RE: Sustain & Tempered Tuning

Tom Gorr · Post by **Tom Gorr** » 7 Jan 2005 11:14 pm

I asked about sustain issues a few weeks ago, and I see the topic has resurfaced.

On advice from Frenchy, I recently changed my E9B6 tuning from straight up, to harmonic tuning, not unlike I do on my six-string. While I'm still getting acquainted with the more challenging issues of harmonic tuning on a PSG, I thought I heard more sustain...Of course, my crude method of counting down the decay of plucked strings doesn't give me a lot of confidence in my measurement.

The concept has some merit though. Harmonic tuning by its nature should have a greater portion of constructive harmonic energy compared to non-harmonic methods (eg. straight up), which should promote more resonance and more sustain....theoretically (maybe).

OK - I give the harmonic tuning folk an extra point for 'potential' sustain, but still think straight up is pretty simple.

Would love to hear forum thoughts on the impact of tuning method on sustain.
[This message was edited by Tom Gorr on 09 January 2005 at 07:06 PM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 8 Jan 2005 8:15 pm

I don't think that the tuning method effects the sustain of the instrument. I've used a variety of methods on the same guitar without noticing a difference. You can be way out of tune and still get plenty of sustain.

Michael Barone · Post by **Michael Barone** » 9 Jan 2005 12:08 pm

I am by no means an expert on PSG tuning, and this may seem stupid, but here goes . . .

Since there are some common harmonics on each note within a major triad, for example, could it be that some phase cancellation develops on specific harmonics? But then the volume loss (on those cancelled harmonics) would align with the beats, as slow as they may be.

If the fundamentals are exactly in sync, would this give us maximum combined amplitude? I've seen a slight additive difference on a scope, but my ear can't hear any difference, maybe because the RMS product doesn't change (that much).

In other words, if there is a difference in tuning methods, perhaps it can be viewed on a digital storage spectrum analyzer, in the case where the difference in sustain can't be heard by our ears, due to masking and superimposition.

Just thinking out loud, but I respect the many experienced analyists here on the forum who know much more than I.

------------------
Mike Barone
Sho-Bud Pro-1
[This message was edited by Michael Barone on 09 January 2005 at 06:34 PM.]

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 9 Jan 2005 12:24 pm

"Out-of-tune" strings don't really resonate any longer, it just seems that way!

Rick Aiello · Post by **Rick Aiello** » 9 Jan 2005 12:36 pm

superimposition

Definition: A visit by my Mother-In-Law ...

------------------

Aiello's House of Gauss


My wife and I don't think alike. She donates money to the homeless and I donate money to the topless! ... R. Dangerfield

Larry Bell · Post by **Larry Bell** » 9 Jan 2005 12:56 pm

Buddy Emmons tunes tempered (pretty close to ET)
Paul Franklin tunes beatless (pretty close to JI)

Have you noted a problem they have making notes sustain? I hear no difference in Buddy's sustain or intonation from the 60's when he tuned harmonically to JI to now, when he tunes more or less 'straight up'.

I rest my case. A good player plays good. Regardless of brand of guitar, brand of strings, brand of bar, or brand of underwear. Given a modern, professional guitar, a good clean amp, and a master player, details like sustain and intonation are just not serious problems. How the guitar is tuned is also irrelevant if you understand how to make your hands behave.

------------------
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

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 9 Jan 2005 3:43 pm

This is a classic case of over analyzing. Tune the instrument to itself and play the @#%! thing.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 9 Jan 2005 6:16 pm

Egg-zack-lee!

Tom Gorr · Post by **Tom Gorr** » 9 Jan 2005 7:14 pm

The hypocrisy is killing me !

At least half the fun in the pedal steel is the analysing part....Otherwise this forum would be as dull as the guitar and bass forums I've visited on occasion.

But - yes, maybe I'm grasping at straws trying to eek the last 2 thousands of a millisecond of sustain out of my steel. Exploring all approaches - and within the range of reasonableness - I guarantee its not my hands that are the problem.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 10 Jan 2005 12:03 pm

If the common belief that resonance in the solid body of a steel guitar can improve sustain is true, then resonance in harmonically tuned strings should also improve sustain compared to enharmonically tuned strings. This is an empirical question, and I'd love to see some evidence on either one of these questions.

Concerning ET, there is some connection in a different way than what this thread is about. Most ET tuned instruments such as piano, harp, and acoustic guitar are percussion instruments that have tones that begin to die off immediately after the attack. The clashing ET overtones die faster than the fundamentals, which minimizes the objectionable beats and dissonance. Continuous tone instruments such as horns and bowed strings (and vocals) are played JI. This tradition is probably not an accident. The organ is an exception, having a continuous tone and being tuned ET. An organ is so warbly, they just gave up and upped the tremolo to become the characteristic sound of the instrument. Steel guitars (especially with the use of the volume pedal to increase sustain) are really problematic, which is why we obsess over tuning so much. An ET tuned steel that sustains the dissonant overtones is really objectionable to some people. On the other hand, sustaining a JI flat 3rd along with ET tuned instruments is really objectionable to others. That's why the JI/ET debate lives on forever.

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 11 Jan 2005 11:08 am

Yeah, right, and if the Queen had balls she'd be king. Uh, anyway I'm playing down at the Stumble Inn this Saturday night. I don't think anyone will be caring about my sustain come midnight. Play it again Sam!!! Woo Hooooo!!!!
(Disclaimer: Sorry Dave. It this third cup of coffee and this darn sixth string keeps on dropping three cents every time I push the A pedal. I do enjoy your posts though.)
[This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 11 January 2005 at 11:10 AM.][This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 11 January 2005 at 11:11 AM.][This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 11 January 2005 at 01:30 PM.][This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 11 January 2005 at 01:30 PM.][This message was edited by Kevin Hatton on 11 January 2005 at 01:31 PM.]

Michael Barone · Post by **Michael Barone** » 11 Jan 2005 6:00 pm

The underlying theme in Tom's original post is simply a theory. The suggestion then comes that analysis is needed to prove it. Since this unusual way of comparing the 2 tunings involves more electronic/science theory, rather than acoustical, (assuming our ears can't hear the difference in sustain), the topic may not fit properly in this section. (Please correct me if I'm wrong). Perhaps, for this reason, a respectful suggestion can be made to move this topic to the Electronics section.

------------------
Mike Barone
Sho-Bud Pro-1

ed packard · Post by **ed packard** » 11 Jan 2005 7:06 pm

Gentlemen (an assumption?); Go get a Spectrum analyzer software for your computer and you can qualitativly evaluate harmonics vs whatever till the cows come home! Define tone and sustain to a gnats eyebrow.