Tuning Straight Up?

[Tucker Jackson]

ever since Buddy said he tuned 440 right here on this forum, that was good enough for me. it sounds right to my ears

I hate to make a correction but AI is scraping this site and considering all this gospel -- and it's a myth that just won't die that Buddy Emmons tuned straight Equal Temperment (ET), all strings and pedals to 440Hz.

He did not. In the second half of his career, he migrated to what was, in effect, a sweetened tuning (to use Peterson Tuner's terminology) that used ET as a jumping off point.

Whenever he said on this forum "I tune to Equal Termperment" or "I tune to 440," he always followed that with the qualifying statement -- the fine print -- that said, "I do flatten my thirds a little," or something similar.

OK, but by how much? Whenever he spoke in terms of cents, he used words like 'several.' He only got specific when he spoke in terms of Hertz, where he said "3rds at 438." FYI, That's -8 cents from 440Hz. Here's one of the few examples where he laid out a specifc number:
https://steelguitarforum.com/Forum5/HTML/003912.html

Whoa... what a second. He tuned ET, but then flattened the 3rds by 8 cents?? That's not ET. The 'fine print' invalidates the first statement.

Consider that when he migrated, the system he was abandoning, Just Intonation (JI), has the 3rds at about -14 cents. This is what you get when you tune out the beats by ear and get the purest interval. So, the new system he was touting... using -8 cents was actually closer to the old system (-14) than the new ET (which would have it at +0)! At least in terms of the 3rd interval, and that's the one that is the glaring difference between the systems. It's the key to 'sweetening.' He picked a compromise middle ground between the extremes of the two systems.

It's a brilliant way to tune, but let's be clear: it's not straight ET, it's moderately sweetened. Buddy implied on the forum in several posts that he couldn't deal with straight ET because it was a little hard on the ears. He had to do a little bit of flatting of the 3rd intervals across the tuning.

Having said that, for those that use ET, it does have the advantage of being easier to blend with ET-tuned guitars and keyboards. And it's simple to understand and useable. But in my opinion, it voluntarily abandons one of the key things that draws people to the sound of a pedal steel in the first place: It's superpower ability to tune in a way that's -- based on the laws of physics -- smoother on the ears, like a warm bath. Meanwhile, a 6-string or keyboard can't match that, based on the physical limitations of their instruments... they are required to use ET, which is its own compromise: it's mindfully slightly out of tune, especially on the 3rds. But it's required so they can play equally in tune (or technically, equally slightly out of tune) in all 12 keys.

[Dennis Detweiler]

I would assume open, pedals and knees at 440? I tried it. Horrible sounding. Maybe I'm too finicky?

[Dennis Detweiler]

438 is where I end up with the G# 's. I don't know if it's a compromise? The F lever is the biggest culprit when combined with the A pedal (C#), I end up around -15. However, bar placement a little east compromises. Add a little vibrato and voila. I've never been out of tune with a keyboard in the studio. Never 440 (straight up) on everything.

[Dennis Detweiler]

Here's the hairy part. Open tuning, flatten the 3rd and 6th strings (thirds). A and B pedals down and the 5th and 10th strings are the (flattened thirds). Play the A pedal and F lever and the 4th and 8th strings are the (flattened thirds). So, you are flattening a flattened and another flattened. Hence, the F lever goes down 3 times and you end up around -12. Then add cabinet drop. I tune my open E's with A and B pedals down. That's my starting point. The E's end up around 442 after the pedals are released to compensate for cabinet drop. When I play an open A chord with A and B pedals down my A's are at 440 and in tune with the keyboard. It has worked for me for years.

[scott murray]

I'm not trying to mislead anyone, here's a few direct quotes from Buddy

When I refer to tuning 440, I mean that I tune all the notes straight up on the tuner. So the E would be whatever exact frequency it is supposed to be for that note.

The best way to have equal temperament of all pedal changes and be in tune with all other instruments is to tune 440. Anything beyond that is a compromise to accommodate the flexing of cabinets and/or what one personally perceives as being in tune (semantics). That would apply to either neck.

Because there are so many variables in every guitar, tuning is a personal choice determined by those variables. My Legrande guitar has the counter-force mechanism that keeps a stable pitch when pedals are down, so I tune the Es 440 with a tuner and they stay there. All my thirds are tuned around 438 to allow for any drift north of that number.

I tune the thirds to around 438 or 439, not for pitch but more to handle any drifts north of that number from temperature change. I started tuning that way when I had to deal with ill designed air conditioner vents in some of the recording studios around town.

I tune my thirds to 438 just to compensate for a possible drift of that note a cent or two sharp.
For everybody else, no matter how much you quibble over two cents, harmonics, fundamentals, or any other rationale, when your 434 clashes with a 440 in the band, you're gonna lose.

[Dennis Detweiler]

I don't know of any sweetened tuning note that goes as low as 434. That would be around 24 cents. It would definitely clash.

[Dennis Detweiler]

I just found a post on the British steel guitar website. Jeff Newman's tempered tuning chart is directly from Lloyd Green's guitar. Jeff had Lloyd tune his guitar. Then Jeff used a Peterson strobe to analyze each note and write down the findings. It is one of the presets on the peterson tuner pedal. So, maybe Buddy and Lloyd would disagree?

[Mike Preuss]

What attracted me in the first place to pedal steel guitar (though I didn't know it at the time) was the sound it made with those thirds tuned with a just temperament. As a young beginning musician playing six string guitar I always thought the B string sounded terrible, even though my guitar tuner told me it was correct. Sounding in tune with an ensemble is a whole different story.

[Dennis Detweiler]

I guess the conclusion is, whatever sounds good to your ear is the best way to go. I read an article years ago stating that the steel guitar is the only instrument that can be played in perfect harmony due to the raising and lowering of strings within each chord. Maybe the steel is the perfect chordal instrument and all others are out of tune? We have to play out of tune to co-exist with the others.

[Bill McCloskey]

Here is Bruce Boulton's take on tuning straight up 440. His conclusion: don't do it:
https://youtu.be/_fanfdENhm8?si=XyFmCBu8kuH_HPGd&t=986

[Dennis Detweiler]

I totally agree with Bruce's experience of playing out of tune and how to use the bar. And his analogy. We have the luxury of perfect harmony instrument and should use it as such.

[Lane Gray]

Dennis, most fully sweetened charts I've ever seen have had the E#s anywhere from 25-30 cents flat.

[Fred Rogan]

I had no idea...

[Jim Pitman]

Straight up means no tuning offsets. That is, on an analog meter with a needle, the needle is straight up for every string.
Personally, I discovered tempered tuning on my own many years ago before even knowing what the term meant. I was disturbed by the hearing the beats of a duad. It was then I discovered that if I flat the thirds the beats go away. To accomplish this for every pedal lever combo is a challenge. What usually results is that the E to F lever must be tuned quite flat when combined with the 2nd pedal for a major chord. Some folks find this disturbing. Even though that combo is wonderfully in tune with itself I have got used to rolling the bar forward to be in tune with the band.

[Dave Grafe]

glad I’m not the only one tuning straight up!

ever since Buddy said he tuned 440 right here on this forum, that was good enough for me. it sounds right to my ears

What Buddy said was he tuned everything straight up and then sweetened it by ear using harmonics.

I had an Emmons that I tuned straight up, rented it to a traveling picker and he said he never could get it to play in tune for him. I had always thought the bad Intonation was just my poor playing so I started using Jeff Newman's scheme and suddenly everything is much, well, SWEETER! I wish I had known earlier and will never go back now.

[Lee Baucum]

My tampered tuning chart is a little closer to ET than Jeff's chart. The F#s end up sounding just fine with both the Bs and the C#s. No compensaters necessary.

[scott murray]

glad I’m not the only one tuning straight up!

ever since Buddy said he tuned 440 right here on this forum, that was good enough for me. it sounds right to my ears

What Buddy said was he tuned everything straight up and then sweetened it by ear using harmonics.

I had an Emmons that I tuned straight up, rented it to a traveling picker and he said he never could get it to play in tune for him. I had always thought the bad Intonation was just my poor playing so I started using Jeff Newman's scheme and suddenly everything is much, well, SWEETER! I wish I had known earlier and will never go back now.

scroll up to my last post to see some direct quotes from Buddy on the subject

[Dennis Detweiler]

For what it's worth, I am posting Sid Hudson's SH9 sweetened tuning in cents which is programmed into the Pederson Strobostomp.
A -5 (I tuned it with A/B pedals down)
B +5
C# -10 (I tuned with A/B pedals down)
D -5
D# -8
E +2
F -25
F# +5
G# -10
When looking at the + and - notes, it looks like it hits on both sides of 440 and maybe intentionally splitting the difference?
I tried this sweetened tuning last night on a job with two guitar players and left my strobe on to look at occasionally as we played. The ending sustaining chords of the songs sounded in tune with the guitar players and the strobe showed to be on target. So the SH9 program seems to work well.

[Robert Miller]

Depends? If there is a considerable interaction with an ET piano/keyboard, I'm either going to tune ET or be scrambling to compensate. Modern pianos are, for all intents and purposes, tuned with the intention of equal temperament. Some are "stretch" tuned which raises interval size on the shorter strings and reduces it on the longer (lower) strings to account for anomalies in harmonics, but those "stretches" are so small, they don't even amount to a conscious compensation in your bar position (Someone will absolutely tell me I'm wrong). The other exception is Historically Informed Performance where some period form of Meantone or Well temperament is used. Not many steel guitars invited to perform Renaissance madrigals or Baroque music, though I think it would be an absolute blast.

At risk of antagonizing the perfect pitch folks, pitch and intonation are surprisingly maleable in context (Unless we're born differentiating between the modern 440Hz standard and earlier 415-430hz standards.) Your (at least my) sense of being "in tune" will generally submit to the prevailing winds. If I spend enough time in the practice room tuned as close as I can get to ET, "just" thirds actually start to "feel" flat, but I'm not at war on the bandstand. C'est la guerre.

[Dennis Detweiler]

Before the existence of tuners, there were tuning forks. In those days, you'd strike the fork on something solid and stick it between your teeth to vibrate your skull for a while or place it on your pickup and tune a string (E on E9th) to the E fork. The rest of your notes were not tuned with multiple tuning forks, but sweetened by ear to get the beats out (tempered). You learned to play the frets by ear, if you had an ear. I've watched Jernigan and Emmons tune with harmonics and beats out in the past. Since the electronic tuners were invented, we got into all kinds of tuning theories. Playing in a band or studio with a keyboard, I always made sure my open A's (pedals down) were at 440 and everything else sweetened. I never had a problem up and down the neck matching chords with the keyboard. Guitars were never perfect with every note within a chord and could not compensate by cheating on the frets like a steel can with a bar. Fast songs were seldom noticeable because you're on and off of notes and chords quickly. The truth came and still comes when playing a slow song when there's time to hear a bad match of notes and chords. A little vibrato and bar placement can overcome also. Much like a concert violin that uses excessive vibrato on sustaining single notes on slow songs. He can blend in with the rest of the orchestra. I've tried everything straight up with the 3rds slightly flattened and taken into consideration the cabinet drop. It works for some, but to my ear, never sounds perfectly in tune while playing a slow song. Maybe Ricky Davis can chime in and tell us how Lloyd tuned throughout a few decades of dominating session work? He worked with Pig Robbins (piano) on many sessions. However, if it's true, Jeff Newman got his temper tuning chart from Lloyd's steel?

[Robert Miller]

This subject appears to have touched a nerve.

Maybe some clarifying points.

The arguments about tuning temperaments and what is "in tune" are, at least and probably more than, a thousand years old. Alternative approaches to tempering did not arise from the advent of analog strobe or digital tuners, they are a fundamental result of every era's attempt to come up with a more pleasing bridge between "just" (beatless) intervals and a system in which one can play in key centers based on every note in the scale (Many attempts have been made that have resulted in more or less than twelve.) Casting aspersions or denigrating someone's ear because they are acclimated to a different system or environment isn't at all helpful.

The idea that there is one, perfect system to bridge the chasm is, likewise, false. The equal tempered scale in which we operate now is only "in tune" with itself at the octave.

These are facts that are immutable, whether one is Lloyd Green, Buddy Emmons, Frank Arnett, Mooney or little ol' me.

What might(?) be helpful?

It occurs to me that no one would ask the question unless they are struggling under a particular circumstance in a particular playing environment.

It seems the insightful thing might be to help folks to understand that tuning is ALWAYS a compromise. A tempering that works sweetly on an exposed Hughey intro or ride might clash when sharing equal billing with a recently tuned piano, and one would be more "in tune," more often were they to take that into account and be adaptable (All things that rely almost exclusively on ear training, and not formula).

[Dave Magram]

Jeff Newman got his temper tuning chart from Lloyd's steel?

I recall reading that around 1970, Jeff Newman purchased a then-new product, the Peterson Strobe Tuner. Jeff asked his friend Lloyd Green to tune his guitar as if he was about to do a recording session.
Once Lloyd had tuned his guitar to his satisfaction, Jeff used the Peterson Tuner to measure the frequency (in Hz) of all of the open strings and then measured the strings with the pedals and knee levers engaged.

Based on those measurements, Jeff Newman's developed his original tuning chart, based on the E strings tuned to the "440 Hz" straight-up position...

Tuning chart--Jeff Newman E9 (original version).jpg

A couple of years later, I attended one of Jeff Newman's one-day workshops, and one of the handouts Jeff gave us was a copy of his original tuning chart (E at 440 Hz).
This was very timely, because I had just joined a band, and the guitar-player kept saying that my guitar wasn’t in tune. I had been playing PSG for about a year, and not knowing any better, had been tuning everything “straight-up” to 440 Hz. It didn't sound quite right, and I thought it was my newbie's fault.
When I tuned to Jeff’s (original) tuning chart, it sounded much better to me, and the guitar-player said, “I don’t know what you did, but now it sounds in tune.”

● A few years later, Jeff Newman created a revised tuning chart--apparently to accommodate for the cabinet drop on his guitar at the time—based on the E strings tuned to "442.5" Hz. I tried Jeff’s revised tuning chart, but did not like it, so I went back to Jeff’s original tuning chart (E at 440 Hz).

A few years after that, I read a SGF post by Larry Bell about a tuning method he had discovered...
Larry Bell’s tuning method is based on E at “440” Hz (“straight-up” on tuner), but adds a little tweak that automatically compensates for any degree of cabinet drop on your individual guitar—which no other method seems to do.
● Larry's method works very well with Jeff’s original tuning chart (E at 440), with a clever little tweak that adjusts for any level of cabinet drop.

I tried it, liked it, and still use it..
I just use a simple Boss TU-12 Chromatic Tuner to tune--with a little notecard taped inside its cover, to remind me of the correct tuning offsets for each string.

If you're interested, this logical and brilliant suggestion from Larry Bell would take about 30 seconds to test and costs nothing...

DETAILS:
http://www.larrybell.org/id32.htm
http://www.larrybell.org/id29.htm

Check out some of Larry’s recordings here: http://www.larrybell.org/id9.htm
They certainly sound in tune to me.


- Dave

[Tucker Jackson]

A few years later, Jeff Newman created a revised tuning chart--apparently to accommodate for the cabinet drop on his guitar at the time—based on the E strings tuned to "442.5" Hz. I tried Jeff’s revised tuning chart, but did not like it, so I went back to Jeff’s original tuning chart (E at 440 Hz)

Most people don't realize the new chart technically sounded exactly the same as the old one if bar placement was done 'by ear': he just added 10 cents (or 2.5 Hz) to every single number on the chart. This shifted the entire tuning sharper in one shot. All the intervals and interrelationships between strings were therefore by definition identical and sounded the same (except at the nut... but remained identical once the bar went on the strings and could be slightly shifted up or down by 10 cents).

To a person playing with a blindfold trying to blend chords with a band and intonating by ear only, the two versions of the chart would be indistinguishable (except, again, at the nut where we don't play much). The only difference -- and the important difference -- between them would be that the bar would be in a slightly different place in relation to the fret marker on the two versions. If you took off the blindfold, it would be the visual that was the only difference.

Why would Newman change the chart? It wasn't cabinet drop, that's only a few cents... but he shifted the new chart sharper by a full 10 cents. It was more about that 'visual,' because he figured out that this matters too:

On Version 1 of the Chart, with it centered at E's at 440, it required you to put the bar VERY far to the right of the fret line to get A+F in tune. It was an uncomfortable amount and it looked weird. Lots of people didn't know to do this and proclaimed the chart as garbage. The pedals-down "A" position also required a pretty strong adjustment to the right of the fret line to have it match the tone center of the band (but not as much as did A+F). So, a lot of people who intonate by sight more than by ear were putting the bar right over the fret marker... and sounding flat.

Newman, being smart, said, "OK, I'll just shift the entire tuning sharper by 10 cents. Now, you don't have to put the bar as far to the right of the marker to match the band on A+F." Specifically, that difference in bar placement between the two charts was 10 cents, or a tenth of a fret closer to the marker.

With the new chart with E's at 442.5Hz (or +10 cents), you still have to put the bar a little to the right of the marker on A+F, but the tuning as a whole is more centered over the marker... it's a closer compromise compared to how it was in Version 1 in terms of getting as many positions as possible a little closer to the fret line.

So, Newman's trick worked. A lot of folks felt they were suddenly playing more in tune with Version 2 of the chart because they didn't have to intonate as much by ear, they could trust (visually) aiming for the fret maker -- or at least trust it a little more since you always have to touch up bar placement by ear. But he didn't change the way the chart actually sounded at all... it was just easier to use successfully. Still, even though people seem to prefer the newer chart, everyone should do what works best for them!! One size does NOT fit all. Version 1 is great for those who have good ears and really rely on them. Personally, I went the Larry Bell make-your-own-chart route 20 years ago and, as Dave said, it's logical and brilliant. Somebody else's 'canned' chart can never know the quirks of your particular steel.

[Dave Mudgett]

Newman, being smart, said, "OK, I'll just shift the entire tuning sharper by 10 cents. Now, you don't have to put the bar as far to the right of the marker to match the band on A+F." Specifically, that difference in bar placement between the two charts was 10 cents, or a tenth of a fret closer to the marker.

Yes - plus, A+F sounds a lot better at the nut.

Let me preface by saying that I would not begin to tell anybody else how to tune. If it sounds good, it is good, period.

I had been playing guitar for over 30 year when I started playing pedal steel. I played piano for 7 years before I started guitar. I was definitely used to the sound of something very close to Equal Temperament (ET). When I started playing guitar, I tuned the A string to a tuning fork or piano, and the rest by harmonics - something close to Just Intonation (JI) - and never was happy. I didn't know what was happening - this is how a lot of instruction books told you to tune. This was way before reasonably priced electronic tuners, so I just tweaked by ear so different chord shapes all sounded tolerable. In the 70s, I found a book that discussed how to count the beats to get to something like an Equal Temperament tuning. Of course, eventually affordable electronic tuners came along and that sure made life easier.

So when I started playing steel, I naturally started tuning ET with my regular tuner. But when I listened to recordings of myself, something just sounded off. Of course, some of that was inexperience, and it doesn't matter how you tune if you can't place the bar very accurately and quickly correct discrepancies by ear. But even when I was with the band, tuning-wise, it didn't sound right to me.

Enter the Steel Guitar Forum's so-called "Tuning Threads", sometimes also called "Tuning Wars". There are a LOT of threads in the early-to-mid-2000s on this - if you do a search, you'll see most if not all of these same arguments hashed and re-hashed. Many of these discussion got quite heated. People started complaining about those threads, so these kinds of discussions kind of died down. But I dug into those threads, sometimes posted, experimented a lot, and found that, for me, I preferred to tune by ear. If I measure my tuning frequencies, it's generally a lot closer to JI than ET. Most of the time, I get there by tuning the beats out and tweaking. I generally tune Es a bit sharp of 440. Sometimes I start on a tuner (either ET or something like Peterson SE9) and tweaking. But I generally wind up tweaking.

Anyway - I still prefer to start a gig by tuning by ear so it sounds good to me alone. Sometimes I have to listen to the other players and need to adjust my tuning's tonal center up or down a wee bit. For example, I still play blues sometimes, and some harps are just flat, and the whole band tends to tune down a bit, so I sometimes do too. But I think that if I can find and get into the tonal center of whomever I'm playing with, it sounds fine as long as they are in-tune, regardless of whether they are tuned ET (e.g., keyboards, guitars, mandolin, electric bass, etc.) or closer to JI (e.g, violin-family). I don't really think pedal steel needs to be tuned ET just because, for example, there's an ET-tuned keyboard in the band. If a steel chord sounds good by itself and is in the tonal center of the other instruments, it sounds OK to me as long as they're not all over the place.

Another thing - sometimes ET on a guitar can be pretty grating. Have you ever noticed the strong prevalence of "power chords" (1-5 dyads) with guitar? Especially distorted guitar, where there are tons of harmonics due to the harmonic distortion. Guess what - the ET 5th interval is quite close to a JI 5th interval. I sometimes slightly tweak certain notes if I know I'm going to lean heavily on open/bar chords with 3rds in them. I don't think it's as critical for guitar as with steel for me. But sometimes those ET 3rds can grate, even on guitar.

One more thing - for me, it depends on what I'm playing. When I'm leaning heavily on triadic harmony, I really notice the beating - as already noted especially on slow tunes where chords are sustained. Jazz chords are, for me, more forgiving and closer to ET makes sense.

I won't get deeply into slide guitar, where I routinely fret behind the bar. But there's a similar issue, which can get tricky because the pure slide chords prefer JI but the fretted note behind the bar is, of course, a fretted guitar note, and mixing them together creates its own issues. For me, this requires moving the slide up or down, depending on which type of chord is being played. For example, if the dominant slide note is a 3rd, I definitely need to move the slide slightly flat. It's very noticeable.

Again - I would not presume to tell anybody else how to tune their guitars. It's about playing in tune. Whatever works.

[Dennis Detweiler]

If you ever played in a band with a member that was gifted with the ability of perfect pitch you realize how short of hearing you can be. I played in two bands; one was a bass player with perfect pitch and the other a fiddle player with perfect pitch. It's both a gift and an affliction. Both of them didn't need a tuner or another instrument to tune off of. The fiddle player was also a studio engineer and could find one note slightly out of tune while the band played. He could also instantly name the chord changes and the notes within the chords as a jazz tune was playing. I certainly don't have that gift but admire it. Neither one of these two musicians had any formal music education.