Tuning Problems - No solutions - Period!!

John Cox · Post by **John Cox** » 15 Sep 2003 2:06 pm

Mr. H
The three things that factor in are 1.Your hands are giving off a little heat which will make the string flat(not always)thus the case for temper tuning. 2. Is the rest of the band or recording in tune? If one person is out you can tell. 3. the room temperture as it will inevitalbly will have an impact on your cabinet. We try to overcome all thease variables to tune on picth as much as we can.
J.C.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 15 Sep 2003 2:41 pm

Pitch checks by the human ear can be unreliable...

Well...that depends on whose ear you're talking about (no disrespect intended). In the final analysis, it's the human ear we are trying to please, so the human ear (provided it's capable and properly trained) is the benchmark. Regardless of what any device would say about how close the tuning is, if it doesn't sound good...it's out. Period!

While the guitar and piano may share the same idiosyncrasies, they do not share the capability of allowing the player to alter the pitch as necessary (up or down) while playing. The piano is either there, or it ain't, and most would admit that it can never be tuned "prefectly". It's tuning is a compromise to make it "acceptable" in all keys and positions. There is no way of altering the piano's tempering as it is being played, so in essence, you MUST learn to live with the compromise of tempered tunings, and tempered chords. On the straight guitar, a player can push notes up a tad, if he has to, but he can't lower fretted notes while playing, as we do on steel. This is what makes the steel a unique instrument.

I would imagine that most all players would be quite happy with a "beatless" instrument if it were possible to have it totally beatless, in all chords and positions. This is the "ideal", and in most all cases, it's what we strive for. Some players may say that they prefer a certain chord (a diminished, for example) to have a slight disonance for "expression", or emphasis of a tense mood. Of course, the issue here isn't how to add a disonance when we prefer it. That's relatively easy! The issue here is how to (on all but desired instances) eliminate the disonances that tempered tunings bring about, or at least be able to precisely control the amount of that disonance.

Use a tempered tuning, or JI if you please, whichever you prefer. Either will allow the respective player to reach his goal, which is to make everything sound good. But always remember..."perfection" is synonymous with beatless, except when the tense or unresolved sound is something we desire. (I know of no musician that desires it in all situations.)

In the music of our western culture, which is enjoyed by our ears that have been acclaimated to same, chords that are "out" or have a disonance (by virtue of being tempered), may occasionally be used (read: "tolerated"), but they are not generally preferred.

Therefore, since there are top-level players that can play in perfect tune (regardless of which method they use to tune the instrument), I submit that the major deficiency is in the player, and not in our instrument, or the method that is used to tune it.

At least, that's how I see it.

ed packard · Post by **ed packard** » 15 Sep 2003 2:45 pm

Carl; What I said was Hoshana/Hosanna which I am told means "Lord, save us"! I think that the tense is future perfect in that case. It was in English/world literature, not math or science; but I could attempt to put it in equation form if it would help.

How do you know which tempering gives the "sweetest" if you have not tried them all? The discussions seem to treat anything except JI and ET as non existent, just as scales other than 12 tone are ignored.

Perhaps tempering should fit the scale tones to be employed.

Re 12 tone scales, how about the Walter step approach, ..this is a mathematician derived method.

It is reasonable that the tempering methods should be all over the map, ..the players that care about such things that much (to modify some other heros method) may just be using inversions that are helped by such shifts, ..others may not use these positions and hence optimise for the ones that they do use.

If one uses a seven tone 13th series tuning wherein any string might be the root and each succesive string an adjacent chord interval, it is suicide to correct the 3rds etc. so ET or Walter are the best compromises. Use a plain old E tuning from a six string steel, correct the 3rds and be happy, but you are limited in the variations in what you can play, even with slants wherein you use your ear to set the intervals.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 15 Sep 2003 3:31 pm

If it sounds in tune, it is in tune.

Don Olson · Post by **Don Olson** » 15 Sep 2003 4:35 pm

The Piano is not tuned perfect why should the Steel Guitar be in perfect tune?
Don

Don Olson · Post by **Don Olson** » 15 Sep 2003 4:38 pm

Have you ever heard a Horn in perfect tune? Not me.The only time I have heard a horn in perfect tune is when it was on top of a Truck.
Don

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 15 Sep 2003 5:54 pm

Bill. I'm calling 911 here, because for the first time I can remember...

I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

EJL

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 15 Sep 2003 6:29 pm

...just as scales other than 12 tone are ignored.

Yes, thank our "civilized" society. We seem to prefer a 12-tone scale (over one with 13 or more tones) for the same reason we prefer a paved road over a dirt one. (It's smoother and works better.)

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Sep 2003 7:54 pm

Here's some reading on the derivations of JI and ET, and on scales other than 12 tone scales.
http://www.izzy.net/~jc/PSTInfo/Temper.html
http://www.uq.net.qu/~zzdkeena/Music/EqualTemperedMusicalScales.htm
http://www.bluesrevelation.com/music_articles/1991229.html

I'd like to offer some terminology that might help here. The term "perfect" is a problem, especially without definition. Saying anyone can define perfect as anything they want is a bit of a cop out. Within a single key, JI might be considered perfect because it is based on the small whole numbered ratios that correspond to natural string nodes and harmonics that sound the most pleasing to the ear and dont have beats. This is a natural phenomenon, and so is perfect according to nature.

But it turns out that different parts of nature are not always compatible with each other. JI in one key is not compatible with JI in other keys. Human voices, with infinitely variable pitch can sing JI in any key. But instruments with fixed pitches cannot. To deal with that we have the man-made equal tempered tuning. So if by "perfect" we mean according to the natural harmonics, then JI is the most "perfect." But if by "perfect" we mean "the most compatible for fixed pitch instruments attempting to play in all keys," then ET is more "perfect." So maybe we should use the terms "natural" and "compatible" rather than "perfect."

We've still got the same tuning problems, but for me it helps to see that I am trying to achieve some acceptable blend of the natural and the compatible, not perfection. We need "acceptable tuning," to match Mr. Cohen's "acceptable tone."

ed packard · Post by **ed packard** » 15 Sep 2003 7:58 pm

DH; That is the same type of reasoning that was used by the musicians when the 12 tone evolved from scales with fewer tones, ..by the fixed string players when pedals were added to the steel/Hawaiian guitar, ..by the cowboy when the fences and roads came in, ..by the "righteous" when Elvis started to gyrate, ..And then there was Stan Kenton; It just means that they liked what they had, ..and that is OK, but things do change.

I was actually thinking about scales with less than 12 tones in the previous case.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 15 Sep 2003 8:08 pm

A'ight, well, the first of those three links is still valid. The others have moved or something. When I get a chance I'll try to hunt them down, or something similar, or just do your own searches on equal tempered and just intonation. Hey, I gotta sleep sometime.

Bengt Erlandsen · Post by **Bengt Erlandsen** » 15 Sep 2003 10:03 pm

Just throwin in some thoughts here. Equal Temperment is "perfect" in the way that every step/math-ratio between one note and the next higher note stays the same. That is IMO the only reason I can relate it to be "perfect". Other than that will ET apply to any number of notes within an octave without any problem and that could also be "perfect". Compare (example)a 17note ETscale to a 12 note JIscale within 1octave.

Playing perfectly can be done on steel. I have CD's w a number of perfect steel tracks by different players(perfect to my ears) And all of them use a lot more than 12 notes within an octave. How they tune is secondary IMO. I just enjoy their music.

Bengt Erlandsen

Two links about tuning and temperment.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/index.html

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/english/temperament.html
[This message was edited by Bengt Erlandsen on 16 September 2003 at 03:28 AM.]

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 16 Sep 2003 3:28 am

Bobby Lee,

Thanks for your writings in this thread that has become high-level discussion, certainly not dissimilar to a colloquy. I want to thank you, and all of the efforts made by those who have shown very clearly, that they possess a wide range of knowledge, in the field of tuning a steel guitar. I am triply amazed after going over the wide ranges of thoughts, relating to personal details, and their willingness to share with others, the learned intricacies of tuning the steel guitar.

My intent in this thread was to point out the "close, but no cigar"
or silly iota of differences, that from my standpoint, exists in the tuning processess of the steel guitar.

Bill H.

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 16 Sep 2003 5:39 am

Anatomy of an Octave

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 16 Sep 2003 5:56 am

So does all this mean I can get a refund?

Or perhaps the over-riding truth statement when discribing the tuning should be + or - E9th..or is that + or- C6th..etc....

and

considering we mostly play with Guitar players..if we both are out tune + or - a degree or so does that make us in tune with each other ? is that ok ?

tp

ed packard · Post by **ed packard** » 16 Sep 2003 6:31 am

Rick;

Nice reference for the Math & Science folk re Octave based stepped tone systems.

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 16 Sep 2003 7:32 am

Starting out with the word "perfect" negates the necessity of this entire thread. Exactness is fake. We strive for solutions to problems for practical purposes and applications.

Example:
If we need two parallel lines 3ft. long and 2 inches apart and we draw them and they are precise enough for our application, we might refer to them as being perfect. But, if we extend the lines out to one mile and they are 1/64" closer together, they are not parallel.

But, who does not already know this? ...so it is with just about everything in this thread.

Rick

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 16 Sep 2003 8:53 am

Rick, I once told my four kids to stop arguing so much. They said, "Dad, we like to argue!"

John De Maille · Post by **John De Maille** » 16 Sep 2003 12:33 pm

Tony,
Try playing a tune with a set of BagPipes in the mix.

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 16 Sep 2003 1:26 pm

Oh come on John ...we all know how to do that, everything is half pedal and half knee lever when doing a gig with a Bagpipe player..I thought we all knew that !

tp

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 16 Sep 2003 4:06 pm

Thanks for that reference, Rick A. I have tried to memorize this information, so I can think it through before I place the bar for each note. But I'm not sure I've quite got it all down. I'm worried that by the second beer or so, some of it will begin to slip away.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 16 September 2003 at 05:09 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 16 Sep 2003 4:31 pm

Rick...

Perfect (in this thread) means "sounding perfect" to a well-trained human ear, and scientific absolutes are not germane in this context.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 16 Sep 2003 5:06 pm

Rick C.,

The poignancy of your calculations of that which might be considered perfect, reflects the same notion that all is well if a player resorts to following tuning charts to the letter. I'll maintain an opinion, that is quite the opposite, from where you have taken a stand, with terminology, such as perfect, or exactness. Many things in life are perfect, that is, they cannot be improved in shape or form. A red rose is a fine example. Can you imagine telling a florist that its beauty falls short of YOUR expectations?

Bill H.

Bill Hankey · Post by **Bill Hankey** » 17 Sep 2003 1:47 am

Fred Einspruch,

I wouldn't want it to be said that that I've disregarded a reply, where Tommy White is mentioned. I still have the business card that Tommy gave to me in Hindsdale, Ma.,
back in the eighties. You must remember that we're not discussing total sound here, or a blend of five or six stringed instruments, with 40 strings vibrating together, sometimes with pitiful chord inversions. While the "wild cowboys race through town", firing into the air, and taking potshots at my terminology, such as the contextualized term of "perfection" in tuning, I have this to say. According to Webster, "PERFECT" has been referred to as that which "satisfies all requirements". The methods of tuning a steel guitar, are preposterous, to put it mildly.
Without doubt, we all enjoy playing steel guitar in a band situation. The next time you set up the steel at home, and check the tuning, after a 3-4 hour "gig", you may realize that all the raves and reviews from patrons, were received
while playing an imperfectly tuned instrument. I know from experience, that the 3rd G# string is rarely "on the money" throughout an evening of entertainment. This may help to explain why Tommy White sounds great in tune or out of tune. BTW, it is a very rare occasion to enjoy Tommy's playing on stage at the Opry, due to poor sound management, and I do mean poor!!

Bill H.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 17 Sep 2003 6:41 am

I know from experience, that the 3rd G# string is rarely "on the money"

Where is 'on the money', Bill?
I think that's what b0b was trying to understand and I haven't seen a clear answer. Does 'on the money' mean 16 cents flat, or 0 / straight up, or something in between?

What I'm saying is that there is not a POINT where your guitar is in tune. There is a RANGE of frequencies that are acceptable to YOUR ear. That says nothing about someone else's ears. They may be more or less discriminating. I've always advocated moving from JI, as close to ET as you can tolerate, but I hear players who tune ALL OVER THE MAP who sound in tune with the other musicians with whom they are playing.

How / to what standard do you tune your 3rd E9 string, Bill?

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps