Tuning: Some Examples

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 12:15 pm

Larry wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I propose the following (if I'm reading the chart correctly):
E 0
F -18
F# 4
G 16
G# -14
A -2
A# 0
B 2
C 14
C# -16
D 18
D# -12
E 0 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That F is pretty far sharp of where it would be in JI, Larry. The F should actually be turned a major 3rd above the C# which would put it at -30 cents, not -18 cents. Maybe that's the problem I was hearing in your A+F JI example.

From this chart, the A+F major chord would be: <pre>
5th -14
3rd -18
root -16 </pre> Looks awful close to ET at A=436 Hz to me!

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6)[This message was edited by b0b on 25 July 2005 at 01:16 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 12:22 pm

David Doggett wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>E9 JI by the book (assuming no cabinet drop or stretch): <pre>
F A B
1 F# 444
2 D# 437
3 G# 437 440
4 E 440 433
5 B 442 437
6 G# 437 440
7 F# 444
8 E 440 433
9 D 444
10 B 442 437 </pre> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not sure what book you're talking about, David, but I wouldn't subscribe to any method that tunes the B eight cents sharper than the E. That's just plain wrong "in my book".

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 25 Jul 2005 12:40 pm

Doh! b0b, you are right. I got confused with Hans talking about the 5ths being 2 cents above the root reference, and added 2 Hz instead of 2 cents. Okay, I'll go back and fix that. I'm setting all 5ths the same as roots. There is no point in dealing with 0.5 Hz (2 cents) differences. It gets too messy, and we can't hear that.[This message was edited by David Doggett on 25 July 2005 at 01:46 PM.]

Hans Holzherr · Post by **Hans Holzherr** » 25 Jul 2005 12:43 pm

b0b, Larry posted those numbers before I explained how to read the charts.

Hans[This message was edited by Hans Holzherr on 25 July 2005 at 01:44 PM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 1:20 pm

Here are the "cents off" numbers for an idealized JI E9th (no cabinet drop), based on the ratios in my JI chart: <pre>JI "cents off" settings for E9th, based on E = 1/1 (0 cents):

note ratio cents
D# 15/8 -11.7
D 9/5 -3.9
C# 5/3 -15.6
C 8/5 -13.7
B 3/2 +2.0
A# 45/32 -10.2
A 4/3 -2.0
G# 5/4 -13.7
G 6/5 +15.6
F# 9/8 +3.9
F# 10/9 -17.6
F 25/24 -29.3
E 1/1 0 </pre> The "two F#'s" problem is usually solved with a compensator pull, or by splitting the difference betwee the A6th and B chords by ear.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6)

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 25 Jul 2005 1:21 pm

Hanz, I agree that since JI is derived from harmonics, harmonics should theoretically give pure JI. But that implies that one know how to do the harmonics and does them very accurately. Larry seemed unsure of how to do the harmonics. And I don't know how it is supposed to be done, so the only way I know to check if they were done right is with a meter and a JI chart. So you might as well just start with the chart and meter.

Yes, a D major chord with string 9 as the root will have the 3rd interval about right, but the 5th (the B pedal stop A note) will be 4 Hz (16 cents) flat in reference to the root and 3rd on this particular chord. Since ET major 3rds are 3.5 Hz (14 cents) sharp on every major chord, and ET minor 3rds are 4 Hz (16 cents) flat on every minor chord, maybe we shouldn't worry too much about that one chord.

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 25 Jul 2005 2:57 pm

If you look at my "idealized" chart above, you'll see that the D major chord with the 10/9 F# is a JI major chord: <pre>
add 3.9 cents offset
A 4/3 -2.0 +1.9
F# 10/9 -17.6 -13.7
D 9/5 -3.9 0

compare to JI E chord:

B 3/2 +2.0
G# 4/3 -13.7
E 1/1 0 </pre> I think that the error on the fifth was induced when I rounded to one decimal place.

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 25 Jul 2005 3:03 pm

Just had my wife listen to the clips, she is an ACCOMPLISHED singer, has sang in choirs her entire life. The JI clips made her cringe(think fingernails on a chalkboard!)
Just another opinion from a great ear, I did not influence her in any way.
It would be interesting to have non- musicians listen to the clips( like some of your significant others).
If you want to hear my wife sing, try this :
http://www.swirlband.com/songs.html
JimP

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 3:26 pm

That open JI clip made me cringe too, especially the A+F position. But in Bud's Bounce it was the version that sounded most like the old recordings. I think that Bud's Bounce doesn't have the A+F position in it.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 25 Jul 2005 3:40 pm

Jim,
Did the JI version of 'Buds Bounce' make her cringe or the bare piano/steel tracks? Maybe I didn't make my intentions clear: the JI open A+F position C#Maj chord was SUPPOSED to make one cringe. It's nearly 1/3 of a fret off and I used that chord to point out that you wouldn't want to use that position without bar correction (which is impossible without the bar on the strings). The ET open A+F chord is less objectionable to my ears. The whole point was NOT to sweeten the notes with the bar nor use vibrato. In the 'Buds Bounce' example, I intentionally chose a song in the Key of F where NO OPEN STRINGS WERE USED. Maybe I didn't make that clear.

Please ignore the JI stuff until we conclude exactly how it should be re-tuned. I haven't tuned harmonically in over 20 years and no longer 'hear' JI as I once did.

I will use <pre>
note ratio cents
D# 15/8 -11.7
D 9/5 -3.9
C# 5/3 -15.6
C 8/5 -13.7
B 3/2 +2.0
A# 45/32 -10.2
A 4/3 -2.0
G# 5/4 -13.7
G 6/5 +15.6
F# 9/8 +3.9
F# 10/9 -17.6
F 25/24 -29.3
E 1/1 0 </pre>

and re-record both the song and the drone notes with piano and steel just to get the JI thing right.

Again, my apologies for not getting the JI offsets correct. I'll repost the songs ASAP.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 197? Sho-Bud S-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 25 July 2005 at 04:41 PM.]

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 25 Jul 2005 3:47 pm

Larry, yes it did. I understand your purpose.
One band I'm in does the song "I don't know you", by NRPS. There is no way to play it with JI, you must use open position E, simple B pedal suspensions.
The JI charts are getting so complicated(to me). I'm tuning every change straight up 440. I am not a pro player on steel(barely 2 years). The only tuning problem I have is intonation related, not tuning related, specially in the late 3rd sets, when I,m getting tired. it takes all I've got to play in tune. Thanks for your efforts. JimP

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 25 Jul 2005 3:51 pm

I'll refer to the BB examples, as that's the only context I easily relate to. Strings 4 & 5 are what "carries" that song, and I'm hearing big beats between string 4 & 5 on every example! I would think they'd be very close to beatless on at least one of them?

The JI one sounds pretty sour everwhere. The ET and TT are a little better (pretty close, to be honest), but not where I think they should be.

Maybe my ears are just to picky.

At any rate, thanks Larry...I know that was a lot of work for you. If I could master this making sound files thing, I'd try my own hand at it.[This message was edited by Donny Hinson on 25 July 2005 at 04:54 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 25 Jul 2005 4:05 pm

Good work, Larry. Thanks for the effort. I suspect these tweaks might get the JI sounding better by itself, but I predict the open chords at the nut wont sound much better intertwined with that ET piano.

I think one of the things to come out of this is a sort of catch 22 in comparing the two tuning systems. If one is not use to playing the new system one tries, one can't play it in tune very well. Yet, someone use to playing it can play it in tune well. This helps explain the many accounts of experienced players trying a new system, getting in trouble with it, and swearing off of it. Here are some such anecdotes from previous threads. Jim Cohen cut some tracks with a piano and tried it with both JI and ET. He and the others in the studio all felt it sounded better when he played JI. Bruce Bouton said he tried ET for a studio gig, and was almost fired before he retuned his usual way by ear. I haven't heard of it happening the other way around, but I can imagine it might. A veteran ET tuner tries JI, but because he is not accustomed to "centering" the chords around the pitch of ET-tuned keyboards and guitars, he plays the tonics and 5ths right on, as usual, and all the major 3rds sound way flat. So both JI and ET players can make their usual method sound good, but neither can make the other method sound good right off the bat. It's the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of steel guitar tuning.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 4:22 pm

I'm sorry, Larry. I didn't hear the piano in the JI track. I thought it was a solo steel guitar. Yes, A+F in JI tuning will always sound horrible on open strings against a C# major chord. It is quite flat. That's why we always "aim high" when playing A+F.

A+B will work in JI on open strings only if you tune your E's sharp to begin with. In the piano trio I mentioned earlier, I sometimes played open strings in the key of E, and my E's were tuned to about +5 cents. I could notice the sharpness, but it was nothing compared to the beating of the upright's shimmering chords. I'd nose the bar above the nut to get the C# note if I needed it. I never used the "open C# chord" - there's really no such thing on a JI tuned E9th pedal steel.

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 4:41 pm

Larry, to get that idealized JI in tune with a piano on the open E chord, you need to add 3.9 cents to everything. Then the average of the three offsets will be zero:
<pre> add offset
B 3/2 +2.0 +5.9
G# 4/3 -13.7 -9.8
E 1/1 0 +3.9
------
sum 0 </pre> The same 3.9 cents offset should be added to all of the numbers on the chart.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 25 Jul 2005 4:58 pm

So b0b is centering the JI open E chord around the reference 440 pitch. I remember his explanation of doing that unconsciously with the bar. Doing it intentionally at the nut is carrying this idea further. I think my cabinet drop adjustments and stretch offsets come from a different rationale, but may accomplish the same thing. Convergent evolution.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 25 Jul 2005 5:10 pm

The new JI examples replaced the old ones in the first post -- just to keep things clean. Remember, any beats you hear MAY come from the ET piano.

Just to check, here's the drone chords WITHOUT the piano: http://www.larrybell.org/mp3/ji2_no_pno.mp3

sounds pretty beatless to me.
do you know how hard it is to play with NO VIBRATO AT ALL???

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 25 July 2005 at 06:23 PM.]

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 25 Jul 2005 5:51 pm

Ahhh...now that's what I'm talkin' about. The JI steel alone sounds much better. And it sounds surprisingly good with the piano, except for the C# chord at the nut. I don't know if you did the JI version of Bud's Bounce over again. But I have listened to all three versions several times now, and in different orders. The ET version sounds quite nice. It has a brighter, more shimmery sound - and it does evoke the later BE sound. The JI version sounds a little darker and more mellow. The tampered version sounds smoothest, and the long full chords grab me a little more viscerally.

I have certainly learned something. I would not be afraid to use ET on the bandstand, and must admit it might brighten things up and cut through the mix nicely on uptempo numbers. And it would certainly be a good choice for playing open at the nut. But I'm still thinking that closer to JI has more soulfulness for slow ballads and solo steel.

I'm curious what you think, Larry?

Tim Bridges · Post by **Tim Bridges** » 25 Jul 2005 6:03 pm

Where is Einstein when he's needed? I really tried not to read this thread, but I couldn't pass it up! IF, someone solves the mystery and establishes a tuning standard for the steel guitar, I'll be relieved. Just about the time I don't think about tuning EVERY time I sit down behind it, here comes this subject. THEN, I begin thinking about it. I AM CONVINCED, this is a conspiracy...yes a conspiracy to divide the PSG community. b0b, how much longer must this continue?

This is the last time I'll ever read a thread pertaining to ET vs. JI, or TONE.

I'll check replies in the morning.

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 25 Jul 2005 6:06 pm

I came to basically the same conclusions, Dave.

(BTW, yes, I re-recorded both the drone chords and the Bud's Bounce examples after retuning)

Since the 'tampered' tuning is my own methodology, I probably play it with more confidence. And, no, Donny, it's certainly not beatless. I've learned to live with it. It has served me well without having to make the full leap to ET thirds and sixths, which still bother me solo. But in ensemble, they are all perfectly acceptable and each may have its own application. I play a lot with keyboard players and this compromise was one that would allow solo playing and playing with an ET keyboard.

Sorry about the JI thing. My ears must've been tired when I recorded it -- it was the last retuning. Whatever . . . we have good examples for each now.

Tim,
Don't know what to tell you, bud. I'm not really looking for a standard -- just what works for me. There are a lot of us old math / science / engineering guys around. This stuff allows us to put some numbers on our art.

Also, Hans,
Your spreadsheet is a very nice piece of work, once I figured out how to use it. I looked at the formulas and it all made sense. The 'adding intervals' piece was confusing me. Thanks for the excellent tool.

------------------
Larry Bell - email: larry@larrybell.org - gigs - Home Page
2003 Fessenden S/D-12 8x8, 1969 Emmons S-12 6x6, 197? Sho-Bud S-12 7x6, 1971 Dobro, Standel and Peavey Amps

[This message was edited by Larry Bell on 25 July 2005 at 07:38 PM.]

Eric West · Post by **Eric West** » 25 Jul 2005 7:09 pm

Myself, I'm willing to abide all the complexity.

There's good honest effort being put forth for once.

It's interesting, and rational.

For a change.

EJL

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 25 Jul 2005 7:22 pm

Much better JI tracks, Larry. Thanks for making these great comparison files, so that everyone can hear the hairs that we've been splitting.

As for the final test, I prefer your "tampered" tuning version of Bud's Bounce. I wonder, though, how well any of us would do in a blindfold test. Could we really tell which was which?

I end up listening to your great playing skills on Bud's Bounce instead of the subtle tuning differences. I guess that's why it doesn't seem to matter which method the best players use - they all sound perfect regardless.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/Hotb0b.gif" width="96 height="96">Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6)

Ricky Davis · Post by **Ricky Davis** » 25 Jul 2005 7:46 pm

Larry in that last post of the clip without the piano> I hear a repeating osculation that sounds like beats. Either you have a ceiling fan on or you use a plain 6th string???
I would like to hear the JI on your three open chords tuned by ear to "A 440" meaning you push the pedals down and tune your A notes to straight up 440 and with the pedals down; tune the E notes and C# notes to that A note, by ear then let off the pedals and tune the rest of your Steel to those notes (B's to E's) (F#'s to B's) (F's to C#'s)and so on. (Actually Larry does pretty much this with his hybrid tuning and so does b0b); but here's the clincher; >YOu have to use a wound 6th string; or all bets are off..ha..>or turn off the ceiling fan...ha..
Lets hear that without the piano drone note and with....and the drone tones have to be "A; E; B" for an triad of your open A chord and open E chord and open B chord.
The open C# chord will sound in tune with itself but will be flat to a C# drone from the piano; but not as far off open as all the other JI as before. I believe my chart(which is a small hybrid) comes out somewhat in this area>
<pre>
F# 441> up G 441 up G# 338
D# 339> down D 440 down C# 338
G# 338> up A 440
E 441> +A&B+440>E lower 339 E to F 338
B 441> up C# 338
G# 338> up A 440(Has to be wound)
F# 440(splitting diff. with B and C# notes
E 441> same
D 440> down C# 338
B 441> up C# 338
</pre>
Them's my ideas on the whole deal and I hand it to you Larry for tackling the whole thing(as you really already know how to tune and play in tune; as you learned the ear thing years ago pal).
But I also; hear that 6th string osculating on pretty much all the different tunings techniques.
I also don't consider the E9 pedal steel a E tuning(HINCE the word PEDAL); as I consider it an "A" tuning; therefore my tuning is based around the A 440 note; with a small give to the E9 side and B6 side.

Ricky

Jim Peters · Post by **Jim Peters** » 25 Jul 2005 7:47 pm

Larry thanks for your effort. The JI tracks are better, but every so often I cringe, especially with the piano.
Can you post the ET without piano, I'd like to know what the JI people think.
Since I'm playing in 2 bands with guitar and bass in each, I'll keep my 440, it sounds better to me and is SO much simpler.
In my one band, the singer/songwriter/guitarist is rarely in tune, so it probably wouldn't matter. He uses UI-unjust intonation!

Thanks again,JimP

Tim Bridges · Post by **Tim Bridges** » 26 Jul 2005 4:34 am

Larry,

Just a little humor. I'm in that same class of folks...engineers. It can really be punishing at times. No, I don't ever see a standard that can work for every PSG.

I basically use the JN tuning, with a little tampering for my guitar. Saturday night I was playing with a fellow PSG player who can really play (and tune). He tuned my Derby the same as he would his Emmons PP. My Derby didn't sound right to me, but his PP sounded great. Some of that may be due to how I play, or compensations that I make, habits I have developed, etc.

I had an old Sho-Bud Professional that was a real booger to try and tune, much less to keep in tune. The Derby has been a great advancement for me. I have cabinet drop, but nothing like the ol' ShoBud. Maybe each guitar has its own temperment that requires tampering. I don't think anything is exact, or universal. Between the guitar and the player, there are idiosyncracies that a particular tuning alone won't work. Heck, we'd have to measure bar pressure, fretting position, etc. I just try to get my guitar to sound in tune to me. It's obvious when it's out of tune, to me and everybody else.

The one thing I do know to be a fact is that we all hear things a little different. Some folks have a better developed ear for tuning, whereas some of us may never develop that ability.

Does the tuning issue apply to the E9th more so than the C6th? Or, is the E9th the prevailing neck for discussion. It seems I observe more players spending most of their time tuning the E9th neck and quickly tuning the C6th. Maybe it's the chord structure between the two necks. I'm sure someone will enlighten me. I enjoy these controversies. They can get a little heated, but it is the Dog Days of summer.