|
I have an anal-retentive correction to make to the otherwise good OP. At the bottom of the OP equal temperament tuning is mentioned. The method described has nothing to do with equal temperament, and actually, if correctly performed, will definitely result in deviations from it. Tuning theory (and temperament in particular) is frequently misunderstood, so I felt I should clear this up. Tuning by comparing the harmonics over the 5th and 7th frets (the 4th and 3rd partials) will ideally result in pure, pythagorean relationships between the strings, where consecutive strings (excepting between the G and B strings) are a perfect fourth away from each other, a 3:4 ratio apart, and approximately 498 cents. An equal tempered fourth is exactly 500cents. Thus, following the posted directions, you would (ideally) get an E string 2 cents sharp, an A string in tune, a D string 2 cents flat, a G string 4 cents flat, a B string 4 cents sharp, and an E string 2 cents sharp. The worst is the 408 cent major third between G and B, which is 8 cents sharp of equal temperament, and 22 cents sharp of just (pure) intonation. This is mostly not so bad, as 2 cents is bordering on inaudible in most circumstances, and 4 cents still isn't a big deal. That one major third sucks pretty bad though. In practice, the real problem with this method is that there is opportunity to compound error. For example, if you, say, tune the D string a little sharp, and the G string a little sharp, it can add up to a fairly substantial error. The ideal (aside from tuning each string to its own reference) is to tune all the strings to one string, preferably on fretted notes and octaves, as these should theoretically be accurately tempered. Thus, one could: Tune A to a pitch fork or other pitch reference Fret E string at fifth fret, compare to open A string Fret A string at fifth fret, compare D string to this Play 12th fret harmonic of A string, compare 2nd fret of A string to this Play 5th fret harmonic of A string, compare 10th fret of B string to this Play 5th fret harmonic of A string, compare 5th fret of high E to this Of course, guitars never intonate perfectly accurately, so anything you do is likely to need small corrections, which are best done by comparing various octaves on different parts of the guitar, if you'd like to be very accurate. One should not ever tune to chords because the 3rds in equal temperament are supposed to be off. And strings are subtly inharmonic, maybe throwing off some of those harmonics off very slightly. I don't even do the above proceedure. I tune quickly by harmonics, and make a few quick octave checks, if I'm not using an electronic tuner. This is all terribly nerdy, and I mostly just think the OP should just remove reference to equal temperament. cpach fucked around with this message at 04:19 on Oct 4, 2010 |
#
¿
Oct 4, 2010 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
CalvinDooglas posted:I don't know why tuning temperament would even be relevant to beginners. It's hardly relevant to professionals. It isn't. It's my own weird subspecialty interest, but I'd prefer if people didn't mix up a topic that's already commonly misunderstood. I think the OP should just delete all reference to temperament and it'll be golden. Teaching beginners the importance of getting their instruments reasonably in tune is super important, though. When I was starting, I quit a group classical guitar class because the class couldn't get their drat instruments in tune. Instead I joined the intermediate class, despite my inability to read. I just practiced like crazy for a while to catch up (I already knew open chords and stuff). It drives me insane to hear out of tune guitars, because really it's an easily preventable, mechanical problem that dramatically effects whether you are painful to listen to. cpach fucked around with this message at 11:47 on Oct 5, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2010 09:39
|
|
|
Spruce posted:So today I went into a guitar store and the girl there recommended I try a baby Taylor and baby Martin. For those two it seemed like I would be able to reach all the strings comfortably after some practice. They were ~$350, but I noticed that neither brand was listed in the OP where it talked about companies for good budget guitars. Do other companies make small less-expensive guitars, or is $350 a good price and those are my only options? I went to some of the websites of the companies listed in the OP, but each product list is full of cryptic letter/number names and I'm not really sure what characteristic I'm looking for beyond "pretty small." And I haven't been very successful at finding overall length when I look at individual models, which makes it hard to determine smallness. I haven't played the Baby Martin, but the Baby Taylor is a pretty good guitar. My 3 second google search reveals that it can be had for $300 online. I wouldn't be adverse to paying some premium to buying from a good local store, especially since you can check out the guitar in person. For example, I bought my Seagull S6 Slim because this particular guitar stood out to me, even having played lots of other Seagulls. Keep in mind that there are a lot of proportions on guitars that effect different things. If you have small hands proportional to your body, then the size of the body might not be that important. Regardless, the specification that determines how far it is from one fret to the other is scale length. Normal, "full" scale lengths are usually between 25.5" (Fender Stratocaster, Classical Guitars) to 24 3/2 (Gibson Les Paul), with 24" being a somewhat common short scale length, and below that being a very short scale length. I would advice against a scale length shorter than 22.5, as that's already starting to veer pretty far away from standard. Other things to be aware of is the width of the neck(specs usually given at the nut), and it's depth (usually unadvertised). Lots of people with smaller hands play full sized guitars, but there's not a very compelling reason to do so if you're uncomfortable with it now--you can reassess that when you're more comfortable Small guitars are nice to have regardless--they're easier to carry around, and for travel. I have a Martin Backpacker which I would in no way recommend unless you backpack or similar (I do), but having something that I travel with more easily is very nice. Something like the Baby Taylor would be easier to carry than a full sized acoustic, and actually sound like an OK guitar (unlike my backpacker). My quick google check revealed no other inexpensive short scale guitars. The Baby Taylor is a pretty reasonable value, though. If you realized you don't need a very short scale length, I'd recommend a Art & Lutherie Folk or Ami guitar, which have a 24.8 scale length, a little shorter than some builders, but not dramatically like the Baby Taylor. cpach fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Oct 6, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 03:52
|
|
|
A preamp shouldn't make a meaningful acoustic difference, especially on a low to mid-end guitar. Those B-Band pickups are supposed to be really awesome, actually. I'd be way more concerned about a guitar top made from a hardwood, although from the specs I guess it's also laminated? That guitar is expensive for a laminated top, even with good electronics. I mean, really, if the preamp were causing a degradation of acoustic quality, you'd notice it when you tried it out. Please go try one out--shopping for acoustics really should be done by ear, unless you find a mindblowingly good deal on a very well reputed model. I'll admit that it looks good, but there are good reasons that most guitars are made with spruce/cedar/maybe redwood tops. There are some very good mahogany, maple, and koa topped guitars, but none of those woods are really similar to cocobolo. With something as unusual as this, you have to at least try it out first.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
Stumpus posted:Anybody have any experience with Guitar Method books? Trumpet has Arban's which is a must for a player. Is the Mel Bay one this? I started on that one, and it's OK at teaching you reading in first position and working up some chords, but most of the music is rather unappealing (at least for me) and the book overall feels very 1950s. I wouldn't particularly recommend it. If you're talking about another one then I don't know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2010 04:51
|
|
|
Dickeye posted:So I've spent the last four days playing with no amp. Woo. Stupid dorms. Do you mean to plug headphones into the amp? Those're usually 1/4" TRS, so you'd typically need a 1/8th" (3.5mm) to 1/4 TRS adaptor. Someone in your dorm probably has like 5 of the drat things lying around, or you can spend like $3 at a Radioshack. The headphone amp on most amps (except modeling amps, maybe) tends to be pretty poo poo, but whatever. Practicing on unplugged electric is less ideal because you don't hear your string noise and muted notes and such as clearly, although it's not really as big a deal when your technique is already pretty clean. I do it a lot. If you can get a soundcard with an DI in for your computer amp simulators, including the limited edition or some free ones, can be a good way to practice. Then you can lay down your own rhythm tracks, play to a metronome, drum tracks, etc. Obviously this can be a lot more setup and can cost a bit more, but it's fun, and makes a great practice environment when you can't crank up an amp. I only ever play through my real amp when I'm playing with others these days.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
Incredulous Dylan posted:I am currently shopping around for an electric and I have come across the following two items at guitar center: I have no idea about that coupon business, but I really like the 72 Thinlines. I gave serious thought to buying one at one time. It was a tossup for me between that, a Cort M800 (a hollowbody shaped kinda like a PRS), and an Ibanez SZ320. The Ibanez was cheaper and had a more conventional, solidbody tone that I thought would work in a few more situations, although honestly any of them would be fine for what I end up doing. Still, from what I remember the 72 had a really nice bit of hollow body component to its sound, and the pickups are definitely distinct from PAF-alikes in a way I liked. They also look cool as hell. It would probably make a great blues guitar for you. I figure it'll work great if that's what you want, although for $800 there's tons of great guitars, especially if you scour the used market. I have never played through one of those amps. If you think it's great then more power to you. Otherwise, you could afford a more expensive amp if you purchased a used or cheaper guitar. For $200 less you could get an G&L Legacy Asat Special Semi Hollow, which is similar in that it's a semi-hollow Tele, but has wide single coils instead of humbuckers. The pickups probably sound lots different, but maybe you'd like it?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2010 08:31
|
|
|
Incredulous Dylan posted:Thanks for the good advice there. My only hang up with the used market (besides the usuals) is the whole deal with the coupon, as it may allow me to buy a new guitar for what a used might run, so hopefully someone here may know something about it. I am definitely looking for more suggestions, and will be scouring my local Best Buy music store for other used guitars in the interim. Sounds awesome. Glad you got stuff you really like. I like both that amp and guitar a lot -- it's a good, practical, reasonably versatile setup.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
ChiliMac posted:I'm not really "new" to guitar (just sucky) but I'm looking for a good midrange guitar that preferably is: a) fixed bridge (already have a tremolo guitar) b) body shaped similar to the Ibanez S-series c) not a POS...that's about it. Thus far I have only found one: Incidentally, Ibanez pretty much used to do exactly this (the SZ series, later the SZR series with somewhat different necks etc). S-ish body style, except much less contoured around the back, set neck, wider neck, 25.0" scale. I love my SZ-320 more than is reasonable (it's the earlier model, made in 2003, with the mystery generic ibanez pickups, instead of the duncan designed, and I probably wouldn't change them even if price wasn't an issue). They have the advantage of being rather cheap. I do deeply hate the weird flame inlays on the higher end models though. I like the neck feel: 25.0" with 10s is about the perfect string tension for me, and it's reasonably substantial feeling, and the radius is rather flat. It sounds good acoustically, and the pickups really work for me. It's wired so that the middle position is the outer coil of each pickup in series, and it's a really great clear sound. The neck does about as good a jazz sound as I'd expect from a solidbody, and the bridge is pretty agressive for playing with gain. This general style of guitar is made by a number of manufacturers. Schecter's C1 series and Corts M series come to mind. These are all pretty nice guitars. cpach fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Dec 1, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2010 04:47
|
|
|
ChiliMac posted:Thanks for all your help guys, at the very least I learned that Kort makes a seemingly identical guitar. I liked the Cort M series stuff a lot when I tried it. I almost got a M800 (the hollowbody one), but ended up with the SZ320. It's likely whatever the hell you get is made by Cort anyways regardless of label.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2010 09:38
|
|
|
Nahdrav: Yamaha Pacificas are pretty reasonable instruments, and I think you'd probably enjoy playing it a lot. The cost on the plane is the only thing that would give me some pause, but I'd vote that it's probably worth it. I don't have a good idea of what it'd cost, but it'd be worth looking into the cost of shipping it separately compared to the airline. Also if you weren't flying, I'd probably advise you that a hardshell case isn't probably critical for an inexpensive solidbody guitar. And c'mon--strings start at like $3.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2011 05:27
|
|
|
404notfound posted:Are there any tricks to doing barre chords in the shape of 13331? It always trips me up when I'm switching chords quickly, and I can't find a way to reliably use only one or two fingers to press on the lower frets. I fret with my index finger immediately behind the 1 fret, curled back, with my ring finger barring the 3 fret so that the first segment forms the bar, and it is bent back immediately at the first segment. If I'm at all sloppy I frequently end up muting the 2nd string, but it's not very important. Stricter technique and it rings clearly again. I can fret the chord a few other ways but they're all incredibly awkward and I would almost never use them. Getting partial bars on the non-index fingers is a very useful thing to be able to do. For example my favorite voicing of G7b9b13 is 323444, using the pinkie finger to get the upper 3 strings.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2011 09:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Strats are pretty sweet guitars, and are a fine choice of first guitar. I can't comment on their suitability for Bowie particularly, though. Go ahead and get the guitar now. If this is your plan, you'll need one eventually, and honestly the mechanical skills of fingering chords and scales are rather apart from music theory and general musicianship skills. I'd probably recommend learning them in tandem. I started mostly playing strumming chords and learning songs, which is fun/rewarding and builds a solid base to build on at the same time. Go ahead and learn theory, sightreading, musicianship, etc at the same time though. Your previous musical experience will certainly be helpful, especially if you remember about chord formation and voicing from keyboard.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2011 00:01
|
|