posted 12 January 2001 11:10 AM         

It appears that a 29-note scale would be very, very close.

Using the math from my previous message:

(3/2) ^ 29 = 127,834
2 ^ 17 = 131,072

Turns out that (1.49999999984) ^ 29 is the right solution (compared to 1.5 ^ 29).

That's getting pretty darned close.

Can you just imagine how close the frets would be with 29-note spacing, though?

And what would the scale look like? I don't want to even THINK about that.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

posted 12 January 2001 02:26 PM         

------------------
Jim Smith jimsmith94@home.com
-=Dekley D-12 10&12=-
-=Fessenden Ext. E9/U-12 (soon to be U-13) 8&5 (so far)=-

posted 12 January 2001 02:42 PM         

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

posted 12 January 2001 09:02 PM         

Oh, and Newman basically says (well, based on the one tape I have so far) "the guitar is never in tune, so wiggle the bar to get some vibrato in there, and your ear will pick out the right notes".

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

[This message was edited by David Pennybaker on 12 January 2001 at 09:04 PM.]

posted 13 January 2001 05:21 PM         

Most of the players I know who do session work use JI plus the fudge factor. It's definitely possible to use ET plus fudge to get the same result, but I tend to use JI.

But we can't ignore the revolutionary effect of the steel guitar fudge factor. We can play in tune, which isn't an option available to piano players or guitarists.

posted 13 January 2001 05:44 PM         

quote:

---

Seriously- Wh-w-w what about universals?

---

When I got the Universal, I started using Jeff Newman's method, which involved tuning the E's to 442.5 and the thirds flat but less flat than Bobby's tuning, so that it "averaged out" to 440.

After reading a prior thread on ET vs. JT, I tried ET for a while, tuning everything straight up, but I didn't really like that sound.

The biggest problem with JT, in my view, is that, especially, that F lever E#, which is tuned to a nice third above the C#, which is tuned to a nice third above the A, is really out of tune when you play it as the bottom note of a minor third or top note of a major sixth, because now that third is WIDER than an ET third. For example, let's talk key of G, assuming you tune your G# strings to 437.5 and your F lever to 435:

[tab]
str3 3 B(437.5) 4 C(437.5)
str4 3 G(440) 4F A(435)
str6 3 B(437.5) 4 C(437.5)

JT is based on flatting the thirds and to a lesser extent the fifths of the major chords, but much steel playing doesn't involve chords, but more often two-note partial chords, where those "third notes" are the roots of thirds. I play a 9th chord with the B pedal and F lever, like:

str3 4B C#(440)
str4 4F A (435)
str5 4 D#(439)
This is a B9th without root or fifth. The major third between the A and C# is considerably wider than an ET major third.

I use the scale on 3 and 4, 4 and 6, 6 and 8 and 8 and 10, with the major thirds no pedals and the minor thirds the F lever, a lot. In ET, the major thirds don't sound good; in JT, the minor thirds don't sound good.

For a while, I tried tuning E's, B's, A's and G's (I have a lever than lowers 3rd, 6th and 10th) to 440, the "third notes" to 438 and the F lever to 436, but the intervals where the F-lever note was not the third to the A-pedal note still didn't sound good to me, so now I've gone to 439 for the "third notes" and 438 for the F lever.

As to the B6 side, since my B6 playing is almost exclusively chords, I tune the thirds of the chords for pedals 4 (B# on string 9, third of G#), 5 (E# on string 11, third of C#) and 7 (A# on string 6, third of F#) to 438.

posted 18 January 2001 07:48 PM         

What you said about the F note on the 4th string when tuned as a 3rd with the A pedeled C# on the 5th sring is sooo true when using JI (Just intonation). It is this fact that substantiates some players toughts that if carried far enough any note will not move at all ultimately.

Also, it should further be noted that in our 12 note semi-tone system, there are indeed many notes that fall outside these 12 notes when one does in fact tune JI.

I do not know how many there are, but that F note is far far flat of the F note at the 1st fret when tuned JI. And there are examples of this all over a D-10 on BOTH necks.

I have heard all the arguments trying to justify JI. I tune JI!! But in my heart and IMHO, I think I am dead wrong! But my ears just won't let me tune ET. The more I think about it and study it and try to play this sapsucker, the more I tend to believe that ET is really correct and JI is just something musicians have tried to force for centuries. And any time man wants to do something, he can Always find dozens of reasons to justify it. EVEN when it is wrong. Seems to me I remember reading about a young man in Italy once that determined the scholars of the day were just wrong. He felt the earth was round. Yet all the schools and scholars and scientists had proven it was indeed flat.

And "flat" is what JI does more often than not

I still have to come back to the fact that Bill Stafford, Weldon Myrick and Buddy Emmons tune everything ET now. Other players (I believe Sonny Garrish may be one) are starting to do it too. WM and BE tuned JI for over 40+ years. And now they tune straight up ET. WHY? There is no prettier music ever came out of a steel than these gentlemen when they tune ET. So Why?

posted 18 January 2001 08:57 PM         

------------------
<< Moon Mullin in Alaska >>
==Carter S-10==
<< Old Fender-400 >>
== Evans FET 500 Custom LV ==
Click HERE for Moon's Home Page

posted 18 January 2001 10:23 PM         

If you go to this website you'll see some endorsements from some pretty heavy hitters in the guitar world.

I can't describe it except to say it's a new concept for setting up a standard guitar with slightly different placement of the nut and frets. Of course, for steel, we can only address the placement of the nut (and bridge).

In this discussion, I keep coming back to the realization that the great players, whose recorded work we all admire, always (to me) sound in tune. I find it remarkable that Mr. Emmons has switched from ET to JI. How could he be "more in tune" than he is?

One other thing: How well are these electronic keyboards tuned that seem to be the cause for all the fuss? Are they be tuned like a standard piano, which, as I understand it, are tuned to ET?

posted 19 January 2001 08:18 AM         

A few keyboards (like my Korg T3) actually allow you to change tunings. If I recall correctly (I haven't used that particular keyboard in a while), you could set it for tuning to Cmajor, Cminor, Dmajor, Dminor, etc. Which I presume were JI tunings.

However, I found that using those tunings sounded VERY strange. Even when playing in the key of C using the Cmajor tuning.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

posted 19 January 2001 09:07 AM         

------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session S-12 (E9), Speedy West D-10 (E9, D6),
Sierra 8 Laptop (D13), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, A6)

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 19 January 2001 at 09:10 AM.]

posted 19 January 2001 10:13 AM         

As usual makes a lot of sense here. Let it be known, that I do in fact tune to JI and even have compensators to bring those "pesky" F#'s in tune with the A pedal engaged.

I do have this comment however. On instruments which are fixed, such as a flute, clarinet, sax etc. there is very little choice. Of course where they have an advantage is they only are capable of producing one note at a time. A PSG is much more versatile. Stuck in the middle of these extremes is of course, the piano/organ. Because their are ONLY 12 notes on these musical instruments, a compromise is often sought.

But know way could they tune their C#'s and G#'s and F's (F lever), as flat as JI permits us to. So it is my understanding that piano tuners tune by a method called "stretching". Not really knowing what this means I don't know exactly what they are doing. But I imagine it ends up being shifted somewhat from ET but no where near JI. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.

I do have one question however. If they do this, which "key signature" root note(s) is/are at 440 reference?

Having said all that, I am still perplexed with the entire sphere of tuning in our 12 note system. And nothing I have read proves to me that JI is correct. But just a whole lot of things tend to prove to me that ET is. Regardless of my ears.

I suppose we, nor no one else, will ever really know which one is correct. And I refuse to accept the thesis that either is correct. Not to beat a dead horse and at the risk of sounding like a broken record (Do they make them thangs anymore? ), there has to be a reason why the greatest player in the world switched from ET to JI after 40+ yrs of JI. That is fact and, an inescapable fact.

Oh well,

posted 19 January 2001 10:51 AM         

All I know is the only time my Dad (Leo LeBlanc) sounded out of tune (and it really sounds flat) was when the Wallflowers pretentious producer and guitar tech forced him to use a tuner.

My dad was humiliated, unfortunately he was too sick at the time to put up a fight.

Can you believe after 40 years of recording and playing live these pricks had the nerve to force my Dad to do anything? The music business has gone to hell, literally (at least in the big circles).

[This message was edited by Stephen LeBlanc on 19 January 2001 at 10:52 AM.]

posted 19 January 2001 10:52 AM         

quote:

---

There are an infinite number of notes between any two notes.

---

Oh, noooooooooooooooooo. Don't say THAT!

Otherwise, somebody's bound to try to "prove" that you can't get from one note to the other. (The old "you have to go halfway, then half the remaining distance, ad infinitum, and there's not enough time to do it" paradox. Though, technically, it's not a paradox, just a "proof" with a serious flaw in it).

Sorry, the mathematics got to me again!

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

[This message was edited by David Pennybaker on 19 January 2001 at 10:52 AM.]

posted 19 January 2001 01:09 PM         

quote:

---

There are days when I'm happy that my mathematical skills are underdeveloped.

---

If you ever change your mind, I'd be happy to trade some mathematical proofs for a little more musical ability.

------------------
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons

posted 19 January 2001 05:11 PM         

quote:

---

I do have this comment however. On instruments which are fixed, such as a flute, clarinet, sax etc. there is very little choice.

---

Carl,
There is nothing fixed about the intonation of those instruments.