Buzz Feiten Tuning System - Opinions?

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by jzucker

you're right. It's guys like pete townshend who have the critical needs whereas guys like ted greene and peter mazza don't need good intonation.

Hahahaha!

[cmajor9]

I have no experience with Buzz Feiten tuning myself, and hence no opinion. But to add to the discussion, I thought you might find interesting Roger Sadowsky's thoughts on the subject, which I found in a blog post from last year. Apparently he built two guitars using the BF system, which is the basis of his opinion:

Sadowsky Guitars: My thoughts on the Buzz Feiten Tuning System

[Spirit59]

Originally Posted by cmajor9

I have no experience with Buzz Feiten tuning myself, and hence no opinion. But to add to the discussion, I thought you might find interesting Roger Sadowsky's thoughts on the subject, which I found in a blog post from last year. Apparently he built two guitars using the BF system, which is the basis of his opinion:

Sadowsky Guitars: My thoughts on the Buzz Feiten Tuning System

See? What RS is saying regarding the offsets at the bridge is exactly what I was saying. And you don't need a degree in mathematics to get your proof - plug in a tuner and try it yourself.

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

cool. i don't care how much they cost, and i'm not crazy about their appearance. but i will play one this month and check it out now that i know about the intonation deal.

Cool - enjoy. Make sure they let you use a BF-mode tuner (if they have one, and they should), to get the ideal effect.

[Kojo27]

I was at a loss for anything new to say. Seemed to me we're going in circles. Thanks, Cmaj9! - and thanks fumblefingers! -- and to anybody else who linked to something.

I've spent a few hours Googling and reading.

Sadowsky makes good guitars, but I think he's self-important, self-aggrandizing, and just a poorly-educated guy with a blog, which he uses for his in-public self-ego-stroking. He's obviously grinding an ax in this entry. Too much bull shit. Buzz Feiten says he didn't have the first glint of inspiration about his tuning system until 1992 - but Roger Sadowsky had already built and tested the whole idea back in the 80s? He built two guitars with the BFTS incorporated in them? Took six months? What? But all this is the basis of his opinion of the BFTS. If the improvement isn't "smack in your face obvious," it's no good, he says, and BF wasn't. He backs up this statement by implying that he's not going to pay a license fee if a customer can't see right away that it's a reason to buy. (This is at the heart of the whole controversy: it isn't immediately obvious! You can't expect to sit down with a BF guitar and say, "Oh, yeah!")

Sadowsky doesn't like the Plek Pro machine either - because "There is no machine on the planet that can do better fretwork than Sadowsky Guitars." How could he know such a thing? And: "If there is a playability issue with one of my instruments, I will remove the frets ... then refret with our impeccable fretwork." His impeccable fretwork. Oh, and: "...the US sales representative for PLEK, after working on one of my instruments, called to tell me 'Roger--you are about the only builder I know who does not need a PLEK'." Don't you want to read his blog all day?

BTW, I somehow doubt that was the whole point the salesman made -- if there was such a phone call.
=======
guitar.com, which seems to me like a site that sells lots of ads and also features interviews that are really just more ads -- has an "interview" with Buzz Feiten himself, and while I wouldn't give the site itself much credibility, Mr. Feiten explains the thing without much glitz or hype, and answers a BUNCH of questions I had before reading the thing.

Scroll about halfway through the piece to get to the tuning system info. The first half is there to make it look like the "interview" wasn't really a plug for the tuning system.

It's here: In Perfect Harmony - Buzz Feiten and the Buzz ... | Guitar.com

============

About the best, clearest "pro" BF essay I found, the one that makes it hardest to call BFTS "nonsense" is here: Buzz Feiten Tuning System for bass and guitar: close to perfect. - How To Adjust Intonation - Epinions.com

Originally Posted by JonR

But can you answer the logical point I made? How can anything but a straight nut - parallel with other frets - make any sense?

Unless I'm reading everything wrong, the nut *is* straight. It's simply placed such that it's slightly closer to the first fret than a normal nut. This is a fairly high-precision operation that depends on string gauge, width of frets, and scale length of the guitar -- but it's a straight nut, not "compensated" as we'd all been calling it - just relocated. The nut affects ONLY the first 3 frets. Your cowboy chords. The rest of the "system" is a result of the specially-compensated saddles, and the slightly altered pitches of the strings, arrived at with a tuner w/BF mode. The tuning adjustment is the most negligible part of the whole thing; they say you'll still have benefits even if you tune by ear (their way - it's on the website - it's tuning every string by an "E" note on each one.)

I haven't read out-and-out recommendations from those guys. I've read polite reviews. Of course - as jack says - they will have been given freebies to try, and maybe even attractive sponsorship deals. They would only reject such things if the guitars were bad. The guitars are clearly well made, and no doubt play well. The question is whether they are substantially better than other guitars, and whether it's BF that makes that difference.

Jon, it sounds here as if you've linked Buzz Feiten with McPherson guitars, as if they're one company... "The guitars are clearly well-made, and no doubt play well"??? And "....they will have been given freebies to try..." "They would only reject such things if the guitars were bad."

You aren't thinking these guys got a free McPherson, are you? Nah - I think, since the retro-fitting process doesn't alter a guitar at all, most of these players had one of their own personal guitars set up this way. They probably have so many guitars they'd groan if someone handed them anything LESS than a McPherson. Ha.

====

Mr. Feiten, in the guitar.com "interview," says, 'Dan Erlewine, probably the world's most recognized expert on guitar setup, said, "If you don't know how to install the Buzz Feiten Tuning System, you don't really know how to set up a guitar." '

And that Larry Carlton said, "I've been playing guitar since I was six years old, and now I'm finally in tune." Or close to that. Add Robben Ford to the BFTS advocates. According to Mr. Feiten and other sources, too.

This whole thing is becoming tiresome to me. What about y'all?

[Melodic Dreamer]

I have it on one of my Suhr Strats. I use the Peterson Strobo Tuner because is has a BF setting. I love it for playing around the house or with someone playing piano. If your playing with another guitarist or bassist that doesn't have it though, then it's a little pointless.

[Kojo27]

Originally Posted by Melodic Dreamer

I have it on one of my Suhr Strats. I use the Peterson Strobo Tuner because is has a BF setting. I love it for playing around the house or with someone playing piano. If your playing with another guitarist or bassist that doesn't have it though, then it's a little pointless.

Why is it pointless?

[Melodic Dreamer]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Why is it pointless?

Pointless might have been to strong of a word.

Having the system on your guitar gives better temperament and intonation throughout the fretboard. Like I said, the Strobo Tuner has a BF setting which tunes you guitar just a little different compared to the regular setting. Playing with other guitarist who don't use it brings two instruments together that are tuned slightly different. We are talking very small increments, but still noticeable to the players.

Some people might not be able to hear the difference, but when two people play a high e and they're slightly off, it gets annoying kind quick.

This is all my opinion though. Maybe you have had different results.

[fumblefingers]

the Earvana compensated nut system does not require special tuning, neither does Byer's system. Byer's system is for his nylon-strung classical guitars of course.

I wonder which is more accurate Earvana or BF? If they are close why go with BF?

[Melodic Dreamer]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

the Earvana compensated nut system does not require special tuning, neither does Byer's system. Byer's system is for his nylon-strung classical guitars of course.

I wonder which is more accurate Earvana or BF? If they are close why go with BF?

You don't have to tune it a special way. You can use normal tuning, but to get the most out of the BF system it helps to slightly tune it for the BF setting. This setting is actually better, but most people don't have it, so it's makes it a little hard to play with other people the way I would like.

[jster]

I used a competitor's nut. Can't remember the name right now. I have always been really really annoyed by a guitar's not being in tune across the neck. If you are similar, then definitely get one of these nuts. They will mitigate a lot (but not all) of the problem. If you are not annoyed, then consider yourself very very lucky, and quickly focus your attention somewhere else. BF is like aspirin for a guitar headache. Nobody on a forum can tell you whether you have a headache. But if you do, take some aspirin. If you don't, then you don't need aspirin.

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

guitar.com, which seems to me like a site that sells lots of ads and also features interviews that are really just more ads -- has an "interview" with Buzz Feiten himself, and while I wouldn't give the site itself much credibility, Mr. Feiten explains the thing without much glitz or hype, and answers a BUNCH of questions I had before reading the thing.

Scroll about halfway through the piece to get to the tuning system info. The first half is there to make it look like the "interview" wasn't really a plug for the tuning system.

It's here: In Perfect Harmony - Buzz Feiten and the Buzz ... | Guitar.com

That's interesting, and I followed it right up to this part:

"The standard method says you tune your open string to zero (on your tuner), then intonate the 12th fret to zero by moving the bridge saddles back and forth.
We think thats the problem. We think that gives you a perfect barre A chord, but a terrible barre D chord. And I'm sure Guitar.com visitors are also familiar with that problem."

I don't understand this point. Why does it make a good A barre, but not a good D barre? And what about other barre shapes?

Of course, I can see from his perspective (and kind of agree) that using an open string for reference is the first mistake - because with a standard nut, an open string is often not in tune with fretted notes.

Still, he doesn't expand on this comment, of course, so it's difficult to get beyond this.

Here's the next contentious quote:

"That's the philosophy of it, and it's very close to the philosophy of piano tuning. Piano tuners, what those guys do, they kind of borrow pitch from the perfect intervals, the octaves, fourths, and fifths, in order to sweeten up the thirds, sixths, and tenths. And we do the same thing, we just use a different method to do it. We borrow pitch from the fourths, fifths, and octaves, in order to sweeten up those thirds."

That's not really a very good description of what piano tuners do. And what does he mean by "borrowing pitch from the perfect intervals"? Which perfect intervals? Which octaves? The kind of thing he's describing could only possibly be done with reference to one starting note. Every single note has every possible interval with every note. So how can you "sweeten" a 3rd, when the two notes of that 3rd are going to have to relate in other intervals to other notes?

It is of course possible to make the intervals of one key "sweeter" (whatever that means), but then the intervals of other keys automatically become "sourer".

I'm still not accusing him of bullshitting - this is just a relaxed kind of interview, and it's understandable that's he's answering the questions in vague terms. But it's an odd choice of language.

I do recognise that guitar intonation is all about getting the nut and bridge right - and that a standard set-up may (possibly) miss a trick or two.
The idea of the shelf nut seems logical, based on the idea that fretting a string makes it sharp (relative to an in-tune open note).

However, I note he talks about "the first 3 frets" as the area affected (by the nut issue); and this is an issue that is typically addressed - and largely corrected - by lowering the nut, not moving it. After all, the sharpening effect of fretting should apply to all frets: IOW, the open string (before correction) would be flat relative to all fretted notes, not just the lower ones. (This is certainly my experience.)

Still, this is not a criticism of the BF system, because (as yet) I still don't understand what it is (aside from the compensated shelf nut).

[JonR]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

About the best, clearest "pro" BF essay I found, the one that makes it hardest to call BFTS "nonsense" is here: Buzz Feiten Tuning System for bass and guitar: close to perfect. - How To Adjust Intonation - Epinions.com

OK, a few issues with that:

"Guitarists, have you ever tuned your guitar to get one chord in tune and as a result another chord went out of tune? And if your ear is good enough to not just depend on whatever a digital tuner says is "in tune," how long does it take you to tune up? What kind of arcane system of tuning-by-harmonics do you have to resort to to get close to being in tune, and still you know it's not truly nailed?"

Well - tuning using harmonics is not going to get you accurate anyway. Harmonics (apart from octaves) are all out of tune with ET.
IOW, this paragraph is ignoring the differences between ET and just intonation. Maybe we think our guitar is out of tune because ET itself is out of tune (which it is)? If your ear disagrees with a tuner, then that's possibly the case.
That means the problem is insoluble. We have to learn to tolerate the out-of-tune-ness of ET, or we have to adjust as we play - by pulling and pushing notes into tune with each other by ear, as much as we can. Every chord requires slightly different treatment, if it is to sound "pure" - but we need to start from a level playing field, which is equal temperament. No good pretending that's not the case.

"Pythagoras correlated pitch with the stopped length of a tensioned string, establishing the ratios that put our frets where they are today, 2500 years later"

No he didn't. Our frets are not placed according to Pythagorean ratios. Anyone who believes that is not best placed to assess the merits of a system like Feiten's.

"Buzz noticed something we all notice--it's easier to press a string down at the octave, smack in the middle of the length, than it is to press it down at the first fret."

Common experience indeed - but it just means your nut is too high. On a properly setup guitar, it should be (marginally) easier to fret at 1st fret than at the octave, because it travels further at 12th fret.

"Relative to the new length, the frets as you move toward the nut get proportionately flatter and flatter. Recall they used to get sharper and sharper, and you see how the compensation works. Moving the nut closer to the bridge has the same effect as moving all the frets closer to the nut in an appropriate progression of distances. "

Well yes, in a sense. But because the frets all stay where they are, the tuning of al fretted notes is unaffected (until the bridge is compensated of course). Only the open string is affected by moving the nut. So it makes no sense to talk about fretted notes getting "proportionately flatter and flatter": that makes sense relative to the whole string length: but the whole string length is not relevant to the tuning of fretted notes!

This article doesn't even mention the other half of the system (the mysterious process of intonating the bridge), so it's hardly any use as an explanation.
As I say, the issue of the nut does make sense - the sharpening effect (on most guitars) may be largely down to a nut that's too high, but there is also a logic in moving it a little closer to the first fret.

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Unless I'm reading everything wrong, the nut *is* straight. It's simply placed such that it's slightly closer to the first fret than a normal nut. This is a fairly high-precision operation that depends on string gauge, width of frets, and scale length of the guitar -- but it's a straight nut, not "compensated" as we'd all been calling it - just relocated.

OK - I was making a false assumption from looking at other compensated nuts, such as these:
compensated nut - Google Search
I now realise these are NOT BF nuts!

Originally Posted by Kojo27

The nut affects ONLY the first 3 frets. Your cowboy chords.

I know that's what he says. But I can't really follow the logic of it. If fretted notes are more out of tune at low frets, that sounds to me more like a too-high nut problem. Moving the nut will fix it; but so will lowering it. Maybe a little of both is the answer?

Originally Posted by Kojo27

The rest of the "system" is a result of the specially-compensated saddles, and the slightly altered pitches of the strings, arrived at with a tuner w/BF mode. The tuning adjustment is the most negligible part of the whole thing; they say you'll still have benefits even if you tune by ear (their way - it's on the website - it's tuning every string by an "E" note on each one.)

Well, I often do something similar myself: tuning fretted E notes to each other.
I'm still not sure I follow the idea of these "patented pitch offsets" at the bridge. The BF site doesn't explain this (as far as I can see).
Are these offsets with reference to the open strings or harmonics? Or offsets referenced to fretted notes? The latter doesn't make a lot of sense, so I guess the former.
But why do that when you can just tune fretted notes?

Anyone with a BF system care to explain more? (Or is it supposed to be secret, to protect his copyright?)

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Jon, it sounds here as if you've linked Buzz Feiten with McPherson guitars, as if they're one company... "The guitars are clearly well-made, and no doubt play well"??? And "....they will have been given freebies to try..." "They would only reject such things if the guitars were bad."

You aren't thinking these guys got a free McPherson, are you? Nah - I think, since the retro-fitting process doesn't alter a guitar at all, most of these players had one of their own personal guitars set up this way.

OK, I thought the context was McPherson guitars supplied with BF systems pre-fitted.
And I wouldn't be at all surprised if famous name players might be offered a free trial guitar for the publicity value - the info that so-and-so uses a specific guitar (or has at least endorsed it after a trial) is worth far more to a manufacturer than the cost of the guitar. If a player happens to return it having not liked it, that would not be made public (by either party). (This is a side issue though.)

Originally Posted by Kojo27

And that Larry Carlton said, "I've been playing guitar since I was six years old, and now I'm finally in tune." Or close to that. Add Robben Ford to the BFTS advocates. According to Mr. Feiten and other sources, too.

The Larry Carlton quote is conspicuous by its absence from BF's own site, which seems mysterious; there is no Robben Ford quote there either, that I can see.
Of course there are similar quotes from a few other players there, which sound convincing.

I'm not saying the BF system is total BS. I just don't really understand how it differs from a normal set-up (other than the shelf nut installation).

[Kojo27]

Jon, Jack, fumblefingers, Spirit59 -- all who've contributed to this thread: I'm a bit sick -- I'm blessed with a problem that has left me temporarily unable to think very well. Imagine trying to respond intelligently to these good posts while dog-drunk. I'm not drunk. Just a mite sick, but will be fine as soon as I see my doc on Monday 25 - I hope.

I haven't abandoned the thread.

[airpom]

Originally Posted by Kojo27

Any thoughts on this? It *does* work, although I'm not sure how - heh.


A while back we talked a bit about the Buzz Feiten tuning system. I have a couple of guitars that are set up this way, and while I didn't, and still don't, fully understand the system, I do know that the intonation on those, one acoustic, the other a solid-body electric, is amazing. Just sweet all over, tuned well by ear, to a $12 tuner, whatever. In the earlier thread, someone made the good point of "How could a special nut possibly help with barre chords - or with jazz voicings, all the stuff that the nut can't affect once a barre finger goes down," or whatever.

Turns out it's the nut AND the saddle/bridge. And to properly intonate a "Feitenized" guitar, you need a Korg DT-7 tuner - about $99. And a speck of know-how, from the website.

Here's the canned copy (btw Washburn's high-end guitars are NOT the only ones coming standard with this. McPherson acoustics have it too - all of them. (Huge bucks for those.)

The canned copy:

The Buzz Feiten Tuning System is a tempered tuning formula, which uses a compensated nut and saddle to correct the inherent intonation problems of the Western tuning formula. The system that Buzz devised has been a godsend to guitarists. Fans of the system include Eddie Van Halen, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Liona Boyd and Andy Summers. The Buzz Feiten Tuning System is standard on all USA made Washburn guitars and basses and is featured on select imported models. Washburn is the only major guitar manufacturer to incorporate the system as a standard feature on production guitars.

[End of canned copy]


Just tune one of these and play a D major in cowboy position, then in a barre at the 5th fret - you'll begin to understand!

Here's a $3,349 USA Washburn, just for the hell of it:



Thoughts, anybody?

Those Washburns are so nice. I have been wanting to get a guitar with this tuning setup for a long long time now..