E9 Meantone, JI, ET, a book I read about temperament

[b0b]

Not having a clue how to calculate this stuff, is there some kind of chart or guide that would show it works with different tunings (only because I don't use E9, so that doesn't do me much good.)? I'm guessing not, but it's worth a shot asking. I'm always willing to try something like this - if I have a way to do it.

The 9th tone is the center point (zero). Since you're in a B6th tuning that would be C#. Then you march around the circle of fourths adding the meantone adjustment in one direction and subtracting it in the other. I use 2.5 cents because it's half a "notch" on the meter which is easy for me to see.

The "comma" is <strike>22</strike> about 15 cents, so Earnest's 1/6 comma meantone uses <strike>3.66</strike> 2.5 cents. <strike>That</strike> 1/4 comma makes the thirds JI at the expense of the fourths and fifths. As you shrink the adjustment amount, you get closer to ET (equal temperament).

Anyway, back to your problem. Here is a chart for the notes of a B meantone tuning. It shows the multiplier for each note. Multiply it by <strike>3.5</strike> 2.5 cents for Earnest's meantone, by <strike>2.5 cents</strike> "half a tuner notch" for mine, or by 0 for Eric's .
[tab]note multiplier
C -5
F -4
A# -3
D# -2
G# -1
C# 0
F# +1
B +2
E +3
A +4
D +5 [/tab]
edited in red after clarification from Earnest (below)

[Eric West]

Yeah Jim.

Here's a pictogram of the calculation on a good electronic tuner.

I----->:idea:<-----I




EJL

[Earnest Bovine]

The "comma" is 22 cents, so Earnest's 1/6 comma meantone uses 3.66 cents. That makes the thirds JI at the expense of the fourths and fifths.

Actually, I tune closer to ET than that. Confusion happens when we use the "comma" terminology, because of confusion about which interval we are comparing to.
If you tune the major thirds Justly, (386 cents wide) in a meantone tuning, they call it quarter comma. That means 1/4 comma narrower than the Pythagorean fifth of 701.955 cents, not 1/4 comma narrower than the ET fifth of 700 cents which is what I think you think I meant.

By narrowing each fifth by 1/4 comma, you get 4 * 1/4 commas, i.e. one (syntonic) comma, after you stack 4 of them (C..G..D..A..E).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quarter-comma_meantone

But I find the fifths too narrow if I use 1/4 comma meantone.
So, like b0b, I would usually tune my fifths about 2.5 cents narrower than ET, meaning 697.5 cents. That is about 2.5 + 1.955 = 4.455 cents narrower than Just fifths. If you stack four fifths, the result is 2.5 * 4 = 10 cents narrower than the ET major third, or 390 cents. Because the Just major third is about 386 cents, my major third is about 4 cents wider than Just. So my fifths and major thirds are both only about 4 cents from just.

[Earnest Bovine]

Not having a clue how to calculate this stuff, is there some kind of chart or guide that would show it works with different tunings (only because I don't use E9, so that doesn't do me much good.)?

Just Google: temperament cents
and maybe: comma meantone

There is a ton of info on the Web and it's not difficult (the ciphering is all at a Jethro Bodine level.)

[Charlie McDonald]

b0b and Earnest, thanks for the thoughtful and clear presentation. I think I can handle 4 c.
But I think it would make Jethro's head hurt.

Now we're up to the 17th century....

[b0b]

Thanks for clarifying that, Earnest. I was unclear about the size of "the comma". I saw somewhere on the web that it was 22 cents. So I figured from there.

Nice to know that you and I use pretty much the same method. It gives me confidence that maybe someday I'll sound like you!!

[Jim Sliff]

Doug, I did those searches early on in the thread and that's where my previous math comments came from. Unfortunately, I'm one of those ones that was an honor student at everything EXCEPT math, where I squeezed through with C's out of pure sympathy...and the fact I played on a beach volleyball team with my HS math teacher! I need a calculator to subtract two-digit numbers (no, that's NOT a joke unfortunately).

Jethro was a Mensa candidate compared to me when it comes to math. I'm totally math-phobic. I have to use it at work but luckily have computer programs and charts that do everything for me once I plug in raw numbers. Otherwise, I'd definitely be in another line of work. I can't do simple algebra at all.

But I'll print out b0b's and Doug's posts and see if I can somehow make some sense out of it all. I sincerely appreciate the help.

PS - Eric's post made sense! Or is that "cents"...wait...maybe it didn't...Maybe I'll just buy a strobe (haven't had one in years) so I can just look at the pretty spinning wheels......

[Jim Sliff]

FWIW I just took my 400 with its mass of changes and comprimised btween the unedited "b0b" and "earest" versions at a multiplyer of 3.

It took a while to figure out what I was doing, and sounded completely wrong while tuning it up.

Then I played it, and I'll be...it *does* sound much closer to the pitch I hear in my head I'm not a "perfect pitch" guy, but probably not far off. Many of the bands I've been in I was simply the self-designated instrument tuner...or they'd have to listen me complain all night that they were out of tune!

I'll adjust it using the 2.5 multiplier and see if that makes a significant difference...but I may just have found something that works rather well for me. As b0b knows, the B6 has potential unison sympathetic vibrations, and a little bit off can cause a small "beat". I can normally kill it and it's never been a problem, but this has a much overall sweeter sound than "straight up - at least with 5 minutes of screwing around in different keys.

I'll make the adjustment, play it for a while day and then report back.

Thanks again guys for getting me around the math issues. I printed the posts and am going to make a tuning chart assuming I decide to stick with this, which looks awfully likely based on my overly picky ear.

Now it's going to make me look into variations for 6-string, lap steel, dobro and mandolin.....

I'm very pleased - this is the first time one of these tuning threads ended up being of benefit...and all because I freaked about the math.

What I DO need to do is get out my rack tuner, though...it's hard as heck to set it with the small clip-on Intellitouch model.

[Earnest Bovine]

...I'm totally math-phobic.

Sorry Jim, I was trying to show that it is easy and unintimidating but I may have done the opposite by mentioning Jethro. You have made many posts about electronics, and I assure you that tuning and temperament is much easier than even Chapter One of elementary electronics, let alone the subjects such as impedance, biasing, etc that you are already authoritative and comfortable about.

[Earnest Bovine]

I need a calculator to subtract two-digit numbers (no, that's NOT a joke unfortunately).

I'm not suggesting that Jethro and I would do x^y to 12 significant figures in our heads! We use the Windows calculator for that.

[Earnest Bovine]

Thanks for clarifying that, Earnest. I was unclear about the size of "the comma". I saw somewhere on the web that it was 22 cents. So I figured from there.

The comma IS about 22 cents. What I was trying to say is that you got different numbers from me because you started at a different pitch from me, and subtracted the comma-fractions from that. You were subtracting from the ET fifth of 700 cents, whereas the traditional way would be to subtract the comma fraction from the just fifth of 702 cents (actually 701.955.. cents). If we tune our fifths to 697.5 cents, that is
2.5 cents (~1/9 comma) narrower than ET fifth
or
4.5 cents (~1/5 comma) narrower than Just fifth
showing how the choice of reference point can cause you to name this interval by different fractions of a comma.

Just to make it a little more complicated, there are at least 2 kinds of commas:
23.46 cents = pythagorean comma
21.51 cents = syntonic comma
but it doesn't matter which one we use to define our tuning systems because they are so close.

A comma, in general, is the difference in pitch between the same interval tuned one way, versus that same interval tuned another way.

[Steve Norman]

the guitar players just gonna use a boss pedal tuner and sound like crap anyway...(kicks rock and sulks).

[Ben Jones]

the guitar players just gonna use a boss pedal tuner and sound like crap anyway...(kicks rock and sulks).

Im using that tuner on my steel
havent tried anything other than straight up because I have nothing that reads the cents that fine.
My guess is omeday I will get to try a different tuning method and be surprised at the difference it can make...but for right now I guess I'll just plod along like the fool I am.

[Twayn Williams]

the guitar players just gonna use a boss pedal tuner and sound like crap anyway...(kicks rock and sulks).

I play with a guitar player who retunes his guitars to different tunings for most every song AND both of his guitars are equipped with twang bars AND he just uses a cheapo Boss tuner. Drives me nuts sometimes. Thank god for bass players!

I tune my steel to straight-up 440 with a tuner, then I tune all of 5ths caused pedal/lever changes by ear. It works pretty well, that and a healthy dollop of bar vibrato

[Jonathan Shacklock]

Out of curiosity I programmed b0b's E9 meantone chart into my tuner and retuned from the standard Newman offsets I've been using up until now — and I must say I noticed quite a difference.

First off, it changed my whole tone, some chords seem a little mellower, some strings seem to ring out a little more. I don't know how much of that is the psychological effect of the tuning just being different from the one I'm used to. As I "acclimatised" I definitely started to hear A+F chords as being more in tune, my chromatic strings seem to chime together more sweetly and my 10/8/6 grips sound less muddy. So far I haven't noticed anything being out of tune or felt l I had to adjust my usual bar positions, even when playing along to backing tracks. I think I like it!

I realise how subjective this is, I don't claim to have good ears, and there is always more than one factor affecting tone — but I'd recommend trying this tuning at least once. I even found myself playing a couple of new things, partly as a result of gravitating more towards that A+F position.

BTW anyone looking for a new strobe tuner (Jim?) the ST122 Turbo Tuner is really working out well for me. I saw it recommended over in Electronics. Good price and the support guy will email you a pdf guide to programming pedal steel tunings.

[Dickie Whitley]

I'm with Jonathan on this one. I like the way mine sounds now. This may be my way of tuning from here on in. It may not be perfect, but I'm not either so that makes us a good match I guess. Now if I can just scrape up enough to get a D10....

[Marc Jenkins]

I've tried a few versions of the meantone tuning, and I'm not as happy as I'd hoped (yet). Earnest's tuning leaves the thirds a little sour to my ear, but the F-lever 7th chord is better than JI. b0b's is a bit better, but the F-lever 7th is worse. I'm still working on my own version, will post results soon.

I'm glad this has sparked some discussion!

[Donny Hinson]

I guess a person likes bland smooth and soothing things, or dynamic interesting and exciting things.

I don't find significantly out of tune stuff "interesting" or exciting, I find it amateurish and irritating. I wish I could say that most people that play significantly out of tune are doing it on purpose, but I just don't think that's the case. Everything is a matter of degree, and no one plays everything perfectly beatless, but I happen to feel that most all the "pros" lean towards trying to be as beatless as possible in most of their playing.

Of course, if you know of some who don't, please share their names with us.

[Steve Norman]

Ben Dave B from the Hacienda Bros uses one 2, he tunes his G#'s one light to the left(flat).

That was more of a dig on guitar platers than the tuner

[Eric West]

I happen to feel that most all the "pros" lean towards trying to be as beatless as possible in most of their playing. DH

Well, as long as you recognize that it's just a "feeling"..



EJL

[Jim Sliff]

What's the difference between the ST122 Turbo Tuner and the various Peterson models (VS-1, VS-II, Stroboflip, Strobostomp...) - the Peterson website has tons of information, but none of it seems to define in practical layman's terms what the heck the difference is between any of their models. Seems like a VS-1 would be less expensive and a more full-featured tool than the ST122, which looks real basic - kind of cheap, honestly.

All of them being very expensive for tuners, if I was going to switch to something where I could program in my B6 stuff (do they handle changes as well or just open strings?) what's the best bang for the buck? None of Peterson's descriptions are decipherable (at least to me - I have no clue what they're talking about - again, I've spent decades using a tuner to get a needle to point straight up and then tweaking by ear), making it tough to compare to the ST122 (or the new one they have coming out) to anything else unless you comprehend all the math junk.

Then there are larger units...reminiscent of the old Conn Strobotuner I had 20 years ago, until it gave up the ghost. But that was also essentially a "straight up needle", but using spinning strobes. Really a glorified TU-12.

[b0b]

Really a glorified TU-12.

Nothing wrong with a TU-12. It does the job as well as the fancier gadgets, in my opinion.

[Clyde Mattocks]

Very informative stuff here and some of you guys who are deep into it, jump in. Do we still arrive back at the same old questions? (1.) Is the guitar in tune with itself? and if so (2.) Is it in tune with the band? Is it possible to satisfy both criteria?

Given, some of us have pitch perception more critical than others. I have seen many times where I would tune fifths perfectly straight up with the tuner only to have another player sit down and tweak them. On a given night, we may be happy with our tuning, only to fight it all night long the next.
I understand the math, but it seems as if we are only moving the errors around to different places.
Not being skeptical, just asking?

[Jonathan Shacklock]

What's the difference between the ST122 Turbo Tuner and the various Peterson models (VS-1, VS-II, Stroboflip, Strobostomp...)

Jim, I took the liberty of giving this it's own thread, and my personal take, over in Electronics

[Jim Sliff]

Jonathan's "review" is excellent and gives a clear picture of the capabilites of each; it seems to boil down really to a few convenience features (like naming presets) vs price.

For me, it sounds like an ST122 or used VS-1 would be my best choices as far as bang-for the buck.

I'm quite convinced, as inaccurate as my tuners are, that my "midpoint" between Doug and b0b's factors is exactly the ticket for my B6 on the Fender 400 and 1000. On my GFI, just 'cause Doug and I are GFI bro's, I'll likely try his numbers fist and see where it goes. Since it's an unusual copedent (B6 on a 3+4 with 4 very specific splits) It'll be interesting to see what happens.

But I am, after 40+ years, convinced "straight up" isn't it. My 400 (and even though it only has 8 strings, the 9+2 setup and unique double-raises and lowers mods made it a painstaking change the first time through) sounded TOTALLY different. "open" it simply sounds "correct" and every change moves right no an endpoint that doesn't give you that "gee, I wish I could tweak it just this little tiny amount" feeling. There's a kind of an "edginess" to certain changes that just evaporated.

I encourage players to try it - take an hour or so to retune it and then DON'T play it - let it sit for an hour and settle. THEN retune it (it will have probably wanted to go back to a sort of equilibrium it was used to) and play it. You may not like it; you may find no difference; or, like me, if you have a really critical ear you may find it really solves some issues.