| Author |
Topic: Tuning to 440 |
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 1 May 2002 10:21 pm |
|
Jeff,
There are a couple other sonic reasons why a pedalsteel has more tuning issues than some other instruments. It has to do with the numbers of accented even
and/or odd overtones within the sound of a steel. Other instruments that have to deal with tuning issues in a similar way are french horns, flutes and oboes.
If tuning to 440 somehow helps anybody deal with there instrument than go ahead.
Whatever works works.
This issue is in no way unique to steel players. The reality as I see it is that absolutly nobody making music in any form gives a flying fart about being correct. All that matters is that it sounds good. For it to sound good you need to train your ears.
Here is what young classical players are doing these days to get there intonation together:
www.codamusic.com/coda/it.asp
Bob
|
|
|
|
Jeff Lampert
From:
queens, new york city
|
Posted 2 May 2002 3:27 am
|
|
quote:
There are a couple other sonic reasons why a pedalsteel has more tuning issues than some other instruments. It has to do with the numbers of accented even
and/or odd overtones within the sound of a steel.
| Quote: |
| This issue is in no way unique to steel players. |
My problem with the subject is the often explicit statements that there is something wrong with the fact that most of us DON'T tune ET. "How come pianos and 6-string do, but we don't?" etc. etc. Well, you, Carl, and b0b seem to have figured out that there are musical dynamics related to overtones that would account for the fact that, while those instruments can tune ET, we can't. And you point out that the issue is rampant amoung many other instruments, but we are only aware of what our issues are. So, the conclusion I reach, which is what I was looking for, is that when someone makes the point that we should tune straight 440 (ET) because pianos and other fixed instruments do, that you are mixing apples and oranges. The two cannot be directly compared, so they cannot be used as the rational for why the steel should be tuned that way. I hope that overtone idea really is valid. Anytime the point is brought up in the future, then the reason should be "overtones". Hope that's right. Thanks. [This message was edited by Jeff Lampert on 02 May 2002 at 04:29 AM.] |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 2 May 2002 7:00 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Well, you, Carl, and b0b seem to have figured out that there are musical dynamics related to overtones that would account for the fact that, while those instruments can tune ET, we can't. |
Carl and I disagree on this, actually. And I do tune the back neck of my Williams to ET. And I don't tune my E9th to JI. The only guitars that I tune to JI are non-pedal.
I think I have a handle on this. The bottom line is that the ear is tolerant of thirds that are tuned anywhere between 385 cents (JI) and 400 cents (ET). Outside of that range you will sound out of tune. Within that 15 cent range, most musicians and all audiences will agree that you are in tune.
Thirds are the only real stumbling block. The difference between ET and JI when you play fourths or fifths is only 2 cents. I can't even hear a 2 cent difference in pitch.
------------------
 Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic) Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6) |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 2 May 2002 7:59 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| I hope that overtone idea really is valid. Anytime the point is brought up in the future, then the reason should be "overtones". Hope that's right |
Well I couldn't resist.... I have a spectrum analyzer plug-in for Sound Forge and I just did the following:
Played an A 440 note on my Frypan (with 1 1/2" horseshoe magnets)...no vibrato just sounded the note. Did the same with a Gibson SG (same amp/settings/wide open pots)and an upright acoustic piano.
The results were OVERWELHMING...the Frypan had the first 10 HARMONICS (A,A,E,A,C#,E,G,A,B,C#) showing up with relative intensities that were VERY SIMILAR(they show up as colors which vary with intensities). The other two instruments lacked various individual harmonics and they (the harmonics that were there) varied widely in intensity (colors).
When a instrument puts out such UNIFORM and EXTENSIVE harmonics from 1 note it is obvious to me that when you start putting together 2,3 or 4 part harmonies ...there is going to be some SERIOUS CLASHING of upper harmonics unless you start out with the fundamentals (1st harmonic) being in tune (JI). |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 2 May 2002 8:03 am
|
|
| Very cool, Rick! Any chance you could publish a screen shot? |
|
|
|
Jeff Lampert
From:
queens, new york city
|
Posted 2 May 2002 9:00 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| The bottom line is that the ear is tolerant of thirds that are tuned anywhere between 385 cents (JI) and 400 cents (ET). |
You have posted this before, and it is a very useful concept. But still, the question is why can't we tune 440 (on E9) when piano and guitar can. And the answer should be "overtones". |
|
|
|
Rick Aiello
From:
Berryville, VA USA
|
Posted 2 May 2002 9:24 am
|
|
b0b,I just emailed you the 3.jpgs (Frypan, SG and Piano)to the email address listed in your profile. I did the best I could.
They were normalized but otherwise "unedited".
I hope this helps!!
|
|
|
|
Bob Hoffnar
From:
Austin, Tx
|
Posted 2 May 2002 9:36 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| "How come pianos and 6-string do, but we don't?" |
Check it with a tuner if you want, or ask a pro piano tuner :
Pianos do not tune to 440 either.
Tuning stuff is all messed up for all western instruments. Its all a big mish mosh of contradictions and compromises. If anybody wants to play in tune they need to train there ears to handle whatever sonic issues that come up.
Weds I spent all day doing overdubs on a pop record that was some of the best music i have ever dealt with. It had a strech tuned piano, jazz string bass player that leaned flat, 2 acoustic guitar tracks and a classical string quartet where the violins leaned sharp.Oh yea, and a chick singer scratch voc that was all over the place. I had to play pads, fills and solos and make sure it all sounded sweet. It was a freakin intonation nightmare ! Trying to use a tuner in a situation like that is sorta like being attacked by 7 hungry, rabid grizzly bears and trying to use a boy scout compass to defend yourself.
With that said I can see how tuning 440 on a steel could make perfect sense as a way of dealing with the neck. Nothing is going to work without the ears though.
Bob |
|
|
|
Buddy Emmons
From:
Hermitage, TN USA * R.I.P.
|
Posted 2 May 2002 11:44 am
|
|
Dennis:
I tune my thirds to 438 just to compensate for a possible drift of that note a cent or two sharp.
For everybody else, no matter how much you quibble over two cents, harmonics, fundamentals, or any other rationale, when your 434 clashes with a 440 in the band, you're gonna lose.
|
|
|
|
Jeff A. Smith
From:
Angola,Ind. U.S.A.
|
Posted 2 May 2002 2:17 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| I think I have a handle on this. The bottom line is that the ear is tolerant of thirds that are tuned anywhere between 385 cents (JI) and 400 cents (ET). Outside of that range you will sound out of tune. Within that 15 cent range, most musicians and all audiences will agree that you are in tune. |
b0b, I'm not trying to be picky, but the way I read that is that you are saying it really doesn't matter whether somebody tunes to E.T or J.I., because it will still sound in tune. And yet you also acknowledge in these discussions that musicians DO hear a significant difference. Could you clarify this for me?
Also, when you speak about pianos being tuned with a "stretch temperamnent" so that they are "sweeter than E.T.," are you saying they are closer to J.I, or something like that? I have always understood the "stretching" of octaves to be a compensation for "inharmonicity," which causes overtones to be sharp. This means that a piano must be tuned so that even the fundamental pitches get increasingly sharp as you go up the keyboard from center, and flat as you go down. This allows coinciding harmonics between chord tones over a wide range of the keyboard to sound more in tune.
The temperament octave in the center, as far as I know, is tuned to achieve 12 equally spaced notes (E.T,) although this is done by tuning overtones to each other rather than fundamentals.
I'm just curious about the specific theory or phenomena you're talking about.
[This message was edited by Jeff A. Smith on 02 May 2002 at 03:20 PM.] |
|
|
|
Bobby Lee
From:
Cloverdale, California, USA
|
Posted 2 May 2002 6:31 pm
|
|
| You understand it better than I do, Jeff. I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
Bobby Flores
From:
Blanco, Texas, U.S.A. (deceased)
|
Posted 3 May 2002 7:41 am
|
|
"The reality as I see it is that absolutely nobody making music in any form gives a flying fart about being correct. All that matters is that it sounds good. For it to sound good you need to train your ears."-Bob Hoffnar
That's exactly my point Bob. What I was trying to point out in my observation was that I've heard too many steelers take a theory and overcompensate with it, not paying any attention to what their ears are attempting to tell them. Just doing what they've heard is "correct". The danger there to me is getting used to a tuning that sounds like Godzilla's breath to most everyone else and thinking that it's "right" because so & so said, even though they've drastically overcompensated the theory they've heard about. I've seen cases where nobody knows how to tell them just how drastically "out" it sounds and by now they have probably totally cofused their ears and pitch definitions anyway.
I'm also a guitar player and that is a constant tuning nightmare, work all the time. You can only compensate so much and there's only so much "english" you can pull off while playing, especially chords. With pianos we have absolutely no control over the movement in pitch of any of the notes so we're kind of just stuck with the best we can do there, unfortunately, but can get used to it. But on steel, we can move quite a bit which definitely helps in a lot of situations. BE sounds awesome everytime but I've heard guys take his tuning ideas and over-do them then claim that tuning came from BE, not doing his tuning ideas any justice. They work for him that's for sure. Buddy is like Randy Reinhard to me in that they could be in the middle of the most out-of-tune yokels in the world and still sound so in-tune! I suspect the hands my friends.
Some very interesting theories here on this. Good luck to everyone!
Bobby
|
|
|
|
Steve Miller
From:
Long Beach, CA, USA
|
Posted 3 May 2002 9:06 pm
|
|
For the last 10 yrs. I've been tuning straight up and then tweakin by ear. I tried the JI tuning on my old MSA years ago and didn't like it. But after reading this thread this morning I decided to try Jeff's JI tuning again on my Derby. While I was tuning I was thinking 'this is going to sound terrible and I'll have to change it all back'. Not so! I was pleasantly surprised. This is what I found: It sounded in tune over all when playing solo and playing to a CD! Strangely, some intervals sounded terrible when played by themselves (especially the high b with the high G#), but when playing a song they sounded much better. I did have to compensate a little with the bar but not as much as I did when tuned straight up. The most obvious difference was that when playing (JI)above the 12th fret it sounded more in tune than ever. I also noticed that the A & F lever combination sounded much more in tune than with ET as did the pedals down position chords. I'm going to have to seriously reconsider my tuning method. Anyway, if it wasn't for this forum and particularly this thread I wouldn't have even tried it. Thank you guys for inspiring me to try this. I Love This Forum! Special thanks to b0b!  |
|
|
|
