In comp.dsp rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: (snip)> The fundamental is not necessarily the strongest. Often the second > harmonic is stronger... or first harmonic depending on your > terminology (0/1 based). I have done similar things, but not > where I didn't know the input freq. Here you have to first > figure out which string is being played.The ones I know of don't tell you which octave, only which note. So the second harmonic is just as good. -- glen
Electronic Guitar Tuners
Started by ●August 13, 2012
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:12 -0500, Richard Owlett <rowlett@pcnetinc.com> wrote:>rickman wrote: >> [snip] >> I think I'll push the customer to use this. >> > >Back in the 60's I was TV service tech. >I had to learn when and HOW to diplomatically "fix the >customer". >My Dad was a Motorola TV dealer in the 50s. They had a particular customer that they couldn't please who made vague complaints about picture quality that were never resolved from service visits. My Dad sent a new service tech to the customer and never heard another complaint from them. When asked what he did, the tech said he misadjusted the vertical hold a little bit so that the picture rolled vertically, then asked the customer to pick a good one that went by and he'd lock it in for them. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:01:53 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:>In comp.dsp rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > >(snip) > >> The fundamental is not necessarily the strongest. Often the second >> harmonic is stronger... or first harmonic depending on your >> terminology (0/1 based). I have done similar things, but not >> where I didn't know the input freq. Here you have to first >> figure out which string is being played. > >The ones I know of don't tell you which octave, only which note. >So the second harmonic is just as good. > >-- glenExcept that for stringed instruments the harmonics aren't at exact multiples of the fundamental, so tuning to a harmonic may put the fundamental at a slightly different frequency. People tune guitars accurately by ear using the harmonics (sort of) all the time, though, so it could be that the difference isn't significant. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications www.anchorhill.com
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
On 8/14/12 7:35 PM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:> > Except that for stringed instruments the harmonics aren't at exact > multiples of the fundamental, so tuning to a harmonic may put the > fundamental at a slightly different frequency. > > People tune guitars accurately by ear using the harmonics (sort of) > all the time, though, so it could be that the difference isn't > significant.i think the error to be first concerned about is not that the harmonics are slightly sharp of their integer-multiple value (relative to the fundamental). it's that just intonation (which is what you get when tuning strictly with the harmonics and nodal points) is not the same as equal temperament. specifically: 2^(5/12) is not exactly the same as 4/3 . -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
In comp.dsp Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote: (snip, I wrote)>>The ones I know of don't tell you which octave, only which note. >>So the second harmonic is just as good.> Except that for stringed instruments the harmonics aren't at exact > multiples of the fundamental, so tuning to a harmonic may put the > fundamental at a slightly different frequency.That is true, but for most they aren't so far apart. The piano bass strings use copper wire wrapped steel to add more mass, but not so much more stiffness. (It is stiffness that shifts the harmonics.)> People tune guitars accurately by ear using the harmonics > (sort of) all the time, though, so it could be that the > difference isn't significant.If you want to get that close, then you have to worry about the difference between well-tempered and equal-tempered, and most people don't do that. The ear is especially sensitive to beats, but not so sensitive (compared to a frequency counter) to absolute pitch. Also, if a higher harmonic is louder, then that is likely the one you will hear. Though the tuners I know about aren't specifically for guitars. They are used for flutes, violins, and many other instruments, though those could still have significant harmonics. -- glen
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
Eric Jacobsen wrote:> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:01:53 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt > <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> In comp.dsp rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >>> The fundamental is not necessarily the strongest. Often the second >>> harmonic is stronger... or first harmonic depending on your >>> terminology (0/1 based). I have done similar things, but not >>> where I didn't know the input freq. Here you have to first >>> figure out which string is being played. >> >> The ones I know of don't tell you which octave, only which note. >> So the second harmonic is just as good. >> >> -- glen > > Except that for stringed instruments the harmonics aren't at exact > multiples of the fundamental, so tuning to a harmonic may put the > fundamental at a slightly different frequency. > > People tune guitars accurately by ear using the harmonics (sort of) > all the time, though, so it could be that the difference isn't > significant. >That will bias you towards Just or even Pythagorean temperament. Might be a problem, might not be.> > Eric Jacobsen > Anchor Hill Communications > www.anchorhill.com >-- Les Cargill
Reply by ●August 14, 20122012-08-14
On 8/14/12 6:53 PM, Rob Gaddi wrote:> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 17:47:12 -0500 > Richard Owlett<rowlett@pcnetinc.com> wrote: > >> rickman wrote: >>> [snip] >>> I think I'll push the customer to use this. >>> >> >> Back in the 60's I was TV service tech. >> I had to learn when and HOW to diplomatically "fix the >> customer". >> > > That's generally pretty simple. A pair of scissors, needle, thread, > and a big plastic cone to keep them from scratching at it after. >ooooh, that reminds me of, about 13 years ago after my 2nd daughter was born, when my wife took me to the vet. when i first learned of the joys of Percocet. arf. -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●August 16, 20122012-08-16
On 8/14/2012 8:54 AM, Dave wrote:> > There's a whole sub-culture of there of DIY guitar players - making > their own stompboxes etc. > So using the almighty google and searching "DIY guitar tuner" gives > some useful results. You can take a look at the circuitry in some of > these links to see what they're using: > > http://www.schickt.de/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080606-004307 > > http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=88097.0 > > http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=4416.0 > > http://www.instructables.com/id/Visual--Aural-Guitar-Tuner-The-Tune-Trainer/?ALLSTEPS > > Cheers, > DaveThanks, I did that and found a few dozen myself. I learned a lot from a wikipedia page on commercial products including some that are high end and strobe based. That might be a useful way to go. I just have to find something that isn't too much work. Rick
Reply by ●August 17, 20122012-08-17
On 8/16/12 7:52 PM, rickman wrote:> On 8/14/2012 8:54 AM, Dave wrote: >> >> There's a whole sub-culture of there of DIY guitar players - making >> their own stompboxes etc. >> So using the almighty google and searching "DIY guitar tuner" gives >> some useful results. You can take a look at the circuitry in some of >> these links to see what they're using: >> >> http://www.schickt.de/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080606-004307 >> >> http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=88097.0 >> >> http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=4416.0 >> >> http://www.instructables.com/id/Visual--Aural-Guitar-Tuner-The-Tune-Trainer/?ALLSTEPS >> >> >> Cheers, >> Dave > > Thanks, I did that and found a few dozen myself. I learned a lot from a > wikipedia page on commercial products including some that are high end > and strobe based. That might be a useful way to go. I just have to find > something that isn't too much work.do you think auto-correlation is too much work? -- r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
Reply by ●August 18, 20122012-08-18
On Friday, August 17, 2012 10:09:40 PM UTC-4, robert bristow-johnson wrote:> On 8/16/12 7:52 PM, rickman wrote: > > > On 8/14/2012 8:54 AM, Dave wrote: > > >> > > >> There's a whole sub-culture of there of DIY guitar players - making > > >> their own stompboxes etc. > > >> So using the almighty google and searching "DIY guitar tuner" gives > > >> some useful results. You can take a look at the circuitry in some of > > >> these links to see what they're using: > > >> > > >> http://www.schickt.de/comments.php?y=08&m=06&entry=entry080606-004307 > > >> > > >> http://www.diystompboxes.com/smfforum/index.php?topic=88097.0 > > >> > > >> http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=4416.0 > > >> > > >> http://www.instructables.com/id/Visual--Aural-Guitar-Tuner-The-Tune-Trainer/?ALLSTEPS > > >> > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Dave > > > > > > Thanks, I did that and found a few dozen myself. I learned a lot from a > > > wikipedia page on commercial products including some that are high end > > > and strobe based. That might be a useful way to go. I just have to find > > > something that isn't too much work. > > > > do you think auto-correlation is too much work? > > > > -- > > > > r b-j rbj@audioimagination.com > > > > "Imagination is more important than knowledge."Hi Robert I wonder if you can interpolate auto-correlation peaks, since I don't think snapping to the nearest integer number of samples will be accurate enough. I've never seen this done before but I don't see why it couldn't be done.
