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

[Robert Cates]

I would like to jump in here for a second because I think that what you guys are discussing is very interesting and important.
I am relatively new at this pedal steel. When I started I tuned everything straight up and started my journey.....Happy as could be. Learning and taking in all the info and instruction stuff that I could get my hands on...
I didn't know that there was another tuning chart out there and when I heard about it I didn't really give it much thought. Unlike some of you guys that have played guitars and have years of tuning experience...I have very little. So I had no preference as to which way that I tune.

Until I tuned everything JI..and then WOW..The steel started singing and the sustain improved considerably...it was sweet..

David..Your posts are very educational and I enjoy learning from you.You tend to analyze everything out to the Nth degree and I want to tell you that your effort is not waisted because I think that lots of forumites are getting a good lesson.

Charlie ,Earnest,Eric..your all great.. Keep it coming..I'll be listening

Bob

[Jonathan Shacklock]

I'm taking a few precious minutes to myself while my young daughter naps (happy Father's Day from the UK!) and I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this fascinating thread so far, especially David Doggett for his tireless endeavour. It's refreshing to read something on the forum right now which is relevant to steel guitar, enlightening and challenging (for a relative novice anyway). Great thread Marc!

I've just seen Robert's comments and... he said it better than me!

[David Doggett]

Thanks,guys. I'm doing this stuff mostly for myself, but through the static from some sources, it's good to also hear that somebody else is getting something out of this. I'll keep plugging away to see what I can figure out, and share it.

I don't have the time or desire to learn a JI tuning, nor do I want to buy a programmable tuner. I do enjoy these threads, and appreciate the effort you guys make to improve our instument. Thanks, JP

Jim, it's easier than you think. When I sit down to play, I tune two strings by the meter and 8 strings by ear, the same number of steps you take with your meter. Once you get use to the ear tuning process, it can be easier, and possibly quicker, than tuning every string to the meter. You do have to know the right sequence to tune the strings in, but it is very simple.

1. Tune the E strings to the meter (I tune to a reference of 441 [+4 cents] to help deal with cabinet drop, but that is an added refinement some may not want or need).

2. Without changing those E string roots, tune strings 3, 5, 6, and 10 so they make a pleasant sounding E chord with those root references.

3. Now use the 5th string you just tuned as the root reference, and tune strings 1, 2 and 7 to make a pleasant sounding B chord.

4. The only string left is the D string. Hold the B pedal down on the 5th string (an A note), and use that as a reference to tune the D string so it harmonizes well with that A note. That's a 5th interval, but you don't have to know that, just use your ear as a guide to get the harmony right.

You're done. My pedal and knee lever stops are stable for months, so I rarely fiddle with them. When I tune them, again there is a proper sequence and I use previously tuned open strings as the references. The references are not always the root of the chord, may be the 3rd or 5th, but it is no problem to harmonize the tuned stops to the appropriate reference string. For example, in tuning the A and B pedal stops, the previously tuned reference strings are the E strings, which are the 5ths of that A chord.

Try this once and see what you think.

This is the way many of us learned to tune back before there were affordable chromatic or programmable tuners. It's easy as pie.

[Dickie Whitley]

My thanks as well to David, Ernest, b0b, and all those who have contributed in any way to this thread. I find it fascinating and educational. Thank all of you for your time and effort. This is why I love this forum, so much information that was usually not available before b0b started it. I look forward to more posts on subjects like this.

[Charlie McDonald]

[Eric West]

It's only as hard as you make it.

Some seem to make it durn near impossible..

Simple as this:

I----->0<-----I



EJL

[Dickie Whitley]

...that you're back to your old self, Eric. I just accept that you're going to tune one way and some of us the other. I don't think there's a right or wrong way, just different. Some tune conservative while others like to "push the envelope". I'm beginning to like the meantone tuning, although I know you probably don't. We just agree to disagree, doesn't make me have any less respect for you views or your right to state them. Just don't belittle our intelligence because we don't believe as you do, to each his own. As long as we play in tune is really all that matters.

[Jim Peters]

David, I'll try it tonight. Thanks, JP

[Eric West]

Not at al Dick.

The ONLY time I get in and "object" is when it looks like, to a new player that there is this super-complicated alchemical system that allows pedal steel players to play their thirds "without beats" on all their changes and in all their scales and phrases.

Only on a few at best is it possible. Especially if you throw bar motion into the equation.

I think all the miles-long posts of how this impossible "system" becomes "possible", or moves from virtual to real are pretty self divulging.

I can tell that very few people that propose such ridiculous muddling have actually slowed down the "top guys'" recordings to see how out of tune almost all of them are in each individual chord or especially the eighth and sixteenth notes are.

Best to just find a way to tune that gives you confidence and PLAY.

If Buddy Emmons is confident tuning straight up, then I am hard pressed to believe that I should feel guilty or start doubting myself for tuning that way for thirty years....

In all the examples of "ET MAJOR CHORDS" that I've heard on different sites, I always seem to prefer them. I can understand others that don't.

I just don't care for being told I like thirds with 4.37hz harmonic beating because I'm somehow stupid, calloused, or just not "civilized". Then I counter that they must be simple, lazy, naive, or democrats..

Shaving a few cents here and there is no big deal. Nor is adding a few.

We do much more than that with our bars, and or "cabinet drops".

Listen to say Paul Franklins runs on "Married to a Waitress" slowed down about five times, and tell me how "right on" it is... Others too. Weldon Myrick on "Right or Wrong" is even more illustrative..

If you want it complicated, then by all means, complicate it. If no other thing, it gives you something to play with. No ox gored here..

If you want it simple, then figure it out, nail it down, and move on. JMHO of course..



EJL

[Danny Bates]

Great post Eric

I tried to tune my guitar equal temperment but I noticed it's much harder to play in tune with another instrument. It requires accuracy I can't deliver.

I imagine Buddy Emmons could compensate and make it sound great... after all he's Buddy Emmons. He could probably play it barefoot while he's waterskiing 80 miles per hour (using the pedal board as the ski) and still play it in tune.

IMHO, "JUST" tuning makes it sound more in tune when I play with another instrument. I don't exactly know why, but I think that's because technically the strings are on both sides of the equal temperment's "straight up" notes.

[David Doggett]

Buddy Emmons says that at least sometimes he tunes his thirds to a reference of 438 Hz (click here), which is about half way between JI (436.5) and ET (440). In the cents measures we have been using above, that is about 8 cents flat of ET.

[b0b]

The ONLY time I get in and "object" is when it looks like, to a new player that there is this super-complicated alchemical system that allows pedal steel players to play their thirds "without beats" on all their changes and in all their scales and phrases.

Only on a few at best is it possible. Especially if you throw bar motion into the equation.

That is simply not true, Eric. JI is not "super complicated", and virtually all chords on a JI-tuned steel sound perfectly fine against ET-tuned instruments. Listen to Buddy Emmons' recordings of "Blue Jade" or "Danny Boy" for perfect examples of many JI changes and phrases played against a piano.

One of the best-selling items in the Forum catalog is Buddy's Harmonic Tune-up, which teaches you how to tune JI by ear. Most electric guitar players know how to tune using 5th and 7th fret harmonics. Buddy's method simply extends that concept logically to the pedal steel.

I really don't care who tunes ET, JI, MT or "tampered". It's not a matter of right or stupid - it's a matter of what sounds right to you. Less than 20% of pedal steel players tune ET. Obviously some of you do it with confidence, but I suspect that many do it because they mistakenly believe that other systems are "super complicated alchemy".

There's nothing complicated about getting your guitar in tune by ear, measuring it with a tuner, and memorizing the results for bandstand use. That's all that JI really is.

[Eric West]

Well I think in "The Compendium of ET vs Just Intonation" my last post and the three that follow it are pretty explanitory of the two "Schools of Thought" and the differences in the "tolerance" of each for the other.

Buddy Emmons said it:

Buddy Emmons
Member

From: Hermitage, TN USA
posted 24 May 2004 01:05 PM

My apologies for not explaining up front Bill, but I do tune everything ET. Compensation is what I had to deal with tuning the old way but now it’s a thing of the past. I may go a cent or so flat in some cases but strictly to handle temp changes under certain conditions.
Also when I hear a JI steel third in a ET track, flat is the only word I can come up with. -BE-

I've tuned that way on every instrument I've played since I was old enough to get my Oahu on my lap.

I think it's FINE for ANYBODY to tune or play any way they wish.

The answers to my last post point out to perfection the attitudes that assail anybody that doesn't bow at the altar of Incrimentalism, or Impossible Complexity, or Illusionary Perfection.

I will not.

That it is so easy to fight off these virtual rodents as I dangle over the "Pit-o-Harpsicordian Myth" should be inspiration for the young guy or girl that just "gets a steel guitar", "tunes it up" and "takes off".

Missing, I hope to my credit, up to a lifetime of Virtual Delusion, as documented by my friend Mr Doggett, for one. (bob's always been a proponent of "Up is just another shade of Down...

They can just Tune it and Play it.

Just like I am this weekend, just like the one before, and a few thousand gigs before that, and God willing another few hundred.

If I ever bend chords to make them sound less piercing, or less off to an out of tune singer, then I will do it with my bar. Not some impossibly complex and in reality unworkable "tuning system" that flats about 2/3s of the things and leaves the other third out to lunch and a section of them, unplayable. Anybody listen to the examples I cited?

It's as easy as you make it.

Or as hard.



EJL

[David Doggett]

Here's my idiot's guide to E9 tuning JI with a meter. It's not perfect JI, but it is very close, much closer to JI than to ET.

[tab]1 F# 440
2 D# 437
3 G# 437
4 E 440
5 B 440
6 G# 437
7 F# 440
8 E 440
9 D 440
10 B 440[/tab]

That's it. Other than straight up 440, all you have to remember is one other number, 437 (-12 cents). Basically everything is straight up but the thirds of the E chord (G#) and the third of the B chord (D#).

Here is the same thing adjusted up 1 Hz (4 cents) to deal with typical cabinet drop. Your A chord with the A and B pedals down will be about 1 Hz flat of ET (roots around 439). So both your open position or AB pedal position will be within 1 Hz of ET. This correction has nothing to do with the JI vs. ET question, as such a correction is needed for cabinet drop even if you attempt to tune everything ET.

[tab]1 F# 441
2 D# 438
3 G# 438
4 E 441
5 B 441
6 G# 438
7 F# 441
8 E 441
9 D 441
10 B 441[/tab]

In this case, all you have to remember is two numbers, 441 (+4 cents) and 438 (-8 cents). Easy as pie, and sounds about as good as more complicated charts.

[David Doggett]

If you want to "tamper" your thirds about halfway between JI and ET, as Buddy Emmons suggests, raise the thirds (G# and D#) in the above charts by 1 Hz. So they would be 438 Hz (-8 cents) for the basic chart, or 439 Hz (-4 cents) for the chart corrected for cabinet drop.

[Jim Peters]

Doggonett Doggett!

Ok, I tuned by ear this morning, after getting sick of the same old arguments, tuned out the beats, started with the e's straight up. Ok, Ok, it does sound very sweet. Then I tuned the changes basically the same way. Everything sounds pretty good. I don't think I can duplicate it live easily, the clubs I play in are too noisy! So I drew lines on my TU12 for the 1st 2nd and 3rd strings, and then ordered a Turbo Tuner so I could do it right... ( BTW nice guys on the phone). We'll see Fri night it if sounds in tune with the band. Wish me luck! JP

[David Doggett]

Good luck with the band Friday, Jim. Let us know how it works out. You're doing the right thing. Everyone owes it to themselves to try it both ways. Then they will know what it's all about, and can decide what works best for them. I don't have a programmable tuner myself. If I can't hear, I just eyeball the old Boss TU12. After awhile you remember where things are supposed to be. Another solution for noisy clubs is to carry a cheap set of headphones.

[Earnest Bovine]

Here's my idiot's guide to E9 tuning JI with a meter. It's not perfect JI, but it is very close, much closer to JI than to ET.

[tab]1 F# 440
2 D# 437
3 G# 437
4 E 440
5 B 440
6 G# 437
7 F# 440
8 E 440
9 D 440
10 B 440[/tab]

All your strings are tuned to the same note (A)!

[Jim Peters]

Yeah, but it's beatless! JP

[Dean Parks]

Bump for a correction of "bad info" from me regarding the Turbo Tuner. My post is on page 3. Bottom line, Turbo Tuner is a good, accurate tuner.

-dean-

[David Doggett]

All your strings are tuned to the same note (A)!

No, those are simply the places you will put the needle on something like the Boss TU tuners, that show the reference number in Hz that you are tuning to rather than the actual frequency in Hz of each note. The Boss meters also show cents, but it is simply easier to read the Hz numbers.

I'm sure you know what I mean, but for those who are confused by this, those Hz that you read off on a needle meter like the Boss are not the actual frequency of the note being tuned. They are the frequency of the reference A you are tuning each note to. So some of the notes are being tuned to A=440, and others to A=437. This is equivalent to some of the notes being 0 cents, or straight up, and others being -12 cents, if you want to read the cents scale. Around 440 HZ, one HZ is approximately 4 cents.

If that is too confusing, here are the same idiot's charts in cents:

[tab]1 F# 0
2 D# -12
3 G# -12
4 E 0
5 B 0
6 G# -12
7 F# 0
8 E 0
9 D 0
10 B 0[/tab]


Compensated for typical cabinet drop:
[tab]1 F# +4
2 D# -8
3 G# -8
4 E +4
5 B +4
6 G# -8
7 F# +4
8 E +4
9 D +4
10 B +4[/tab]

[b0b]

The addition of 4 cents isn't for cabinet drop. It's so that the average of the 3 notes of a triad will be in tune with A=440 standard. When everyone tuned their E's to the center mark, the open G# was very flat and we all had to aim higher with the bar.

E = +4
B = +4
G#= -8
average = (4+4-8)/3 = 0

[Marc Jenkins]

Glad to see this resurface!

My band just finished our new album (well, tracking and most of the mixing, anyway) and I used the sixth-comma meantone tuning method. I must say that I had a much easier time pitching to an acoustic guitar played high up the neck, or an accordion, or a really old piano than I ever had tuning JI. When I'm playing alone at home, the thirds definitely don't sound as sweet, but with the band, the steel blends much better with the other instruments.

Problem solved. This is exactly what I had in mind when I started researching meantone. Now all I have to do is put the bar in the right place...

[Johnne Lee Ables]

After far, far too many years studying and working with the human mind one great mystery remains for me.

Why does genus/species Modern Civilized Homo Sapiens feel driven to categorize, classify, define and/or explain every single element within their sphere of existence?

The pure, sensual joy of music for me is the mystery of the emotional miracle that occurs when I hear it.

As it relates to music and math(or any other taxonomy, thereof)...

I think I share Merle's view...

"The only thing that I miss lately in all music is somebody that will put out a melody that you can whistle." ~Merle Haggard

Although, I can also appreciate Wlazdiu's point...

"My whole trick is to keep the tune well out in front. If I play Tchaikovsky, I play his melodies and skip his spiritual struggle." ~ Liberace

YMMV

[David Doggett]

It's so that the average of the 3 notes of a triad will be in tune with A=440 standard.

Yes, it helps with that too, when playing open at the nut. But I wouldn't say it isn't because of cabinet drop. I tune the Es to a reference of 441 (+4 cents) with the pedals up so my roots and 5ths wont drop to -8 cents when I play open at the nut with pedals down. I can hear that -8 cents and it bothers me; but the -4 cents or +4 cents are passable.

Interestingly, Paul Franklin has said he uses 441 (+4 cents) as the reference pitch to add some stretch to his tuning to better match the stretch of keyboards in the upper registers where steel so often is played. This is not a compelling reason for me, because there is no stretch in the open string register, and in the upper registers the frets are only guidelines, and the pitch is set by ear. Considering parallax, bar pressure, and vibrato, I'm not sure a 4 cent difference helps me eyeball the frets any closer, especially on the upper frets.

But it is interesting that many of us feel that a reference of 441 (+4 cents) helps us play in tune better. Maybe it is some of all of the above. It just seems generally better to err on the side of slightly sharp than flat.