Back in the mid-1970's, when I first started trying to learn to play pedal steel (I already played the regular 6-string guitar) I used an "E" tuning fork to tune the E's and then tried to use harmonics to tune everything else. I quickly found out that those danged old F#'s really caused problems. They just could not be adjusted to sound good with both the B's and the C#'s so I would just find a happy middle ground for the F#'s and hope for the best. Many years passed and I met Michael Douchette (anybody remember Mikey?) on the old AOL steel guitar board. He told me about Buddy Emmons tuning everything "straight up" (ET). Well, in order to do that, I bought my first little Korg tuner and learned to tune "straight up". I found that by doing that I accomplished two things. First, the problem with the F#'s went away. Now they were in tune with both the B's and the C#'s. Also, I started blending much better with a band member that doubled on guitar and keyboards. He could hit an open D chord on his guitar, first position, and I would play a D chord on the fifth fret, pedals down. They did not blend well at all until I started tuning straight up.

By the way, when I say I tuned ET or "straight up", I don't mean that all the notes are tuned to "440". Because of "cabinet drop", that won't work. I would tune all the open strings, pedals up, to 442. Then I would press the A and B pedals and tune everything straight up to 440. I would do this with different combinations of pedals and knee-levers and try to get everything "straight up", relative to that particular chord. I suppose that with a guitar that had no "cabinet drop", you could tune everything to 440.

One thing that I have noticed over the years is that when I tuned to ET, I really had to listen and manipulate the bar properly to play in tune with the rest of the band. I took it for granted that it was just the nature of the beast. I also noticed that, even though I was playing in tune with other band members, there has always been a certain "harshness" to my tone, whether I was playing my Emmons push/pull or my Mullen through my Nashville 400 or my Evans. I always figured it was just my hands and poor picking technique.

Just for grins, I tried tuning the thirds a bit flat, not as flat as called for by JI, but 8 cents flat of ET. Of course, it did sound good at home, in my music room. I knew it would. I figured it would clash terribly on the bandstand though. Well, I was wrong. It sounded great. The harshness was gone. The guitar seemed to be more forgiving, as far as bar placement was concerned. It just seemed easier to play in tune with the rest of the band. And, as I said, the harshness was gone and the overall "timbre" seemed to be improved.

A few years ago, after posting about how much I loved ET tuning, Paul Franklin sent me an e-mail, telling me how he tuned his guitar, which was not ET by any means. His question to me was, "I don't sound out of tune to you, do I?" Well (gulp) no, he sure doesn't sound out of tune to me. I continued to tune ET, though. It just made good mathematical sense to me.

I'm happy with the way my guitar sounds, with the 3rds lowered just 8 cents. Larry Bell's web site (Click Here) is a great place to read about using what he calls a "hybrid" method of tuning between JI and ET. I call it a "tampered" tuning method. It really works well for me.

Some may think that this thread will be confusing to a newbie steel player. I don't agree. I think this whole discussion and all previous discussions about ET vs JI tuning methods are very educational. When I first discovered, all those years ago, that the F#'s just couldn't be tuned to match up with the B's and the C#'s, I had no idea why. I just knew there was something wrong. With this wonderful Forum, we are able to share a lot of information with a lot of people in a short amount of time.

So, I'm sorry to inform you ET tuners, but you are not playing in tune. The same goes for you JI tuners. You're also wrong. You have to meet somewhere in the middle, where I am, 'cause I'm right and all the rest of you are wrong! Tampered tuning is the place to be. Right Larry?

Peace.

Here's another trick I discovered. If I tune my F#s as 5ths to the Bs, The F# is not quite right as the root of the II minor with the BC pedals down. So instead of using the 7th string as the root for that minor, I pull my 8th string up to F# on the C pedal, and I tune that stop to sound good with the rest of that minor chord on the BC pedal stops. As a bonus, I love the sound of the root raising with the rest of the chord. And I don't have to worry about blocking string 7 when I move off that chord. The F# on string 7 then sounds great as the 9 of the open E chord, and the F# raise on string 8 sounds great as the root of the F# minor chord.

Well, I'm glad we're all warm and fuzzy now. I really gotta go practice some more, and Steve's probably out of popcorn.

[This message was edited by David Doggett on 06 July 2005 at 10:31 PM.]

I don't even play pedal steel, tho I tried once with a cheap model. Tuning it took longer than tuning 6 pianos. So I read the tuning posts from end to end to see where the steel world is going with it, just because tuning is an interest of mine.
So I think every beginner could appreciate what it takes to arrive at his sound.

quote:

---

John, good question.

---

Like David D., I am a Ph.D. scientist (and in my case, engineer), and just love to analyze everything to death. Once I start playing, I don't analyze a bloody thing. But I need to do a lot of careful preparation before I can do that and enjoy it.

I start out with a 'straight-up' 440-ET tuning to get things close, but then tweak to my ear (and to the band, if that's where I'm at). I deliberately make compromises between the JI triads and the inversions/7th chords/diminished chords and what not, until overall, it sounds good everywhere. I'm probably not far away from ET, but there's just a bit of 'sweetening' of triads. I guess people call this 'meantone' or 'tampered' now. Oh, boy - some new buzzwords.

Without compensators, I don't see how to get good sounding inversions and more complex chords with pure JI open triads (the open bar being the I chord). Of course, the VI A+F inversion is the real clinker, but there are others, like the V B+Eb dom7 or V A+B+Eb dom9 or II A+B+Eb+X dim7. These inevitably conflict with the I maj7 (Eb lever - or equivalently the inversion of the III minor). My X-lever also fails to work the same with different open and pedal/lever combinations.

How much of all this is cabinet drop vs. theoretical pitch differences (see David D.'s chart) is strictly empirical. Either way, it seems to imply either a very complex compensation system or some kind of compromise.

All of this is, of course, even more of a problem on the universal, since there are a lot more multi-use changes. I see why many avoid the universal approach, although I still like it.

So I compromise, which BTW, I also sometimes do on 6-string guitar. Not always, but if I know I'm going to be leaning hard on a lot of major open chords, I may tweak ET just a bit. Most experienced guitar players I know will also bend notes within a sustained chord when possible to get things to sound "right".

As I noted in some earlier posts, the trigonometric sum formula explains why this is all so much more important in slow, sustained passages. It seems to me that somehow tweaking out the beats in sustained chords is really critical, however it's done.

Another point. A lot has been made of the idea of tweaking the bar slightly when using open-bar JI tuning to tweak the the various pedal and lever combinations so that they're OK. That makes sense, but why is that any different than tuning ET, and making even smaller bar tweaks to make the open bar triads sweet? It seems to me that these are reciprocal approaches.

Of course, if the open-bar and standard triad pedal/lever changes are the main course, then it makes sense to tune them more JI. But if that's not the case, it seems that a more ET approach may work better. I probably veer closer to ET on universal than on an S-10. In other words, choice of tuning approach seems to be more from convenience than necessity.

All this said, I agree with those who argue that "if it sounds good, it is good". This is not to say it doesn't matter how one tunes. For me, it's important to understand the ramifications of how I tune.

quote:

---

Without compensators, I don't see how to get good sounding inversions and more complex chords with pure JI open triads (the open bar being the I chord). Of course, the VI A+F inversion is the real clinker...

---

Tune the G# to a beatless third above E.
Tune the pedaled C# to a beatless fourth above the G#.
Tune the F lever to a beatless third above the pedaled C#.

If you do this, this A+F position gives you a pure JI triad every time. It's no "clinker".

The interval frequency ratios are spelled out on this page. As an engineer, it should be easy for you to do the math. You'll find that the intervals in all of the common 7th and 9th chords work out real nice, as do diminished triads with the F lever.

I don't have the A+B+E+X for a dim7 combination, but I think if you tune your 5th string split about 14 cents higher than you tune your B pedal it will sound just fine.

quote:

---

A lot has been made of the idea of tweaking the bar slightly when using open-bar JI tuning to tweak the the various pedal and lever combinations so that they're OK. That makes sense, but why is that any different than tuning ET, and making even smaller bar tweaks to make the open bar triads sweet? It seems to me that these are reciprocal approaches.

---

Here's what I make of this. Tuning strings and stops so that thirds are JI rather than ET makes it so you can keep the bar straight and have the sweet JI intervals (that is, major 3rds and 7ths flat compared to the root and 5th, minor 3rds and 7ths sharp compared to the root and 5th). If you tune ET, and only play two strings (diads), you can slant the bar slightly and get those flatter or sharper notes. But, if you play triads, you have three non-aligned points you need to reach, and as an engineer you know that three non-alighed points form a curve, and the bar don't curve. If you tune JI, you get all three points lined up, but the price you pay is that you cannot play exactly over the fret for some positions (for example, the AF position ends up being about 16 cents flat at the fret). Good players easily play the AF position by ear to the appropriate point above the fret to correct for this. But if you tune ET you need to make the bar curve - good luck with that. At the nut, JI has the whole chord flat, but the intervals correct; ET has the roots correct, but the 3rds (and 7ths) off. Take your pick.

I think that goes without saying.

Bless his heart.

B0b does not have a mean temper! We have to stop this slander!

I believe I can say now, maybe we're all looking for an even temper.

But I still find it hard to go with this:
"For those of us who find the ET dissonance irritating and objectionable...."

I realize we're talking apples and oranges here, but I'd be hard pressed to find Clair de Lune dissonant, much less irritating and objectionable.
But then, Debussy didn't have to deal with a pedal steel. I do think he'd love to hear his tune on steel, regardless of the tuning method.
Remember Clair? Realy sweet, but a little loony....

There has been some talk about one's own ear adjusting to either JI or ET, but what about other peoples ears? Bruce posted about almost getting fired by Ricky Skaggs when he tried out ET, and Ricky has some of the most picky ears in town. The couple of times I messed with it onstage, the guitar player looked at me like I had been drinking. When I messed around with it in the studio on a project, the producer told me he had never heard me play out of tune until then...

So that put to rest the fact that ET does not work for me, and never will. If the other way works for you, that is great, and if you can walk into my session and sound in tune that way, fantastic. But another 15 pages of forum posts and a scientific calculator will never make it work for me, or the people I work/play for...

quote:

---

b0b, analysis pending. I think before I figured out that, for me, your F lever tuning method works out theoretically, but cabinet drop throws in a monkey wrench. I end up having to slant one way or the other, depending on which inversion I am using.

---

Claire de Lune is written with 5 flats, but it doesn't stray far from its tonal center. It doesn't present any serious problems for "just" harmonies. I think it sounds better in meantone or JI than in ET, or on an instrument with less sustain than the piano (harp, marimba, etc.).

Of course, I can hardly tolerate piano music anyway...

John, “fudging the notes” on guitar is exactly what I have been talking about. They will tune straight up to the meter (ET), then strike a chord and tweak to make the chords “sound good.” Typically they have moved from ET toward JI (minimizing the beats). This just seems to be extremely common among guitar players. This works for common chords and simple progressions. Key modulations cause problems; however, using bar chords you can sometimes move JI tuning to different keys with no problems. And yes, good guitar players can adjust their harmony toward JI while playing by bending strings and using the whammy bar. And thanks for lending supporting evidence that for many of us ET sounds irritating and out of tune to us and our critical listeners. I guess ETers could argue that we could learn to play in tune with an ET tuning if we took the time. But for most of the stuff I am playing now, I just don’t see the point of wrestling with ET.

Stephen, playing diads is an old technique with Dobro and lap steel. Often open diads are used that skip a note of the triad: (high to low) 1,3 or 5,1 or 3,5. This facilitates bar slants for maintaining intonation and for moving harmony up and down the neck. Also, open diads cut through a loud mix better than triads. Other members of the group are usually playing the rest of the triad, so steel doesn’t always have to. This is why Newman and others advise using diads sometimes. This is in no way some kind of limitation caused by JI. In fact it works just as well with ET and can sweeten ET. When you play alone, or play lead over quiet backup, playing triads can sometimes sound better. Some of us even use three finger picks so we can play four-note chords. Triads and bigger chords work fine with JI, and in fact are one of the reasons I prefer JI.

quote:

---

But, the fact of the matter is, once you alter a pitch in relation to another pitch you have immediately set off a series of problems as the "roles" of these pitches changes, within other voicings, inversions, extended chords, etc.

---

That is as true for ET as for JI. When you tune a string or pedal/knee stop straight up ET for a root, 4th or 5th, you have ruined it for use as the 3rd , 6th or 7th of another chord. We can correct this for additional chords by using pedal/knee stops that are independent of the tuning of the string at the keyhead. But eventually you run out of stops. For his 14-string pedal steel, Ed Packard has catalogued every possible diad, triad and on up, with every possible string, pedal and knee stop. Only ET can make all those work across the board. He is taking a harp-like approach to pedal steel. I prefer to keep my most commonly used straight major and minor chords sweet JI. The others that have potential problems with JI tend to be suspendeds, dimished, augmented, etc. They tend to have some natural dissonance, and any JI conflicts aren’t very noticeable to me. But ET compromises everything, and I just can’t stand it for my commonly used straight major and minor chords. And I have lots of company.

quote:

---

Didn’t Mike Perlowin record some whole-tone stuff on steel? Wonder how he tuned?

---

As David D. notes, at least some of the chords at the nut are not correct. For example, A+F is flat no matter what one does. Paul Franklin discusses his reasons for tuning his E strings to the A=442 standard here: http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/006745-2.html. This seems like it would help this problem.

What really messed me up was just how flat the F lever has to be tuned to make this work. For example, by b0b's chart, in the A+F inversion, F, the low note in the first inversion of Db major, has a ratio of 25/24 (or 1.041666667) to the E note. So this pull is way flat of a JI flat-2nd interval from E, which has a ratio of 16/15 (or 1.066666667). This is a large difference. This says that the pulled F is only 62.5% or 5/8 of the distance between E and the JI flat-2nd interval (F). Wow! That really is flat, and it sounds so to my ear.

So, there was my problem - I was tuning the F pull too sharp, because I could not bring myself to tune it so flat. My head has issues with having a single note that flat, but I see how it helps get the chord frequency ratios. I also agree that pure lateral bar movement to fix the pitch center is a reasonable tradeoff for an experienced player.

I did set this up on my Sierra universal, which doesn't seem to have a lot of cabinet drop for a universal. I agree that it did sound good, as far as I took it - I only considered the standard E9 changes. However, I could not get everything perfect, perhaps that is the effect of cabinet drop on the G#. I found myself doing a very slight bar slant (front of the bar to the right) to get the no-pedals triad perfect. What seems to be happening here is that, using b0b's method, tuning to get the A+F triads perfect causes the G# to sharpen up a bit with pedals up, so I need to slant to sharpen up the higher strings. It worked nicely, and the resulting chords sounded good.

Taking this a little further, I argue that my 'meantone' compromise (for which I have no formula - I do it entirely by ear after tuning 'straight up' to 440) gets a similar sound to the one I came up using b0b's approach. Interestingly, I find I need to do the inverse of the above bar slant to sweeten up the A+F inversion using this approach. I became aware of the need for this during the last round of JI vs. ET discussions.

Quote: "Are you saying that activating your F lever changes the tuning of your G# strings enough to notice?"

So, the answer is a definite yes, for me. It's not a lot, but I can definitely hear it in the quiet of my music room. Whenever I have a stationary string in a chord surrounded by pulled strings, it seems to always force a compromise in the pulled vs. non-pulled chords. I have observed this, however minutely, on any steel I ever played long enough to test it seriously (perhaps 10-15, not exhaustive obviously).

The three issues that are in my mind, based on this analysis, are

1. For beginners, the need to constantly be mindful of lateral bar movement away from the fret might be daunting. It would have been for me at first.

2. This pure JI approach has the potential to make some of the pulls less effective for single-note passages. In this example, in the E to F interval, F will appear very flat (actually, 37.5% flat). This may be a reasonable tradeoff for the sweeter-sounding chords on slow passages, but seems to require a lot of off-fret-marker bar adjustments for single note passages. If it's a slow enough passage to really notice the out-of-tuneness, it's probably possible to make a bar adjustment. If it's too fast to make the bar adjustment, perhaps it doesn't matter that much, but I often notice seriously out-of-tune fast passages, even if I can't hear the beats.

3. Based on this quick trial, I concur with David D. that cabinet drop seems to affect my results. I do use a plain G#, perhaps I should try a wound one. Or consider adding some compensators. Any time a string floats in the unpulled state while strings around it are being pulled and released, I notice some cabinet drop if it's quiet and I listen carefully.

Let me say that I clearly did not fully grasp the JI tuning method b0b so clearly elucidates in the page he linked to above. I'll bet I'm not alone here, since a lot of ink has flowed over the difficulty in getting the no-pedals triads, A+B triads, and A+F triads concurrently in tune using JI.

In summary, even though I seem to have some slight imperfection due to cabinet drop, following b0b's method precisely gives me the best JI tuning results I've had so far. I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the best way for me to tune, but I feel a lot better that I can make this work reasonably well by ear. I've got some new things to work on. Thank you, gentlemen.

quote:

---

In this example, in the E to F interval, F will appear very flat (actually, 37.5% flat).

---

------------------
Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6)

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 08 July 2005 at 02:59 PM.]

"In other words, if you are willing to only play within the confines of your "sweetened" changes, you'll be fine, take your playing outside of those confines and you have issues plain and simple."

I agree, it's not being played against another note - that is good, since there are no dissonant overtones to contend with. But what I was also saying there is that if someone plays a melodic sequence that goes from E to F and the F is very flat relative to the E, I think I would notice it - but perhaps not if it flew by very fast. I believe there is a sort of 'key center auditory memory' when listening to music. Even after a note is finished, I think the brain is still able somewhat to place successive notes relative to the key center and previous notes.

At this point, I'm being hypothetical. I think to use a pedal/lever combination that is seriously sharp or flat in a melodic run would require a bar movement to avoid the run sounding off-pitch. What I was saying above was that if it's slow, there's probably time to make a bar movement. If it's coming by too fast for that, maybe it's not so bad unless it's really flat. Is 37% flat 'sufficiently flat' to be noticed? I'm not sure, I imagine it depends on the context. I think of Charlie Parker and the way notes got slurred as he flew them by. It's fine to my ears, but I love microtonal stuff and play blues, etc. Nonetheless, I do know people who find Bird unlistenable because he is, in their words, 'way off pitch'.

Quote: "I don't see why you ET folks have a problem with moving the bar a little bit to the right when you hit that A+F combination. Why is that objectionable to you?"

As I get to be less of a rank beginner, it's not to me anymore, but when starting out it's frustrating to not be able to 'see' the pitch center on the fretboard. And even now, if I could find a way to get things sweet-sounding without having to do this, I'd prefer it. It's just one more thing to think about, and at high speed seems to complicate things even more.

quote:

---

I agree with you that some of the world's finest players make this work just great.

---

You can amend that to "almost all" (every steel player that plays in tune that I have ever met) rather than "some".

quote:

---

As I get to be less of a rank beginner, it's not to me anymore, but when starting out it's frustrating to not be able to 'see' the pitch center on the fretboard

---

quote:

---

It's just one more thing to think about, and at high speed seems to complicate things even more.

---

Don't think about it so much. Put your hours into practicing and listening as you play. Practice slow and if it sounds screwy adjust your bar. It becomes natural in a little bit. If you practice right high speed will be no problem by the time you get there.

Tuning is not something to waste to much time worrying about as a beginner. Its like thinking you need 14 levers and pedals to play and then seeing some guy that knows what he is doing playing every tricky change in the book on a maverick.

------------------
Bob
My Website

I kind of agree, Bob; I don't like piano music much anymore, unless it's in jazz, kind of like with some Buddy Emmons work he did with some real monsters.

Buddy's Canon in D is a good example; whether he played it in ET or JI, it would sound perfectly sweet in JI or meantone.

------------------
Bobby Lee (a.k.a. b0b) - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs, Open Hearts
Williams D-12 E9, C6add9, Sierra Olympic S-12 (F Diatonic)
Sierra Laptop S-8 (E6add9), Fender Stringmaster D-8 (E13, C6 or A6)

[This message was edited by Bobby Lee on 09 July 2005 at 10:04 AM.]

quote:

---

On that down beat from Em to E at the third fret I hit the F lever and move the bar to the right a little bit.

---

"The (a) note that no longer exists. -b0b-"

This is perhaps the bottom line and explains why a note can be "37.5% flat" to a note that "no longer exists".

Many things, deeds, or thoughts, once placed, done, or thought no longer exist.

I'm gonna think about that for a while.

And tune ET in the meantime.

quote:

---

I guess it all comes down to common courtesy and the common sense to do the right thing by others. Some people just don't have it and perhaps they don't even have a clue about how they affect other people. -HowardR-

---

Maybe that's because to many people, deeds words, and actions are wrought by the same rationality.

I know it's a digression, but this thread seems to be full of them.

I mean no disparagement or drawing of a paralell, but this quote of Howard's bears repeating, and made me think.

I have found that for people whose ears demand things in line with a sequence of notes, or chords, time is a very fluid thing within a certain reasonable period. Much like "Rythym". Some people don't have a more than a measure long working interaction with "things that no longer exist". Some can maintain it much longer.

Some can tell you whether a song has gained 2 beats a minute. Some can tell exactly when the cassette tape has made the first wrap around the spindle when being eaten by the tape player. Some can't, and have different areas of discernment.

Some play entire flawless two measure "Nashville Nuances" totally oblivious to whether they are a half a fret off. Some are so choked by percieved dissonance, what happened a second ago that without constant and severe self control, they wince at the slightest remembrance of dissonance.

Some in there careers have fine control, ability, and dexterity, but it is all ruined by their constant wincing to the point where they totally give up on live situations.

There's nothing wrong with them.

Some thrive with a tuner, clogged and worn pitchpipe, a guitar and amplifier, and a will to play live, get paid, and go home knowing they "killed 'em".

If you happen to have a "princess and the pea" ear, chances are, you will be the former.

If you have the instinct of the dirty faced back alley gunfighter that shoots first and lives, you will live longer on stage. Years longer.

Bringing a fine musical ear to a thousand live gigs is asking for a severe test of your spirit. Maybe one in ten survive if that. Of all the players, maybe one in a hundred last more than ten years period.

Bringing a ham handed purposefully honed ignorance of tonality in favor of "playing" to the same thousand gigs is more of an impossibility.

Sometimes the best of the two is wed in a single person. Many times it is.

I'll pick Paul Franklin I guess. His ear is among the finest, and his playing among the top demand for recording.

Anybody care to sit in his chair with a few hundred watts blaring out at a Dire Straits concert? Ear plugs melt. Playing miles a minute, notes sometimes so fast and hard that once in a while frets mean nothing, it ALL comes out sounding impeccable. From where he sits, it would make half the players' ears bleed and knock them totally off the stage.

In his mind, it may be that a scene of gentle snow falling is the state of his conciousness. Maybe a Possum walking up a log. I dunno. Tweak a tuning peg 15 cents out with an unseen hand, or break a string, throwing the octave 20 cents off, and the whole scene continues flawlessly.

Why is that?

Is it because once played, notes "no longer exist"?

I say they do, with a need to be able to break the string of events and pretend they don't in favor of continuity.

They do, or my ears wouldn't be ringing from the 4 hour live gig I did last night, and as a reminder that I play at 800 tonite.

I think it can be boiled down to analogies to other "crafts".

Ther are welders that can draw a perfect Xray weld in the shop.

There are welders that can hang off a ledge and weld rusty metal in the rain.

There are those of each that can not do the other. There are those that can do both.

Once welded, the welding no longer exists.

The weld remains.

Or not.

The "welding" done by Lloyd Green at Panther Hall still exists, whether I (or he, probably,) never hear(s) it again. So does that by Paul Franklin in Dire Straits Live.

I can still hear both.

I think myself that the only kind of note that "does not exist" is the kind that is not played.

Further, before the playing, while in the prebirth, imaginary realm of the writer or player, that they exist as well.

Do respectively schooled players "imagine" notes or chords in ET or JI?

Do East Indian performers think in their altered scales for upcoming ragas?

I know b0b, and maybe others, that that this has been a lot of off the wall comments, but I think your 'non existant note' theorum opened up a lot of diversity, not in the least bit exclusive of new thought.

I'm still thinking that ET is the best way to tune, but I like to be thought of someone that doesn't do it without being open a lot of diverse considerations. Valid or not..

I can always count on b0b for provision of such, and thank the whole bunch for at last settling into rational and civil discussion from time to time..

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 10 July 2005 at 03:19 AM.]

A*cos(w1*t) + A*cos(w2*t) = 2A*cos{(w1-w2)*t/2}cos{(w1+w2)*t/2}, where wi are the angular frequencies, or 2*PI*fi, for i = 1, 2, and fi is the frequency in Hz.

The slow beat waveform, at the difference frequency, is the envelope, and the faster audio-frequency signal is at the average of the two input frequencies. This is what I was referring to above, which I discussed in an earlier tuning thread here: http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/009120-4.html.

What is the sound of one hand playing steel?

I for one would love to be sitting in front of Mark Knopfler at 200 watts per second. Meanwhile, he's stinking of zen.

quote:

---

I once heard Mr. Newman say at a seminar in St. Louis that it was wise to avoid playing three notes at a time and to play predominantly two string harmonies.

---

Jeff was a good player and a great teacher (I took lessons from him, myself), but he sure said and did a lot of things I disagreed with.

And I still do.

Of course I did, but I went further to note that even though "the note" no longer exists, it's memory, the change of it's physical force, and it's "history" do have effects and properties that last longer than the length of time it "is ringing".

Interesting thing.

I have no fear at all of discussion of tuning ET, nor do I feel the need to say "it's all too much for my pore little haid."

Sometimes it seems like an axe throwing contest on a moving train.

I can understand things even I can't understand on my good days...

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 09 July 2005 at 07:08 PM.]