Philip Aker wrote:
On Friday, Jul 23, 2004, at 08:41 America/Vancouver, Darcy James Argue wrote:
I absolutely agree. Helmholtz may have been the standard, but it's a stupid standard. C4 = middle C, etc. is much more elegant, logical, and easy to understand.
It's like the difference between imperial and metric measurements.
I believe it used to be long ago that blowing on pipe 1" in diameter and 12" long produced middle C. Presumably at an ideal of 256 cycles per second. While the metric system calculates volumes rather handily, I think the loss of the idea of a relationship between measurement units and vibration reduces it to the mundane.
I'm not quite sure what your last statement is in regards to -- how would using C4 to indicate your described pipe create any more of a loss of relationship between measurement units and vibrations than calling that same thing c' does?
Neither nomenclature seems to me to describe your middle-C pipe very well.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
