Official Luthiers Forum!

Intonating a guitar for someone is about 50% lutherie technique and 50% psychology. That assumes an open minded and intelligent player who understands the futility of attempting to achieve perfect intonation in a tempered instrument. Might just as well invent and patent a new way to tune a piano.

[QUOTE=Rick Turner] Intonating a guitar for someone is about 50%
lutherie technique and 50% psychology. That assumes an open minded
and intelligent player who understands the futility of attempting to
achieve perfect intonation in a tempered instrument.[/QUOTE]

Very, very true. A few years ago I spent a great deal of time coming up
with a way to offer a bit of realistic insight to the average customer, while
trying not to insult them as a player of perhaps 30 years who still doesn't
understand how tuning works. What I came up with was a tactfully
worded tri-fold flyer that I can leave at the counter for customers to read
at their leisure.

It's certainly a very abbreviated description of tuning and temperament
in attempt to fit it on a single piece of paper, but I believe it at least
effective enough to introduce the issue to players. There are a few parts I
may edit, like the suggested readings if I were to redo it, but here it is
anyway.

Please excuse my computer ignorance, but since I have no idea how to
post the PDF here, I'll just throw up a (hopefully readable) screen shot.
Keep in mind that it's designed as a tri-fold flyer, so the way it appears
on your screen may not be entirely continuous.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Keep in mind that the few paragraphs I had space for are really quite
dumbed down from more intricate issues of intonation. The definitions
are extremely over-simplified, and I did not even make mention of the
more real and advanced issues of harmony and disharmony of overtones
and such.

It would easily take a book to address these issues in great detail, but this
will at least help customers to acknowledge some basic shortcomings of
our scale. If they want to pursue further study, there is the suggested
readings. If not, at least they may have some understanding why a guitar
sounds terrible with an open E chord after trying to tweak the tuning to a
more natural open G.

The Stuart Isacoff book is an excellent informative narrative on the history
of the subject, but is quite shy on technical details. The John Meffen book
is my first recommendation for those who want to a more in depth
understanding. This one was still out of print last I checked, but comes
up on used book sites occasionally, or can be found through an
interlibrary loan at least.

What I'd really like to suggest to most customers however is;

"I never tune my guitar - I just play it in tune"
    -Hubert Sumlin

   -and-

"Shut up and play your guitar"
    -Frank Zappa

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Brilliant, David. That's succinct, to the point, and dead-on accurate.

Thanks...

Mind if I copy that...with full credit?

Thanks David, very concise!

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

David,

I agree with both you and Rick. i never said that BFTS was the end all solution. In fact I refered to Mike Doolins site which has a 7 volume article on intonation and it reiterates what you have printed above.

What I did say is that BFTS is a "system" I use, and by the way I consider the system my starting point, not the final job. Even Buzz himself recomends that you, the "tech/luthier", use it as a starting point and then "tweak it" by playing and listening to the instrument. He also states, (as do I to every customer), that the system is not perfect. As I said in the prior post,  perfection and intonation are not obtainable, they are almost oxy-morons. I try to get a 20-25% or more improverment using the system, on the guitar I am working on. Sometimes it really improves the guitar, other times the guitar is such that the system isn't going to do much for it...I can tell that pretty quick...at that point I DON'T install the system and tell the customer why. I never install BFTS on cheap guitars. I explain to customers that the guitar will not increase in value proportionately. I too have done free work and have donated many an instrument to schools and churches.

 Every guitar is different by the way, and after doing many many 100's, not one guitar is done exactly the same as the other. everytime I remove an amount, using the system, from a fretboard, it is a DIFFERENT amount. It is a unique measurement on each guitar. Each one is always slightly different and measured in 1000th's of an inch.

I don't strive for perfect intonation as I too don't think it is obtainable. Too many variables ( as I previously stated).

As for cost of my intonation job...I don't mean to imply that my overhead is as high as Evan's or even someone in California (where real estate is expensive). What I mean is I know, what my overhead is, and what hourly rate I feel comfortable charging for my time/skills. I also remember living in N.Y. and hearing about luthiers who got $600 or more for fret jobs. One I recall being as high as $1200. o.k. that's fret jobs but still...WOW!

Rick,

I never said that it cost me $250 per intonation job ( or that you should pay that much). That is the amount I feel comfortable charging considering the following:

1) Time spent evaluating and intonating the guitar

2) Parts and carrying cost

3) My overhead...

4) Cost of my training and continued training

5) Time spent with customer after job is complete ( always 1/2hr on avg.)

6) expected return on my investment of all of the above

In no way did I mean to imply that it should cost you, or me, $250 to properly intonate your guitars in manufacture.

As for the unique tunning pitches...you are right again. Most people don't want to remember them , But, the guitar still sounds better than without the work due to the adjusted nut and is still better intonated than the way it came from the factory. i don't doubt for a minute that your guitars aren't well intonated. your guitars probably wouldn't be good candidates for the system. BUT Martin, Gibson, Fender and many others are.

By the way BFTS tunning on an Acoustic guitar is the same as Standard except for the 6th string tuned 1 cent flat. On electrics it's a whole different ball of wax but most players who really want the system don't mind learning/remembering the tuning.

I also think that what I learned by studying wth Buzz and Greg made me a better luthier from the intonation standpoint. It made me a more aware builder. I learned things that probably would have taken me years to learn if at all. I often hear many a luthier talk about putting their saddles in the same exact place, without adjustment ( or very minor), and swearing how well in tune their instruments play. Makes me wonder about their ears and the quality of the rest of their build.

IMHO I think we as builders/luthiers/techs/whatever should be aware of and very diligent in obtaining the best intonation on every instrument we make. To me "if it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood".

 

 

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

Thanks. Anyone is certainly welcome to use it, though like I said, I'm not
very computer savvy and do not know how to easily make the PDF
accessible. I even tried uploading it to my "web site" space (yes, I do have
someone who is actually going to make it a real one at some point). I got it
up there, somewhere on this weird internet thing we use, but I'll be damned
if I can figure how to find it or it's address to link to now.

So Rick, I sent you a pdf a few minutes ago, and would be glad to send it to
anyone else who wants it.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I'd like a copy too!

_________________
Rian Gitar og Mandolin

people here can easily just choose to right click on the images above and save as...saving as a  .pdf is not all that necessary

David, I've sent you an e-mail.

I can post the PDF to my site, with a link for everyone....

Thanks Grumpy. I'll do that.

It's really good to see you back here by the way.

Now get ready for my "brief" commentary on the BFTS.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Dave, think it's worth noting that although I certainly do not endorse the
BFTS, I am not entirely in disagreement with you. There are good points
and bad points in my opinion, and I'll try to sum up my thoughts on the
BFTS as briefly as possible.

First as to the price, It's hard for me to say or judge. If the $250 were
simply for adjusting the saddles on a strat to match the 12th fret to the
harmonic, I would say that you're crazy. I get the feeling though,
that you're doing a bit more than that. I assume that what you bill as
setting intonation includes a lot more in way of setup and customer
consultation (time I really need to be more diligent about billing for
myself). It's still a good deal more than what I would charge based on an
$80/hr rate, unless that price included a new saddle and full setup, or
perhaps even higher if in involved some fret dressing work.

As to Buzz's system itself, here's what I consider the high points.
First off, it can sound great if done well, because I think the training
emphasizes the critical importance of several aspects of setup that many
techs may have otherwise overlooked. For example, it always amazes me
how many people setup everything on an instrument without even giving
a thought to the nut height , what I consider as the first reference
point that needs to be established.

Second, compensated nuts can be a good thing. I have some
disagreements about the amount, and feel that his system standardizes it
based purely on scale length and instrument style, without considering
the actual players style, but for many styles this can be very beneficial.

Third, there may be some good basis for the intonation and tuning
offsets, though I think Buzz and Greg may have been a bit misguided in
the reasoning behind them.

Now for the gripes. Primarily, marketing and claims, patentability, and
generalized or average compensations for too wide a range of
instruments and playing styles.

First, the marketing. Buzz has greatly tempered his claims (pun
intended) over the years, but when the system first came out he was
claiming much more perfection than it delivered. Naturally, when
marketing a product one wants to advertise it can deliver what no other
system can, but I think he stretched the claims too far too early, and
really rubbed me the wrong way.

The biggest claim that irked me was that now your guitar would be able
to play in tune with a piano. What piano ? Find two
pianos that will tune perfectly together. Are we talking a 9 foot Steinway
grand? A Yamaha grand? A spinet, or upright, or parlor grand? Any good
piano tuner you ask this of will simply laugh at the idea. Getting two
different pianos to play both in tune with themselves and with each other
is near impossible in most cases, and has always been a challenge to
tuners.

Next is the simply horrendous amount of misinformation in both the
marketing and patents. By his claims, piano tuners abandoned equal
temperament over 400 years ago , in favor of a stretch
tuning, which he seems to be confusing with totally different and
unrelated well temperaments (which were most commonly used from the
17th to the mid/late 19th century, before equal temperament did become
standard).

Other claims in his patents are;
Guitar fret placement is based upon the Pythagorean scale.
Pythagoras developed the "rule of 18".
Pianos and claviers jumped straight from use of just tuning and meantone
systems to equal temperament, developing well temperaments later.
That's especially ironic, because I never knew the fortepiano even existed
before the early 18th century from builders like Cristofori and
Silbermann. Before that there were harpsichords, claviers and organs,
which were certainly never tuned to equal temperament.

I could go on and on if I wanted to go grab my Feiten file from the shop,
but you get the point. Though most of his patents are concerned with
adjustable saddles and nuts, the entire section on the tuning system itself
is based on absolutely wrong information. It would not be difficult to
show how incorrect and incomplete his prior art listed is, and likely would
never stand up if his patent were ever involved in a lawsuit.

Now Buzz and Greg didn't design their system around this
misinformation. They designed it by tweaking, listening, tweaking,
seeking opinion, and tweaking some more. If they had learned a bit more
about temperament and tuning before starting this, they could have
saved a good deal of time. Instead I believe they embarked on a very well
intentioned, yet terribly misinformed venture. All of the talk comparing
their system to a well temperament (again I think they are confusing this
with an equal tempered, stretch tuned piano), is a good example of this.

This also bugs me a bit, because it seems an attempt to give an air of
legitimacy to their system that simply would not be conveyed had they
marketed it as "hey, this is what we figured out after noodling around
with it for a while". I feel the same about the nut compensation
"formulas". I know from when I met Buzz about 12 years ago that he
simply settled on .020" compensation for acoustic/jazz/wound 3rd
guitars, and .030" for plain 3rd electrics. They created a forumula for
compensation, like 1.4% for acoustics and 2.1% for electrics afterward.
The formulas were created from the measurements, so that now when the
measurements are recreated from the formulas they give the impression
of being based on more scientific empirical fact. It's marketing slight-of -
hand.

Then come the tuning and intonation offsets themselves. This
undoubtedly came from Buzz actually listening to the overtones of strings
against each other in various intervals. The problem here is that there is
nothing new or patentable about that. In chords, it is the relationship of
the overtones that define what sounds harmonious, not the
fundamentals. The overtones can change from their theoretical pitch
depending on variables like string stiffness, bridge inertia, top stiffness,
what color underwear you're wearing.... an almost infinite line of
variables. In simplified terms, this is what stretch tuning on a piano aims
to compensate for, and why it is different on each piece of wood and each
string. There is nothing groundbreaking or new about this, whether it be
applied to pianos, guitars, mandolins, etc.

Now though fret positions on a guitar are stable, the human hands make
the intonation moderately flexible. This is another area which I am uneasy
with Buzz’s system. The offsets again try to portray an air of precision,
but in fact are much smaller than the range of error of human hands or
average stability of the instrument itself. Tell three different techs to
adjust the intonation at the twelfth fret 2 cents flat, and likely you will get
three different settings. I contend that most players and techs will even
get different readings on a strobe tuner depending on whether they are
looking at it or not. Playing a single note while looking at the strobe
tuner, and it only takes the slightest unconscious change of pressure or
angle for your hand to bring it closer to tune without even realizing it (or
perhaps even realizing it, but pretending not to). And offsets of opens
strings follow the same rules. The touching of a tuner button can change
a high string one cent, and looser strings can vary 3-4 cents from the
attack through the decay.

When I’m setting intonation I just try to listen to all of this. Different
positions, different chord shapes, different intervals on different strings.
Attempt to mimic a players style, perhaps grabbing heavier or leaning
toward flattening from perfect for a live bar player as compared to a
studio guitar. Play a run, stop at a note, then look at the tuner. Listen to
intervals again. It goes on and on. Then try to shoot for the middle of the
range of error, or actually more often on the flat side of middle.

As to compensated nuts, I think .030” on an electric is fine for a heavy
blues player with jumbo frets, who likes a high nut to get at low fret
bends and grabs real hard. For someone playing Eric Johnson style stuff,
or speed metal or whatever, that would be drastically too far. I think most
of Buzz’s nut compensations are based on a higher nut height than what I
usually find acceptable. At the very least, I think compensations like this
have to be decided for an individual instrument and player.

I equate Buzz's system to a tuner like the Peterson 490-ST. This is
designed with a variety of stretch tunings for various piano styles. You
will never find a good piano tuner using one though, because it is simply
an average. The stretch tuning will make a smooth "S" sweep on an offset
chart, but it you compare it to a real piano's proper tuning it will be a very
jagged, sporadic line. If you charted several pianos of a particular style
their average may create that smooth "S" curve, but each individual will
have a very different jagged line. Each note and string are individual, and
though they average around the stretch curve they rarely fall directly on
it.

Buzz's system is that smooth line, and does not compensate for nuances
of individual instruments or player's style. Now a guitar can be intonated
great with his system, but I argue that it is attributable to the attention of
the tech to the instrument and player's style more than the system itself. I
always argue that a great setup on a Feiten or non-Feiten guitar will
sound great. A bad setup on a Feiten or non-Feiten guitar will sound bad.

Then there is the business side. I know of one very well known and
respected guitar tech (whose anonymity I will respect) who claimed to
have discretely reversed the saddle before the listening session at the BF
training. Everyone in the class including the instructor oozed the same
oohs and aahs as they did with all the legitimately Feitenized guitars.
That technician still sells the BF system, and sells a lot of it. He does not
push it on people, but the buzz created around the system has generated
a significant demand in his area. If you own a drug store and people are
coming in every day for an herbal supplement that you know to be
unnecessary yet harmless, is there anything wrong with a business
owner’s choice to stock the product? I don’t think so, so long as you do
your reasonable best to educate the customer and don’t actively push or
endorse something that you do not believe to be true. Beyond that, if it
does no harm and they are demanding it than I think it’s fine.

There are plenty of other anecdotes I have – the few guitars I had in a few
weeks ago were great examples. A Washburn custom shop Dimebag
guitar with the BF sticker on the back that the customer said sounded
better than any other guitar he had. I measured the nut spacing, and
there was no compensation at all – 0. Still with some folks (not all, mind
you) the sticker acts as a very effective placebo. The other one in at the
same time was a fretless bass…….
I assume that was simply a product of a manufacturers contract with BF,
but still it was funny.

I had a similar experience to the Healdsburg story at a Northwoods
seminar. When Buzz wanted a guitar to demonstrate the flaws of
conventional systems he was handed one that was actually set up right in
our shop. He could not get the thing to sound bad or exhibit any of the
problems his system set out to cure, and hand to move along to another
poorly setup instrument to demonstrate.

Anyway, I don’t think the system is bad as long as the tech is good. I wish
there was a bit more honesty about how tuning really works, but I
suppose that’s sales and business for ya. It can be complicated for many
anyhow, and the BF system offers them something simple and “certified” –
certified, meaning someone printed a certificate or insignia to offer a
feeling of confidence and authority.

I don’t plan on selling it. I just feel the claims contradict the points that I
try to educate my clients on too much, and I would feel hypocritical in
selling it. I tell them what I do, and advise that I will try to get their
instrument at it’s best for them.. Then try to help folks understand
what limitations do exist.

Even with the points I mentioned above, it is only typical for me to do
this on guitars getting set up straight before studio work. For most other
purposes, the time spent in chasing the perfection wind is too expensive,
and offers slight improvements that will never be realized by a guitarist in
a four piece band anyway. A quick, good,, but less extreme fifteen
minutes with the intonation will get the guitar to 90%+, and beyond that
is irrelevant to many players. Besides, there is a level of perfection you
can shoot for that is so abstract it will likely be changed with the slightest
variable – like when you change your underpants.


So I don’t have any real animosity or disrespect for most shops who offer
the BFTS. There are two main groups of techs here I believe, Those like
yourself Dave, who seem to be knowledgeable about intonation and
temperament, but offer the BFTS due to market demands without actively
pushing it. That's just fine by me, and I respect that. Then there is a wider
group I believe of those who are rather innocently ignorant of how tuning
and intonation really works, and sell it because they truly believe that it is
the best option. I don’t think good techs should be ignorant on such
matters, but this is a very complicated and not often taught topic, so I see
it as forgivable.

That’s my short simple answer. The long one keeps getting longer, and
may soon turn in to a book on intonation and temperament of fretted
instruments, including commentary and analysis on a wider variety of
compensation systems. We’ll see.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

Very, very well said....

http://www.proulxguitars.com/clients/temperament/

there's the link t the pdf. Once there, clicking on it will give you the PDF to view, and right-clicking, the "save as' will download it to your computer.

Here is a direct link.

Here

_________________
Waddy

Photobucket Build Album Library

Sound Clips of most of my guitars

Thanks! How did you get a direct link? I can't get anything to work on this stoopid forum software...? None of the buttons up above the typing window seem to work.

I meant "live" link...

Oh, and the edit "feature" was present in forums in the previous Century. No reason not to be up-to-date here. With the number of sponsors/advertisers I see up top, the income generated here should cover an upgrade every couple weeks/months....

[QUOTE=Rick Turner]I came to see and hear that there was more error in
fretting hand pressure than in any guitar made reasonably well. [/QUOTE]



Ain't that the truth! 



Now---what about lower strings?  Just this week I finished a
multi-scale 8-string solidbody electric (tuned E-B-E-A-D-G-B-E on 25.5"
to 28" scales), and I spent a REALLY long time with an Excel
spreadsheet and CAD program to calculate coordinates for the fret ends
and draw a tempate for the fret slots, replete with properly
compensated witness points for the saddles etc (NOT using the Novak
system BTW).  Happily, after a proper setup, the resulting
fretboard checked out quite nicely on a strobe tuner (thank
God...because it is a set-neck...).  Then again, I rarely play
chords that involve only the tip of my index finger!



When I saw the title of this thread today, I naturally thought "low-B"
until I started reading it.  Now go to a low 8th string as well,
and the intonation issues really become fun.



My low-B is quite nice (0.058" on a ~27.6" scale) all the way to
#12.  I'm using 0.085" as my very-low-E, and find that if I tune
it spot-on open, that all my fretted notes are a bit sharp.  This
one slot may be slightly high, but I think that string tension is more
the issue...the pitch of the open string is all over the place when I
first pick it, then it settles in...this is telling me (I guess) that
the tension is a bit too low.  I think compared to the overall
tension for this one string (which I calculate is ~19 lbs), the
additional tension that is added upon fretting (as a percentage of the
total tension) is so large that it makes every fretted note sharp.



If I tune the 0.085" to F# or G, the problem almost goes away, so I
don't think it is the slot being too high.  So now the question
is...do you think I'd benefit from a thicker string for my 8th? 
Or have I reached diminishing returns on a 28" scale?

Nah, I get the little popups, they just don't work. enter the URl, click it, and it's gone.... same for the italics, etc.. those, I know how to do manually, but live links, I forget...

All moot.

David,

Thank you for your reply. I guess I hit a nerve with you on this .

Please remember I am not the keeper of the "holy grail". I use the system as a Starting point only on my guitars. When some one wants the system retro fitted I install it and again, use it as a starting point. I spend a great deal of time on each instrument and hence the fee.

I have heard similar sentiments/resentment from other California Luthiers toward Buzz and his camp. With all due respect, I think as a result of the many competent luthiers, like yourself, commenting on the BFTS errors and flaws he now teaches the system to luthiers more accurately and as a stepping off point rather than a set "do this and it will be perfect type system".

Unfortunately, there are bad techs installing the system. Feiten has a new president - Allen Wald. He has created a "level I" tech under the assumption that a video and a computer program could train techs to install the system properly on ELECTRIC guitars ONLY. This type training would therefore broaden the potential installer market and therefore get the system on more guitars. I believe this to be a grave error.

I have seen "level I" work and most that I have seen, is being done very badly. IMHO it is a result of poor training by the Buzz Camp for these type techs. It is also the fault of the tech who is letting/doing substandard work leave his or her shop. Unfortunately A lot of the people doing repairs and building guitars in general, seriously lack in both skill and knowledge in this crucial area.

I think we need more people like You, Ervin, Sylvan, Rick, Al, Brune, Erlewine and others to publish and teach those of us who want to learn. Even though we have some great luthiery schools, many simply don't teach enough on this topic. Perhaps in times past, people simply accepted poor intonation work as something they just had to put up with. They simply didn't realize things could and should be better.

At the very least Buzz and Greg openned my eyes and thought process to look deeper into this. Many people don't or can't afford to attend classes. Without any sort of certification, we can only rely on the consumer to weed out the bad from the good. 

Placebos...every profession has them to one extent or the other. As human beings we tend to buy the sizzle and not the steak. For some it's enough just to smell the steak. 

I think the fact that we are having a discussion on this level is great. This is what I wish this forum would  be more about. The basics are great, but there is so much more out there to learn if we want to take the time and spend the effort. Thanks for taking your time to teach us.

 

_________________
Dave Bland

remember...

"If it doesn't play in tune...it's just pretty wood"

David, that's a great amount of knowledge. Thanks for sharing. Everyone
else too.

When I was a kid I studied with a guitar teacher named Neil Haverstick
who was and is way into "microtonal" music, and he taught me quite a bit
about tunings and temperament (even if I just wanted to be able to shred
like John McLaughlin at the time ). Anyway, he's a very cool and
interesting guy, and if anyone is interested in learning about and hearing
some "western" music in non 12 tone, check him out.

www.microstick.net

He is also a big fan of John Starrett's ideas

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/microtone.html

_________________
Mike

"The Dude abides. I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners. Shoosh." The Stranger

Bass strings...a whole next level of strings that don't play in tune with themselves.   

Bass strings are generally too stiff to have anything resembling true harmonics. The best of them are the (by American standards) Thomastik-Infeld "Jazz" rounds and flats.

Disclaimer time...one of my business partners is the importer for T-I strings...

Back to the issue...T-I's bass strings are among the most flexible on the market, and they tend to be quite a bit lighter gaged than the typical American thumpers or the Brit twangers. To my ears they play much more in tune with themselves than any other (electric) bass strings.    I helped to develop the T-I Acousticore strings which have a nylon stranded core overspun with bronze, and these are remarkably in tune with themselves.   Why? Because they are incredibly flexible. That is the key to it all.

BTW, "stretching" the tuning on a piano is a bit of a dark art and is why some pianists prefer one tuner over another.   It is the art of deciding just how far sharp to tune ever higher strings in order for the fundamentals and second harmonics to come closer to matching second and fourth harmonics of lower notes which are sharp to their natural fundamentals. That's the super simple explanation... How much to stretch and where to do it, which harmonics are important in this excercise...that's the dark art place, and because different pianists can bring out different harmonic structure with their touch, so too can different tuners match a "stretch" to a pianist's style.

And this has nothing to do with moving the nut or bridge!