I guess I was one of those guys who miffed you a little....my apologies.

From what I have gathered over the last few months on threads such as this.....ET was a tuning with the tuner set to 440hz and a person tuned all the strings to the same dot in the middle....

To me, that is not tempered tuning...but, that's my opinion and obviously not right by definition.

I tune my six string high E to that 440hz middle dot....then the other strings are chimed at the 5th or 7th fret to the same middle dot....which is not considered ET or straight up ....but rather tempered tuning.

Buzz Feiten system is what I use on my guitar...which is a tempered tuning...
which by the definition you posted is ET...
but reading other POSTs here....ET is tuning every string to the same dot...

So, yes, I am confused on the matter.,...I will admit that first rattle out of the box.

I always thought that tuning the 3rds a hair flat and my 5ths a little sharp was considered tempered tuning... a lot like the piano....but as I read more and more...
tempered tuning is ET...or stretch ET...

If you stretch the ET tuning (Sharpening some notes and flating others).....isn't that in essence tuning more to JI????

I am anxious to hear more....as I am learning a lot from this discussion.
I have used the tuner ...and then (tempered) from that by ear on all 5 instruments that I play.

Looking forward to learning more on this subject ....

Before hearing back from you b0b....I sit here and think about it....
I guess my tuning is a stretch JI of sorts...
I take Newmans chart...and change little things here and there to make it work for me.

Thanks all for helping me understand more on the subject.

b

------------------
MSA Millennium D10, Walker Stereo Steel, Stone Tree Custom Tele, LINE 6 Vetta II and POD XT PRO

quote:

---

JUST INTONATION is any system of tuning in which all of the intervals can be represented by ratios of whole numbers

---

I haven't sat down to actually try to figure it out, and maybe there's an answer to this lurking around the forum somewhere, but -- in view of the above definition of JI, is it really possible to tune a psg to true JI?

------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 04 December 2004 at 05:00 PM.]

quote:

---

If you stretch the ET tuning (Sharpening some notes and flating others).....isn't that in essence tuning more to JI????

---

The JI major third is 386 cents.

The ET major third is 400 cents.

So, am I correct in understanding that with the A or B pedal down, you would want to either have the F#'s adjusted slightly as you mentioned, or not play them? In other words, if a guitar doesn't have compensators and it's tuned JI like the chart, would the F#'s be out of tune?

I know this has been probably discussed before, but exactly what are compensators? Are they basically very short pulls using the same hardware (i.e. bellcranks, rods, etc.) that a regular pull uses? Or is it a different type of mechanism?

Two "glitches" that come to mind the times I've tried "it" were mostly the (G#s) being too flat for the F kl/Aped and lowered C#s being too low to be the root of the Fl/Ap. Then there's the major 7 chord starting on the 9th string which makes the F# the third. I can understand why at that change, a lot of A/B cabinet drop would work in one's favor.

I'm kind of confused by your ratios, but I'm taking it that you raise and lower your Es on your RL and RR Kls.

It's interesting to be sure. Let me know how and if these two are addressed. They've always kept me from "trying it".

Two more things have come to mind, and of all quarters, from the "Bill Hankey" "Fishtailing Bar" storehouse.

I tried myself to produce consistent "beatless octaves" when in a barred position. I'm rigging up my Podxt again, and I suppose I can do a "sonogram" to see if they can be made consistently "beatless". I can't seem to do it on a consistent basis. I mean beatless. Try it. Then try I guess to move chords to another perfect position "beatlessly".

Also I've been able to set up a dozen "standards" and slow them way down. They are from "top guys" that tune "beatlessly". On all the ones I've slowed waay down, I hear a definite "sliding into" and "out of" "perfect chords"but few long enough to tell if they're "beatless". The single noters are all over the place. Mr Emmons seens to be the most consistent at playing a note or chord "in place". One of the "older ones" where I can hear what he was talking about "sounding funny" was an earlier "half a mind" recording off the record lady's site. Interesting.

Considering I've posted where I and MANY others use half fret intervals regularly when sliding into a chord or "whammying" it, that throws another variable into it.

Also some wierd "walkdowns" like the standard "Fireman" I make four distinct moves in three frets, and NOBODY NOTICES. I get a real kick out of doing it.

OK. Those inversions.

Also the a single note improv using the A and B pedals on one position on the I IV and V chords on a standard like "La Bamba". You are playing at some times the G# as different notes to the I IV and V. Do you sharpen it automatically when it's not the third?

IF what the "Beatless Theory" is saying is that the whole harmonized scale uses the same "Beatless Scale", then you have your first problem on the IV chord. If not, and each harmonized major (ma7 or 7th) chord has it's own "beatless tuning", then other problems arise.

I REALLY think this is interesting, and I thank you for taking me seriously enough to address my questions rather than making snide remarks. Take your time, I've got a casual to play tonite, and I had a long day today and a long week. Thanks for your patience, nice demeanor, and your good reading comprehension. I'll try to return it in kind.

This whole business is beginning to give me a pain in the burak, though this time it's not of your making.

As time permits. It certainly flies.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 04 December 2004 at 10:07 PM.]

quote:

---

Two that come to mind the times I've tried "it" was mostly the (G#s) being too flat for the F kl Apedal and lowered C#s being too low to be the root of the Fl/Ap. ...

---

quote:

---

...Then there's the major 7 chord starting on the 9th string which makes the F# the third. I can understand why at that change, a lot of A/B cabinet drop would work in one's favor.

---

C# -16 (the A pedal)
A   -2 (the B pedal)
F# -18 (the 10/9 compensator)
D   -4 (the 16/9, down an octave to 8/9)

quote:

---

Also the a single note improv using the A and B pedals on one position on the I IV and V chords on a standard like "La Bamba". You are playing at some times the G# as different notes to the I IV and V. Do you sharpen it automatically when it's not the third?

---

------------------
Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Sierra SD-12 (Ext E9), Williams D-12 Crossover, Sierra S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop 8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster (E13, C6, A6)

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 04 December 2004 at 10:50 PM.]

I just got in, and I will try your proposal, and note my cabinet drop.

This will all be checked with an electronic piano of course.

I appreciate your notation of passing chords, and the 3 6 and 7th that you say are flattened in this Beatless Scale.

Now while I'm doing this, and I'm flat bushed tonite, Are the IV and V chords made out of these original notes of the "I" beatless scale? How about the IImaj IIImaj bIVmaj VImaj or bVIImaj?

You may answer to the gallery.

EJL

PS I just tracked the original song mentioned, and on the ending, which is the only place I hear a chord ringing at all, I'm hearing beats all over the place. It's funny that was used as an example.

[This message was edited by Eric West on 05 December 2004 at 12:02 AM.]

Strike two! Nice breeze though.
batta, batta, batta...
Swing!... (or stick to the Money neck).

I guess I'll wait til b0b posts some more of his specificata, or I get time in my only day off to try some of the things he suggested.

Before my PIII falls apart completely..

Til then, I think I'm getting a Burache.

Keep at it.

You'll connect..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 05 December 2004 at 09:39 AM.]

____________________________________________

Intonation will always be easier with JI for me, and tuning every pedal and lever straight up will always sound out of tune to me (I can't call it ET though because of the inherent cabinet drop induced by given pedal/lever combos).
Maybe some kind of "Couter Force" system is in order?

I am on the "lucky side" of this as I've said for a low thousands number of gigs before it came to be something that I thought I had to address. When I said the first time I knew that Mr Emmons tuned that way, that I did it out of sheer ignorance, I wasn't really kidding. Oh, I'd heard of it, but it always became my goal to be the one in the band that was not accused of "being out of tune". Being able to stop and show the person, be it a keyboardist, or guitar player just what exact note "I am using" "as an E B, D, or other, and be able to have a chromatic tuner in line to back it up." In the last ten years, without any exceptions that I am aware of, I haven't been told that I "need to tune up". It's been worth it for that reason.

I have found, the times I've tried it, though not a long string of them, that "beatless chords" are problematic too. Not so much at the individual or passing chords, but for single note runs, especially those old slow shuffle slow ones. Things just didn't sound really solid to me.

I TOTALLY agree with you, the "micro adjustments, ARE "Intuitive", if you've played for any length of time. Chordal, single note, or scalar.

Do I play by "sight", No. I get a rough reference from the fret markers. As soon as the nickel hits the stainless, after only a micro second, the "fishing around" stops. It's more than visual, ear based. I think the "Intuition" part comes in SLOWLY after leaarning number one, how damned HARD it is to not rely on your "basement ears" which we all start on, to your "live band ears" which come a long time after you've learned to ignore things you KNOW are out of tune, like a cold harmonica, a warped Mini Grand, or a habitually flat vocalist with a monitor you haven't had time to unplug. ALL these things usually louder than what you are hearing out of your amp, if you don't want to lose your hearing i a couple years.

I REALLY liked the way Carl Dixon put it, injecting "Faith" into it. It is a combination of all three things I guess.

I "know" when I'm on the right mark, when I "feel" that I am. I can also know and feel this when everything around me is loud and out of tune. I think that's the part that's taken so many years of playing in semi-shitty bands to "get". As the bands "got better" or periodically "worse" (luckily moving towards the better comstantly) I saw that I could trust more, my own "knowing", and "feeling". It didn't happen overnight.

Looking at it objectively b0b, and totally missing the added "dimension" of trying to tune all the chords I played to a pristine "beatlessness", I learned somewhere in the first 1500 or so live gigs to expect to hear chords, that were as close as what I NOW understand to be "Equal" "Mesopotamian", or "1/12" based Tempermant as I could get them.

In short I was a (damned charming) monkey locked in a room with a typewriter that only had 12 keys. Not 43. (There's a slow lob fer ya..) For twenty five years.

It's not "sophistication" by any means. That's why I feel it so easy to defend and stick by regardless of how Mr Emmons, Green, Newmann, or Even Mr Charleton tunes.

quote:

---

If you consider ET and JI as two acceptable ends of a tuning continuum, anything in between will also be acceptable. That's my theory, anyway, and it works for me.

---

Even if you don't, you or anybody should be able to find a way that works if you are determined enough.

And like Mr Emmons says

quote:

---

I figure if somebody can get away with tuning 9 cents flat to every other instrument, then I’m home free. -Buddy Emmons-

---

b0b, unlike most of the gallery, you've made me thing, along with helping me be able to firm up and more easily explain this "tuning thing'.

But then, I guess that's why you're...

...

..

.b0b.

Oh and Mr B. What makes you think that I wasn't kidding? You can't see the blood dripping out of my ear.

Not to worry, I took lessons from Ray myself. A long time ago.

He taught me everything he knew.

I did a non-cavity strip search on the way out.

On my own.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 05 December 2004 at 11:19 AM.]

( falls over in a dead faint after blowing a half cup of coffee on his hillbilly P4 Mainframe shorting it all out...)

I think you've got point Mr Carlucci.

I myself, tune straight up.

I find it easier, and more pleasing to my ears.

Others of course, have differet methods that work just as well or them.

I'm sure....

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 05 December 2004 at 10:57 AM.]

Also notable were, what I'm used to hearing at 1/3 speed on my CW9 Sonar, signs of vocal pitch changing. I'ts pretty easy to spot.

I've always liked GS and PF. My favorite is "Right or Wrong" with Mr E on it.

I came up with a C6 instrumental I used on it during the 80s in a cover band. Giving it a listen the other day I noticed how lame my version really was..

For those who are interested in this, they fussed over this stuff in classical music for way more than a century. Since the pedal steel is such a new instrument, it will not be a waste of time for some of us to puzzle over this and experiment a little. If we come up with anything useful, the proof in the pudding will be if any of this later becomes general standard practice.

I think we are now getting somewhere with some interesting concrete examples of exactly where JI or ET does or does not work, and by how much. As I understand it, there are four objections to tuning JI on a pedal steel.

The first is trivial - if a guitar or bass player asks you for a note to tune by, do you give him the note as the fundamental (the same for ET and JI), or as the third (ET is sharp of JI)? Since at least one of your strings needs to be pegged straight up to ET (typically E or A), give him that note. Any guitarist worth playing with can tune his other strings to that. There is no need to give him any other note. If he asks for another note, tell him that's the one you just tuned with the meter, and it's the best one for him to use. I have rarely had a guitarist ask me for anything other than A or E. Horns like to tune to concert Bb, but can easily tune to any note. I think all of the orchestral strings have an A.

The real questions arise in the other three objections: 1) you can't get all possible chords in acceptable tune for all string and pedal/lever combinations; 2) even if you get the chords sounding acceptable, some scale or chromatic notes will be off; and 3) you can't tune JI if other instruments in the group are tuned ET.

My own limited experience is that if I get my chords in acceptable JI tuning, my scale notes will be acceptable (I don't consciously listen to beats and tune them out in the chords, I just listen for what sounds in tune with the other strings, which amounts to the way I would sing the note, or play the note on sax, and is close to JI). Even if the scale notes are a little off, they work okay in passing, and when they are added to a chord for something other than a straight major chord, I find the natural dissonance of such chords covers the problem. I am aware that some of my betters who use such notes more than I do are not satisfied with that. But when I try ET, I am more dissatisfied with my sour major chords, than I am dissatisfied with the scale notes with JI. So up until now I have stuck with JI. This is strictly a matter of personal preference in where you prefer to hear the dissonance. I prefer it in dissonant chords, not the pure majors. ET intentionally adds dissonance to the pure majors. You can get use to it, but it is always there for good ears to hear.

The main issue for me then is whether I can get all the chords I need in acceptable tune, regardless of which inversion I use, or which pedals/levers I use. b0b has made a good start above in showing that the basic chords on E9 work out okay, and don't conflict with each other. In a separate post, when I get time, I am going to go into that a little more, to show exactly why this works out so well with the most common E9 combinations. At some point I will also look at what happens on C6 or B6. But I have never been bothered on those necks with either JI or ET, because most of the chords are dissonant chords. Again, I recognize I'm a novice on the 6th neck, and a specialist on that neck may have issues I haven't encountered.

When you get into the scale versus chord problem, it is no longer even clear to me what JI is. If you set up a perfect chromatic scale based on the whole number fractions of the fundamental, you can't play anything but the I, IV, and V chords with the proper JI intervals within the chord (b0b, are the fractions in your chart above in relation to E, or to the fundamental of whatever chord is being played - A with the A/B pedals, C# with the A/F combination?). On steel using the bar (or on a guitar using a bar chord), you can have the proper JI intervals using any note as the fundamental. But the notes in these chords (other than I, IV, and V) will not be the JI notes of the scale of the original fundmental. So which is really correct JI, the scale intervals, or the chord intervals. If only one of those is JI, what do you call the other. For my purposes, it is the chord intervals that matter the most. The fundamental of each chord can match either the ET scale or the JI scale, and I think I will be happy.

Now I may feel different if I play single notes slowly up a scale. When I get to the 3rd, I would probably try to play it or sing it JI (I'm not even sure about that and will experiment with a meter at some point), but I would probably also feel completely comfortable matching the ET note, if an ET instrument was setting the intonation for the group. Unless you are playing on an open string, this a moot point, because you will unconsciously match your bar to what sounds good with the other instrument. In playing faster scales (or any single note), JI or ET will be close enough to sound okay to most people. If we are playing a single third in harmony with a vocal or other instrument on melody, I think all of us would play whatever sounds good. It might be ET if another ET instrument is also playing the 3rd, or it might be JI if we are the dominant instrument playing the 3d. We would never think about it; we would just do it.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 06 December 2004 at 11:16 AM.]

Also, I have noticed that my steel can sound a little off when it is way down in the mix, but that when I come up in the mix for a ride, your mind automatically begins keying on the steel, and I sound fine, but other instruments that are down in the mix might then sound a little off. Perversely, tuning the steel ET does not necessarily solve that problem. My ET steel might sound better down in the mix, but might sound out of tune with itself when it is up in the mix on a ride. Unfortunately, I only have this stuff on tape right now, and don't yet have the facilities to put it in a computer compatible format. Jim Cohen said his tracks with a piano sounded better tuned JI rather than ET. Maybe we could get those tracks to listen to. After all, he is billed as the "master of acceptable tone," and I completely agree (except when he overuses that imitation Dobro sound( ).

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 06 December 2004 at 11:42 AM.]

....but one thing I have always wondered about...when guitarists are re-tuning, why do they always tune the E's "up" and never "down"?

If just intonation tuning is not even tempered, is it ill-tempered?

I think I must tune to an ill-tempered unjust intonation. At least it always sounds that way.