Tuning Meters - Any Thoughts?

[A.D. Homan]

[i also think that for purposes of tuning, as long as the tuning device is within 2 cents (high-end needle tuners), you are probably in good shape (but not optimal)...

I was once asked to stop playing by a violinist, because my concertina was tuned to A441, not A440.

... But she was an exception.

FYI Jim,

The difference between 440Hz and 441Hz is actually FOUR cents, not 1.

What made her an exception wasn't the fact that she heard the difference (4 cents should be an audible difference -- and that is why tuners with 5 cent margins of error are unacceptable for serious tuning applications) but that she was too stubborn or ignorant to tune up. Violins usually sound great at 441 or even higher!

(Maybe she asked you to stop for other reasons?)

 

Cents do not equal Hz!

 

BTW What I meant with the margin of error within 2 cents is that in equal temperment, the thirds and fifths are off (thirds more than fifths) to begin with. 2 cents is such a small amount that the degree of "out of tuneness" produced by a given interval is not likely to be significantly more out of tune within that 2 cent margin of error (tuner manufacturers have been banking on that fact for decades now, since very few tuners are more accurate than that). Remember that equal temperment = equally out of tune!

-Andy

[A.D. Homan]

I have a £100+ Seiko meter, selected for its accuracy and its 1st class analogue display.

 

I read somewhere that most people cannot distiguish between two or three cents, if this is true then a meter accuracy of +/- say 1.5, or to be safe, say, +/-1.0 cents acceptable. To do this the instrument has to be resolving to at least 1/5th of a cent. Yet on a baritone lower notes I have the differences in air pressure giving over 5 cents variation on the tuning rig.

 

The meter accuracy and precision is not the determining factor in tuning accuracy. How many times have the other tuners seen an instrument that is generally say 2 cents flat at the lower end and perhaps 1 or two cents sharp at the upper end?

 

Dave

Hi Dave,

 

I agree with you about +/- 1.5 cents being a "safe" margin of error, for some applications. You can always check the intervals further by ear, and if it sounds good, it is good. Especially if dealing with equal temperment, this margin of error is smaller than the degree to which the intervals are out of tune to begin with, so the end result will likely be O.K.

 

For alternative temperments, it's best to stick with an even more accurate tuner, unless you know how to hear (i.e. are accustomed to hearing) the intervals as they will sound in that temperment.

 

For a project involving not the _tuning_ of reeds but the _study_ of the was they were tuned, I think that the researcher should have the tuner with the greatest possible degree of accuracy, otherwise the results of the study are questionable.

Andy

[A.D. Homan]

Thanks All,

 

From all your recommendations, I think I'm going to try a Korg CA30 to see if its up to it. At around 20 UKP it won't be a great loss if it isn't. I'll let you know how I get on. But please continue with your suggestions, as its throwing up lots of things that need to be considered along the way.... pressure, temperature, etc

 

best wishes ..wes

Wes,

I suggest that if you use that tuner to determine pitches that will be included in any kind of published study, you should indicate with your data the technical info on the tuner.

Andy

[Frank Edgley]

I'm not sure that accuracy to within a tenth of a cent is all that helpful. Most concertinas, especially some of the old vintage ones. are pressure sensitive with regards to pitch, and so some notes vary with playing pressure and also the amount the bellows is open when the note is played. The size of the reed can also affect the steadiness of the pitch as lower (larger) reeds are more likely to vary than mid-range, or higher pitch reeds. However, this is where the skill of the tuner comes in: making sure the press ure of the initial note reading is consistent across the board, and consistent with regards to a reasonable playing pressure, and compatible with the pressure produced by the tuning bellows. Then, if tuned to within 0.5 cents the results should be satisfactory for players who use a lot of chords. I have read that most people cannot hear a difference of less than 3 cents for single notes, the difference only becoming obvious when octaves or chords are played. My aim, when tuning, is to be at zero +/- 0.25 cents.

[Alan Day]

Hallo Frank,

I am interested in your comments re tuning for chords against let us say single note playing.With tuning for an Irish tune player or perhaps Classical,would you tend to be more accurate with tuning for this style than for chord playing.Your comments would appear to be similar to that expressed by another tuner.Do the chords sound discordant with accurate tuning and what notes would you not tune accurately not knowing what chord the player will play?I must admit I have never tuned to the accuracy expressed in this discussion but I have always been pleased with the final result but not being a proffessional tuner I would bow to your knowledge on this subject.

Al

[Paul Groff]

Frank,

 

I agree with you and with other contributors who have emphasized the "art" of tuning in terms of the playing pressures chosen to set the octaves beatless (Paul Read, Andy, Dave, etc). This relates also to Ivan's point that having a good tool does not guarantee a good result - quite the contrary if you think the tool itself makes the judgement.

 

It should also be said very clearly that different, competent, players operate the concertina differently and an instrument whose octaves are in tune for one player may not be in tune for another player. Some players don't have good ears, but those who do sometimes learn a way of operating their first (maybe cheap) concertina that throws the octaves true, and later when changing to a better, and better-tuned instrument they may find they are playing it out of tune (e.g. by excessive pressure for low notes). Alternatively, as a new bellows breaks in and becomes less stiff, the same player may find he or she is using less pressure when playing certain octaves, necessitating a re-setting or even a retuning of the lower reeds for a better sound when played, even if the reeds themselves have not changed. On the other hand, a great concertina whose weight, spring pressures, bellows stiffness, airtightness, and reed response are well-balanced can allow for a very critical tuning, and those who learn on such an instrument will learn skills (including "ear skills") that help them control the pitch of low notes, high notes, octaves, etc. -- a good concertina can teach you to play better.

 

Most of these details are pretty well "below the radar" of the average adult beginner or amateur player, but can be important to skilled players or to those coming to the concertina with an ear trained on other instruments (or voice).

 

In trying to assess an old concertina, I am concerned to try to understand the pressures at which it was intended to be played by its tuner, among many other variables, to know *which* of the pitches it is producing today (or can be made to produce) are giving the best evidence of its original tuning. For example, J. Crabb # 8075, a quite early instrument with no internal evidence of retuning since made (and no reed rust) had the lowest reeds tuned a little flatter than most modern tuners would do, relative to the middle octave - but at moderate to low pressures, every set of lowest octaves (played as octave intervals) was spot on after dust -cleaning and careful revalving to original specs.

 

Paul

Edited May 10, 2004 by Paul Groff

[A.D. Homan]

I'm not sure that accuracy to within a tenth of a cent is all that helpful. [...] Then, if tuned to within 0.5 cents the results should be satisfactory for players who use a lot of chords. I have read that most people cannot hear a difference of less than 3 cents for single notes, the difference only becoming obvious when octaves or chords are played. My aim, when tuning, is to be at zero +/- 0.25 cents.

 

 

Again, it should be emphasized that the orginal question that led to this thread was not about using a tuner to assist in tuning reeds, but (as I understood the question) about studying the existing (historical) tuning of reeds on instruments that were tuned _by ear_ in a non-equal temperment.

 

For tuning concertinas in equal temperment, the high degree of accuracy in the device is secondary to the skill of the individual performing the tuning -- I bow to Frank's authority on this subject. However, he also mentions that within 0.5 cents the results are satisfactory, and that he aims to be within 0.25. It is not possible to use many needle tuners to double check these results -- they might say that you are within 0.5 cents, but many of these tuners are not actually as accurate as their needle readings suggest they are, since the readings are based on averages rather than real-time results, and the gradations on the analog display are exagerrations of the accuracy of the device, since they are far finer than the device truly distinguishes.

 

If it sounds OK to the ears, this is due, in my opinion, to the fact that we are accustomed to intervals as they occur on the equal tempered scale, in which no interval except the octave is "perfect." Thus, while it is perfectly acceptable to use such a tuner for equal tempered instruments (as I imagine Frank's are, and I have heard them and they are indeed fine, as are all the instruments in that category), it would be questionable to use such a tuner to tune an instrument to "just intonation," for instance, unless the individual performing the tuning is accustomed to hearing when certain intervals are perfect. While most people cannot hear a three cent difference between two notes, that same three cent difference, in a perfect interval, might be noticeable to some listeners (most, however, would not care because they are so accustomed to the slightly "dirty" intervals of the equal-tempered scale). Add to that the business about pressure and you get the effect that Paul mentioned as "taking the pulses of a roomful of cats." So, here there are some people who are saying: Well, the cats are all alive, right, so that's good enough. Others are saying, all I need to know is if one of the cats has high blood pressure. A very few of us would like to know the exact pulses, or at least, as close as possible.

 

Certainly the skill, experience, and knowledge of the individual is more important than the accuracy of the machine, and many fine free-reed tuners don't even use a tuning device, choosing instead to work off of reference pitches. I am fascinated by reading Paul's posts about temperment on historical instruments and am eagerly waiting to read more once he publishes his research. I am also in contact with a musician/composer/instrument builder who works with non-equal tempered scales divided into up to several dozen different notes, and I know that being 2-5 cents off is certainly not close enough for him... (incidentally, Harry Partch built a free reed instrument called the "chromelodeon").

 

I'm not a concertina expert by any means, and I understand that competent tuning can be accomplished by individuals using some fairly low-tech equipment; I also fully understand that bellows pressure alters the pitch, and I respect the skills of builders who are able to manufacture equal-tempered instruments that sound good to our ears when played in a variety of styles. I would like to respectfully suggest that one should be more informed of the myths about the accuracy of needle tuners (including that they are accurate to the degree indicated on the analog readout), and to understand that what's good enough for making equal tempered instruments might not be accurate enough for serious _study_ of non-equal tempered instruments, or for alternative tunings that some players might request. We can all relate to how difficult it is to convince a non-believer that a Stagi doesn't sound the same as a Jeffries; it is similarly frustrating to hear from knowledgeable people that they regard the accuracy of tuning devices to be trivial.

 

Respectfully,

Andy

[Ivan Viehoff]

JimLucas Posted: May 10 2004, 01:21 AM 

 

I was once asked to stop playing by a violinist, because my concertina was tuned to A441, not A440.

 

 

A.D. Homan Posted on May 10 2004, 08:47 AM

she was too stubborn or ignorant to tune up

 

Some people have such perfect pitch they find any other tuning offensive, and can't play with it or listen to it.

 

However such a level of sensitivity is not necessary to identify the non-standard temperament of Bob Dylan's vocal tuning.

 

(I still can't work out how you do those quote boxes with the originator neatly lined outside the top of the box).

[A.D. Homan]

Some people have such perfect pitch they find any other tuning offensive, and can't play with it or listen to it.

 

 

True, but it's hard to imagine that with a violinist, who would be accustomed to unconsciously altering finger positions to hit certain intervals. A violin, as you know, isn't actually divided into a 12-tone equal-tempered scale, so a violinist will hit a C# a little differently in an A maj chord than in an F# major chord. Part of playing the violin well (or singing in a barbershop quartet, for that matter) is the ability to contextually adjust pitch microtonally (usually, without even thinking about it or being aware that it is happening). Additionally, whether pitch is set at A:440 or A:441, since there is in fact no "natural" pitch for A, but rather, just conventions that are generally agreed upon, and these pitches are well within the range of variations that are heard on recordings (especially since we all spent at least some part of our lives hearing cassettes unless we're under the age of 20 or so), perfect pitch is not a good excuse, in my opinion, for the scenario Jim described. It's possible that the violinist did have perfect pitch and found A:441 offensive, but IMHO it is up to someone with perfect pitch to use their gift as an advantage for unfolding the possibilities of pitch in music, not as a sign of the persistence of a hegemony of conventions, like A:440 as an international standard (a recent "decision") or the 12 tone equal tempered scale (highly culturally and historically determined, not as "natural" as it is often presumed to be). That kind of understanding of perfect pitch would render most of the world's music (whether microtonal, just, or simply not based on A:440) unenjoyable -- I'm skeptical that it is the only possibility, especially since it would make it seem that if the person's "perfect" pitch is based on the non-perfect intervals of an equal tempered scale, a perfect third would sound unpleasant to her...

 

It also seems bizarre to me that perfect pitch is so often cited as an excuse for inflexibility rather than an increased ability to adjust to musical context. Imagine if you had perfect timing, like a metronome, and you were unable to play music with others as a result. Should we consider this outcome to be the only possibility, given your "gift"? Luckily, those who I personally know who are gifted with "perfect" pitch DO use it to their advantage, and to the advantage of others. One is a highly gifted fiddler who enjoys playing with some "old-timers" whose playing is certainly not based on the equal tempered scale and is often just plain way out of tune! This person enjoys playing with them and collecting tunes from them, and I've never heard her complain that her hearing made it offensive to play with them. Still, I've often heard, 2nd hand, of perfect pitch as a sensitivity leading to discomfort, and while I don't doubt that it is true in some cases, I do doubt that it is necessary to experience it in that manner, as if tone-deafness must be bliss.

 

On this topic, I wonder about the individuals who did the tuning for Wheatstone, Jeffries, Lachenal, in the early days. Is there any source where I can read about this? Did they have "exceptional ears" or were they simply reasonably musical people who were trained? I imagine that they used reference reeds for tuning (there was a concertina tuning bellows that recently sold on eBay). Fascinating topic, and I'm glad that it is being discussed.

Andy

[JimLucas]

was once asked to stop playing by a violinist, because my concertina was tuned to A441, not A440.

... But she was an exception. 

FYI Jim,

The difference between 440Hz and 441Hz is actually FOUR cents, not 1.

Absolutely right, and my fault for not being clear.

I didn't mean to imply that cycles=cents, only that I considered the 1 hz difference insignificant. I hadn't noticed any dissonance, and apparently neither had the pianist, as good a musician as she.

 

What made her an exception wasn't the fact that she heard the difference (4 cents should be an audible difference -- and that is why tuners with 5 cent margins of error are unacceptable for serious tuning applications) but that she was too stubborn or ignorant to tune up.

That is an assumption, and quite unfair to her. As noted above, I wasn't the only other instrument.

 

Maybe she asked you to stop for other reasons?

It seems unlikely, since there were other occasions when she did just that, giving the other reasons. Yet I wonder that she complained on that day, yet was quite happy to have me play along -- with her and the same piano-and-pianist -- on many other occasions. Mind you, she didn't say I was at A441 -- I learned that by metering the instrument on more than one occasion, -- but only that I was "out of tune".

[A.D. Homan]

What made her an exception wasn't the fact that she heard the difference (4 cents should be an audible difference -- and that is why tuners with 5 cent margins of error are unacceptable for serious tuning applications) but that she was too stubborn or ignorant to tune up.

That is an assumption, and quite unfair to her. As noted above, I wasn't the only other instrument.

 

 

Hi Jim,

Your original post did not indicate that there was also a piano, so if it was only violin and concertina, and a question of pitch, then the violin should certainly have tuned to you, simple as that. Since you only mentioned the violin and concertina, it makes it sound like the violinist didn't like the sound of the two together, given the slightly high pitch of the concertina, an inconvenience that could have easily been remedied.

 

However, given that you now reveal that there was a piano, it brings up an interesting dilemma -- what to do when you do need to play with another instrument with a fixed tuning (that is, not something that will be altered easily for the performance). It sounds to me like the violinist was in a difficult situation of having to adjust her intonation to two instruments slightly out of tune with each other. I can't imagine any solution to the problem other than either omitting one of the instruments or, as a compromise, situating the violinist in a position where she doesn't hear one of the instruments (which is not optimal for other reasons). The long-term solution is to have all instruments tuned to a conventionally agreed-upon pitch (such as A:440), which has advantages and disadvantages that will probably always be debated.

 

Andy

[Robin Madge]

As regards people's sense of pitch and what we are accustomed to hear, I have a CD of the music of James Hill performed by Tom McConville and Chris Newman "Fiddler's fancy".

It is obvious to me that Tom, a highly accomplished musician, has a different idea of what the notes of the scale are to me, and I actually find some of the tracks unlpeasant to listen to!

As the tune is repeated with first Tom playing fiddle and then Chris playing mandolin you can hear that the notes formed by Tom "finding" them by ear with his fingers are not the same as those played by Chris relying on the frets.

This is the best example I can think of to show the differences that people have in their heads about what the scale should sound like.

 

Robin Madge

[JimLucas]

As regards people's sense of pitch and what we are accustomed to hear, ....

An interesting story, and one that makes me wonder what the line of transmission was from James Hill to Tom McConville.

 

I've told before the story of a man collecting fiddle tunes in central Pennsylvania (USA) and his initial dismay that sometimes the fiddlers played "out of tune". Further study showed that they always played "out of tune" in the same way on the same notes of the same tunes, and all the local fiddlers made the same distinctions. And the "out of tune" notes were invariably somewhat sharp fourths of the scale. A bit of research turned up the fact that each of those tunes had been a popular fife tune more than 200 years earlier, and fifes are notorious for having sharp fourths!

 

The traditional fiddlers had maintained that small difference in pitch through more than 200 years of passing on these tunes "by ear", retaining the pitch of each individual note in each individual tune as they heard it, rather than some concept of how it "fit" into a "standard" scale.

[wes williams]

On this topic, I wonder about the individuals who did the tuning for Wheatstone, Jeffries, Lachenal, in the early days.  Is there any source where I can read about this?  Did they have "exceptional ears" or were they simply reasonably musical people who were trained?  I imagine that they used reference reeds for tuning (there was a concertina tuning bellows that recently sold on eBay).  Fascinating topic, and I'm glad that it is being discussed.

Andy

Its probably worth noting that we are talking about pitch in isolation. The earlier tuners used a system of beats between two notes either a musical fifth, or an octave apart. They didn't need perfect pitch, just the ability to tune to get the right number of beats for the fifths, or zero beats between the octaves. Although I don't know of anything specifically on the subject, Tommy Williams mentions this in his interview, see www.maccann-duet.com/docs/Wayne-Tommy-Williams-Interview-parts-1-2-3.pdf

 

Edit: The 'fifths' isn't recorded in this transcription, but appears on the LP recording. Tommy says how he first tuned fifths 'perfect', but realised that they needed to be slightly away from perfect to acheive correct tuning. I've always used 'fifth' tuning up until now because of this (although I can't remember how I came to know about it, and I've never had a system other than what my ear says is optimal).

Edited May 11, 2004 by wes williams

[Paul Groff]

Jim

 

Another great story from a man with many of them!

 

Yes, especially when playing in G on a fife (or old system flute), the 4th scale degree is often played sharp (relative to equal temperament) by traditional players. Modern ears might expect a "c natural" but what is produced (often by half-holing or by one of several "forked fingerings") might be "toward a c sharp." A true, equal tempered C natural CAN be made on most of these instruments if desired, but for reasons of simplicity of execution, timbre, or maybe just the "flavor" of the music, the older musicians would seldom do so. Some whistle, flute, and melodeon players actually play a true C# in a tonality based on G in certain situations, giving the "fa mode" (G, A, B, C#, D, E, F#, G). This can sound pretty odd to some modern ears but to me it can sound tangy and strong (e.g. the old 78 of melodeon genius P. J. Conlon playing "The Banks of Newfoundland"). A less extreme example in Irish music is the whistle playing of Micho Russell, RIP, who often used the "one finger" version of "C" (2nd finger, left hand, only) which is very sharp and flavorful. I love playing with Jimmy Hogan, another great Clare whistle player, living in the Boston area, who (like Willy Clancy) uses every shade of C to C# including upward slides in pitch.

 

But actually a sharp fourth can be part of a "standard scale" -- the meantone scales with their very narrow (flat) fifths also, as a corollary, have sharp fourths. I have heard that a talented young musician has been researching the use of such scales by traditional fiddlers.

 

Paul

[A.D. Homan]

I've told before the story of a man collecting fiddle tunes in central Pennsylvania (USA) and his initial dismay that sometimes the fiddlers played "out of tune". Further study showed that they always played "out of tune" in the same way on the same notes of the same tunes, and all the local fiddlers made the same distinctions. And the "out of tune" notes were invariably somewhat sharp fourths of the scale. A bit of research turned up the fact that each of those tunes had been a popular fife tune more than 200 years earlier, and fifes are notorious for having sharp fourths!

 

The traditional fiddlers had maintained that small difference in pitch through more than 200 years of passing on these tunes "by ear", retaining the pitch of each individual note in each individual tune as they heard it, rather than some concept of how it "fit" into a "standard" scale.

 

 

That's a wonderful story, Jim, thanks for sharing it. It's a great example of how we learn "what sounds right."

 

On a somewhat related note:

I've come across certain Irish fiddler's versions of G major tunes where the tuned lacked a C natural. Other fiddler's versions HAVE the C naturals. It makes me wonder whether the fiddler's who play without the C natural learned the tunes from melodeon players (melodeons in D don't have C natural at all), or flute or whistle players who omitted the C by choice.

 

But I love the notion of the sharp fourth deriving from fifes... wonderful!

Andy

[JimLucas]

I've come across certain Irish fiddler's versions of G major tunes where the tuned lacked a C natural.  Other fiddler's versions HAVE the C naturals.  It makes me wonder whether the fiddler's who play without the C natural learned the tunes from melodeon players (melodeons in D don't have C natural at all), or flute or whistle players who omitted the C by choice.

There are a number of tunes that I learned years ago with C-natural, that in recent years everybody seems to be playing with C#, and I attribute it to the explosion of lazy "session" whistle players. And then there's the F-natural in Banish Misfortune!

[Dave Weinstein]

One other thing you may find, especially if the tunes were learned from older fiddle recordings, is that you'll see tunes that use both C# and C.

 

If you go back (I believe, if I remember what I read correctly, that old Cape Breton tunes are like this), you'll find the original recordings were actually playing a quartertone, halfway between C and C# (sometimes referred to as "C Supernatural").

 

--Dave