Official Luthiers Forum!

Rick,
I see your point, and agree.
I was just thinking from the customers point of view, and those views vary as we all know.
And from individual luthiers point of view, how I understand it, one can offer that system as an option without investing  much if any money for it besides royalties when something is sold, so the "loss" for the luthier offering that as an option may well be only the depate of his/hers sanity over offering such option, really.

For those not familiar with Tom's system, at least it allowed for
interchangeable fingerboards for different keys or temperaments.



There have been ample systems of similar intentions, most well known
probably being General Perronet Thompson's, from nearly 200 years ago.



Neither of these ever really took off.....

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I'm having trouble getting past what it looks like...... and I think that the market, or any sizable part of the market, would too.

As for owning a guitar with this system you would probably kiss your residual value good bye unless of course this system took off.

Imperfections have always existed in guitar design and perhaps not only do these factors seperate the good players from the great players but they lend to the charm of the instrument.

I applaud them for pushing the envelope though.

Also, that half fret crowning file that Bruce and I have would be useless here too........

I was looking at their web site and found one of the temperaments they
offer is the "meantone blues".




I nearly fell of my chair. Wow.

I would absolutely love to play one of those. That is just funny. It actually
looks to be a 1/4 comma meantone temperament in E.

I just can't wait to hear someone record Stormy Monday played on that
thing.

And they had such good intentions, I'm sure. I think maybe a 1/12
comma meantone temperament may work a bit better.

    "I never tune my guitar - I just play it in tune"
                                               - Hubert Sumlin

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I love that Sumlin quote, David!

When I worked at Westwood Music in LA, Ry Cooder would come into the store and pick up any guitar that he took a shine to, and he'd just play it, not bothering to tune it.   Half the time, the guitars were out of tune, but Ry wasn't...

I should add the disclaimer that I'm quoting from memory, so I really
shouldn't have put it in quotes I guess.

I have to try and find the article that it came from, but it was years ago in
which guitar magazine I don't recall, so I'll have to dig for it.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Here, Steve Vai explains the True Temperament about 30 sec in to the clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4d88wV7yXQ

 

thanks grozny for the link,
that kinda confirms what I was trying to say here:
even if builders think these "gizmoz" are bolony,
like the theory implies,
it really doesnt hurt anyone to be open to them if there are
customers who find them to be usefull for them.

and if one of the customers is Steve Vai, well, maybe there will be others, too...

At the very least we now have a place to refer folks who think that it's their luthier's fault that their guitar is not perfect........................ 

I have to say, topics like this are very frustrating for me. If everyone here
would take a few years to study intonation in depth (yes, it can take that
long to really get a good understanding of it), this would be a much more
productive conversation.

J.L.K, I am not saying this idea is "balony", I'm saying the idea is very
flawed. Do yourself a favor, and search through the forum archives on
"temperament". Here is one good one.

http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?
TID=12935&KW=temperament#forumTop

Check out a few books specifically on tuning and temperament - there
are scores of them available.

I really have to emphasize that I mean no personal offense,
but dismissing the opinions of experienced and educated luthiers as
simply nay-sayers is really putting your foot in your mouth. It is not much
different from someone who knows a bit about magnets scoffing at James
Randi for being too stubborn in his beliefs, while someone they think
should be trusted says the perpetual motion generator really works. It's
not that I'm not open to any new ideas - I love innovation in many ways. I
just know enough about intonation on fretted instruments to see there
are easily as many or more drawbacks to a system like this than there are
improvements.

The more you study, the more you learn, and the more you listen, the
more you will find flaws in this system - or rather flaws in the twelve tone
scale and fretted instruments that this system does truly overcome.
Whether the compromises this system replaces old compromises with
deserve to be called an improvement may subjective, but it certainly does
not fix any problems.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I have a suggestion

Seriously - in the truss bracing thread early on I suggested that we invite an individual from Batson Guitars to visit with us and participate in the discussion regarding their ideas.  Although no one in that thread indicated that they wanted to pursue that course of action I still think that it was and is a good idea.

In education its done all the time, guest lecturers etc.  At one point we had Ervin Somogyi here and were afforded the opportunity to learn more about his ideas.

When I attended HGF I had a mental list of a couple of Luthiers who I wanted to meet and personally invite to join us on the OLF.  They are here now and they are sharing as well.

I find threads like this one not unlike breathing our own air.  These things usually are decided on the basis of who is more experienced in our craft AND who has the will to hang in long enough, and communicate well enough to seemingly prevail.  I find this a dangerous way to learn and rather closed minded as well.  I would add too that none of us can possibly know it all.......  No disrespect intended.

So folks why not invite some one from True Temperament to come and engage with us in a discussion of the value of their offerings?

And why not in the future when discussing ideas, products, the work of a specific Luthier, just make it standard operating procedure to seek information right from the source?

Everyone here will still have the same opportunity to disagree or agree but the difference would be that perhaps the rationale for the conclusions that someone has drawn would be available for us to ponder.

Thanks.

David,
maybe I have been expressing myself badly here, being too much something, but I try again. And I must say that english is my third language and I may use it badly, too.

First, I am quite aware of tuning and temperament, I own A guide to Tuning musical instruments by John Meffen among few others about the topic, and therefore I am aware of flaws and trade offs all these systems have. And the fact that there is no way to come up with a perfect solution for that. Obviously I have nowhere near as much experience, knowledge or understanding about it as you and many others here have, but I have built few and read some.

All I was trying to say I guess, was that if there is a player who tries this system and feels it is a good solution for him/her, I see nothing wrong in that.
And if a customer wants this system included in the custom made instrument, yes, it is good that builder is able to inform honestly about it. But if it still wanted, I would say, go for it.
Yes, it is debatable if the marketing over this things is honest, but hey, they are not the only ones to blame for that.

I am sorry that I caused frustration, and I certainly did not try to offend anyone on purpose, and I apologise anyone who felt so.


Peace,

J.L.K

Hesh, I sent an email to these people 2 days ago inviting them here to participate in this discussion. They probably don't read work emails during the week-ends, I have not heard back form them anyways.

David, bear with us! I appreciate you continuing to take the time to explain this so I other less experienced builders can understand a bit more about these matters. As in many other areas, this is one where a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, if you lose sight of the big picture... Personally I don't understand what all the fuss is about this anyways, I'm so used to the compromises we have to make when we tune and fret, it is second nature and not something I consider a problem, it is just the nature of the beast. I agree that most of these things can be dealt with through playing / fretting technique.

I could not get your link to the archived discussion to work, did you mean
this one?

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

I think that the point is that this temperament thing is a dead horse which gets propped up and beaten down again every few years. I think we can all agree that equal temperament is a compromise, and the simplest way to put it is that the notes in the scale are not in tune with the harmonic series developed on vibrating strings.   There are valid reasons for the existence of the tempered scale, just as there are valid reasons for just, Pythagorean, etc. scales.   But you cannot make a fretted instrument that does both things unless you go the Tom Stone route and have interchangeable fingerboards or you can move the frets as per Indian instruments and other tied fret instruments.

What is being presented here in this thread is not new; it's not a breakthrough; and past attempts at this have not found favor with any significant number of musicians. I just see it as the next in a long line of what will most likely be a commercial failure, and I'm happy to say it's not my money, so I don't care. There is always room for non-mainstream ideas, products, and music, but this is not the next big thing.

J.L.K.,

My apologies as well. Yet again, the loss of understanding in one's
intentions comes through with the text-on-screen form of
communication. Inflection and tone of voice means so much that can get
lost here.

Rick's point puts this at it simplest to me. I love that people want to try
new things, but this is not so new and I too see it as a dead horse
dragged out for a lashing every few years. The problems one will
encounter with alternate temperaments is established enough, so I'll just
make a few comments considering just the equal temperament related
systems.

My experience with many of these systems is this. They are not entirely
without merit, and generally come about of purely good intention.
Unfortunately they all (Feiten, Earvana, True Temperament, etc.,) seem to
come from two main points of origin. First is a yearning for the
unachievable perfection, and second is is the forgivable ignorance of what
a good setup can do.

We all want every interval in every key to sound a bit better than what
equal temperament can deliver. Musicians and composers always have.
Unfortunately as we all know, this cannot be achieved on an instrument
with a limited number pre-determined pitches. This is where I think
claims of a product tend to violate reason the most. I give the True
Temperament inventors credit for not overstating the results of their
system, though they understandably don't advertise the shortcomings as
boldly as the advantages.

The second and more important issue I feel, is that all these systems
really seem to overcompensate for aspects of the ever-present bad setup
- specifically nut height. Most compensated nut systems as well as the
equal-tempered incarnation of the True Temperament system seem to all
be based around a nut height of .010"-.020" above the plane of the frets,
which is the outrageously high setting you see coming from most
factories. When you drop the height to a more appropriate .001"-.003",
these systems will be drastically overcompensating.

Then of course there are the limitless variables that no pre-determined
system can anticipate. Even with wound thirds aside, will the player be
using D'Addario's, DR's, Thomastiks? Even within each of these
manufacturers, the strings will have very different responses and would
need drastically different compensation. The player's style may be an Eric
Johnson touch, or a Stevie Ray Vaughan grip, which will have drastically
different needs. I feel that while a system such as this may help one, it
could drastically hinder a good setup on another. Unless frets were
adjustable along their length, I feel the best system is to shoot for the
middle ground (more or less straight frets) and compensate for different
strings and styles at the more serviceable areas like the bridge, and
occasionally the nut on a case-by-case basis.

J.L.K, I'm glad you mentioned Meffen's book, as I consider it one of the
best on the topic. I believe it was in his book that he made some very
good points concerning wind instruments that I think loosely relate to
this topic. Many student instruments will be made to keep the pitches
more firmly determined and less flexible than more professional
instruments. This is partly done with the thought that beginners can have
a more difficult and frustrating time if they're required to learn subtle
pitch control while simultaneously trying to learn all the other basics.
While fretted instruments may not suffer the tonal quality loss that these
valve systems impart on winds and brass, they do share another concern
that I believe Meffen expressed. This type of system can give the student
a false impression of the rigidity of pitch, and in doing so inhibit them
from learning the advantages of controlling it on their own. Try selling a
better pitch control system to a great french horn player.

Again, I know this very loosely correlates with the topic at hand, because
these systems do not make the pitches more rigid. They can however
overcompensate for poor setup and poor technique. More importantly I
feel, they can sweeten certain intervals while denying the player the
ability to intentionally sweeten others. For example I believe Martin
Simpson's intonation abilities were mentioned above, and I feel that a
person like him would be significantly inhibited by these systems, and
someone trained on these systems be equally inhibited from becoming so
good.

But, I can agree that to each their own. If someone wants to try alternate
temperaments, more power to them. It can be fun, so long as the player
is aware of the limitations they bring with them. I personally have always
wanted to build a Harry Partch style 43-tone scale neck. It would be fun,
so I shouldn't be so quick to criticize those who are interested in
something similar. I just really am most concerned with folks not
understanding what they are buying.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I made a new fingerboard and tied movable frets on a Yamaha classical guitar for Ramin Torkian, a Persian customer of mine in LA. He had me put on 24 frets to the octave, and to tie them on over the heel, I drilled holes clear through the neck and heel. I nipped and filed off the tangs on the biggest Dunlop frets I could get, and filed little notches on the tops of the ends of the frets to catch the fret gut loops. This is basically how sitar frets are tied on, and I just adapted it for guitar.

My door was not beaten down by legions of other guitarists, nor did I expect it to be. Great art project, and I got well paid for what I did, and the customer was delighted.

Now when we already have "robotic tuners",
I wonder if we will get "robotic frets" some day?
Or some kind of programmable 3d surface to be used as fretboard?

I have a number of viola da gamba players that I retie frets for occasionally.
One difference between beginners and more advanced players is that for
early students I tie the frets rather firmly so as to not shift, while more
advanced players prefer their frets tied just loose enough to be movable at
will, so they can temper certain intervals for different pieces.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

The funny thing about Partch is that he settled for a 43-tone equal-tempered diapason. He could have gotten even closer.

The 12-tone system is based on the circle of fifths: 12 intervals of a 'perfect' fifth come very close to restoring the original pitch if you drop down an octave once in a while. 11 or 13 don't come close; in fact, no other number short of 12 is anywhere near, and the next number that does work, and works better, is 53. If you make an equal tempered 53 tone scale many of the intervals fall quite close to the small whole number ratios that were so dear to the opponents of 12-tone equal temperament. I've had a hankering for a while to set up a neck like that, just to see how it would play. The trouble is that up around the 12th fret the spacings get to be comparable to the width of the frets.....

I do think I hear an oud in the distance...