RE: Tuning by ear (Full Version)

Foro Flamenco: http://www.foroflamenco.com/
- Discussions: http://www.foroflamenco.com/default.asp?catApp=0
- - General: http://www.foroflamenco.com/in_forum.asp?forumid=13
- - - RE: Tuning by ear: http://www.foroflamenco.com/fb.asp?m=275298



Message

Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 19:48:54)

quote:

Forget about the sweetened tuning, guys.

The relevant point is tuning of the tempered kind.

And you, Mr. Martin, with this statement definitly prove that there is no clue about ways of tempered tuning.
quote:

That might be the starting point but each guitar will need different little adjustments and compromises.



Funny, the more you use the word "tempered" the more I get the feeling that you really don't know what you're talking about and that's what made all this confusion.

Ruphus, you can badmouth me all you want but that won't make you right. If all guitars are equal to you, that means you only have one. [:D]



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 19:52:46)

You just don´t get it.
Sweetend tuning, even though it will yield more satisfactory than the common tuning method on open strings, stays related to open strings.
Tempered tuning is something fundamentally different from the two methods related to open strings.

Your stubborness makes one feel as if speaking Chinese.[8|]
GO AND TRY OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ESTIMATE WITHOUT HAVING AN IDEA OF WHAT IT MEANS.

Thank you.

Ruphus



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 19:56:43)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sr. Martins

Funny, the more you use the word "tempered" the more I get the feeling that you really don't know what you're talking about and that's what made all this confusion.

Ruphus, you can badmouth me all you want but that won't make you right. If all guitars are equal to you, that means you only have one. [:D]


Oh, the indignity of it![:@]

Can´t someone else tell this limited bonehead what an absurd BS he is emitting?

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 20:05:20)

quote:

Sweetend tuning, even though it will yield more satisfactory than the common tuning method on open strings, stays related to open strings.


Of course it does and that is as much a part of the solution as it is of the problem. I think you're also forgetting that you have frets along the strings that WON'T give you perfect 12TET tuning.

Do you understand now? I think Iam running out of ways to show you this.


quote:

Your stubborness makes one feel as if speaking Chinese.
GO AND TRY OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ESTIMATE WITHOUT HAVING AN IDEA OF WHAT IT MEANS.



Lose the attitude, just say what you have to say.. please.


I've already told you twice that I use "sweetened" tunings EVERYTIME on every guitar, just NOT PRESET ones!



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 20:18:17)

You keep sitting in the valley and speculating about the tip of the hill.
You could JUST TRY IT OUT in place of bubbling around uselessly.

I just mailed Peterson, asking them to join in here and help the matter for those who need detailed explanation first before approaching practice.

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 20:31:58)

quote:

You keep sitting in the valley and speculating about the tip of the hill.
You could JUST TRY IT OUT in place of bubbling around uselessly.


Ok, for the 4th time... I've been doing it forever, what do you want me to try out? That specific offset preset? Do you think this works like magic or what?


You're mixing things up in a way that I don't know what you're claiming anymore.


Anyways, the answers to both possible claims are:

- "No, because the guitar isn't a piano where you can adjust intervals for a specific root tone. A regular guitar is designed to 12 TET. Eg. If you tune the guitar to have sharper 5ths and a flatter major 3rd on a 6 string E-shape barre chord, you're making all the 5 string A-Shape barre chords sound much worse."

- "No, because tuning a regular guitar is always a compromise. By making the offsets spread all over the fretboard (which is the "sweetening" of the open strings tuning) you end up minimizing the problem."


Probably you still don't believe me so let's wait for the folks at Peterson to chime in.



chester -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 21:24:44)

Dudnote, as you can see - everyone's got their own super special way of tuning by ear. Just start doing it and in a year you'll be arguing that your way is the only right way to be as close to perfect tuning in all keys, positions, and inversions.

It really isn't so complicated. Just be mindful of the beats...



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 14 2015 21:36:04)

quote:

everyone's got their own super special way of tuning by ear. Just start doing it and in a year you'll be arguing that your way is the only right way to be as close to perfect tuning in all keys, positions, and inversions.


I didn't see anyone here saying that their way was "the one", not at all. In fact the tuning methods got a bit sidetracked along the discussion.

In my opinion, the only wrong thing to assume is that you'll be in tune after you tune your guitar... although I "love" playing with people who meticulously tune each open string with a tuner then start playing and everyone complains but they go "No no no, you're wrong! I've just used my tuner!"



Ricardo -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 2:49:34)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruphus

To spare you any extravagance, here is the description.
quote:

Tuning Notes:

A) When you tune the following fretted notes to the harmonics, tune them "beatless"-- i.e., without any hint of "rolling" or pulsating as the two notes synchronize. When two notes get closer, their "beating" slows down until it disappears altogether when they are perfectly in tune. This is very important! This is the skill to be gained!

B) In each step below, pluck the harmonic first. Then fret and pluck the designated string. This allows you to hear both notes simultaneously. Then tune the appropriate string.


1.
Tune the D string to a known source
2.
Pluck the 12th fret harmonic of the D then tune the G (fretted at the 7th fret) to this harmonic.
3.
Pluck the same 12th fret harmonic of the D then tune the B (fretted at the 3rd fret) to this harmonic
4.
Pluck the 12th fret harmonic of the G and tune the High E fretted at the 3rd fret to this harmonic
5.
Tune the 12th fret harmonic of the A to the G fretted at the 2nd fret (pluck the harmonic first!)
6.
Tune the 5th fret harmonic of the Low E to the High E open (pluck the harmonic first!)

Note: To apply the tuning method to alternate tunings, all you have to do is find the proper fretted note on the string you are tuning and tune it beatless to a 12th fret harmonic on a string below it. Easy as pie.

Final advice: take note that old strings are more difficult to tune than new strings. This is because of uneven stretching of the string and the subsequent erratic vibration patterns. In some instances, old strings are impossible to tune correctly. If you have difficulty achieving good intonation, change strings.

Relax, take your guitar and just follow what it says.
Be honest and open-minded. That is all it takes.

Ruphus


Wowzers...my freakin guitar is WAY out of tune now...no joke. THe D string fretted notes sharp, the high E string is flat...and I was super careful to do as described by fretting soft as possible with pinky and reaching around with right hand to do the tuners...it took a long time and the only chord sounds good is the D chord.
[:D] I suspect the inventor likes to play in D major a lot.

Not recommended. Just do as I said from the beginning (which by the way results right now with beats on each adjacent string check with above tuning set in)...carry on.

Ricardo



Richard Jernigan -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 4:29:42)

Tried the 1,2,3,4,5,6 method on my Abel Garcia classical. Not bad below the fourth fret. B-major chord full barre at the 7th fret is really, really sour. And I thought this guitar played in tune pretty well....

RNJ



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 10:34:43)

I think to understand now how Pasteur must have felt.
-

Personally I have experienced this method for tempered tuning not working out only with messy instruments or badly worn out strings.

Here is what I know about eventual dissatisfaction of this otherwise greatly appreciated method:

# People have goten used to uneven tuning so that it takes them time to appreciate a tempered one. (From what I heard, rarely but nonetheless occuring.)

# Tempered tuning may not work with guitar necks relief through bowing instead of angling.

# It might also not work with slanted saddles, depending on how much angled they are. (Generally best to have the saddle just perpendicular anyway.)

# It will not help with guitars of bad intonation, with bad setup and sometimes also not worn out frets.

If you neither can´t think of these points than simply assume that we, who greatly appreciate the merrits of spreading deviation across an individual guitars neck, enjoying how the guitar with all the positively accumulating effects up to much more harmonizing partials gaining in performance and lushness, are just being tone deaf idiots.

Cheers, and have fun with tuning open strings regardless of instruments individual properties.

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 12:47:29)

Great post, you managed to write many contradictions and ended up writing a conclusion that is what I've been saying.. Now we know that you are hearing things with your eyes.



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 13:05:15)

You may bubble along as much as you want. Everyone who knows what the topic is about, by now has realized that a person who in response to a suggestion for tempered tuning writes:
quote:

That is the reason why by my experience ANY fixed tuning might not work.. sweetened or not the frets/bridge/strings/etc will keep their ratios, thus making you have to adjust for more than 6 open strings.

does not know what tempered tuning means.

Your pants are down and all the distortion that you are trying with your postings won´t change a thing.
It is there and can be read it, just as with other similar nonsensical contributions of yours.

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 13:07:15)

quote:

Personally I have experienced this method for tempered tuning not working out only with messy instruments or badly worn out strings.


Truly tempered tuning works as such with instruments that allow temperament. The temperament of a regular guitar is 12TET, which means 12 EQUAL parts. Either tuning method you choose, the guitar will still be a guitar, even with new strings (and strings will still be different from brand to brand, different tensions and manufacturing, etc)

Here is what I know about eventual dissatisfaction of this otherwise greatly appreciated method:

quote:

# People have goten used to uneven tuning so that it takes them time to appreciate a tempered one. (From what I heard, rarely but nonetheless occuring.)


Absolutely true.


quote:

# It might also not work with slanted saddles, depending on how much angled they are. (Generally best to have the saddle just perpendicular anyway.)


You're clearly just throwing stuff out in the wind like with the old strings comment.

quote:

# It will not help with guitars of bad intonation, with bad setup and sometimes also not worn out frets.


You keep doing it. All this guessing about the sweetening of the tuning not helping with this when in fact it helps with all of it (maybe not Peterson's preset but I've already told you about the pitfalls of using one preset for everything).

quote:

If you neither can´t think of these points than simply assume that we, who greatly appreciate the merrits of spreading deviation across an individual guitars neck, enjoying how the guitar with all the positively accumulating effects up to much more harmonizing partials gaining in performance and lushness, are just being tone deaf idiots.


This is what I've been saying all the time, "spread the error".

Now tell us what was your point when talking about people not being used to hearing tempered tuning.

quote:

Cheers, and have fun with tuning open strings regardless of instruments individual properties.


Hmm... in case you haven't noticed, you were the only one in this thread who uses that method. Also, Iam the one who gave you many real life examples of why that wouldn't work... oh boy.[sm=lol.gif]



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 13:15:20)

quote:

You may bubble along as much as you want. Everyone who knows what the topic is about, by now has realized that a person who in response to a suggestion for tempered tuning writes:
quote:

That is the reason why by my experience ANY fixed tuning might not work.. sweetened or not the frets/bridge/strings/etc will keep their ratios, thus making you have to adjust for more than 6 open strings.

does not know what tempered tuning means.




I don't understand why you think your attitude towards me will make you right but you seem really into that stuff.


You clearly misread Peterson's specs and now you're hearing (probably not) things that are pure placebo. You can even find their official videos on youtube.


A guitar is never in tune.

Sweetened tunings are always a compromise.

Using an offset preset (like Peterson's) might get you in the ballpark but it DOESN'T mean that that preset is the best compromise for THAT guitar at that moment.



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 13:18:40)

It just re read your posts on page one.
It could be that your nonsensical posts come from you presupposing that my mentioning of Peterson presets to be connected to tempered tuning.

It could explain your contradictions, yet the failure would remain with you who then would had been rushing with reading my posts. I have nowhere written that Petersons sweetened tuning had to do with tempered tuning.
One can´t be praticing tempered tuning methods and in the same time be taking tuner presets for thelike. A genius like you should had figured so, if only not so vainly taken by himself.

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 13:23:32)

quote:

It could be that your nonsensical post come from you presupposing that my mentioning of Peterson presets to be connected to tempered tuning.


It could be that you spent all the time coming up with verbal offenses instead of paying attention. Finally realizing that you've been mixing up some concepts and feeling embarassed about is also a plausible possibility. Of course, that leads to more verbal abuse. [:)]



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 14:09:07)

From my first post in this thread:
quote:

BTW, I was surprised by the "sweetened temperaments" that came with a Peterson strobe. Even though sweeping they work well enough

So much about me possibly mixing up the concepts of tuning. And as I said already: One can´t be praticing tempered tuning methods and in the same time be taking tuner presets for thelike.

You are demonstrating to be a true idiot.

And while at it:
Other than music theory which you seem to actually understand, most of your comments in respect of general knowledge show that you are quite of the type that I experience in the orient.
Which means a mind-set that is so little educated that it completely underestimates the span of subjects and skills. Hence as soon as picking up superficial bits thinking to have broadly understood a matter.

Ruphus



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 14:11:17)

quote:

# People have goten used to uneven tuning so that it takes them time to appreciate a tempered one. (From what I heard, rarely but nonetheless occuring.)


Well, in fact I kinda misread this and agreed but this isn't quite right....well, it is right but based on wrong assumptions lol

To anyone else who has been following this:


People are used to uneven tuning if by uneven we mean the 12 equal division temperament and it's incapacity to be in tune... it is a division in equal parts BUT it results in badly tuned intervals in relation to a root. Tempered systems are UNEVEN in their division of the octave.


It's kinda confusing from the OP because tempered tunings that are not 12TET are all uneven in division... and people aren't used to that.


Regular fretted guitars DON'T do any temperaments besides 12TET.. well, unless you don't do much besides playing open strings, but that's what has been said since the beginning.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 14:14:10)

quote:

And as I said already: One can´t be praticing tempered tuning methods and in the same time be taking tuner presets for thelike.


You can't practice any tempered **** on guitar, just 12TET!!! Holy crap, you are thick!!!


quote:

You are demonstrating to be a true idiot.



Oh, you're too kind. [:)]



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 14:48:28)

Tuning as in tuning systems - 12TET, just intonation, indian divisions, etc - these are all temperaments and it's maths stuff!

Tuning as in tuning a guitar - you set your strings to pitches - it's a physical action where you set 6 pitches but it WON'T change the tuning system of the guitar (frets in a 12TET configuration).


Maybe this way it will finally make sense to you and anyone who might be getting confused.


Edit: Every guitar player whose open string tuning deviates from eadgbe measured with a standard tuner is using a sweetened temperament.

I feel that all this confusion wouldn't have happened if Peterson had called it the "standard tuning with offsets" preset.




Regarding the actual process of tuning with harmonics and fretting notes.. just keep in mind that for instance the 7th fret harmonic produces a pure fifth and the guitar uses fifths that are a bit below that so you might be fooled by the "beats" thing and start thinking that there is something wrong with your guitar.



Ricardo -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 22:20:35)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ruphus

I think to understand now how Pasteur must have felt.
-

Personally I have experienced this method for tempered tuning not working out only with messy instruments or badly worn out strings.

Here is what I know about eventual dissatisfaction of this otherwise greatly appreciated method:

# People have goten used to uneven tuning so that it takes them time to appreciate a tempered one. (From what I heard, rarely but nonetheless occuring.)

# Tempered tuning may not work with guitar necks relief through bowing instead of angling.

# It might also not work with slanted saddles, depending on how much angled they are. (Generally best to have the saddle just perpendicular anyway.)

# It will not help with guitars of bad intonation, with bad setup and sometimes also not worn out frets.

If you neither can´t think of these points than simply assume that we, who greatly appreciate the merrits of spreading deviation across an individual guitars neck, enjoying how the guitar with all the positively accumulating effects up to much more harmonizing partials gaining in performance and lushness, are just being tone deaf idiots.

Cheers, and have fun with tuning open strings regardless of instruments individual properties.

Ruphus


THe tuning method you suggested (Peterson) functions, essentially, to sweeten a specific chord voicing...specifically this one:
E--2--
B--3--
G--2--
D--0--
A--0--
E--2--

Using this shape in any postion on the neck with a barre will result in equally sweet intervals...to the detriment of almost all other voicing types in any position. I refered to this type of tuning as "well tempered" type tuning, meaning, there are different ways to sweeten chords vs "equal tempered" tuning using a computer or whatever to get it exact, BECAUSE of the key you want to play in. I admit that using open harmonics as I suggested earlier is NOT 100% "equal temperment", my point is that BY EAR, it is as close as you can get so that you can play ANY VOICING on the instrument and be relatively in tune in ALL KEYS...and it even works with OLD CRAP STRINGS. [:D]

With devective neck or bad frets or whatever, you are totally screwed no matter what. The open string method will STILL be superior to all others...unless you want to "well temper" to a specific key or voicing as described earlier.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 22:39:40)

This "argument" would have been funnier without all the 'extras' that were thrown at me. I never expect anyone to say "Oh, now I see" or "Ah, you're right" and that's not even the point.. I prefer having interesting disagreements without those 'extras'.


@Ricardo

Somehow I feel that Ruphus is going to politely (but in a rough way) state that what you're saying is true and obvious and that what I said is all wrong and that I don't grasp the concepts and bla bla bla... ad infinitum..

...and for that reason, Iam out.


Let's see if there are any sharks left. [:D]



Leñador -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 22:47:44)

Buy a tuner/tuner app.
Done.



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 15 2015 23:10:53)

Lenny, I sent you a pm but I suspect I didn't [:D]


Basically you have tuning as a temperament and the actual tuning of the instrument.

A - The 12TET temperament is by itself out of tune.

B - Any guitar with straight frets will have tuning imperfections.

C - Your imperfect guitar (see B) utilizes an imperfect 12TET temperament (see A).


You see how you're adding imperfections? That's why the solution is always a compromise.

You don't want to avoid the 12TET temperament on your guitar (remove frets maybe?) but you don't want to tune your open strings "perfectly at the center on a regular tuner" either because you need to spread the tuning error a bit to make it more "evenly out of tune" all over the fretboard.. makes sense?



Easy as ABC [sm=lol.gif]



Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px



Ruphus -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 16 2015 10:00:14)

Ricardo,

I did not mean nor write that the sweetened setting on the Peterson had anything to do with tempered tuning. (That is why I typed "BTW" in the sense of "as a sidenote", and "even though it is sweeping ...")
It is just that the sweetened setting works out better than the standard open tuning. (Something I had not expected.)
But I should had not mentioned the sweetened setting thingy, it only diverted the topic away from tempered tuning.


I found several times that with badly messed up guitars the standard open tuning to have worked best, for at least behind the nut you get somewhat "acceptable" results before you go down the neck and have everything sounding like cat music anyway.

Or maybe I should express it the other way around:
With extremely uneven guitars, trying to apply the method of tempered tuning resulted in a total mess. (Where you had exclusively cacophonous results, even just behind the nut.)

That to my experience is the only situation where a simple tuning with only open strings might be superiour choice to the application of tempered tuning, which again means to be taking into consideration the individual proportions accross the neck.

The latter way of spreading the deviation evenly in relation to a guitars properties is the best application in general.


Naturally, another thing one can do (and which can be best, depending on the musical piece your are going to play) is to tune the guitar specifically to a certain key.

But to my personal needs a tempered tuning on a good guitar covers all tasks very well / good enough.


And when I engaged this method first time long ago I was blown away to see what the guitars could actually sound like. At that time it really eased my desire to buy me better ones.

Ruphus



Ricardo -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 16 2015 21:33:55)

quote:


It is just that the sweetened setting works out better than the standard open tuning. (Something I had not expected.)


Ruphus, I agree with you 100%...so long as the music you are playing predominantly utilizes that inverted D voicing anywhere along the neck...but if you mean to imply that it works better IN GENERAL for any other piece in the world of guitar music...then your opinion is simply wrong and we remain at an impass.



xirdneH_imiJ -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 16 2015 22:01:38)

I admit I haven't been following this thread very closely - but while there is an important discussion about how to tune (and make it sound like rocket science), there is an equally important aspect to it, as to what will get your guitar in tune the quickest while you're on stage and only have a few seconds to do it (without looking like a fool).
My experience is that a combination of things works best (for me).

---------------------------------------0----3------------------
--------------------------------------------------1-------------
------------------------------------------0---------------------
-----------------------------7------2--------------------------
---0---7------------------0-------------------3---------------
-5---0---followed by--5--------checking some octaves--

then making sure the most important chords (most often of course A and E) are sounding right. As Ricardo says it's always going to be a compromise, you will most often have to tune the G string slightly flatter than recommended by a tuner, and the high F# in the open D chord will sound funny as well if you don't leave the high E string just a hair lower. It doesn't really matter that much when you play an electric guitar with all kinds of effects, but I find it incredibly annoying when I hear a guitar out of tune...



Dudnote -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 16 2015 23:37:24)

quote:

ORIGINAL: xirdneH_imiJ

I admit I haven't been following this thread very closely - but while there is an important discussion about how to tune (and make it sound like rocket science), there is an equally important aspect to it, as to what will get your guitar in tune the quickest while you're on stage and only have a few seconds to do it (without looking like a fool).
My experience is that a combination of things works best (for me).

---------------------------------------0----3------------------
--------------------------------------------------1-------------
------------------------------------------0---------------------
-----------------------------7------2--------------------------
---0---7------------------0-------------------3---------------
-5---0---followed by--5--------checking some octaves--

then making sure the most important chords (most often of course A and E) are sounding right. As Ricardo says it's always going to be a compromise, you will most often have to tune the G string slightly flatter than recommended by a tuner, and the high F# in the open D chord will sound funny as well if you don't leave the high E string just a hair lower. It doesn't really matter that much when you play an electric guitar with all kinds of effects, but I find it incredibly annoying when I hear a guitar out of tune...


Thanks for the alternative. All this talk of beats is a bit lost on me because I miss beats all the time[:D]

As another alternatve, if you focus on getting octaves of E and B lined up, ie tune to this chord
0
0
9
9
7
0
Followed by some other octave checks.
Sounds OK to me. Anything with it sound bad to anyone else?



Sr. Martins -> RE: Tuning by ear (Apr. 16 2015 23:51:51)

quote:

Sounds OK to me. Anything with it sound bad to anyone else?


Just think of it like this.. It will never be better than "OK" because it will always be a compromise.

If you had the wavy frets system on your guitar (buzz feiten), then you would be able to have a guitar that tunes well...BUT, the thing is that the guitar would still be tuned to a system that is itself out of tune (the western division of the octave in 12 equal parts).


YOU are the one who has to choose your own tuning compromises because it depends on many things... from what notes you're playing to the strenght you're applying on each finger, not forgetting that all guitars are different and that's enough for a few cents on your tuning.


Hope this cleared it up

If not, read the rest of the thread. There's too much stuff but the important things are in there too.



Page: <<   <   1 [2] 3    >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET