-
Originally Posted by JonR
Allegedly...
I can't honestly make a qualified criticism of the rest, but it's plain common sense that the shelf nut is a nonsense idea.
The ideal nut is simply a zero fret - at least in height and distance from the 1st fret (it would need a notching system behind it). Compensating a nut in any way is pointless and would actually put the guitar out of tune - or rather, more out of tune than any normal guitar normally is.
This device is marketed at fools who see a compensated bridge and think - hey - why not a compensated nut too?
(Ie equating the nut with the bridge instead of with a fret)
After all (in case you need that question answering), if the nut needs to be compensated, then - to a progressively lesser extent - the frets need compensating too.
IOW, I can see that the idea of fanned frets might make sense, where the distance between frets on the bass strings needs to be a little more than on the treble strings. Only might, mind you; and probably not to the crazy degree I've seen on fanned-fret guitars. (A compensated bridge only needs to be a few degrees out of straight. So the frets need to be correspondingly less than that. In fact, so much less that most good luthiers don't consider it worth doing at all. Perhaps they underestimate the market for credulous customers...)
Let me be clear: I know the phenomenon whereby the low E and A strings - on some guitars - need to be tuned a little flat in order for fretted notes to be in tune. The answer to this might seem to be to move the nut back a little for those strings. But really the problem is endemic all the way up those strings - diminishing towards the bridge of course. (We just don't notice the discrepancy as it decreases.) If the nut should go a little further back; then so should the first fret (under those strings), just not as far; and then, a little less, the 2nd fret; etc. And yet without any zigzag stagger to the frets, because the effect is also gradual across the strings too.
And in any case, the usual cause of this problem is a nut that is too high - not too close to the 1st fret. Simply lowering it to the height of a fret corrects the most common intonation problems on low frets.
IOW, the only way a compensated nut makes any sense (assuming the frets are left alone) is if it is also set too high; which is of course crazy. There's no rational reason why the distances between nut and first fret should differ from string to string, when the distances between nut and 2nd fret don't. What applies between nut and first fret ought also to apply between frets 1 and 2 (and between all frets in fact). There is no essential difference between the nut and a fret. (Except of course for the need to hold the strings in slots to position them correctly.)
Think about it this way: at McPherson Guitars, eleven people make only a small, small number of acoustic guitars a year, and these are some of the most expensive and coveted guitars in the world. Lookee:
Not long ago McPherson began implementing the Buzz Feiten tuning system into their guitars.
Now ask yourself: why would they do this? To beef up sales? To prevail in swaying "fools" to buy one of their guitars instead of -- what, maybe a Brazilian rosewood Collings? I doubt it, and I doubt that they applied this feature to these "most coveted" guitars without extensive thought and without knowledge and demonstrable results from either some expert(s) within the company, or more probably, a consultant, who knows "string physics" and "inharmonicity issues" and "temperament issues" and all this stuff you understand, or write as if you do.... In other words, I doubt that they're ignorant of the controversy about the Buzz Feiten system, and I doubt that they implemented such an eyebrow-raising feature without some sort of proof that it makes a better guitar.
Ever played a McPherson guitar? I have, and no kidding, I got goosebumps. IMO, they're the ultimate "informal jam" or "living room" guitar... they have something about them (the sound port?) that makes them sound almost amplified; but they aren't, of course. The sound is majestic -- the guitar pours beautiful, woody tones into every square inch of a room. Or that's effect it had on me. This was a long time ago. I don't know exactly why they started using the Buzz Feiten tempering system, but I'd bet it was a musical reason. The guitars were practically sold before they were built anyway -- without bettering the intonation -- so why dabble in controversy, if this controversial thing doesn't make a great guitar even better?
You know, when one starts a post right away with "...it's plain common sense that the shelf nut is a nonsense idea." And "This device is marketed at fools...." -- it's difficult if not impossible to follow, or even want to follow, anything written afterward. Perhaps if you would present your notions with more logic and diplomacy, and less rudeness and pomposity, readers would take you seriously. (Yes, I'm lately guilty of rudeness and pomposity, and much more -- but I'm working hard to keep myself in check.)
Would love to hear your thoughts about what I've said about McPherson. Ditto about how Eddie Van Halen, Scott Henderson, Steve Vai, and Joe Satriani are BF proponents, despite their not being fools...
KJLast edited by Kojo27; 06-16-2011 at 08:16 AM. Reason: fix image url
-
06-16-2011 07:56 AM
-
arguments of {insert my favorite player} using something is anecdotal and proves nothing other than perhaps they are getting something in return for the referrals. That's the way endorsements work.
-
A clue is in the word "expensive". Originally Posted by Kojo27
Of course they're expensive. That's part of what makes them attractive. If they cost that much, they MUST be good!
Yes, those guitars look beautiful. And I don't doubt they sound beautiful. I do doubt that they sound noticeably better than any similar high-end instruments. Or, if they do, that it's down to BF nuts and tuning systems.
(We still await those double-blind playing/listening tests... That's the only evidence I'd trust.)
It's another selling point, for those customers swayed by BF publicity. It makes their guitars stand out from their competitors'. Originally Posted by Kojo27
Not "better than", note. Just "stand out from".
Well, none of that is down to BF. The tone is down to the wood and the general manufacture of the instrument. Originally Posted by Kojo27
The most beautiful guitar I ever played was a $1000 Spanish guitar one of my students owned. I got the exact same reaction you did: goosebumps, and I was amazed that any guitar could sound or feel that good. Of course, it had no BF tuning system - not even a compensated bridge - and was totally traditional in its design. It was just VERY well made. As I suspect the McPhersons are.
The BF addition is a cherry on the top, at best - maybe even an excuse for charging a little more (like gold-plated hardware on some other guitars).
Controversy sells. No such thing as bad pulbicity. Originally Posted by Kojo27
OK, I'm being unduly cynical. Bad publicity for a guitar probably would affect sales adversely. But BF is a benign system. It has no BAD effect on a guitar - just a negligible one. Above all, it's a talking point - as we are proving! - which attracts attention. Attention to their products is what all commmercial manufacturers crave.
Eg, I hadn't heard (much) of McPherson guitars. Now I have. Next time in a guitar shop, I might try one, just out of curiosity. I might find it sounds great, and I might decide I can afford it and buy it - whether it has BF on it or not. Sold! And all because of this debate about BF.
Fair point. But can you answer the logical point I made? How can anything but a straight nut - parallel with other frets - make any sense? Originally Posted by Kojo27
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. Originally Posted by Kojo27
Would love to hear your thoughts about what I've said about McPherson. Ditto about how Eddie Van Halen, Scott Henderson, Steve Vai, and Joe Satriani are BF proponents, despite their not being fools...
If you can point me to direct quotes from those guys that confirm the difference BF makes, over an identical guitar without one fitted, I'd be very interested.
My mind is open on this. I haven't tried the guitars in question. And I only have the opinion of one luthier I know to back up my view (aside from the likes of mr zucker of course
). It's simply the logic I'm questiioning, at the moment. In terms of intonation, a nut is only a fret (fret zero). Yes? If not, why not?
-
Also, guys like van halen, vai and satriani are all using .009 strings. No matter what compensation you have at the bridge and nut, those guitars are not going to be in tune. The top strings on those guages will bend just by fretting the note. Additionally, the rock guys are typically not playing complex chords with 1/2 step intervals like jazz players use so a guy playing barre chords and saying that his system works better than someone like Ben Monder or Kurt Rosenwinkel seems like a silly comparison. Neither ben nor kurt are apparently bothered by the horrible intonation of their non compensated nut guitars.
-
hmmm. to me its always been the triads with a doubled voice (at the octave) that brought out the nasty intonation inaccuracies, while drop 2 and drop 3 voicings sounded good all day, to anyone other than the keen-eared individual. Originally Posted by jzucker
Also, guys like van halen, vai and satriani are all using .009 strings. No matter what compensation you have at the bridge and nut, those guitars are not going to be in tune. The top strings on those guages will bend just by fretting the note. Additionally, the rock guys are typically not playing complex chords with 1/2 step intervals like jazz players use so a guy playing barre chords and saying that his system works better than someone like Ben Monder or Kurt Rosenwinkel seems like a silly comparison. Neither ben nor kurt are apparently bothered by the horrible intonation of their non compensated nut guitars.
-
Originally Posted by Kojo27
Think about it this way: at McPherson Guitars, eleven people make only a small, small number of acoustic guitars a year, and these are some of the most expensive and coveted guitars in the world. Lookee:
Not long ago McPherson began implementing the Buzz Feiten tuning system into their guitars.
Now ask yourself: why would they do this? To beef up sales? To prevail in swaying "fools" to buy one of their guitars instead of -- what, maybe a Brazilian rosewood Collings? I doubt it, and I doubt that they applied this feature to these "most coveted" guitars without extensive thought and without knowledge and demonstrable results from either some expert(s) within the company, or more probably, a consultant, who knows "string physics" and "inharmonicity issues" and "temperament issues" and all this stuff you understand, or write as if you do.... In other words, I doubt that they're ignorant of the controversy about the Buzz Feiten system, and I doubt that they implemented such an eyebrow-raising feature without some sort of proof that it makes a better guitar.
Ever played a McPherson guitar? I have, and no kidding, I got goosebumps. IMO, they're the ultimate "informal jam" or "living room" guitar... they have something about them (the sound port?) that makes them sound almost amplified; but they aren't, of course. The sound is majestic -- the guitar pours beautiful, woody tones into every square inch of a room. Or that's effect it had on me. This was a long time ago. I don't know exactly why they started using the Buzz Feiten tempering system, but I'd bet it was a musical reason. The guitars were practically sold before they were built anyway -- without bettering the intonation -- so why dabble in controversy, if this controversial thing doesn't make a great guitar even better?
You know, when one starts a post right away with "...it's plain common sense that the shelf nut is a nonsense idea." And "This device is marketed at fools...." -- it's difficult if not impossible to follow, or even want to follow, anything written afterward. Perhaps if you would present your notions with more logic and diplomacy, and less rudeness and pomposity, readers would take you seriously. (Yes, I'm lately guilty of rudeness and pomposity, and much more -- but I'm working hard to keep myself in check.)
Would love to hear your thoughts about what I've said about McPherson. Ditto about how Eddie Van Halen, Scott Henderson, Steve Vai, and Joe Satriani are BF proponents, despite their not being fools...
KJ
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.
-
can you refute Dr. Byers work and theories? Originally Posted by JonR
A clue is in the word "expensive".
Of course they're expensive. That's part of what makes them attractive. If they cost that much, they MUST be good!
Yes, those guitars look beautiful. And I don't doubt they sound beautiful. I do doubt that they sound noticeably better than any similar high-end instruments. Or, if they do, that it's down to BF nuts and tuning systems.
(We still await those double-blind playing/listening tests... That's the only evidence I'd trust.)
It's another selling point, for those customers swayed by BF publicity. It makes their guitars stand out from their competitors'.
Not "better than", note. Just "stand out from".
Well, none of that is down to BF. The tone is down to the wood and the general manufacture of the instrument.
The most beautiful guitar I ever played was a $1000 Spanish guitar one of my students owned. I got the exact same reaction you did: goosebumps, and I was amazed that any guitar could sound or feel that good. Of course, it had no BF tuning system - not even a compensated bridge - and was totally traditional in its design. It was just VERY well made. As I suspect the McPhersons are.
The BF addition is a cherry on the top, at best - maybe even an excuse for charging a little more (like gold-plated hardware on some other guitars).
Controversy sells. No such thing as bad pulbicity.
OK, I'm being unduly cynical. Bad publicity for a guitar probably would affect sales adversely. But BF is a benign system. It has no BAD effect on a guitar - just a negligible one. Above all, it's a talking point - as we are proving! - which attracts attention. Attention to their products is what all commmercial manufacturers crave.
Eg, I hadn't heard (much) of McPherson guitars. Now I have. Next time in a guitar shop, I might try one, just out of curiosity. I might find it sounds great, and I might decide I can afford it and buy it - whether it has BF on it or not. Sold! And all because of this debate about BF.
Fair point. But can you answer the logical point I made? How can anything but a straight nut - parallel with other frets - make any sense?
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.
If you can point me to direct quotes from those guys that confirm the difference BF makes, over an identical guitar without one fitted, I'd be very interested.
My mind is open on this. I haven't tried the guitars in question. And I only have the opinion of one luthier I know to back up my view (aside from the likes of mr zucker of course). It's simply the logic I'm questiioning, at the moment. In terms of intonation, a nut is only a fret (fret zero). Yes? If not, why not?
Research
-
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. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
All this stuff looks great on paper but when you account for variance in finger pressure alone, it all goes down the toilet. Don't believe it - plug in a tuner and experiment.
In fact - try this:
Go grab yer super-duper Feiten-ized guitar, plug into a tuner and play a slow, simple melody consisting of half and whole notes, while a friend takes notes, or better yet, you could take video of the tuner output.
Do it sitting down.
Do it standing up.
Do it on your back.
Surprise - each time you'll get different readings.
Also: Many players with decent ears will subconsciously vary the finger pressure on individual notes in chords to force them into tune.
I also have to say that holding up EVH as some sort of yardstick for playing in tune kind of made me chuckle.....
The time spent contemplating the Feiten system might be put to better use for other music related endeavors but do whatever makes ya happy.
-
Wel, I'll deal with this section: Originally Posted by fumblefingers
"the pitch of the open string is not raised at all, since it is not stretched. It is then necessary to compensate for the fact that the pitch of the open string is flat, relative to all the other fretted pitches. To do this the nut position can be moved forward to shorten the open string length (thereby raising its pitch) without moving any of the fret positions."
Makes sense. But only if the string is stretched more at first fret (or low frets) than other frets.
Imagine you had a capo on fret 1. The problem would then disappear, right? The capo would already be stretching the string.
But now imagine the capo (and its fret) was the nut. Why can't a nut be like a fret?
IOW, the amount of sharpness caused by fretting a note ought to depend only on how far below the fret we push the string. Allow the string to just touch the fret: no sharpening effect (at least, no more than any other fret). Push the string down to the fretboard: maximum sharpening effect. (IOW it's potentially worse the higher your frets are, and the heavier your touch - or the lighter your strings.)
I grant that many players do the latter. But the point is, the effect is variable. It's not going to be cured by a fixed nut, wherever it's placed.
A lighter touch, or heavier strings, plus a nut lowered to the height of a fret, would fix the problem for most players.
I can see a shelf nut would help some, by allowing them better leeway with pressure.
What else is the BF "system"? Proper intonation of the bridge? Ie, part of a normal set-up?
I can't comment on the rest of the math on that page - I don't have the time now to assess it - but I don't doubt his thinking is right. But the math doesn't seem important in practice: I don't see any point in using a computer to make those calculations, when your ear is the best (and quickest) judge for correcting intonation.
In the table at the bottom, his "nut setforth" measurements seem a lot smaller than the compensation I've seen on some shelf nuts. The maximum of 1.0 mm is a sensibly small-looking figure.
Of course, one would need a different nut if fitting a wound 3rd...
But I think I accept the argument about stretching, in principle: a nut is not quite the same as a fret. I retreat to my position that a proper set-up (of both saddle and traditional nut) will cure intonation issues on the vast majority of guitars - at least will fix them within acceptable margins. (The guitar being an inherently imperfect instrument.)
-
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!
-
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. Originally Posted by cmajor9
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
Cool - enjoy. Make sure they let you use a BF-mode tuner (if they have one, and they should), to get the ideal effect.
-
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
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.) Originally Posted by JonR
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."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.
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?
-
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? Originally Posted by Melodic Dreamer
-
Pointless might have been to strong of a word. Originally Posted by Kojo27
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.
-
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. Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
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.
-
That's interesting, and I followed it right up to this part: Originally Posted by Kojo27
"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).
-
OK, a few issues with that: Originally Posted by Kojo27
"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.
OK - I was making a false assumption from looking at other compensated nuts, such as these: Originally Posted by Kojo27
compensated nut - Google Search
I now realise these are NOT BF nuts!
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
Well, I often do something similar myself: tuning fretted E notes to each other. Originally Posted by Kojo27
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?)
OK, I thought the context was McPherson guitars supplied with BF systems pre-fitted. Originally Posted by Kojo27
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.)
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. Originally Posted by Kojo27
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).
-
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.
-
Those Washburns are so nice. I have been wanting to get a guitar with this tuning setup for a long long time now.. Originally Posted by Kojo27
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos