correcting tuning on rhythm guitar tks

[wilpye]

Crimminny!! Popmusic is leaving the thread. Somebody get him back on to read this.

 

Listen, I am in total sympathy to your posts. You've made me laugh and scratch my head. I admire cool cucumbers, of which you obviously are one. And as you can tell from my pointed directness, I'm not much of an asskisser unless there's cause.

Please re-read my post. My joke was about an old man who lived to a hundred (not Stevie Wonder) who abused himself. Of course Stevie's alive as I referenced him as capable of choosing between tuned music and sludge. I used a term 'malarkey' in reference to one of your many ideas, but as it happens one that I didn't cotton to. You're going to seem thin-skinned if you leave it at that. I didn't get uptight when fet said >>>relax, have a couple drinks <<<

So Popmusic, please come on back on & tell me you got this so I can sleep a little easier tonight.

I mean that. This is not a battle of wits, it's minds trying to get in phase.....

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:12 PM

[WFTurner]

Yeah come back popmusic. This is just one of those

brainstormin threads. Can't take that stuff too seriously.

 

Lets all have one of those beers. Here one of ya pour this

one on top of my sizzlin head and I'll tell ya about when

I was a youngster way back before we had these fancy tuner

things. I worked for a guy who was one of those few who

had perfect pitch. He had this funky look he'd give someone

in between songs, we'd just lean his way and say fix it and

quit lookin at me that way. Your creepin me. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Songwriter

turnermusic

[Curve Dominant]

Wilpye,

 

If you have time to develop extended debates over esoteric uses of signal processors, you should have time to tune your guitar.

 

This is not a case for backwards expanders - this is a case of backwards priorities. Most of the folks you're arguing with here have probably forgotten how long ago it was when they last tracked out of tune, let alone didn't recognize it until later.

 

Needless to say, you've picked a curious way to kick off your appearence here. Welcome.

 

curvedominant

[wavman]

Forget all these tools that supposedly make this music game "easier". Get to work on the gizmo that will be implanted in my brain, and will suck the very best songs out, arrange them perfectly, tune them perfectly (or perfectly untuned), and then implant them in the brains of all the people of the world, preferably while I'm sleeping.

[Gus Lozada]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant:

If you have time to develop extended debates over esoteric uses of signal processors, you should have time to tune your guitar.

 

'nuff said !! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[wilpye]

Compadres, you have been great! If anyone still has anything to add to the original query of mine about extracting waveforms, I'd really like to have those insights. Where it stands now is that I believe the Polyphonic computer program to do this will come, but sadly it is not here now. That's what I was trying to find out. Of course I hope some team or individual gets it together and brings it to life.

 

I'll certainly push a few buttons when & where I can to push the concept. Hope some of you will too. If it's a good thing, it will happen. In the meantime, let's examine what can be done with the original query by some out -of -the -box thinking as provided by two clever forum junkies:

 

From KBP >>>Or you can do it the easy way and find one of those guitars with individual outs for each string. I've never seen one but I have heard about them.<<<

Later in the day from John Worthington >>>Has anyone thought about using a hex pickup going to multiple tracks. Then you'd at least have each string isolated. Should be able to play the result back through a VG88 for some fun. I might have to experiment with this.<<<

 

All right! I immediately ran with this as a here and now today kind of solution. Here's what I've dug up so far:

There is a tech wiz named Richard McClish who is my kind of aural soldier.

He runs a Guitar oriented outfit called the RMC Pickup Company in California. Visit him at http://www.rmcpickup.com/fanoutbox.html

 

He sells a magic box (he calls it the Fanout box) that is way beyond what is required for my concerns retailing at under $400. You plug any six string (or bass) with a hex pickup into his box with the standard 13 pin cable, and it will do just what KBP and John Worthington envisioned. Six discrete outputs can feed six analog to digital converters in a single pass into your computer or multitracker. You can also take down the regular combined guitar jack out as a reference mono track (normally all you'd have to work with).

 

But now you can tune each string with AutoTune or whatever, run the six channels back through the Fanout box into (for instance) a VG88 or your choice from Pod to wah-wah... or whatever the original guitarist was using. Now that blasted guitar track will be in tune. I doubt even a picky SOB like me could complain.

 

I wonder how much delay would be introduced if you set up six Autotunes to process the guitar tracks live? Vocalists seem to get away with it, so why not a guitar and bass player? Expensive, and another hassle... but I'll just bet it would be worth it to those who get what I've been saying and agree being in tune is worth it. The only problem I see is in a live situation; how well would the AutoTune deal with serious string bending? That is something that you'd want the program to leave alone...

 

For those of you into microtunings, you could even have your string slappers really approach your personal sound wave heaven. Get the keyboardist on the same user tuning and away the band goes...live & sparkling.

 

Any more quality replies, observations, or guidance would still be appreciated.

 

By the way, this forum has really been a great worthwhile investment of my time Brother Curve. And I do appreciate your warm welcome. Everyone seems to keep telling me that just tuning an axe before recording is enough. It isn't. If guitars didn't go out of tune there wouldn't be tuning pegs. Getting more recording artists to actually clean up their performances would make me satisfied. I'm not on the airwaves nor will I ever be. But I'm tired of being subjected to sludge from those who are. And yes I know how to turn the dial, but sloppy tuning is everywhere.

 

Oh well, I've always got Steely Dan to cozy up to. So now let me jump off this sagging soapbox.

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:17 PM

[KBP]

Thanx for the interest. I'm off to check out that site. You are making me sit here and think about some really thick guitars that are wide using the seperate string thing panned out (kinda like they sometimes do with piano with the low keys to the left going to the right finally hearing the high ones) Maybe instead of layers among layers of guitars you could just do 2, imagine an acoustic part recorded in this fashion then doubled. Then pan take one from Left to right starting with the low working you way over to the right with the highs. Then pan take two from right to left going from low to high again. Might suck, might be really cool. Man I love the science of sound, I only wish I would remember these little spurts of wonderfulness when mixing, oh well can't be perfect can we? Which brings me to that great post about a machine that grabs the tunes from you're head. I think I have lost about 500 songs in my head that I never am able to put the same vibe and sound that I have in my head. This would be the one thing that everybody would want. would this be considered in the same taboo field as autotune? I only wonder what kind of bugs it would have. "hey thats not what I was thinking" "well it's cool so f*ck it" Would the company that made this product be entitled to some of the publishing of that song since there machine made the part?

[Master Zap]

Hmm. This was intriguing as hell.

 

The problem with a guitar, or any complex waveforms interacting, is that you get interferences between not only the fundamentals but the harmonics, that a fourier-analysis of the resulting composite wave will perceive as "there" althoug they "are" not.

 

Also, I'll betcha a billion bux that a bucket of non-linearities is thrown in to the supposed "addition" of the strings, so its nowhere near a simple addition. Just mixing two WAV files of solitary strings might indeed be reversible.... but when they have gone through a distbox? Or just a speaker cone? Hmm.

 

Heres a trick I've used to my own delight: Download Cool Edit 96 (if you can still find that old thing) it has the greatest noise reduction feature in the galaxy, ever. (No soundforges is much worse!). It works by "teaching" it some sound which is "Noise" (using the "Get noise profile") and then you apply these teachings to the audio, and voila, you have new audio, sans that "Noise".

 

Now, I've used much more than "Noise" to teach it. Once I had vocals where a sustained chord was under it. I "taught" it the sustained chord... and voila - I had vocals only. Wierdly processed sounding vocals, yes, but the chord was GONE. (And that was a fairly LOUD chord).

 

Maybe you can teach it the bad strings note, and say that is "noise" to be removed? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

Anyway, as an apparently theoretical excercise though... I think that it is actually EASIER to simply make "chord RECOGNITION" on the track, than to actually dissect it into its component notes. By doing RECOGNTION, the proper notes could be re-synthesized using whatever sounds, like, for instance, guitar sounds, but not necessarily. That way you could change the key, invert the chords, or go haywire with it. RECOGNITION I think is way more probable to succeed at than EXTRACTION. At least with the current state of technology. (And note, that even single-note recognition is so-so on complex waveforms like a distorted guitar note)

 

 

But in theory you could have a computer w. a database of guitar chords combined spectral qualities, it could pick out the closes match, and replace it with a sample of the proper chord, or resynthesizing it.

 

 

Also, there is nothing that rules out having this very device built into a special unit called "a guitarist". These units has built in stereo-audio inputs, a neural wetware analyzer which detects the chords (a teaching run of the track might be needed first) and can, by using external hardware known as "a guitar" re-synthesize faithfully, and in tune (assuming the external device is in tune) the requested material.

 

Someone says these units are already readily available. Check your local classified ads for "Have guitar - will travel" ads. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

/Z

[WFTurner]

Zap you're right about cool edit and it's noise reduction. If you

can get an isolated copy of the noise/sound it'll take it right

out of the track no matter what else is there. Cool example:

 

Don't laugh at me now... I presently have no teeth and with no teeth

it's hard to keep the top of your mouth and the bottom of your mouth seperated. You can (and I do) unless you really concentrate get strange noises when you sing or speak for that matter.

 

So I actually recreated, recorded those type of noises in cool edit

and run a noise reduction profile on it, ie... taught cool edit what

noises I wanted it to recognise and run the noise reduction profile

on the vocal track and magically... all that crap is no longer in my

vocal track.

 

Actually wilpye, I don't know why I didn't think of it yesterday but

cool edit does kind of do what we have been discussing... in a way,

and you can save the profiles of what you want it to recognize.

 

I use it quite a bit now that I think of it.

My sound cards are probably considered junk to most here. But cool

edit noise reduction makes them very usable. Usually with any outside source, POD, VTP-1, external synth, I'm getting a noise ceiling of about

-57/58db. I have a noise profile of these ceilings for every outside sound

source setup I use. I cut a certain track, use noise reduction with the appropriate profile, play that track and when I monitor the parts where nothing is happening, I don't have that -57/58 noise ceiling showing up

on my meters.

 

One more good example. Played a perfectly executed lead guitar part on

the high 3 strings in the 12+ fret part of the neck but got careless

about keeping that open D string from ringin. Just made a profile

of the open D string and voila... it's gone and there's my sweet lick... clean as a whistle.

 

Thanks to Zap for mentioning this.

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Songwriter

turnermusic

 

This message has been edited by WFTurner on 06-07-2001 at 08:03 AM

[seclusion]

I must say that myself being a decent guitarist and engineer/mixer etc.. Would welcome an autotune for chords... I have 6 guitars going plus the studio... I really don't have the time to intonate/clean/tune/change strings on each one every couple weeks perfectly everytime... When I'm in that space and everything is clickin.. The last thing I want to do is fuck around for 15 minutes tuning a couple a gtr's.. Usually they aren't totally off cause my room was/is kept at a regular temp..

I'm sure at some point all of us have got caught up in the moment then noticed the next day that it's outa tune..

I'm sure it's coming soon.. I'm cool with it..

Brian

[hiraga]

Technology is not the limit. The laws of physics is (sometimes.. err?)

 

The limit is out minds and imagination. Going back a couple of hundred years, saying space travel/moon landing would be possible *soon*, would get you crucified. Going back a thousand years, saying the Earth is indeed not flat and the stars a gazzillion miles away and the sun is a thousand times bigger than the Earth, would get you.. crucified.

 

How about goin back to 30's and tell Billie Holiday that Autotune will be availiable in 70 years? (NOT like she needed it. Just an example)..

 

Or ProTools.. or.. or.. or...????

 

I'm sure in the not so distant future it'll be possible to *take* the multitracks out of a CD (just THINK about the possibilities!!!). Yes, that's right. I think so. How? Don't ask me.

 

No-one knew HOW to put a man on the moon five hundred years ago..

 

If man wants it bad enough he'll get it. History have proven that, I think..

 

So, that sorta pitch correcting you're talking about here WILL come. Even it's too difficult to grasp right now.

 

Wasn't it Einstein who said the difficult part was to explain the theory and the practical implementation *is a piece of cake*. I think he was talking about time travel..

 

That'll come too..

 

Not to sound like an ol' hippie junkie, but that's one of the reasons I do enjoy LSD/shrooms. It sets my mind free in a manner not possible other in other ways.

 

Ohh what thoughts.. what a mind the human, not me, but all humans have.

 

Too bad we think with our asses without the dope.

 

I'm sure the multipitchifting-timetravelling-multitrackripping gizmo wil be here soon..

[miroslav]

I'll say it again...nothing wrong with "what if" thinking.

 

I also will agree that your "magic box" will probably be a reality sooner than later...Autotune paved that roadit is up to each of us to decide if/when we need to travel on it.

 

Yeah...I hate it too when that "live" piece of wood and strings starts breathing and things go out...stop...adjust..."HEY, leave that AC alone 'till I lay down this track"...shit now it is too warm...stop...adjust...

 

BUT...(don't you hate these fuckin' "buts")...at that point when you decide to use the "magic box", then you ain't playin' guitar anymore!

Separating the output of all six strings, running each through an autotune rig, then recording and mixing them back...well I'm sure it might be cool, it might be fun, and it will be possible soon...but againthat ain't playing guitar...especially rhythm guitar.

 

A guitar is a live, acoustic instrument. For rhythm, you want all those strings churnin' and interacting with each other and the body. Hell, most guitars go out of tune somewhere along the neck as soon as you strum the strings a few times. Acoustic pianos are the same way.

 

I once tried tuning my piano...what the hell, I had the tuning wrenches and rubber stoppers. I figured I could just get a tone off my synth and go from there.

Man, I tuned each string PERFECT...but when I played a chord or moved up and down the keyboard playing octaves...it sounded like SHIT. The strings WERE in perfect tune though.

 

Finally, I called a piano tuner...this old guy came over...I told him my attempt...he chuckled. "You can't tune a piano PERFECT" he said, "there has to be some give/interaction between all the strings, otherwise, as you move up and down the keyboard it sounds like it is going out all over the place".

Well...when he was done...it sounded right even though every string wasn't perfectly in tune.

 

So if you want some kind of new, artificial sounding instrument, then fine...use the "magic box" when it comes out, I'm sure you will be able to get some cool sounds that will be usable in a recording...but just don't call that instrument a guitar.

 

OhI never was much of a Steely Dan fanafter I read all the stories about their overly anal recording/editing sessions like, "we need to move that snare beat forward by about .0005 milliseconds".and other micro surgery feats, I kind of started to wonder about the value of all that slicin' and dicin' and correcting to perfection ad nauseam. Buttheir albums do sound PERFECT and CLEANlike a sterile operating room.

[wilpye]

I just woke up to take a leak and passed my Mac & couldn't resist seeing what the thread had fished in. Wow! some great observations... I'm too groggy to reply other than to Miroslav's closer:

>>>OhI never was much of a Steely Dan fantheir albums do sound PERFECT and CLEANlike a sterile operating room.<<<

 

Point taken. But I stand by the position that drove Popmusic running for the exits: If the session is over, and everybody's gone home, whatever excitement, creativity, or wow moments the musician's put into the tracks are- all- still- there. But now let's get that furshlugginer mess in tune. Will that take away one shred of those wow moments? Not if all we're doing is PUTTING IT IN TUNE. Where does this recurring theme that being in tune somehow equates to sterility? Crappy performance in equals crappy performance out, whether you're in tune or not.

Now friends.... like a scalded monkey slammin thru the treetops spiraling after a frozen banana, I'm going back to bed.

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:22 PM

[WFTurner]

miroslav:

 

>>>?Finally, I called a piano tuner...this old guy came

over...I told him my attempt...he chuckled. "You can't

tune a piano PERFECT" he said,<<<

 

Hehe... that brings to mind a crazy twist to add to the

discussion. Lets assume that the software does exist.

 

Ever since I started using an electronic tuner, I've never been

able to stand to have my G string tuned to what those things say

is the right pitch. Always have to loosen that string just a tiny bit,

about -4 cents. Then I'm happy. That's when my axe is in tune.

 

Now if you track me and I go home are you gonna retune me with this

miraculous software? If I'm just a musician in the session it don't

matter. It's your track to do whatever.

 

What if it's my album and you retune it?

What if after listening awhile the next day, I'm bouncing off your control

room walls like a retarded monkey on steroids cause my guitar tracks are

all screwed up. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

More than the tuning. What about the purposeful pitch dissonance I might

put in a performance? Dissonance is a wonderful and to my ears beautiful

tool.... including rhythm guitar tracks. Is it gonna be tuned away when I'm not looking?

 

Not really meaning you, but, anyone engineering an artist who's gonna

decide when to use this perfect software. I know from years of experience

that if I'm gonna throw a major 7th chord in my solo without playing the

3rd I have to be very aware and concise with the fingering because it can get very dissonate if I get careless. But a little of that sour stuff can make that passage of the solo beautiful. Should it be tuned away?

 

I love technology but in the case of tuning software.... it could prove

to be distressing from an artist point of view.

 

Damn startin that thinkin stuff again.

 

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Songwriter

turnermusic

[miroslav]

wilpye,

 

Man it's noon time...what you doin' in bed anyway?

 

Well...if all you need "the box" for is to tune an out of tune guitar...then JUST TUNE IT BEFORE YOU RECORD...you too tired to do that? Maybe after your noon time nap.

 

Look, a LOT of folks here are criticizing the whole Autotune fever that has swept recording sessions AND live gigs too!!! Not just me.

Why, because it is a bit of a cheat I guess. And yes, some people don't give a shit...autotune everything.

 

I was just focusing on the rhythm guitar aspect, and the fact that a guitar is an acoustic instrument that NATURALLY has some quirks. You are dealing with wood and strings that "breathe"...why do you want to take the life out of them by having a "magic box" do the playing for you?

 

I think one problem of the "magic box" will be that normal finger pressure adjustments and intentional sliding/shifting will all be removed by "the box" or maybe it might not know what to do with that kind of playing???

 

Man just play the thing...Neil Young would never sound the same if he autotuned every guitar note!!!

 

 

This message has been edited by miroslav on 06-07-2001 at 01:08 PM

[miroslav]

Originally posted by WFTurner:

...Ever since I started using an electronic tuner, I've never been

able to stand to have my G string tuned to what those things say

is the right pitch. Always have to loosen that string just a tiny bit,

about -4 cents. Then I'm happy. That's when my axe is in tune.

 

ABSOLUTLY!!!

 

Been doing that same thing for years...use to think my ears were weird...the tuner said one thing and they said no...too sharp!!!

 

One solution was to open the tuner (it had small pots to adjust all the individual "strings reference points" and a master pot)...and then I just set the G pot to accept "a little flat" as the new "0" ref on the meter...problem solved, now the tuner was in synch with my ears!

 

You are right on with all the rest too.

[John Worthington]

Originally posted by miroslav:

ABSOLUTLY!!!

 

Been doing that same thing for years...use to think my ears were weird...the tuner said one thing and they said no...too sharp!!!

 

One solution was to open the tuner (it had small pots to adjust all the individual "strings reference points" and a master pot)...and then I just set the G pot to accept "a little flat" as the new "0" ref on the meter...problem solved, now the tuner was in synch with my ears!

 

You are right on with all the rest too.

 

 

This is pretty common on Pianos. It's called stretch tuning. They tune the lows a little flat and the highs a little sharp. It a piano isn't stretched tuned, it sounds funny.

 

jw

[WFTurner]

I haven't had one at my disposal for a long time, but check with pedal steel players they'll tell you you can't tune your pedal bends to perfect pitch. Chords just don't sound good.

 

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Songwriter

turnermusic

[wilpye]

Look out WF, I'm back up and prowling sideways & down this tangy thread again. You say >>>Ever since I started using an electronic tuner, I've never been able to stand to have my G string tuned to what those things say is the right pitch. Always have to loosen that string just a tiny bit, about -4 cents. Then I'm happy. That's when my axe is in tune.<<<<

 

And I bet your open E chord sounds marvelous, right? Yes it does! Because the triad uses one G# pitch, and you've lowered that whole string and every pitch on it relative to the others. Go ahead, tune that sucker down another 4 cents & it'll sound even better for the E chord and every other bar chord in the series E,F,F#,G,G# & so forth on up the neck. But any other chord structure will start sounding butt ugly.

With your lowered G string down even only 4 cents, when you hit an open G chord, check with your tuner. Is that G string in tune with the G note on your low E string at the 3rd fret, or the high E string at the 3rd string. No, it isn't. And with this magic moment we have entered the twilight zone topic of just intonation. Who wants to go there?? I'll discuss it with anyone who wants to..... But we'll have more people heading out the door.

 

So let me address your concerns WF, as you are a good companyero. Next you say

>>>Now if you track me and I go home are you gonna retune me with this miraculous software? If I'm just a musician in the session it don't matter. It's your track to do whatever.<<<

Yessir its my track so I tune away to my heart's desire. We're in agreement.

Then you say >>> What if it's my album and you retune it? What if after listening awhile the next day, I'm bouncing off your control room walls like a retarded monkey on steroids cause my guitar tracks are all screwed up.<<<

And I say, "Why WF, I've got all your sucky out of tune parts, (down to the last flicker of sludge) right here on track seven just the way you put it down. Here. Let's put that in the mix and take all my tuning stuff you find so offensive out. Presto. No harm done. Are we still in agreement, ole buddy?

You said it best. If it's my nickle, we do it my way. If I'm working for you, we do it your way. But if we record your six strings individually on their own track, and your regular output on the seventh track the way you always did it, we have the best of both worlds. And an opportunity to fix all your clams if you so desire. (And yes we can even make every blinkin major triad you play have that sweet lowered 4 cent sound you've come to love and appreciate) Ahhhhh the power of knob twiddling. It's a beautiful thing.

[Jason Poff]

WILPYE said:

"Being out of tune contributes not one whit to emotion. However, at some point it does become gross. All we're really discussing is the point at which different people start to puke. Some personal standards may be lower than mine and I accept that they drink that different cup of tea. I'm not on a high horse here, but the difference to me is there. Out of tune tracks muddy up so damn fast when you mix them. Sludge is sludge."

 

 

What about the telecaster? A huge part of the telecaster sound is the fact that it is impossible for it to be in tune. You're obviously on your high horse. I've heard some amazing "out of tune" tracks that would probably make you puke (too much emotion) http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif but are music to my ears. Grow up. If you notice something grossly out of tune during tracking, then get off your ass and fix it before you hit record. If you don't notice it, then your spending too much time tweaking knobs and not enough time listening to the sounds you are documenting.

 

 

This message has been edited by Jason Poff on 06-07-2001 at 04:23 PM

 

This message has been edited by Jason Poff on 06-07-2001 at 04:24 PM

[wilpye]

Jason Poff, you are a confrontational kind of guy. >>>I've heard some amazing "out of tune" tracks that would probably make you puke (too much emotion) but are music to my ears.<<<

 

How long do I have to beat this dead horse?????? You confuse emotion with being in tune. Yes, I said it again. You're confused.

Do this for me please. Take your telecaster and tune it up just the way you like it. Now tune the high E string down about 20 cents and start playing. Are you puking yet??? If not tune it down a little more till you are. Now eventually even a stone eared guy is gonna hit his own personal puke level. I don't know what yours is but I hope you see how easy it is to find out. Now that you've reached the level where you're puking real good; try to wring some sassy emotion out of that fine telecaster guitar.

Remember I said I accept that other tastes differ than mine. It sounds like you're trying to get me to accept and like your tastes. Et tu Jason? And you're asking (commanding?) me to grow up?

But at least you close with some solid advice I'll always remember:

>>> If you notice something grossly out of tune during tracking, then get off your ass and fix it before you hit record.<<<

I would have never thought of that one. Maybe you confrontational types are good for something after all.

 

I sure hope some more quality chatter comes in, or as all good threads do, this one is gonna go. When the mental vultures start picking over the corpse, its time to move the pride. Simba!

 

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:32 PM

[WFTurner]

>>>Go ahead, tune that sucker down another 4 cents & it'll sound even better for the E chord and every other bar chord in the series E,F,F#,G,G# & so forth on up the neck. But any other chord structure will start sounding butt ugly.<<<

 

I have a simple style but have a need for lots of different chord

structures. If they we're sounding butt ugly I'd be fit to be tied

and certainly not to stubborn to + or - that sucker till I got them.

 

Music and sound in theory are very scientific beasts. But perhaps

turning theory to art can defy the scientific just a bit.

 

Perhaps my sense of pitch is just not perfect enough so I can enjoy

my musical journey in some kind of ignorant bliss... a touch

of murkiness my most favorite and quite natural effect http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

 

Rotsa luck with them ears http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif

Enjoyed the discussion.

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Songwriter

turnermusic

[wilpye]

WF, this is a personal to you. The 1st time around (in my post about butt ugly chords), I kept it short because the audience doesn't want us to bog down on trivia. Since I feel you missed something with my poorly expressed math, let me go at it one more time.

Please notice I said lower it 'another' 4 cents (What I should have said to make it clear was: lower it another 4 cents in addition to the 1st 4 cents for a total of 8 cents flat) and yes the E triad will sound really sweet and nice. But relative to the other strings, that 8 cent flat G string will start making the other chords (such as open C major, open D major, Open A major, etc.) start sounding butt ugly.

I never meant to imply you would actually tune the G string down 8 cents, I was just warning what I felt would happen if you did.

 

I totally trust you get good results with your system (and Miroslav says he tunes it down too). And to your ears the open G chord in your system is fine. But my point was: if you tune it down too much beyond your sweet spot, although the E (& F & F# etc.) chord will still sound great, the open G chord will sound "not so sweet". And what I want to do is (as your fictional engineer/ producer), is get that G chord (that you already like) changed so that it is also every bit as nice (to me) as the E chord that we both agree sounds terrific. With the six recorded tracks of guitar strings, if I find it valuable enough an investment of my time to actually sweeten that G chord with Auto Tune, by gosh I can! Oh happy day for frequency geeks like me.

 

And lastly, in our confrontation that you posed as an example, I'm the ogre who changed your guitar sound and despises your >>> sucky out of tune parts, (down to the last flicker of sludge)<<< That's what I said. But I was talking to an ogre as you said >>>bouncing off (my) control room walls like a retarded monkey on steroids<<< Not talking to the real WFTurner, who is in reality an affectionate pussycat

(Yes WF, your friends told on you).

 

Do you get my drift? We were role playing to keep the thread humorous and entertaining. Somehow you may have taken it to mean I was slamming your real music. NO NO NO

I was promising as your producer I would ruthlessly go after anything (yes it's subjective and people fight about it) what I thought was a >>> flicker of sludge<<< And depending on what kind of whip hand the artist has with the producer, these battles can be short or long.

 

So WF, good friend, unless there's anything else ((I can hear Jason Poff now, "Why wasn't that asshole wilpye so affectionate & nice to me?"))

let me say goodbye for now. As you closed so shall I,

>>>Enjoyed the discussion.<<<

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:36 PM

[hiraga]

Geeezz.. you're anal..

 

Trying to prove a point that doesn't matter is so pathetic.

 

I never cared for the Steely Dan stuff. Boring shit. Not even especially well recorded. There I said it. Nothing special. Probably great for *audiophiles*..

[Jason Poff]

I'm only confrontational because you seem to think there is a rule book to music and anyone with an opinion that differs your's is a "confused stone eared guy". Imagine the sound of one digital piano playing a beautiful melody. Now imagine 10 top rate pianists playing exactly the same melody perfectly in time with the same piano sound. The sound only gets louder. Imagine the sound of one violin playing a beautiful melody. Now imagine ten top rate violinists playing the melody in unison. Not only does the sound get louder, it gets thicker, juicier, more lush, etc...

The variations in pitch, from player to player, enhance the sound greatly.

If this analogy doesn't work for you, then I suggest you find a good symphony and do some studying. I can agree with you that there is a point at which it just becomes crap (ever hear a 6th grade orchestra?) http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif. But that doesn't prove your argument that only perfectly in tune is right, and anything else is simply varying degrees of wrong. I only said grow up because "I'm right so you have to be wrong" is a childish argument. It's not a matter of whether or not you accept and like my tastes. I'm just hoping you realize that there is more to music than being perfectly in tune.

 

Jason

 

 

This message has been edited by Jason Poff on 06-07-2001 at 11:20 PM

[Jason Poff]

By the way, I don't own a telecaster. I just enjoy their out of tune sounds from time to time.

 

This message has been edited by Jason Poff on 06-07-2001 at 11:03 PM

[wilpye]

Jason. Scan through this thread & find me the quote where I said only perfectly in tune is right.

Popmusic asked >>>how anal-retentive do we really want to get with pitch correction?<<<

so if we're going to be anal-retentive and actually use it I answered >>>To how far with pitch correction do we want to go the answer is: Totally in tune!<<< If you're choosing to tune something, I assume you don't want to half ass the job. Surely you're not referencing that quote?

Neither have I expressed the concept "I'm right so you have to be wrong".

 

From day one I've come to this forum to get help. If I had all the answers I wouldn't be here.

 

For me Jason, maybe not for you, but for me it's the more in tune the better. I am in the minority on this issue. I can only thank the clever and giving minds who nursed me through my own confusion, and delivered me to a solution to MY PROBLEM. Not necessarily YOUR PROBLEM. If so, read about it and learn like I did. The whole thread is right there.

You've given me a civil post this time, and I appreciate it. You close with >>>I'm just hoping you realize that there is more to music than being perfectly in tune.<<< Stop hoping, I do. But for this thread, tuning is the issue on the table. So in this theatre of ideas, it's 'the' important issue.

When we leave, its back to the 10,000 other things that matter. Are we friends now? I hope so.

 

Hiraga. I took heart from your prediction earlier today. >>>I'm sure the multipitchifting-timetravelling-multitrackripping gizmo wil be here soon..<<< That made my heart sing.

As for you not liking Steely Dan here's a question for the ages: Has there ever been an artist everybody likes? So we differ on that. I won't even tell you what I think is boring shit. Who gives a rat's ass who I don't like. As for me being anal. Of course I am, and a royal pain in the ass at that. So we agree on that. But now instead of understanding you, I'm back being confused. Please give further clarification. >>>Trying to prove a point that doesn't matter is so pathetic.<<< What is the point that doesn't matter???????

Please give a shout back....

[Master Zap]

Guys, guys...

 

Keep in mind that being "in tune" doesnt mean necessarily snapped to the nearest equal-tempered semitone. And being OUT of tune doesnt necessarily mean you missed one equal-tempered semitone. It simply means you got one pitch, but wanted another.

 

Pitch "correction" doesn't HAVE to be used to make cher of us all, y'know.

 

WilPye:

 

You didn't comment much on my writings on page 1 of this thread... I think there was *something* intersting there http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

/Z

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by John Worthington:

This is pretty common on Pianos. It's called stretch tuning. They tune the lows a little flat and the highs a little sharp. It a piano isn't stretched tuned, it sounds funny.

 

jw

 

John, I don't know where you learned the term, "Stretch Tuning," but modern pianos are almost exclusively tuned to Equal Temperment. While this is a compromise between perfect frequency/pitch tuning and the reality of physical string mass and tension on pitch, it is most certainly NOT tuning all the lows flat and the highs sharp. If you want more information on this, listen closely to a piano tuner. It's a difficult process on piano. They begin with A-440, tune each A to perfect octaves, and from there the tuning gets VERY complex.

 

Wilpye,

 

• First of all, Buzzy Feiten has a modification for guitars to allow you to tune to equal temperment. I know he has a website, but I don't have it. Search and ye shall find...
   
  
• Second, Steely Dan was a terrible example for you to pick. Fagan would not be caught dead with an autotuner of ANY sort. He demands the best of musicians, one quality being that they can play in tune. If they screw it up, next take. He may be anal with technology, but he's still a musician, first.
   
  
• Third. Hex pickups have been around, for non-synth, stereo and multiple output back in the early 1980's, if not earlier. Kramer released their first Danny Ferrington guitar, and it WASN'T the disgusting strat-style thin acoustic. It was a stereo guitar with pan controls for each string. In addition, Ferrington designed, or had designed, a 6 channel, onboard distortion. This allowed players to simulate the recording style of Brian May of Queen.
   
  He orchestrated chords by recording individual lines, one at a time. This resulted in a sweeter distortion on chords. With the Kramer Ferrington, you could approximate this because each string had it's own distortion circuit. Very Cool. There's and old guitar mag from 1986, or so, showing EVH on the cover with his pink and white tye-dye colored Ferrington.
   
  
• Four. You should be able to approximate your original scenario with the Cool Edit 96 noise reduction. sample the guitar string out of tune. (In tune with the offensive note. I expect you'll gain more artifacts, though, due to the difference in chordal note sound vs. individual. (ie. the Brian May sound vs. the normal, single distortion or speaker sound.)
   
  
• Five. Roland's VG-8 doesn't have 6 individual outputs. I don't know about the VG-88. But as too tuning and stereo pan, these have been features of the VG line for at least 5 years.

 

In the end, this is all fun. I like the idea of the VG gear, because I use a lot of weird tunings onstage. But I can retune from standard to CGDDAD in well under a minute, without a tuner. It comes from years of doing it, not from hearing the result after futzing with electronic tuners. (Which I do use from time to time. I don't have perfect pitch, just incredible relative pitch.)

 

I agree with others hear, though. Learn to tune the damn thing or buy a keyboard and chuck the acoustic instruments. You disagree, it would seem, but having every frequency in tune is EXACTLY analagous to perfectly quantized drums. They may be mathmatically perfect, but our hearing and perception are not. You can achieve this by recording each chord separately and tuning to match the sweet spot of each. It sounds terrible. I've tried it in Acid, just to see if I could put together a rhythm track from individual hits.

 

 

------------------

Neil

 

Reality: A few moments of lucidity surrounded by insanity.

[wilpye]

Master Zap. Thanx for getting me back on point. I read your page 1 post in a blurry haze & when I finally got up, I let myself get sucked into a creaky corridor of mirrors and forgot all about the fire on our own particular stove. In other words, I became like Sonny Liston about to throw my fight with Cassius Clay. In fear of the mob...

You say (relative to the two combined pitches of my original premise) >>>Also, I'll betcha a billion bux that a bucket of non-linearities is thrown in to the supposed "addition" of the strings, so its nowhere near a simple addition.<<<

I hate to be optimistic, but I'd say its more like a teacup of non-linearities. In teaching a self learning algoR, the critical feeds are not the data of what actually is deconstructed from two waveforms, but yes (you're right) also the artifacts introduced from the combination itself. But the program only sees this as three feeds. (The two real + the artifacts.) These are the feeds that would make the program be accurate, at least to our human ear drums. And I say teacup because although the third item is audible, it's particular data would approach about 8% of the 'mass' of the original two, if you don't mind my rough slide rule calculations.

The point is: You're right as best I can tell >>>Just mixing two WAV files of solitary strings might indeed be reversible....<<< Hurray. It's a start if someone could build a useless (in terms of who only wants to deconstruct two waveforms) program that could only extract two waveforms.

 

But -quite -daunting when having to introduce the non-teacup size of the artifacts from four more strings. But in the end its all just good programming. I would speculate the end technique predicted by seclusion (>>>I'm sure it's coming soon.. I'm cool with it..<<< in his post 06-07-2001 08:00 AM)  will be an actual underlying program to (accurately) deconstruct the lowest three frequencies and using combinational laws to predict the mess the upper thee frequencies would become (as this is where the mass of the artifact tangle wil be introduced).

But still dammit, I think the end product after only about 100 recurvations would teach the algoR to predict the final result close enough to pass muster. How many of us even hear past 10K or so anyway. Past 10K the tangle would be massive. Master Zap here's your big leakproof bucket you were betting for. That's where your bet becomes a slamdunk. Shaq, stand back! Next you continue

>>>but when they have gone through a distbox? Or just a speaker cone? Hmm.<<< OK Let's don't go there. Yuk!

I'm just being practical, because here the initial underlying tangle for even the low frequencies (because we've introduced a fourth feed, the distbox) would be a nuclear mushroom cloud. I could live with a program that just bit off what it could chew.

 

I need to start chanting your line like a mantra >>>And being OUT of tune doesnt necessarily mean you missed one equal-tempered semitone. It simply means you got one pitch, but wanted another.<<<

Buddha couldn't have said it better Master Zap.

 

I'll let everybody swallow this post as I must break off for several hours. I will finish addressing your thoughts later in the day as you've triggered some things I need to research.

FantasticSound. I've seen your post and will also address it later in the day. I know Buzz having met him at several tradeshows. More about him later also. Someone please try & get Popmusic back with us, as his powerful brain out on strike is no good no good no good.

 

This message has been edited by wilpye on 06-27-2001 at 05:45 PM