Jump to content

Does anyone here use tempered tunings?


DarkHorseJ27

Recommended Posts

  • Members

What are your experiences with tempered tunings, are they worth it, and what ones do you use?

 

Some time ago I had an acoustic that had the Buzz Feiten Tuning System, and I really loved how the chords sounded more in-tune. However, the neck warped and while the manufacturer promptly sent a replacement it didn't have the tone the first one did. It eventually got sold when I needed the money.

 

Since then I've been desiring something that will get better intonation similar to what the BFTS had. The problem with just getting my current guitars retrofitted with the BFTS is one is a vintage electric I'd rather not change the nut on, the second has a zero fret, and the third would cost $300 being an acoustic. There is also the Earvana nut, but for acoustic they recommend getting their compensated saddle and I have concerns that the trade-off in tone would not be worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

What are your experiences with tempered tunings, are they worth it, and what ones do you use?


Some time ago I had an acoustic that had the Buzz Feiten Tuning System, and I really loved how the chords sounded more in-tune. However, the neck warped and while the manufacturer promptly sent a replacement it didn't have the tone the first one did. It eventually got sold when I needed the money.


Since then I've been desiring something that will get better intonation similar to what the BFTS had. The problem with just getting my current guitars retrofitted with the BFTS is one is a vintage electric I'd rather not change the nut on, the second has a zero fret, and the third would cost $300 being an acoustic. There is also the Earvana nut, but for acoustic they recommend getting their compensated saddle and I have concerns that the trade-off in tone would not be worth it.

 

 

I can't help you with your other questions, but I have acoustics both with and without a compensated saddle and the compensated saddle doesn't have a negative impact on tone.

 

I just have to mention this though. Are you sure your nut slots aren't too high. Most players neglect that part of the setup and it really affects intonation, especially on the first five frets or so. If your F bar chord on the first fret is really hard to fret, and sounds sharp you probably have a slot height issue. Anyway, it's worth looking at, or at least worth ruling out anyway before you make any changes to your guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I can't help you with your other questions, but I have acoustics both with and without a compensated saddle and the compensated saddle doesn't have a negative impact on tone.


I just have to mention this though. Are you sure your nut slots aren't too high. Most players neglect that part of the setup and it really affects intonation, especially on the first five frets or so. If your F bar chord on the first fret is really hard to fret, and sounds sharp you probably have a slot height issue. Anyway, it's worth looking at, or at least worth ruling out anyway before you make any changes to your guitars.

 

 

I wasn't saying the compensation of the saddle Earvana offers affects tone, but implying the material they make it out of does. All my guitars have a good setup and the nut slots aren't too high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I wasn't saying the compensation of the saddle Earvana offers affects tone, but implying the material they make it out of does. All my guitars have a good setup and the nut slots aren't too high.

 

 

I gecha. What is the material like? I usually use tusq when I make saddles and nuts. It's easy to work with and sounds just fine. Is it similar to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A favorite subject of mine, but one about which I don't have much formal training. So this is going to be a good oppotunity for others to call me on, when I say something incorrectly (or non-factual).

 

Anyway, I've gotten real tired of sour-sounding chords, and also single-note lines sounding bad, when I record harmony-parts in two different octaves.

 

So I did some research of the various methods of making the problem of guitar intonation a less noticible one. There are at least five different methods of conpensating nuts that I know of, and in somes cases two popular methods have completely opposite features, yet both claim that they work.

 

I've built several different compensated nuts, patterned after some of these commercially available systems, and the one I've had the best luck with is this one:

 

http://www.hosco.co.jp/HOSCO_ENGLISH/Pages/Parts/SOS.html

 

I actually didn't make the nut compensated, but I used a graphite nut to make my own, under-string compensator, and based it's compensation lay-out upon that SOS item.

 

I don't use any tuning offsets (like the OP would have used with a BFTS set-up guitar), I do intonate the guitar's bridge saddles (it's an electric) differently than conventionally nutted guitars. I use the method of intonating the bridge saddles based on the fifth and seventh fretted notes (I read this somewhere).

 

Perhaps tuning offsets would improve my results, but I'm very happy with the results I've gotten from just the under-string compensator.

 

I know there'll be a lot of disagreement about whether my results are real, or just a preception (although I am working with a strobe tuner), and also, intonation is so effected by how well the nut is cut, and so I may have just improved upon a badly made nut (one I made myself, so I'm not exactly impartial), and of course, the way one frets a string has a great effect on intonation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

A favorite subject of mine, but one about which I don't have much formal training. So this is going to be a good oppotunity for others to call me on, when I say something incorrectly (or non-factual).


Anyway, I've gotten real tired of sour-sounding chords, and also single-note lines sounding bad, when I record harmony-parts in two different octaves.


So I did some research of the various methods of making the problem of guitar intonation a less noticible one. There are at least five different methods of conpensating nuts that I know of, and in somes cases two popular methods have completely opposite features, yet both claim that they work.


I've built several different compensated nuts, patterned after some of these commercially available systems, and the one I've had the best luck with is this one:




I actually didn't make the nut compensated, but I used a graphite nut to make my own, under-string compensator, and based it's compensation lay-out upon that SOS item.


I don't use any tuning offsets (like the OP would have used with a BFTS set-up guitar), I do intonate the guitar's bridge saddles (it's an electric) differently than conventionally nutted guitars. I use the method of intonating the bridge saddles based on the fifth and seventh fretted notes (I read this somewhere).


Perhaps tuning offsets would improve my results, but I'm very happy with the results I've gotten from just the under-string compensator.


I know there'll be a lot of disagreement about whether my results are real, or just a preception (although I am working with a strobe tuner), and also, intonation is so effected by how well the nut is cut, and so I may have just improved upon a badly made nut (one I made myself, so I'm not exactly impartial), and of course, the way one frets a string has a great effect on intonation.

 

 

That spacer does look very interesting. Like the Earvana nut in principle but without changing the nut or requiring the saddle for acoustic. I could also use it on my 1967 ES-335. Only problem is I couldn't use it on my Parker acoustic because of the zero fret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I use the earvana on my electrics and there is no doubt, to my ears, that they improve the sweetness of chording. I can't comment on how the material would affect an acoustic though. Finally, I have used the buzz feiten system too and like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


That spacer does look very interesting. Like the Earvana nut in principle but without changing the nut or requiring the saddle for acoustic. I could also use it on my 1967 ES-335. Only problem is I couldn't use it on my Parker acoustic because of the zero fret.

 

 

If you compare the Earvana's compensation scheme to the S-O-S understring compensator, you'll see they are quite different. But the compensations used on the Ernie Ball/MM guitars is similar to the S-O-S.

 

The S-O-S is available on ebay, but the way. I never purchase one--just made it myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

If you compare the Earvana's compensation scheme to the S-O-S understring compensator, you'll see they are quite different. But the compensations used on the Ernie Ball/MM guitars is similar to the S-O-S.


The S-O-S is available on ebay, but the way. I never purchase one--just made it myself.

 

 

In the same principle I meant they have the same mechanical approach to correcting intonation, but the compensations are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

In the same principle I meant they have the same mechanical approach to correcting intonation, but the compensations are different.

 

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you, or anything. I was just making a general comment about the various systems, because I know some folks aren't familiar with the differences.

 

Frankly, I don't really understand the physics of the whole compensation thing, or how two different systems (Earvana vs. MusicMan, and others) can both work--if they both do. I'm kind of the opinion the the conventional set-up is so flawed, any change in the correct direction (toward the saddle) is a welcome (to the ear) change.

 

I'm not great expert on each manufacturer, but I've read that makers like Taylor, Suhr and PRS do some sort of compensation (moving the nut a bit forward, sometimes a bit more on the bass side). I suppose that they don't exactly make a big thing out of this in their media releases is A) nut compensation has a long tradition in luthiery, and B) some other makers get a bit law-suit happy about compensated nuts:

 

http://www.bbklaw.com/?t=40&an=1273&format=xml

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Oh, I wasn't trying to correct you, or anything. I was just making a general comment about the various systems, because I know some folks aren't familiar with the differences.


Frankly, I don't really understand the physics of the whole compensation thing, or how two different systems (Earvana vs. MusicMan, and others) can both work--if they both do. I'm kind of the opinion the the conventional set-up is so flawed, any change in the correct direction (toward the saddle) is a welcome (to the ear) change.


I'm not great expert on each manufacturer, but I've read that makers like Taylor, Suhr and PRS do some sort of compensation (moving the nut a bit forward, sometimes a bit more on the bass side). I suppose that they don't exactly make a big thing out of this in their media releases is A) nut compensation has a long tradition in luthiery, and B) some other makers get a bit law-suit happy about compensated nuts:


 

 

I knew you weren't correcting me, I was just adding clarification to what I said when I realized it could be interpreted wrong.

 

Intonation and the mathematics and physics behind it gets complicated rather fast, but in the end it all comes down to whether you hear an improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I found this somewhere. Anybody used it?

 

Guitar: How to tune the guitar Correctly so it really sounds in tune. By Bob Glastetter

 

"......a method that some strings will be pure note tuned to the tuner and that is shown as (0) and some other strings will be tuned SLIGHTLY sharp! So here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I found this somewhere. Anybody used it?

 

Guitar: How to tune the guitar Correctly so it really sounds in tune. By Bob Glastetter

 

"......a method that some strings will be pure note tuned to the tuner and that is shown as (0) and some other strings will be tuned SLIGHTLY sharp! So here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I put Earvana nuts on 4 or 5 of my guitars and the nut with saddle on 2 acoustics. I'm sold on them. As far as tone goes, acoustically, very similar to tusk. I did not notice any real tonal change, but I did notice a little more projection. My experiences with Earvana are definately positive. Give it a try, you can always change them back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I put Earvana nuts on 4 or 5 of my guitars and the nut with saddle on 2 acoustics. I'm sold on them. As far as tone goes, acoustically, very similar to tusk. I did not notice any real tonal change, but I did notice a little more projection. My experiences with Earvana are definately positive. Give it a try, you can always change them back.

 

 

Tusq as in the Graphtech product or tusk as in from one mammal or another? I've tried tusq and can't stand the tone. If it sounds like natural tusk I might give it a try, as I've read the tonal difference between bone and tusk is negligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I found this somewhere. Anybody used it?

 

Guitar: How to tune the guitar Correctly so it really sounds in tune. By Bob Glastetter

 

"......a method that some strings will be pure note tuned to the tuner and that is shown as (0) and some other strings will be tuned SLIGHTLY sharp! So here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

It is simply not possible to have all notes "in tune" on an even tempered, fretted instrument.

 

 

No one said it was.

 

I'm not saying you're making this mistake, but many dismiss these possible intonation solutions as snake oil mistakenly believe that they are trying to get the guitar closer to just intonation. What they actually attempt to do is get the guitar closer to "perfect" equal temperament intonation, as when the frets placed for equal temperament intonation they failed to take into the account the stretching of the string when you fret a note. That is what these intonation solutions intend to correct for.

 

None of them are going to correct everything perfectly, and some just move where the problem areas are, but if it's an improvement then why not go for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I have tried tusq and to my ears regular plastic sounds better. I prefer bone.





 

 

TUSQ has quickly become an important tone performance tool for some of the world's most renowned guitar manufacturers, luthiers and playing professionals. TUSQ nuts and saddles have rich tone and sustain, without the inconsistency found in ivory, bone and other natural materials. Bone and ivory have hard and soft spots (grain) throughout each piece, hampering consistent transfer of vibrations to the guitar top. TUSQ nuts, saddles and bridge pins are designed to transfer the right frequencies more efficiently from the string to the guitar body. Acoustic guitars come alive!

 

 

Rich Tone: a crystal clear bell like high end and big open low end.

Engineered for maximum vibration transfer.

Consistent quality from piece to piece and within each piece.

Easy to work with - can be filed and sanded; will not chip or flake

Laboratory-proven to enhance harmonic content (up to 200%)

Used by the world's finest guitar manufacturers.

No flat or dead spots that can be found in bone or ivory.

http://graphtech.com/products.html?CategoryID=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 


Laboratory-proven to enhance harmonic content (up to 200%)

 

 

Doesn't mean as much as it sounds. Tusq is more consistent than bone given bone is an organic material. What they compare tusq to in the graphs on their website is what average for bone, but it is not difficult to find a bone saddle that is above average. A large percentage of the extra harmonic content is from the fifth harmonic above the fundamental, and that is the only area where tusq significantly outperforms bone as far as harmonic content. There is little distinguishable difference between tusq and an average bone in the third harmonic, and average bone isn't far behind tusq in the fundamental.

 

That is before getting into extra harmonic content=/=tonal quality. While more harmonic content is rarely a bad thing, it is only a one of the factors in overall tone. Take for example the Lace Alumitone pickup. It has more harmonic content because its wider frequency range, but that does not automatically make it a superior pickup tonally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've had a lot of hands on with tusq and bone and my feeling is that tusq is consistent and clear, but has a bit of a plastic sound. Bone sounds more warm, but with soft spots and differences in overall density it's a bit hit and miss. It's not hard to see why a company that makes a lot of guitars wouldn't want to use bone, but I prefer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...