Re: inharmonicity paper etc.
- --- In email@example.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Jack" <gvr.jack@> wrote:Claro. A very reasonable theoretical suggestion, Carl.
> > And then that opens another can of worms. ... (No, I have no
> > plans to go fretless any time soon.)
> Don't forget the other option -- fanned frets. -Carl
There are these branch points where I could move into experimental
areas where I either work with funky instruments that I have adapted
myself, or expensive custom jobs like Paul Galbraith's fanned-fret 8
string (if I wanted what I might consider to be a professional
instrument). Were I experimentally driven, as I think many of the
microtonalists are, then I would passionately pursue those avenues
without regard for practical commercial application.
My interest in playing "in tune" is bound by my limiting assumptions
about commercial applicability. (Yeah, yeah, how bourgeois.) So for
commercial and artistic marketability, I want to play "in tune" on a
fairly conventional instrument. That's made a little more complex by
NOT having the assumption that 12-ET is the best model. (Why I
dislike playing with keyboard players generally, at least of the
usual stripe.) We (my duo partner and I) have made major steps
forward by finding better strings than the usual, and a nice matched
set of work guitars that are very loud and sweet, for our un-
amplified act in a hotel restaurant.
Naturally I'm aware that the convention of 12 frets per octave is
extremely limiting, particularly in the upper registers where there
are potential "microtonal" (what a clumsy word, so conditioned by
19th century 12-ET assumptions, no?) upper extensions to chords that
are very attractive... but as I say, that's a whole 'nother can of
worms. Maybe I should just have a chromatic set of jaw harps.
I had a luthier set up one of my guitars a few years ago with his own
system of "just intonation" as he conceived it. Great, but it would
only play in D. Disaster otherwise. I'm doing much better with my own
experiments. Talking to you guys on this list, and reading about all
of the various other issues that you are into (many of which don't
have direct application for me) is definitely feeding my own process,
and I appreciate it.
- --- In email@example.com, "Graham Breed" <gbreed@...> wrote:
> This has been on the list before. The basic theory (which IHi Graham,
> confirmed) is that stopping a string stretches it by about the same
> amount wherever you stretch it. So there will be a difference between
> stopped and open strings. The answer, then, is to adjust the length
> of open strings without affecting the fret placements. Hence you need
> nut adjustments. But bridge adjustments are still good enough for
> most people.
I totally agree. The required nut adjustments are very small compared
to the bridge adjustments and tend not to vary much between strings,
according to the classical guitar paper referred to here.
The bridge adjustments are set-backs of the order of 1 to 5 mm (steel
string guitar). The nut adjustments are set-forths. I use a fixed 0.5
mm nut setforth. I can only do fret placement within +- 0.25 mm
anyway. That's about +- 0.7 c at the nut and +- 1.4 c at the octave fret.
-- Dave Keenan