[OT] Re: tuning by ear, was Re: [linux-audio-user] guitar tuner?

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: [OT] Re: tuning by ear, was Re: [linux-audio-user] guitar tuner?
From: Jason (hormonex_AT_yankthechain.com)
Date: Tue Oct 23 2001 - 11:03:08 EEST


On Mon, 22 Oct 2001, Paul Winkler wrote:

> Sorry I'm not answering the original question ... I don't use a tuning
> program either.
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 03:07:10AM -0400, Jason wrote:
> (long tuning method description snipped)
>
> Just tried your method ... it works *very* nicely for one guitar I
> have with good intonation, but not so well an another acoustic guitar
> I have with poor intonation.

I've found that to be the case. Yet another reason to learn how to set the
intonation on a guitar, and to check the intonation on a fixed saddle
instrument thoroughly before buying it. I've actually found that it works
really well on straight bridged nylon string guitars as well.

> Your system has some similarities to the approach I've evolved over
> the years. My approach has enabled me to get tolerable results even on
> guitars with poor intonation, and excellent results on good guitars;
> and I can start on any string.

I can't really take credit for the system, as it is pretty much a
wholesale simplification of the method endorsed as "The One True Tuning
Method" by the Guild of American Luthiers. I stumbled across it trying to
get a cheap floyd rose electric to play in reasonable tune with a friends
Buzz
Feiten-ized les paul. If you want to talk about tuning nightmares...

> Here are my general strategies:
>
> * Like you, I use octaves, not fifths. Octaves are the only interval
> that is the same in equal temperament and just intonation, so
> harmonics at the 12th and 5th frets are the only ones you can use
> reliably.
>
> * Don't just tune a string to its immediate neighbor, or you risk
> making cumulative errors.
>
> So here's my method based on those strategies:
[snip]
nice. I would like to add to that though, that I've found that with
floating bridges, it is advantageous to start out slightly flat of where
you want to be, as it is easier to control the balance of tension behind
the nut and the bridge tuning up than tuning down.
> > The reason this method of tuning is preferable to the simpler and more
> > commonly found methods is simple. The Guitar is by it's nature not a very
> > well tempered instrument. When you tune strictly to harmonics, as in the
> > more common "beat frequency" method, you are not actually tuning the notes
> > as they will be played on a fretted instrument.

> That's right, except that the first reason you give is misleading. The
> problem is not that the guitar is not well tempered. The common method
> *cannot* work even on a hypothetical guitar with perfect 12-tone equal
> temperament.
Exactly! That's what I was trying to say and ended up as that garbled
mess. Thanks for clearing it up.

> --
>
> paul winkler
> home: http://www.slinkp.com
> music: http://www.reacharms.com
> calendars: http://www.calendargalaxy.com
>

-- 
YankTheChain.com - You can pretend we're not here. That's what I do.

,


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Oct 23 2001 - 10:58:17 EEST