So:

b0b' statement - "There are two different 9th tones in the JI scale. Tuning compensators are ganged to the common pedals to automatically switch to the right tone."

Then the "right" one is going to be out of tune with any instrument with fixed tuning. because your "right" tone isn't anyone else's.

My take - if you need a compensator to tune to a piano, then your original note or your new one was not in tune with it. There's not compensation on a piano..or a trumpet, or Hammond B3. Ever seen a compensator on a set of vibes?

Back to two issues - the compensator that adjust the non-pedaled (or levered) strings is there to adjust for out-of-tune notes on the instrument - or to make them match newly out-of-tune notes. If so, something is wrong with the instrument.

The compensator used to return a note to the place it started from is making up for an obvious, serious defect in an instrument. Again, I've bent strings for 30 years and NEVER has this problem been apparent except in the steel guitar world.

Either some folks are overthinking uneccessary mechanics, or they're making instruments that don't work right to start with. Man, I must have been awfully lucky with every brand of string I've ver used, because they all seem to return to pitch just fine - whether bent by Parsons-White, Higgins, Hipshot, Glaser (going up) or Keith/Scruggs, Hipshot, Sperzel or Schaller (going down).

As I said, I have not been involved with the whole tuning debate here, having been through it on guitar forums before. But from a practical standpoint, "needles up" seems to work for 99.9% of the players on the planet. If some steel people think differently, somebody started that issue somewhere and sucked some others right into the maelstrom with them.

The only way the other system works is to make an instrument in tune with only itself. It will be out-of-tune with all the other maladjusted instruments on the planet, none of which use this gadgetry.

I don't know what the "hornet's nest" thought is. If you tune to other instruments, you aren't going to need to play with "compensators"...they don't. You WILL be out of tune, unless you're REALLY good at manual adjustments of bar positions, slants, and partial pedal/lever movements. I'm sure wiht Paul's experience he could play with or without compensators and blow just about everyone else off the planet...and sound in tune.

But I return to the PT Barnum statement as far as MOST players go.

And I'm still sorry 'bout Santa.

;-)

How do you explain that?

"You WILL be out of tune, unless you're REALLY good at manual adjustments of bar positions, slants, and partial pedal/lever movements. I'm sure with Paul's experience he could play with or without compensators and blow just about everyone else off the planet...and sound in tune."

I've heard more of Paul's playing than Lloyd's due to his Dire Straits stint, and Paul doesn't sound out of tune to me ever. The only stuff of Lloyd's I've heard is what he played with the Byrds. I don' know whether or not he used compensators or not in those days - but it's always sounded out of tune to me. Great stuff, but enough off to be noticable.

I don't know whether he used compensaors or not (having never even heard of the things until the last couple days)...but I just played "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere" again and it's just enough out to give me the willies. Has for years.

And no matter how I look at it, either type of compensator is making up for an instrument deficiency. Whether it's really *necessary* or not is a whole different issue - to me it seems, like the Buzz Feiten tuning system, all smoke and mirrors....or like Eric Johnson's stompbox positions in relationship to the plane of the ecliptic. but if strings don't return to their original tuning, there's a mechanical issue that needs to be fixed or redesigned. And it must be (actually BOTH compensator needs must be) somehow inherent to the similarities in design of pedal steel changers or other mechanics, because as mentioned before I've never seen it in any B or G benders I've owned or set up. And that's a lot of guitars...

Seems like just too much thinking, not enough playing....for most people.

And boy, they'd probably look dumb on my aged cable-pull Fenders anyway.

The practice of tuning compensators (mostly for the 1st and 7th string E9 )was developed by the greatest players that have ever lived because they made there living in studios where having perfect intonation is critical. I would investigate why someone like Buddy Charleton would find tuning compensators useful. Try the Jeff Newman tuning chart and learn how it applies to the practical applications of people that make playing the pedal steel there life's work. I personally don't use tuning compensators at the moment but I do understand why many players do.

As far as the whole hysteresis issue goes Brint has a good perspective in his last reply.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

"You can please all of the chords some of the time, you can please some of the chords all of the time, but you can't please all of the chords all of the time"
I think Abraham Lincoln said that

Bob - I didn't say other instruments were tuned straight up - I said they didn't need compensators to play in tune, and guitars didn't need them to play with them either. It's only pedal steels that some people seem to think need compensators, and apparently for two different reasons: 1) to put notes out of tune so that they'll match other out of tune notes, and 2) to overcome mechanical flaws where strings don't return to pitch.

It's the chewing gum and wire approach. These instruments were not, for the most part, designed by engineering professionals. They were designed by musicians. So are defects in engineering design so surprising?

I profess igmnorance as to who Buddy Charleton is - and Jeff Newman's tuning chart would do me no good with my "exception to the rule" 8-string B6 tuning.

Every time I type an explanation of what they do, they make less logical sense to me. For example 1, just tune the darned instrument - and if it doesn't stay in tune when the pedals are depressed I'd look at those little nuts or screws at the end of the guitar and maybe turn 'em a little bit. ;-)

Ricky

[This message was edited by Ricky Davis on 18 May 2006 at 11:27 PM.]

Jim,
You have a world of musical beauty waiting for you when you find the time to check out the playing of Charleton. Also Newman's charts will work fine for your tuning if you look at the strings as intervalic relationships.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

[This message was edited by Bob Hoffnar on 18 May 2006 at 11:58 PM.]

With my lack of theory knowledge I'm sorry to say I don't have a clue what you mean...so it probably wouldn't be helpful.

Ricky - When I hear someone say a player has NEVER EVER played a bad note - I witness "hero worship" that the players themselves would deny. Everybody plays a bad note. The best studio guys get a kick out of pointing out certain things they "got way with" - and tend to remember those things more than the hits.

Welcome two the thankfully little world of Bizarro Tuning-Out-to-be-In, and Ideas of Physics supplanting the Laws.

Complete with Icons, Martyrs, Iconoclasts and True Believers.

I'll get back to this one before the Digital Rat Pack gets to gnawing through too many of your vitals. I get off early tomorrow before the gig.

One thing: I have a Hipshot Drop D myself.
What makes it "difficult to tune" is NOT "Hysteresis" not by any stretch ( pun intended), it is good old "Friction".

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing physics with artists, metalurgy with musicians, or describing the difference between friction and tensile inequities of metal to either. I salute Ed Packard in his recording of his studies, and still hope that he can take some time to measure and record this so called "hysteresis".

This one looks like it's going to be plain hysterical...

I'm with you on "Compensators", especially on single notes and substituted chords out of the natural scale.

Whether or not they "no longer exist".

High priced horse hockey IMHO.

Selah.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 19 May 2006 at 05:50 AM.]

even though I have clue where he is !

quote:

---

The need for tuning compensators on the F# strings is well known. I thought I was going crazy trying to tune my first pedal steel until someone explained them to me. The F# problem is not caused by a defect in the instrument - it's caused by the nature of the music we play.

---

Being a long-time ET tuner, I thought the world was that way. Slowly (everything begins with 'Slowly', doesn't it?) I became aware that JI is what gives pedal steel its signature sound. And then to discover how many folks tune that way--tampering to taste, of course.

I have come to find that there are only two kinds of people. People like me, and the others..

Lips indeed. Maybe that's what they use in studios to tune tracks...

Maybe that explains it.

As much as I love that album, I've always thought that the fiddle and some of the harmony vocals were what made the steel sound out... Especially on Hickory Wind.

Interesting--I grew up in the studio, and actually started playing steel in there before I ever set foot on a stage. I heard and figured out the need for JI by myself without ever hearing about it, just by listening with my ears and playing with other instruments. Also the need to compensate the 7th and 1st strings. I was totally amazed when I met Jimmie Crawford in 1974 and he showed me how he put compensators on his Emmons PP to correct this. Have had them on my guitars ever since...

[This message was edited by John Macy on 19 May 2006 at 07:14 AM.]

One humorous expression that keeps coming up is "the laws of physics". Please state which "law" to which you are refer.

Jim S...are you familiar with the classic piece "The Well Tempered Clavier"? And what it was meant to show?

As the violinist adjusts pitch on the fly, and according to his/her ear and the musical environment to get the "best sound fit", so did Jerry Byrd (non pedal). He had compensators...his ears and hands, but then he could tune for the song key (it's "intervalic relationship") and tended to avoid large chords with those "other" roots.

When we say "they never missed a note", or equivalent expression, several things may be meant:

1. I liked the sound of what I was listening to because it is the kind of music that I like.
2. That was my "hero" playing.
3. It had PSG in it.
A bit of bias in all of us!

I have proposed a couple of experiments re
"hysteresis" of pitch...it seems that no one cared enough to try them and report the findings. The amount of motion across the nut/roller has been calculated and given here on the Forum. The amount of stretch for the strings per halftone has been calculated and measured and given hereon...the cents per unit of string stretch has also been calculated and given.

The string "overshoot" (a string stifness vs. tension vs. angle function) as a function of string wrap over the roller nut has been covered under string top planarity near the nut.

Subtle things like pitch change as a function of how hard the string is vibrating has been touched on. An assault on the equations generally used to determine string tension vs. scale length, gauge, and pitch was made. What was not said about that was that the string gauge becomes slightly smaller when under tension.

Bridge adjustment for intonation (a string length vs. pitch at frets issue has been related to steels.

Pitch shift vs hand/bar pressure, and accuracy of fret location...and accuracy of bar re fret position has been mauled.

The steels "magic" sound is in the ability to approach the note in any way, and leave it in the same manner...not in the accuracy of being on a particular frequency.

The above are "pitch related" issues, and any/all can cause "off pitch", of which "hysteresis" is used to describe "not returning to pitch".

We have hashed "cabinet drop"...also a general use term that covers more than the "cabinet"...yet to be blamed as a source of hysteresis.

Frictions, stictions, and thermals have been hashed over..."metalurgy with musicians" indeed!

This instrument (as are all) is a marvel of construction...not perfect, and not perfectly executed.

Now for something re "hysteresis" that either has not been covered (or I have missed it)...the changer.

The changer that I use has six pivot points, three stops, and two tine extensions that press against the body. Each of these Pivot points can rotate.

The changer(lets ignore the rods for the moment)is a complex lever system that translates motion and force to stretch the string(s) (worst case about 0.040" per halftone at a total max tension of about 33 pounds per string) for a pedal motion of about an inch and a force of about 3 to 6 pounds per string per halftone, depending on whose changer design and any helper springs used.

This is much more pitch associated mechanism than keyhead overhang, roller nuts (or not), and the string. Is it not possible that there just might be some "hysteresis" related behavior in this area?

First thing to determine is if pressing a keyhead string in the overhang area ( a halftone or two raise) causes the hysteresis effect when released. Any keyhead owner with a tuner can do this. This is NOT the same as activating a pedal or lever, and will give the number of cents associated with the overhang.

The string lock fitted to the PSG should put to bed the argument re string stretch behind the nut, friction, stiction, roller nuts, no roller nuts,. and their contribution to "hysteresis"...some manufacturer/experimenter please do an A/B on the same type/generation of instrument and report back...who knows, you might discover a selling/bragging point that has some validity.

This subject, and others, are best solved with experiment and analysis of the resulting data...not with verbal fencing.

quote:

---

"Newman's charts will work fine for your tuning if you look at the strings as intervalic relationships"
With my lack of theory knowledge I'm sorry to say I don't have a clue what you mean...so it probably wouldn't be helpful.

---

Are you aware of which strings in your open tuning are the roots, thirds, fifths and sixths ? If you are then you can use the Newman chart by using the same offsets that are used on the E9 chart.
E is the root
G# is the thirds
B is the fifths
C# is the 6ths

No obtuse theory is involved.

It very likely will not work for you but it is well worth some serious study. Spend enough time with it to understand why it is the prevailing tuning system and then go ahead and tune however you want.

If the Newman chart thing still has you confounded shoot me an E mail with your tuning and I will transpose it for you.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

Actually, no. I just play it knowing the song key and certain postions and pdals/levers that work. I normally have absolutely no idea what note I'm playing. Never did on guitar, either. Somehow worked very steadily for 4 decades, though. I will say that I HAVE tried to learn theory, and many have tried to teach it to me...but for some reason it doesn't "take". I had/have the same problem with math. I'm off-topic, but just explaining why I can't analyze things by intervallic whatevers. I just *hear* the intervals, and they sound right..or wrong.

When I tune straight up, they sound right. they also sound right to other players. I *have* tried alternate guitar tuning systems like the Feiten thing...and found it utterly useless. that being said, I have played Teles with compensated saddles since the 70's - but those are locked in place and seem to work no matter what the chod or where it's played. And I am a demon when it comes to tuning - ben inbands where I tuned everyone's instrument because the other players just couldn't even put a needle in the right place.

i tried an experiment a while ago (home right now) and looked at an old buddy Emmons C6 tuning chart with plus-and-minus markings on certain strings. tuned mine in a similar fashion, including related changes (easy to do on a Fender.

It sounded awful. Tried playing along with several CD's and it was horrendous. Put it back to 440 and everything was fine.

And I understand BE doesn't use that type of tuning anymore, either. If true, I can see why - it doesn't work.

quote:

---

There are 3 groups of people,
1. some watch things happen.
2. some make things happen.
3. Some do not know what is happening.

---

Actually there are three kinds of people-
1. Those who can count.
2. Those who can't.

What I don't get is tuning other than ET on the C6th neck, when playing music that modulates a lot by nature, and playing more complex chords- SOMETHING is going to be painfully out of tune (NOT that I am Mr. Perfect Intonation by a long shot anyway!). The various tuning charts seem to work best for diatonic music, as far as I can tell...on the other hand, lots of great players tune other than ET and sound amazingly in tune.

------------------
http://www.johnmcgann.com
Info for musicians, transcribers, technique tips and fun stuff. Joaquin Murphey transcription book, Rhythm Tuneup DVD and more...

[This message was edited by John McGann on 19 May 2006 at 10:54 AM.]

quote:

---

b0b: As you expressed the same feeling about Lloyd, isn't it true that he accomplished that without the use of compensators?

---

quote:

---

But I am left with the question: what does a tuning compensator look like?

---

quote:

---

There are 3 groups of people,
1. some watch things happen.
2. some make things happen.
3. Some do not know what is happening.

---

4. Some do not know what is happening but are sure they do.

JIm,
I guess I forgot about your vast experience and that you already know everything when I posted some suggestions for study. Sorry for wasting your time.

------------------
Bob
upcoming gigs
My Website

The well documented "Tuning Threads" have shown Mr Emmons' comments very clearly. No "detuning" and no "compensation". I think the clarity and brevity alone speak for themselves.

Don't worry about the sarcastic insults of some of these guys. They just can't seem to stand people that don't have their noses buried up someone elses Pac-a-Seat.

I had an interesting conversation with Mr Green and in the course, touched shortly on the "Tremendous Tunin' Question". I raised the point that a lot of it, even on recording is through the power of suggestion. I can't totally quote Lloyds comments except to say that a lot of talk about tuning is nonsense if you can't "tune the damn thing and play it."

I've come to believe that if you have confidence in the way you play, your intonation, then whatever majick powders, complex rubegoldbergations, lucky pants, or drugs including alcohol works for you, is OK.

It's the people that can't seem to let others alone with their dellusions that are the most insecure with their own.

Here's a case in point I guess. I work with a fine young drummer that I've known and played with for a scoer of years and a few hundred gigs. He mentioned while we were tearing down that I oughta try a "thus and such" amp, and a "so and so processor" with a powered monitor etc.. Probably noticing other guys that seem to change their equipment on a regular basis.

I told him simply that every piece of equipment, every amp, every mike, every chord, processor, tuner, pedal, pick, bar and guitar I own and play with, on, and through, NONE of it or them have I acquired "by accident". What remains, is what I specifically wanted, tried, tested, and approved over 26 or more years and a few thousand live gigs. If the slightest piece of it offended me It'd be off the bandstand before the next gig. I dumped my Deltafex, my thick chords and my Blue Hercos the second I saw a better way. Some of them after using them for dozens of years.

My guitar likewise is tuned and played the way I have needed to to work the jobs I have steadily worked, wanted, and am solidly booked at.

If my getting jobs requires me to detune or undercompensate my guitar, and I want to work it, believe me I'll do it. So far my Marrs Retrofit as tested on the bandstand last nite at Jubitz returns both my raises and my lowers within the smallest increment I have on my GT12. I take it to be less than a cent. If it was as much as 8, it'd be on it's way back to Tennessee. Even my Bushwhipped old ProIII didn't do that. It just had too deep of grooves in the fingers and too worn out swivels to continue more than 25 years.

Ed, Here's some of them to study I guess:

Cartoon Laws Of Physics

Cartoon Law I
Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.

Daffy Duck steps off a cliff, expecting further pastureland. He loiters in midair, soliloquizing flippantly, until he chances to look down. At this point, the familiar principle of 32 feet per second takes over.

Cartoon Law II
Any body in motion will tend to remain in motion until solid matter intervenes suddenly.

Whether shot from a cannon or in hot pursuit on foot, cartoon characters are so absolute in their momentum that only a telephone pole or an outsize boulder retards their forward motion absolutely. Sir Isaac Newton called this sudden termination of motion the stooge's surcease.

Cartoon Law III
Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter.

Also called the silhouette of passage, this phenomenon is the speciality of victims of directed-pressure explosions and of reckless cowards who are so eager to escape that they exit directly through the wall of a house, leaving a cookie-cutout-perfect hole. The threat of skunks or matrimony often catalyzes this reaction.

Cartoon Law IV
The time required for an object to fall twenty stories is greater than or equal to the time it takes for whoever knocked it off the ledge to spiral down twenty flights to attempt to capture it unbroken.

Such an object is inevitably priceless, the attempt to capture it inevitably unsuccessful.

Cartoon Law V
All principles of gravity are negated by fear.

Psychic forces are sufficient in most bodies for a shock to propel them directly away from the earth's surface. A spooky noise or an adversary's signature sound will induce motion upward, usually to the cradle of a chandelier, a treetop, or the crest of a flagpole. The feet of a character who is running or the wheels of a speeding auto need never touch the ground, especially when in flight.

Cartoon Law VI
As speed increases, objects can be in several places at once.

This is particularly true of tooth-and-claw fights, in which a character's head may be glimpsed emerging from the cloud of altercation at several places simultaneously. This effect is common as well among bodies that are spinning or being throttled. A `wacky' character has the option of self- replication only at manic high speeds and may ricochet off walls to achieve the velocity required.

Cartoon Law VII
Certain bodies can pass through solid walls painted to resemble tunnel entrances; others cannot.

This trompe l'oeil inconsistency has baffled generations, but at least it is known that whoever paints an entrance on a wall's surface to trick an opponent will be unable to pursue him into this theoretical space. The painter is flattened against the wall when he attempts to follow into the painting.

This is ultimately a problem of art, not of science.

Cartoon Law VIII
Any violent rearrangement of feline matter is impermanent.

Cartoon cats possess even more deaths than the traditional nine lives might comfortably afford. They can be decimated, spliced, splayed, accordion-pleated, spindled, or disassembled, but they cannot be destroyed. After a few moments of blinking self pity, they reinflate, elongate, snap back, or solidify.

Corollary: A cat will assume the shape of its container.

Cartoon Law IX
Everything falls faster than an anvil.

Cartoon Law X
For every vengeance there is an equal and opposite revengeance.

This is the one law of animated cartoon motion that also applies to the physical world at large. For that reason, we need the relief of watching it happen to a duck instead.

Cartoon Law Amendment A
A sharp object will always propel a character upward.

When poked (usually in the buttocks) with a sharp object (usually a pin), a character will defy gravity by shooting straight up, with great velocity.

Cartoon Law Amendment B
The laws of object permanence are nullified for "cool" characters.

Characters who are intended to be "cool" can make previously nonexistent objects appear from behind their backs at will. For instance, the Road Runner can materialize signs to express himself without speaking.

Cartoon Law Amendment C
Explosive weapons cannot cause fatal injuries.

They merely turn characters temporarily black and smoky.

Cartoon Law Amendment D
Gravity is transmitted by slow-moving waves of large wavelengths.

Their operation can be witnessed by observing the behavior of a canine suspended over a large vertical drop. Its feet will begin to fall first, causing its legs to stretch. As the wave reaches its torso, that part will begin to fall, causing the neck to stretch. As the head begins to fall, tension is released and the canine will resume its regular proportions until such time as it strikes the ground.

Cartoon Law Amendment E
Dynamite is spontaneously generated in "C-spaces" (spaces in which cartoon laws hold).

The process is analogous to steady-state theories of the universe which postulated that the tensions involved in maintaining a space would cause the creation of hydrogen from nothing. Dynamite quanta are quite large (stick sized) and unstable (lit). Such quanta are attracted to psychic forces generated by feelings of distress in "cool" characters (see Amendment B, which may be a special case of this law), who are able to use said quanta to their advantage. One may imagine C-spaces where all matter and energy result from primal masses of dynamite exploding. A big bang indeed.

More to come I trust.

I'm wondering why Hysterectomies often add to Hysteria, or if burning Wysteria Incense would somehow counteract "Wysteresis"..

Hang in there Jim and don't overcompensate...

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 19 May 2006 at 12:43 PM.]

I wouldn't suggest it..