Love your videos, you definitely have deep knowledge about math, physics and music (of course). I'm an engineer, so I love to see explanation about music in a logical way like yours!
It took me a minute to find the differences between the tuning systems, but finally I got it. There's much more warbling when you aren''t using just tuning
Excellent video! It was great (and rare) to be led through the sound of these different tunings in such careful detail in addition to learning the theory. The oscilloscopes helped too. Thanks!
Very interesting. The beading of the tones is noticeable. I've found myself retuning my guitar using my ear rather than tuner sometimes for certain chords while recording .. try as I might to intonate my guitar even when intonated more or less perfectly some chords don't sound pleasing unless I retune the guitar slightly
I have this calling to start making healing music that correlates to sacred geometry and I'm still in learning phase after few years watching videos. One problem is that I have not learned basic music theory well enough either, so I have to concentrate to many different things at the same time. I have used synthesizers since mid 90's and for a while have picked ones that have microtuning presets / intonation tables like Yamaha DX11, TX81Z, Kurzweil K2500 and Mutable Instruments Shruthi-1. There's so much info videos made by skeptics who are trying to convince everybody that whole A=432hz thing is bollocks, while believers stick to that there really is something there. I think that cymatics shows it perfectly what it is all about. :) Just like your examples, pure tuning doesn't have that hmm.. . distortion or beating. I also believe that all chakras have their frequencies and we can tune ourselves with pure tones, so that our whole being works better and we become healthier plus feel good if listening music made with pure tones and harmonies made with them. Implementation to music production seems complicated. Not all instruments can be used because they are fixed to equal tuning. Those music converter softwares that are available are just pitchshifting or bending file down so that A=432hz, and that alerts all the skeptics because microtuning preset / intonation table doesn't change to anything. Intervals stay what they were. Which I fully agree. So far I have found out that tuning equal temperament 32 cents down is just one step and not enough. We need to use _just intonation_ or _pure tuning_ as well. Is there something that I missed? Your examples show that by far worst scenario is when two tuning systems are used at the same time (huge beating) and I really want to prevent that happening. I guess I need some oscilloscope software / plugin to check results myself before using. Is there suitable VST's for that? And how about the actual composing. If I tune master tune from all machines 32 cents down and choose pure / just intonation, is there any do's and don't that I should know? Are some chords / intervals then a no go?
Personally I find beating desirable. Singing Bowls always have beating because they are vibrating in multiple directions simultaneously. I also don't think we should be binary with our tuning systems. You can be fluid between them. There are affordances offered in equal temperament that are unavailable in just, an vice versa. Composing is complex, there is no one right way of doing it, but I would say there are wrong ways of doing it.
Great video! I have a question, what would you say classical music usually tunes to as far as these variations? From my understanding, string instruments intonate by ear, and from other videos I've seen, just intonation seems to sound better than equal temperament. So to elaborate, when violins for example, intonate, are they naturally tuning to just intonation in the specified key?
Well classical music has a lot of modulation. String players tend to intone not always to specific keys for the whole work but adapt depending on the current harmonic context. i.e they might play #F different if they are playing in D-major vs B-minor, which could happen in close succession.
@@NathanNokes We also intone differently depending on the other instruments. Playing string quartets is a different way of playing from playing with a piano.
fantastic explanation complementing it with the previous vid. Helped me a lot with my acoustics class ! Btw, I would like to know what's the name of the program you're using there. Thanks! Regards from Argentina !
Some real string would sound infinitely better than sine wave synthesizer pitches. either piano strings, 2 guitar strings, etc. - the strings have a natural color to them because of the overtones. the goal is also to sound good- you'll never get there using computer generated tones.
I'm always interested in how people respond to these topics. It seem to invoke some interesting emotional responses. I think I would have handled this topic in a new way if I made this video again today. But the choice of examining tuning without overlaying it on music was in part a choice of trying to introduce ideas with clarity. I tried to base it on standard techniques in teaching music theory. Theory is always reductionist in a way, any analysis must simplify, to make comparisons. IE an analysis of the voice leading in Mozart 40, will most likely leave out dynamics and instrumentation, so that the focal point is on the thing being anylized. I do have some objection to this idea of a "right" tuning system. What do we mean by right?. It could be "right" in a historically informed practice sense. Right in terms of cultural practice -both western and non western- Or right in terms of how much it adheres to preconceived parameters either artificial or natural.
Now come on, you didn't play any chords there. Noone's gonna understand why they should care so much about tunings if you don't play some chord progressions, ideally using timbres that have fairly loud overtones, like harpsichords, strings, or some reed organ stops (or combine reeds with pipes).
It really stood out to me when you played anything other than equal temperament. 7 years of band has really drilled equal temperament into my brain.
Love your videos, you definitely have deep knowledge about math, physics and music (of course). I'm an engineer, so I love to see explanation about music in a logical way like yours!
It took me a minute to find the differences between the tuning systems, but finally I got it. There's much more warbling when you aren''t using just tuning
Excellent video! It was great (and rare) to be led through the sound of these different tunings in such careful detail in addition to learning the theory. The oscilloscopes helped too. Thanks!
Excellent video and explanation. 👍
Thanks for your careful and clever demonstration.
Very interesting. The beading of the tones is noticeable. I've found myself retuning my guitar using my ear rather than tuner sometimes for certain chords while recording .. try as I might to intonate my guitar even when intonated more or less perfectly some chords don't sound pleasing unless I retune the guitar slightly
I have this calling to start making healing music that correlates to sacred geometry and I'm still in learning phase after few years watching videos. One problem is that I have not learned basic music theory well enough either, so I have to concentrate to many different things at the same time.
I have used synthesizers since mid 90's and for a while have picked ones that have microtuning presets / intonation tables like Yamaha DX11, TX81Z, Kurzweil K2500 and Mutable Instruments Shruthi-1.
There's so much info videos made by skeptics who are trying to convince everybody that whole A=432hz thing is bollocks, while believers stick to that there really is something there. I think that cymatics shows it perfectly what it is all about. :)
Just like your examples, pure tuning doesn't have that hmm.. . distortion or beating.
I also believe that all chakras have their frequencies and we can tune ourselves with pure tones, so that our whole being works better and we become healthier plus feel good if listening music made with pure tones and harmonies made with them.
Implementation to music production seems complicated. Not all instruments can be used because they are fixed to equal tuning.
Those music converter softwares that are available are just pitchshifting or bending file down so that A=432hz, and that alerts all the skeptics because microtuning preset / intonation table doesn't change to anything. Intervals stay what they were. Which I fully agree.
So far I have found out that tuning equal temperament 32 cents down is just one step and not enough. We need to use _just intonation_ or _pure tuning_ as well.
Is there something that I missed?
Your examples show that by far worst scenario is when two tuning systems are used at the same time (huge beating) and I really want to prevent that happening.
I guess I need some oscilloscope software / plugin to check results myself before using. Is there suitable VST's for that?
And how about the actual composing. If I tune master tune from all machines 32 cents down and choose pure / just intonation, is there any do's and don't that I should know?
Are some chords / intervals then a no go?
Personally I find beating desirable. Singing Bowls always have beating because they are vibrating in multiple directions simultaneously. I also don't think we should be binary with our tuning systems. You can be fluid between them. There are affordances offered in equal temperament that are unavailable in just, an vice versa.
Composing is complex, there is no one right way of doing it, but I would say there are wrong ways of doing it.
Ashton Kutcher teaching me temperament. This is amazing.
Great video! I have a question, what would you say classical music usually tunes to as far as these variations? From my understanding, string instruments intonate by ear, and from other videos I've seen, just intonation seems to sound better than equal temperament. So to elaborate, when violins for example, intonate, are they naturally tuning to just intonation in the specified key?
Well classical music has a lot of modulation. String players tend to intone not always to specific keys for the whole work but adapt depending on the current harmonic context. i.e they might play #F different if they are playing in D-major vs B-minor, which could happen in close succession.
@@NathanNokes We also intone differently depending on the other instruments. Playing string quartets is a different way of playing from playing with a piano.
Nathan Nokes my prof and I were just talking about this today in my bass lesson, and he lead me to your videos. Thanks for making these!
Hey could you post an example of precise temperament tuning tuned to 432.081216? Thank you!
What program do you use to do this?
max msp
fantastic explanation complementing it with the previous vid. Helped me a lot with my acoustics class ! Btw, I would like to know what's the name of the program you're using there.
Thanks! Regards from Argentina !
The program's called Max MSP there is a free version of a very similar program called PD. It's basically a music programming language.
Thank you very much! Regards from China !
🤯thank you
Some real string would sound infinitely better than sine wave synthesizer pitches. either piano strings, 2 guitar strings, etc. - the strings have a natural color to them because of the overtones. the goal is also to sound good- you'll never get there using computer generated tones.
Hey, Nathan. I'm looking to interview someone on tuning. Can I contact you somehow? Thank you.
Hi Ana, my email is nathan.nokes@gmail.com. My schedule is a bit crazy at the moment, but I might be able to find a time.
whats the name of this program?
Max MSP
@@NathanNokes thanks alot!
i didn't hear anything
Comparing intervals in a vacuum outside the context of music is not fruitful for determining right intonation.
I'm always interested in how people respond to these topics. It seem to invoke some interesting emotional responses. I think I would have handled this topic in a new way if I made this video again today. But the choice of examining tuning without overlaying it on music was in part a choice of trying to introduce ideas with clarity. I tried to base it on standard techniques in teaching music theory. Theory is always reductionist in a way, any analysis must simplify, to make comparisons. IE an analysis of the voice leading in Mozart 40, will most likely leave out dynamics and instrumentation, so that the focal point is on the thing being anylized.
I do have some objection to this idea of a "right" tuning system. What do we mean by right?. It could be "right" in a historically informed practice sense. Right in terms of cultural practice -both western and non western- Or right in terms of how much it adheres to preconceived parameters either artificial or natural.
Now come on, you didn't play any chords there. Noone's gonna understand why they should care so much about tunings if you don't play some chord progressions, ideally using timbres that have fairly loud overtones, like harpsichords, strings, or some reed organ stops (or combine reeds with pipes).
Thanks for your careful and clever demonstration.