
for a couple of octaves, the graph (with the logarithmic scales
employed) is approximately a straight line. This means that the
coefficient of inharmonicity can be represented by
Eq. 17b = K*10^(q*S),
where K is the coefficient for the A-sub-4 string and S is the number of
semitones above this point. Values of K and q are listed in Table II.
Reference to the earlier figures will remind one that this simplified
description is of varying validity in different pianos. It does,
however, afford a method of computing quickly an approximate value of
the coefficient for any one piano.
Table II includes some information derived from data reported
earlier.*2 The Starck piano was previously described as a medium grand
and the Haddorff Vertichord as a 40-inch console piano. The parameters
listed for the Starck piano were here interpolated from inharmonicity
measurements on only the F-sub-3, F-sub-4, and F-sub-5 strings. Those
from the Haddorff came from measurements on only the F-sub-3 and F-sub-5
strings. The values of K for these two pianos are very like those for
the comparable grands and uprights respectively listed higher in Table
II, but the values of q are so small as to be suspect.
It is evident from Table II that the coefficient of inharmonicity
for A-sub-4 was greater than 0.7 cent/n^2 for the three uprights,
whereas it was less than this value for the five grands. A glance at
Figs. 2 to 7 also shows that the inharmonicity below C-sub-4 is usually
less for the larger pianos than for the smaller ones.
Either Eq. 9 contains an erroneous choice for the ratio of
Young's modulus to density or practically all of the inharmonicity is
indeed basic, i.e., it is a consequence only of the stiffness of
the wire. The equation has not been checked, however, for the strings
in the topmost octave. The eight pianos listed in Table II should not
be regarded as necessarily a good sample of all the pianos that have
been made in the last half century, but the consistency of results gives
one considerable confidence in estimating by Eq. 9 the coefficient of
inharmonicity of plain steel wire strings in all pianos of conventional
design.
The evidence here assembled indicates that (a) the inharmonicity
changes from string to string roughly in the manner prescribed by Eq.
(17), (b) the inharmonicity is slightly less in larger pianos than in
smaller ones, and (c) the inharmonicity is almost all basic and
can be calculated simply from string dimensions and frequency.
DISCUSSION
It is beyond the scope of the present paper to treat thoroughly the
musical implications of piano string inharmonicity. The influence of
inharmonicity on the tuning of pianos studied above will be reported in
in a companion paper. Some slight speculation as to the relation to
musical quality may be in order here.
It was pointed out above that, while the differences in
inharmonicity of plain wire strings are not great among different
pianos, yet in the much used octaves near middle C the inharmonicity is
measurably less in the larger pianos. Is this one of the reasons that
grand pianos have been traditionally preferred for their musical
excellence?
O. H. Schuck has commented on the fact that the natural evolution
of piano design has been such that the inharmonicity changes smoothly
from string to string without any sudden increase or decrease. It is
plausible that the smoothly changing inharmonicity is the characteristic
which the designer has attained unconsciously in his effort to create a
good musical effect. It could well be that "half-size" piano wire was
later introduced into the regularly numbered series of sizes to afford
not only better gradation of tension but also better gradation of
musical quality associated with inharmonicity.
The strings of the Steinway Style A piano happen to afford the
means of a simple experiment. Figure 3 indicates that the coefficients
for the B-sub-2 and B-flat-sub-2 strings are somewhat greater than for
the strings nearby, although the value of 0.18 cents/n^2 for
B-flat-sub-2 does not seem really large. The coefficients for several
wound strings below this point are less than 0.1 cent/n^2. Thus the
inharmonicity of the B-flat-sub-2 string is perhaps twice as great as
for neighboring strings, albeit not very great. When the notes are
played for about an octave in this neighborhood, a listener can identify
with reasonably ease the place where the musical quality sudden changes
between B-flat-sub-2 and A-sub-2. There may be an argument as to what
constitutes the "best" musical quality, but it seems clear that
inharmonicity influences judgment of quality.
One is thus stimulated to propose the construction of a piano in
which the inharmonicity is kept to a low value throughout. It is
probable that no one has ever had the opportunity to listen to such a
piano. The size of a piano, of course, limits the length of bass
strings, but it would seem that the treble strings could be lengthened
without serious difficulty. Their inharmonicity could be halved, for
example, by an increase in string length of less than 20 percent.
An attractive hypothesis for a psychological experiment is: Those
pianos are "best" in which the inharmonicity is least and in which it
changes smoothly. The Steinway concert grand piano (see Fig. 2) would
satisfy this criterion.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Fifteen years ago Professor O. L. Railsback aroused interest of
which this paper is evidence; when he started to use the first chromatic
stroboscope to test piano tuning, he very soon found evidence of string
inharmonicity. The majority of the measurements reported here were made
in the showrooms of the Thearly Music Company and the Southern
California Music Company of San Diego. Officials of these companies
were most gracious in repeatedly putting pianos at the disposal of the
writer. Various details of piano construction were supplied by Theodore
D. Steinway; his continuing interest in this problem is gratefully
acknowledged.