Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Posts: 1696
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to estebanana)
Thanks again, Sr. Martin and Estebanana, for continuing the conversation. I will take a look at that book, Estebanana.
I have always been aware and bothered that people have been concerned with the intonation at the 12th fret while ignoring it elsewhere because it is easy to check the octaves.
I am guessing that a linear progression of fret compensation from none at the zeroth fret (nut) to the 19th fret, with the value at the 12th fret corresponding to the usual saddle compensation, would be effective, or interesting. Why wouldn't it be linear?
So if the usual saddle compensation is, say, 1.0 mm, then the compensation at each fret is given by C = mF, where C is the compensation for the fret F; m is the slope of the line, in this case 1/12 (that is, one mm divided by the fret number 12, since the compensation at that fret is 1.0 mm); and F is the fret number. Thus the compensation, to be subtracted from the distance between the nut and fret is:
Fret , Compensation 1 , 1/12 = 0.08 mm 2 , 2/12 = 0.17 mm 3 , 3/12 = 0.25 mm etc.
Posts: 1696
Joined: Jan. 29 2012
From: Seattle, Washington, USA
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
Frets are _not_ compensated. Ok? Frets that is to say Scales are _tempered_. In a scale the relationship between the frets can be tempered to give closer intonation in a given key.
Compensation is a separate concept. Compensation means the string length is changed by moving the saddle. This lengthening of the strings in relation to the scale length COMPENSATES for mechanical distortions the structure of the guitar imposes on the fingered string.
No, I don't think this is okay. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics or terminology, but I think if a string can be compensated at the bridge saddle, it can alternatively be compensated at the frets. On top of tempering the fret locations.
Tempering is compromising tuning according to some purpose. In the sense a modern musician thinks about it, the purpose was the design of tuning systems which allowed playing in more keys. Arguably this modern sense is an after-the-fact nomenclature which loses the history of 'tempering'. That old sense, which survives among piano tuners and players of gut-fret instruments, allows for other purposes, such as tempering to suit preferred keys or an instrument's acoustic idiocyncracies.
In that latter sense, I can see how one might take what Ethan is talking about to be 'tempering'. In fact, on a baroque guitar that's what some would call moving the frets from their measured positions to get them to play in tune, which is what you have to do since there is no saddle.
But in the modern context doesn't 'compensation' give a clearer idea of what is being done, and without violating some important distinction? Especially since I think most people think of 'tempering' in the first sense I gave?
The essence of 'compensation' is changing the sounding string length to tune the sound closer to a chosen tuning. Is the fact that normally it is done at the saddle essential? What would be lost here?
No need to get into "absolute perfect intonation". I don't think anyone here is after that. Suffice to say that however close a guitar can get to being perfectly in tune (in equal temperament), some guitars come closer to achieving that than others. At least for some types of guitar, compensation is part of how that is achieved. Physically, you can apply the changes to the frets instead of the saddle. You can call it 'tempering', but many people will be confused by that and think you're somehow departing from the norm, i.e. from equal temperament.
I doubt anyone was confused when John S. said he compensates the frets. Anyway maybe he'll address that, he's in a good position to say whether people are confused by that terminology.
Unfortunately, what I see mentioned there is nut compensation. While I don't like bringing in another thing to this discussion, it occurs to me that moving the nut forward has the same effect as what I would call compensation at the first fret (even though Estebanana would prefer I not call it that). Both are ways to shorten the distance between the nut and first fret. However, why not compensate at all the frets in the linear fashion I've outlined?
Cheers Rufus, I was just being lazy and couldn't be bothered to read the whole blurb.
It's in interesting concept so I just picked up a classical guitar to see just how out of tune it was down the finger board. My results showed that it wasn't out of tune all of the way down apart from the A# was a little flat in both cases on the top e. That's with a scale length of 650mm and string length compensation of +1.5mm.
Finger pressure on the string did seem to sharpen the notes somewhat so I think I should play more lightly!
If I understood the definition of equal temperament is was a way of fixing the scales so all instruments with a fixed scale would all play in tune with each other at the same frequencies In the western world that means the octave is divided up into 12 notes known as 12TET. A440 being the standard A. Is that a correct understanding?
I think Ethan is talking about compensating the frets so the play closer to Equal temperament?
As Sr. Martin said though (which also echoed my post) The only way to make a guitar play in tune in every note on every fret is to have individual movable frets. Which as I stated does exist.
I am much better at wood work than this kind of stuff so I am probably wrong.
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to Stephen Eden)
quote:
As Sr. Martin said though (which also echoed my post) The only way to make a guitar play in tune in every note on every fret is to have individual movable frets. Which as I stated does exist.
I am much better at wood work than this kind of stuff so I am probably wrong.
I didn't say that... something similar.
Individual movable frets would let you choose any temperament, you could even have a different temperament on each string (which gives you more than 12 possible notes if you want).
You're right about what you said before that and that's exactly what I've been saying since the "Tuning Thread" so, according to Ruphus, you must be wrong.
Estebanana and Ricardo know what they're saying, just ignore the mess that Ruphus writes. He sometimes presents valid causes and valid solutions but NOT within the same context so...
Iam not even picky about compensations, I just go with what the guitar in question wants/needs. Players who nerd about this stuff are probably the ones who will end up pressing the string until it touches the wood.
The way you divide the octave is the temperament, the bitchin about distances smaller than a fret crown is the intonation... if you catch my drift.
Cheers Rufus, I was just being lazy and couldn't be bothered to read the whole blurb.
It's in interesting concept so I just picked up a classical guitar to see just how out of tune it was down the finger board. My results showed that it wasn't out of tune all of the way down apart from the A# was a little flat in both cases on the top e. That's with a scale length of 650mm and string length compensation of +1.5mm.
Finger pressure on the string did seem to sharpen the notes somewhat so I think I should play more lightly!
If I understood the definition of equal temperament is was a way of fixing the scales so all instruments with a fixed scale would all play in tune with each other at the same frequencies In the western world that means the octave is divided up into 12 notes known as 12TET. A440 being the standard A. Is that a correct understanding?
I think Ethan is talking about compensating the frets so the play closer to Equal temperament?
As Sr. Martin said though (which also echoed my post) The only way to make a guitar play in tune in every note on every fret is to have individual movable frets. Which as I stated does exist.
I am much better at wood work than this kind of stuff so I am probably wrong.
I think you got that all correctly. And Ethan is aiming for the same thing as Michael Ruhe. Hence, to have the fret position closer to the demand for practial conditions. For, from what I understand, the common fret positioning has been layed out considering the strings vibrating length for an indiviual fret. However, without adding to the calculation the individual variables that make the impact on the string when it is actually fretted / fingered.
Taking the latter into the calculation seems to pay. At least my ear tells me so when listening to the recorded examples.
As I said, at first it sounds a bit weird, as one has gotten used to the slightly skewed characteristics of traditional guitar scale ( the more accurate example sounds almost kind of sterile at first), but after only seconds you appreciate the improvement.
And I think to hear in mind how such further improved intonation would effect not just the sole soundstage of the guitar, but more so when accompanying instruments like the piano.
In my life I have been progressively embracing every bit towards more accurate tuning and intonation. Little goes a long way in this field, as it effects a number of collective factors which amount to very pleasing overall improvement.
As I said, at first it sounds a bit weird, as one has gotten used to the slightly skewed characteristics of traditional guitar scale ( the more accurate example sounds almost kind of sterile at first), but after only seconds you appreciate the improvement.
The sum of all your self induced placebos has to be much greater than your ability to recognize intonation issues so don't sweat it and learn to behave yourself.
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
There is no such thing in the maths of musical scale tempering called "compensating over tempering'.
I think their idea wasn't about one over the other.. or maybe it was.
If one thinks of tempering as the shift of a note in cents, the idea would be the same... but the principle is kinda wrong so forget it.
One should compensate in order to be in the chosen temperament. There is no "tempering to be in a temperament".
Also, there's no such things as "12 equal division vs temperaments"... they are all temperaments.
...and the temperament that imparts the "natural beauty" of harmony (within a tonal framework) would be just intonation, not the placebo pills that Ruphus as been taking.
If you have a midi instrument you could also experience having all your chords adjusted to just intonation on the fly (regardless of tonality, which is pretty cool...sounds very "stable" but "jumpy" at the same time depending on which chord you play next).
Ruhes example may help him and indeed others to get closer to the true 12TET temperament but ultimately will suffer the same pit falls as all straight non adjustable fret guitars! As each string is a different thickness they will each require a slightly alterd fret position.
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to Sr. Martins)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sr. Martins
The sum of all your self induced placebos has to be much greater than your ability to recognize intonation issues so don't sweat it and learn to behave yourself.
Pumkin,
you constantly respond to hallucinations.
And as you obviously never care to read your own blabbing over ...
You relate to Ruhes altered fretting with:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sr. Martins
Once again, Buzz Feiten comes to mind both for the wavy frets and nut compensations.
whereas neither "wavy frets" nor "compensated nuts" happen to occur anywhere in the discussed method.
Next you quote a section from his website where he relates to correcting fretboards with common methods:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sr. Martins
This is translated from his website. Either way, if it's nothing new.. how can it be his invention?
whilst we are discussing whereabouts of his fretboard design, and IN NO WAY repairing methods.
And never even once can you be seen admitting your lunatic fallacies, lesser even apologizing for the constantly unfounded disturbances in the debates, when being patiently pointed out your inconsistency like below.
quote:
ORIGINAL: constructordeguitarras
Thanks for your comment, Sr. Martins, but I don't understand its basis. ... I didn't see anything about compensation at the nut.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ruphus
Again a reflection to something that has not been said.
The nut stays untouched, while the common compensation from between octave (12th fret) and saddle shall be substituted by spreading that increment across the frets, whichs positions thus will be slightly shifted.
Instead you always evade the pointers for to keep jumping into the next blind babbling.
It would be nice if you kept your ADHS issue at least out from threads opened by me. I don´t have time to waiste on mentally pointless cases. Thank you.
Thanks for the link. Those frets look horrible. I even doubt one could actually play on those.
And they should not be necessary either. The sound samples with Ruhe´s fretboard prove that, and as he says the actual deviation between string sorts is or becomes neglectable once frets are laid out in respect of the other factors.
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to Ruphus)
@Ruphus, it's very simple, really..
The difference is that I try to know exactly what is being discussed while you just spit chunks of undigested garbage.
When I jokingly mentioned Peterson, you insisted that I was wrong in that "tuning thread"... well, the bad news are that if you still think that I was wrong about anything in that thread, then you must be totally clueless about "Eventual end of guitars structural intonation issue".
You should learn from what I've written on that other thread in order for you to come back to this one and understand what I've written.
The funny thing is that we can have another 50 people here saying the exact same thing I say but Iam the only one who is "always wrong/doesn't try things/won't consider/etc".
I understand it would be tiresome to insult everyone so you just choose me but it is getting really old and your vocabulary isn't that varied so.. just... stop.
Thanks, estebanana (banana?). Okay, I understand the tempering of the fret positions. But compensation comes after this, to account for the change that occurs to the string when it is depressed from its height to the fret.
Anyway, I think that for the low action required by most flamenco guitarists this doesn't matter. For classical guitars, sure.
Do classical guitars have some fixed bridge height or unique left hand technique of fretting that flamenco's do not? How about fret height? I think a lot of things about flamenco guitar (instrument and techniques of playing) are written off due to a supposed "low action" situation. When I play a normal classical guitar, the action over the fingerboard feels pretty much the same as any flamenco to me. That being some guitars are lower or higher than others. Bridge height is a different matter.
People are not saying the same things as you do, for the simple reason that they commonly respond consequently to what has either been said or dealt with. They don´t speak apples in regard of oranges.
Before you elaborate about your deep understanding of matters that is supposed to surpass the skills of engineers like on page 1 and about your conclusive argumenting, how about explaining the hidden wisdom within your offbeat comments that I quoted 7 posts above this one.
As I have seen you completely off so many times, without even one content-related reaction to comments that dismantel your unrelated twaddel, it would be a change to see you unrolling the metaphysics behind posts in question. I am all ears. Let it come.
RE: Eventual end of guitars structur... (in reply to Ricardo)
quote:
When I play a normal classical guitar, the action over the fingerboard feels pretty much the same as any flamenco to me. That being some guitars are lower or higher than others. Bridge height is a different matter.
I've noticed too the "flamenco is low action so it doesn't count". Although it doesn't make sense, maybe they say that because there's less effect from strings that are nearer the frets...
...but then again, if we're discussing matters of less than 2 cents, should we really write off low action guitars? It's LESS of a problem but, if one goes to the extent of correcting something for let's say 0,5cents on a classical, then 1cent on a flamenca doesn't matter? No compensations for gitanos, is that it? :p
Then again, maybe some of the folks are thinking about saddle height in relation to the top...which is not the cause of the "problem".
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread