What's a good tuner for intonation?

[Bacchus]

Before the invention of digital/strobe tuners people would use a clock or other such time piece to tune instruments. The human ear is good, but it has never been good enough.

Source. I know right now three concert violinists who tune and intonate by ear. And they play professionally in a symphony. This whole concept is fucking surreal. You all can't actually believe this.

Firstly, your friends play in an orchestra. A symphony is a form of orchestral piece. Also, I know many, many orchestral musicians, and a few professional ones.

A violinist can't but intonate by ear. That's the nature of the instrument. Violinists will tune by ear, but it's never accurate, hence the gorgeous sound of a string orchestra, that sort of fuzzy sound you get when you have fifty or so string instruments that all are all ever so slightly out of tune with each other. It's the same with any large ensemble, for instance, brass instruments will always be out of tune with each other because they are all slightly different shapes, made from different pieces of metal, by different people, being played by different people, and are all different temperatures (oddly, on a brass ensemble, the slightly out of tune-ness does the opposite and gives a brash, striking sound. That's the nature of the instruments, I suppose)

I'm not going to give you a source for people using time as a means of tuning instruments, as any sources I have access to, you don't. There is probably documentation on the internet if you want to see what you can find, but the sources I've read are all articles taken from journals and written by the worlds leading musicoligists. They discuss temperament, even temperament and tuning techniques from say, oohhh, the sixteenth century to the eighteenth.

I'm not saying that the ear isn't adequate for most purposes, I'm saying that people have always tried to have a more accurate and measured way of doing it. Bach tuned his harpsichords by ear, without so much as a tuning fork, and it worked for him. In other circumstances, that wouldn't be practical (say, tuning a church organ to a specific temperament).

[Pens]

Touche, caught me on a transposed word. I get confused because the major orchestra here is the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra, which two of the violinists I personally know are part of, and is often referred to as the "Saint Louis Symphony". Now that is addressed as it has nothing to do with the discussion...

When I watch someone by ear pick up a violin, and instantly set the bridge and tuner to an exact A with no reference that a digital keyboard hits afterward to verify her tuning, what the fuck else do you call that?

All violins are slightly out of tune? Dude, I really really really want to read where you got this from. Because I have not ever heard of this before. The slight "off-ness" of a string assembly has everything to do with the placement of the fingers on a fretless instrument making each note a slight tinge off when it is played. The strings are in tune always. I have never ever heard of what you are talking about. I want a reference for that.

Now, lets go back to this original argument, which I can't even f'ing believe I'm having. You honestly think that +5 cent difference the strobe is going to do is somehow more accurate? Then lets play this stupid game. You do realize that you can change the pitch of the 12th fretted noted by at least 20 cent just by how hard you press the string, right? So what did you tune it to with that strobe? How hard was it pressed? How should that be considered any more accurate than a properly trained ear fretting it and tuning it to exact? Nit-picking over this stupid shit like a strobe tuner is so kindergarten when you compare it to the face that a tiny change in pressure on the string can change that "amazing accuracy", and honestly it's the reason I've heard "strobe intonated" guitars be fucking off, because they just fret it arbitrarily, set it until the strobe says it's right, then move on to the next string. They haven't accounted for the fact that it sounds off because they didn't fret it the way the player will fret it. Reliance on such bullshit is killing the art of just fucking listening and training your ears to hear pitches.

Really I am so baffled here that a group of otherwise intelligent musicians would honestly be so stubborn and indignant to what is so completely logical. Am I the only one that finds the trend of refusing to train your ears to hear pitches disturbing? Not only that, but refusing to believe that it is even possible to intonate without a digital tuner?

Fuck it's like you all are trying to claim that there's no way to communicate to someone with out a computer.

[Bacchus]

All violins are slightly out of tune? Dude, I really really really want to read where you got this from. Because I have not ever heard of this before. The slight "off-ness" of a string assembly has everything to do with the placement of the fingers on a fretless instrument making each note a slight tinge off when it is played. The strings are in tune always. I have never ever heard of what you are talking about. I want a reference for that.

By out of tune I don't just mean on the open strings but more on the stopped notes. They will all be slightly out. I can't give you a reference for this, I only know it from having experience writing for string instruments (and for very good players, too) and having talked to other composers about it. I suppose if you read a few books on orchestration and composition you might find something on it. Alfred Blatter's book on composition and orchestration is excellent, but from memory it's all practical advice rather than discussions like this.

Now, lets go back to this original argument, which I can't even f'ing believe I'm having. You honestly think that +5 cent difference the strobe is going to do is somehow more accurate? Then lets play this stupid game. You do realize that you can change the pitch of the 12th fretted noted by at least 20 cent just by how hard you press the string, right? So what did you tune it to with that strobe? How hard was it pressed? How should that be considered any more accurate than a properly trained ear fretting it and tuning it to exact? Nit-picking over this stupid shit like a strobe tuner is so kindergarten when you compare it to the face that a tiny change in pressure on the string can change that "amazing accuracy", and honestly it's the reason I've heard "strobe intonated" guitars be fucking off, because they just fret it arbitrarily, set it until the strobe says it's right, then move on to the next string. They haven't accounted for the fact that it sounds off because they didn't fret it the way the player will fret it. Reliance on such bullshit is killing the art of just fucking listening and training your ears to hear pitches.

Really I am so baffled here that a group of otherwise intelligent musicians would honestly be so stubborn and indignant to what is so completely logical. Am I the only one that finds the trend of refusing to train your ears to hear pitches disturbing? Not only that, but refusing to believe that it is even possible to intonate without a digital tuner?

Fuck it's like you all are trying to claim that there's no way to communicate to someone with out a computer.

I never said what my opinion is on strobe tuners. I said that there have always been attempts made to find a more accurate way of tuning instruments than by ear. That is fact. All the shit about violins doesn't really matter, but I'm right there too.

[Pens]

Stopped notes being slightly out is due to the placement of the fingers on the fretless instrument, not the intonation of the instrument.

Dude, I don't mean to stomp on your shit here, I understand you're in uni for this stuff, but I'm telling you I have listened to people getting paid twice what I do to play violin in an orchestra, and I've listened to their daughter who was sent to some school in Austria (or something like that, little details such as that don't get retained in my mind) for classical violin and has long since passed the uni for this stuff, I can assure you they fucking know how to intonate their instrument. You don't get taken seriously unless you can in that field. And I've personally witnessed perfect pitches being done, cold, and she tuned that violin with no reference. It's all trainable, and necessary.

If you aren't arguing with my point, then why are we arguing? My disgust was with the statement that you can't intonate by ear, which I remain behind. You jumping in saying that violins are not in tune either I don't believe, I do know what you are referring to (that girl told me the name for it but I can't remember) but the cause was due to being a fretless instrument and imperfect fingering, not the tuning of the instrument. How that has anything to do with being unable to intonate by ear, I have no idea. What exactly are you arguing here?

[Bacchus]

We're not arguing. You're making stuff up about the classical tradition and I'm trying putting you right.

I can assure you they fucking know how to intonate their instrument. You don't get taken seriously unless you can in that field.

How do you set the intonation on a violin? You don't know what you're talking about here.

[Pens]

We're not arguing. You're making stuff up about the classical tradition and I'm trying putting you right.

I can assure you they fucking know how to intonate their instrument. You don't get taken seriously unless you can in that field.

How do you set the intonation on a violin? You don't know what you're talking about here.

It was explained to me by her when she was shifting the bridge into position that she was setting the tuning of it to make sure it has proper placement. The way it was explained to me the bridge has to be reset every time the instrument is taken out to make sure it's "tuned properly" otherwise the pitch will be off.

I'm not "making stuff up". That's a loaded statement. I haven't "made anything up", I detailed my experiences and conversations with people who spent every day since they were 3 playing classical violin.

What the fuck does this have to do with "you can't intonate by ear" anyway?

[Bacchus]

It was explained to me by her when she was shifting the bridge into position that she was setting the tuning of it to make sure it has proper placement. The way it was explained to me the bridge has to be reset every time the instrument is taken out to make sure it's "tuned properly" otherwise the pitch will be off.

That's not setting intonation. That's putting the bridge where she's used to having it. The intonation is set by the fingers, and is always slightly off. Always (well, I suppose it's bang on perfect sometimes, but that's more by default than anything).

I'm not "making stuff up". That's a loaded statement. I haven't "made anything up", I detailed my experiences and conversations with people who spent every day since they were 3 playing classical violin.

You inferred that in the past, everything was done by ear. It wasn't. There have also been instances where your inexact use of specialist terminology with respect to orchestral strings has meant that untruths have been stated.

What the fuck does this have to do with "you can't intonate by ear" anyway?

Absolutely nothing I'm just making the point (again) that people in the past (Mozart et al) used different technologies for tuning instruments other than their ear.

[Pens]

It was explained to me by her when she was shifting the bridge into position that she was setting the tuning of it to make sure it has proper placement. The way it was explained to me the bridge has to be reset every time the instrument is taken out to make sure it's "tuned properly" otherwise the pitch will be off.

That's not setting intonation. That's putting the bridge where she's used to having it. The intonation is set by the fingers, and is always slightly off. Always (well, I suppose it's bang on perfect sometimes, but that's more by default than anything).

I'm not "making stuff up". That's a loaded statement. I haven't "made anything up", I detailed my experiences and conversations with people who spent every day since they were 3 playing classical violin.

You inferred that in the past, everything was done by ear. It wasn't. There have also been instances where your inexact use of specialist terminology with respect to orchestral strings has meant that untruths have been stated.

What the fuck does this have to do with "you can't intonate by ear" anyway?

Absolutely nothing I'm just making the point (again) that people in the past (Mozart et al) used different technologies for tuning instruments other than their ear.

Alright, this clears a few things up. Point made, and yeah I can accept that I swapped a few terms incorrectly, I get in a rush to make my point and don't always correct my terminology at time. I can accept that I misunderstood what she meant, I made an inference to guitar bridge setting when she said that.

I completely misunderstood what point you were trying to make, yeah I am sure they have tried in the past to use some other way to tune, but for centuries it has mostly been done by ear, and the assertion that you must have a strobe tuner to have it done is retarded, and I stand by that.

[Doog]

Ugh, do not want no more internet arguments for a while...

Intonation doesn't have to be set by a strobe tuner, I never said that. I've tuned and intonated with a Korg tuner of some sort for years with few problems, and of course people have set up guitars in the past without tuners (using pitchpipes or piano for reference I'd imagine, rather than totally by ear).

But strobe tuning isn't mojo bullshit, it's actually science. It's MORE ACCURATE. Maybe you're just got an amazing ear, who knows. I'd like to hear your ear-intonated guitar. Seriously, I'm not being sarcastic. I consider myself having a pretty sharp ear, and I know I couldn't intonate a guitar as well as a tuner can.

It's easier to tune by ear since you're playing strings against strings and can get that "beating" oscillation to get it close as possible. Intonating, you're alternating between the open and the 12th fret (or harmonic), you've got no solid reference.

Anyways, I'm done. I'm moving house now, so please address all further exclamations to:

Doog
London
UK

[Mike]

Personally I think you can use any decent tuner, strobe or otherwise, to intonate a guitar accurately.

I think once you start talking about strobe tuners being the only way to do this, you have to realise this is undercut by the fact that:

- a guitar can never be perfectly in tune across the neck, so what are you using that accuracy for? It's always a compromise
- some guitars only have 3 saddle bridges, what does the accuracy bring you there?

I find the blanket statement that you NEED a strobe tuner to intonate a guitar ridiculous, because it is. I'm not saying they're not more accurate, I'm saying it is not necessary in the majority of cases.

[Pens]

Mike pretty much just summed me up here.

Andy, I posted samples on my Facebook. Have a listen at my "by ear".

My point is, your ear hears it, so if your ear can't hear a +-5 cent difference, does it matter? No, it doesn't.

Yes, I hear octaves. I hear the harmonic octave vs the fretted octave. In the samples you'll hear my weakness, the low E. I have trouble hearing that one.

I is done with this. I've had too much whiskey to continue.

[Bacchus]

Basically, if you want to tune your guitar properly you have to use a fucking violin, because that's how Mozart did it and that's where the mojo is, unless it's a three saddle tele bridge, in which case it already has mojo built in so it doesn't matter that it doesn't intonate.

[Pens]

Actually, the only proper way to intonate a guitar is to shove a pineapple covered in crystal meth up a cat's asshole. It's the only fucking way.

[paul_]

Actually, the only proper way to intonate a guitar is to shove a pineapple covered in crystal meth up a cat's asshole.

That only gives you a reference for A#

[Pens]

Actually, the only proper way to intonate a guitar is to shove a pineapple covered in crystal meth up a cat's asshole.

That only gives you a reference for A#

Then you're doing it wrong.

[dots]

It's the difference between "reasonable" and "dead-on". The human ear is not as accurate as a strobe tuner that is pumping out SCIENCE. These things exist for a reason.

agreed & +1 on the strobe-o-stomp. i can tune by ear, too, but i prefer to have more accuracy especially when intonating.

[paul_]

My dad was telling me about how he wrote a paper in school on this exact subject, this thread reminds me of it so much. He was saying he'd written a paper in '68 or so about a strobe being more accurate for tuning instruments, after I was showing him the Petersons, he asked my mum "Do you remember me doing that stuff with the scopes and piano?"
and she said "I remember you going on and on with some guy in a student bar who said you could never tune any instrument more accurately than with the human ear and you wouldn't have it."
"Eh?? OHHH that fucking plonker, don't get me started on him..."
"I think he played the organ or something..."
"He played with HIS organ quite often, I'm sure."

[Pens]

Except I never said you couldn't be more accurate than the human ear. I said the notion that you can't do it without a strobe tuner is bullshit, and you can easily get as close as necessary with an ear.

[Sloan]

FUCK A TUNA.

[Pens]

FUCK A TUNA.