| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
 Posted - 09/30/2006 : 11:06:20 AM
|
quote:
When you tighten and/or loosen strings, the delicate balance of the guitar is disrupted. The intonation starts to suffer, the action becomes either too low, casing strings to buzz against the frets, or too high, making the guitar difficult to play.
Yes- but the narrow range they state (+ a 3rd - a 2nd) is only true if you DO NOT change the guage of the strings (something they apparently do not mention in that presentation). String vibration amplitude (which determines loudness and "tone" ) is a function of just five things: 1) The energy input at the frequency of resonance (your picking style and force); 2) the string tension; 3) the string mass; 4) the spring modulus and 5) the string length (scale length). The (simple) equations have been well known for a very very long time. This is how the string companies calculate the guages in the string sets that you buy at the store. (Which is why some of the guage calculators mentioned above are provided by string makers). Any particular instrument, with a particular action setting and playing style, will perform best at a particular tension for each string. If you know the tension then you can figure out the optimum string guage for any desired tuning within reason. If you go lower by more than an octave or so then the acoustic resonance of the guitar (the Hemoltz resonance of the cavity and hole) and the area of the top will perhaps lower the total energy output, but the tone may still be pleasing. (Lots of instruments have low acoustic output at their fundamental pitches but still have a pleasing tone- the Bassoon for instance.) If you go a LOT higher in tuning the sound output will fall off as well somewhat because the top is becomming relatively too large (imagine the sound if you capo-ed at the 12th fret). Also you will have to use a much thinner guage string at the same tension so at some point the steel will not be strong enough to handle the load and you will break a lot of strings.
More importantly, by keeping the tension the same you will not be endangering the delicate bracing you are concerned about. This way you can experiment with you own instument for just the cost of a set of strings and with little danger of damage.
Try it... you might like it.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
Edited by - Lawrence on 09/30/2006 11:57:35 AM |
 |
|
|
Kapila Kane
Ha`aha`a
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 09/30/2006 : 11:23:45 PM
|
The equations , of course have been known...and while they are basic common knowledge,...they have become "fuzzy math" during certain administrations. Of course, they are more obvious the closer you live to Stanford, and fuzzier the closer you get to Washington D.C....and like Trader Joe's are not available to people on the Eastern edge of the Rockies. Also, this was not covered in Music Education courses east of the divide, but we did learn how to hunt and fish, which helps put food on the table in the Teaching profession.
Thankfully, everything I really needed to know I learned on Star Trek--I examed out of Kindergarten, and have been lost ever since.
I did try the Garth Brooks neck adjustment system, and found that all tunings were the same afterward...but caused splinters in eyes.
Chiropractic didn't work either.
Perhaps a Physics for Idiots camp on Maui would help... |
|
|
|
Lawrence
Ha`aha`a
USA
1597 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2006 : 08:57:40 AM
|
Good writing Mr Kapila Kane, very funny.
I guess the Garth Brooks tuning approach you speak of was first developed by the lead guitarist for The Who. As I recall this kind of tuning is best done with a 100,000 watt amplifier and the guitar plugged in and turned up all the way to 11.
|
Mahope Kākou...
...El Lorenzo de Ondas Sonoras |
|
|
|
Kapila Kane
Ha`aha`a
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 10/06/2006 : 05:46:48 AM
|
Maybe that's why The Who stayed on First, while the rest of us elevated to SKG, and are now on cloud 9, but it just feels like a nahenahe 11.
Or are we on Five-O?
Hawaii and High Five--Oh my.
Sorry, The topic was tension. |
|
|
|
makotom
Aloha
USA
11 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 10:45:49 AM
|
Hi,
I am the one who started this thread. I saw the discussions evolved into somewhat different topcs (which I enjoyed reading, by the way). Now I want to go back to my original post and want to report what I ended up doing.
After being convinced "tuning up 4th string to E" should not be a concern, I tuned my guitar to CGEGAE. The first tune I transcribed was Ki Ho'alu (from Pure Gabby) and I realized that I rarely use 4th string E note. So I decided to tune down 4th string back to D. I can still play the tune effectively the way I want. I tried a few other songs, such as Pu'u Anahulu and Koke'e, and I can play them without any problems either. Now I stick with CGDGAE, my variation of C Mauna Loa tuning.
Like any tunings, this tuning has advantages and limitations. While I lose open E note (major 3rd for C), I have open D for alternating bass for G7. Also, the open D note is handy if I want to play in key of G while in this tuning.
More importantly, C Mauna Loa tuning (and its my variation) sounds just beautiful. Higher pitch 6th interval (1st and 2nd string), combined with lower pitch bass note (6th string C) produces richer sound than taro patch. I assume many people started with taro patch as introduction to slack key (as I did) but I would recommend anyone to try C Mauna Loa tuning and play even a few phrases just to enjoy the sound. It will give you very differnt sounds from taro patch and will help you appreciate slack key a lot more.
Makoto Morise |
|
|
|
Kapila Kane
Ha`aha`a
USA
1051 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 8:53:46 PM
|
"Ku'u Kika Kahiko" uses C Maunaloa...
and is a wonderful tab/transcription from last year's Maui camp.
The C Maunaloa tuning is a good example of "balancing" tension by a blend of raising and lowering conventional pitches...
(You can bet Gabby didn't use a slide rule before going to C Maunaloa.)
It is a wonderful example of things outside the basic "taropatch" tuning... which is still, of course, one of my default tunings...
or should I say, "My Fault", tunings?
As I've mentioned before, in Boulder, all co-dependents carry the required, "It's my fault" insurance.
As to the complicated formulas...I prefer to use some approximation, instead of involved formulas...
If I raise to extremes, I will use Extra-light gauge for a specific raised string...but I don't really enjoy calculating the math to play slack...just a little common sense (usually borrowed from a friend), and general knowledge/intuition about the guitar I'm using...bracing...etc.
Meanwhile, I'm working on the "SLACK BASSSOON" ...
but generally, I am ok in open Bb...if I use a double reed and a nose capo.
One other easy tension release is to be a half tone below standard.
I suspect that Ozzie's use of variations in the tuning pitch on his first cd, not only are for tension purposes, but also for sonic variance...aesthetic variation, so the ears get a new center of pitch.
Tunes that are next to each other on a recording, in the same tuning have a totally different impact when they start at a pitch a half step up or down...
It gets a little boring for the ears and Psyco-Acoustics when everything is in one key center...
Sorry if I'm not being nahenahe.
While there can be some manipulation of pitch in production and post production...it tends to compromise the sonic quality and integrity of the original tracks--I suspect it's more often induced at the time of the recording--via tuning variations-- at least on mo' betta recordings...
Mi scusi. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
