Publishing RTTA results?

[Terry McGee]

Interesting thought Carey.

Does anyone know if it's easy to "stretch" MIDI pitch? I wonder if we could somehow use a flute MIDI recording (yes, I know they sound ghastly!) to test what we think of flute recordings that have a stretched scale (like my much maligned Metzler) or a flat scale or a compressed scale (top notes flat ref low notes). Indeed, it wouldn't ahve to be a MIDI recording, it could be a human if we could somehow manipulate the pitch. We'd need to keep the middle of the range correct (eg middle C) but be able to compress and stretch the notes around it.

Ideally we should be able to switch in and out a reference track of a fixed pitch instrument to see whether we have differing opinions of what's best solo and in session.

Terry

[Jon C.]

I'm still bored. Most modern flutes are in tune enough to allow a player of reasonable skill to play in tune enough to satisfy all but the most obsessed of listeners. The ones that aren't ought to be easy enough to spot. We as players should be training our ears to recognize if there's a problem, not squinting at a little graph. If you need a computer to tell you if something is out of tune, then why exactly does it matter if it is or not?

I was so bored, I missed your comment Rob, good one!
Maybe we can make another forum for tuning? Just a thought. When you hear players like Catherine, kind of puts everything in perspective.

[Terry McGee]

Heh heh, but not so bored that either of you could resist reading the thread and commenting!

If you need a computer to tell you if something is out of tune, then why exactly does it matter if it is or not?

Um, how about for the sake of the rest of the people in the session?

I see and hear of lots of flute players taking a tuner along to the session to tune up. Admirable, in my view, if they don't feel confident enough to tune by ear in the often rough'n'tumble acoustic environment of the session. But what point tuning to A4 if the rest of the flute, or the flute playing, is all over the shop, and A4 is nowhere near the middle of the scatter?

I bet when old Galileo first invented his telescope, the astrologers all poked fun at him needing magnification. After all, they could see the stars quite well enough with the naked eye.

Terry

[Flutered]

I bet when old Galileo first invented his telescope, the astrologers all poked fun at him needing magnification. After all, they could see the stars quite well enough with the naked eye. Terry

Ah but, at the end of the day, the 'old astrologers' probably had as good an insight, if not better, into the fundamental questions of 'life and what it all means'. Sometimes one can't see the forest for all the trees or the hear the music for all the notes..

I still find this debate interesting though and the software is an interesting tool. BTW, I ran a few class recordings of Catherine McEvoy through Flutini and guess what - the graph showed she was almost bang on.

But, I suspect there is more to it than that - the better Irish trad to my ear anyway often has a strong touch of 'wildness' about it - take Fintan Valelly's recording on the Flute Obsession 1, I think it is (picking that, as many here would have it). That's wonderful music, full of character and committment but I suspect if you analysed it, it's probably a bit 'all over the shop'. Here someone will do just that and prove I'm wrong!!!

[hans]

I see and hear of lots of flute players taking a tuner along to the session to tune up. Admirable, in my view, if they don't feel confident enough to tune by ear in the often rough'n'tumble acoustic environment of the session. But what point tuning to A4 if the rest of the flute, or the flute playing, is all over the shop, and A4 is nowhere near the middle of the scatter?

For initial tuning up you obviously should tune to G, not A, unless you know exactly how quirky your A is. But if you not feel confident enough to tune your flute by ear you better play accordion
Being able to adjust each note's tuning while one plays, and doing so by ear, seems essential to me.

I don't see much value in RTTA for analysing someones playing, or would not trust such analysis. The ear is a much better instrument for this, including subjective impressions. Don't waste time playing against a tuner, or Flutini. Record your playing and listen to the recording gives you much better insights.

But for makers RTTA can have a value I can believe. It is up to makers to take up using this new tool in order to help them improve their flute making. Publishing RTTA graphs of their instruments should be left to them, if they wish to do so.

How many makers here are starting to use RTTA, and how many are comfortable to publish RTTA graphs for their flute models? Unless we can see significant support from many makers in this respect no RTTA graphs should be published regards other maker's flutes.

This thread was started to find out about this, but I don't see much support yet from other makers apart from Terry and Graeme.

[groxburgh]

I was so bored, I missed your comment Rob, good one! :D
Maybe we can make another forum for tuning? Just a thought. When you hear players like Catherine, kind of puts everything in perspective.

Is that it Jon? That's the best you can come up with? We know there's some flute players who have trouble playing in tune despite their best efforts, including at least one who has posted here playing a flute you made. We finally have a tool that if used correctly could tell us what's going on and you're bored?

Rod Cameron, Terry McGee, Maurice Reviol, Dave Copely, Hammy Hamilton, Jonathon Landell.... all think RTTA is a tool that could be used to teach us something, but you don't?. Make sure you tell your customers that you find discussion about flute tuning boring.
Cheers
Graeme

[Carey]

Everyone is different in how they take in information. There are very useful plots of financial information and some folks still preferred columns of numbers. Some folks are early adopters and some wait for the bugs to be shaken out of a new product or technology. Some use CNC machines and others use treadle powered lathes.

I have to think enjoying the process of making flutes is why makers make. Some enjoy the R&D and learning how to make flutes. Some enjoy the making of chips and the smell of fresh wood. For some RTTA will change the process for the better, and for some using RTTA holds no interest at all.

I'm a graph reader. I LOVE RTTA. I also like that poster of a 747 cockpit. More dials are better for me. But I can understand some folks not being drawn to it, especially in the stage where there are many unknowns.

Onward! Back to the releasing of plots question....

I was impressed with the insight Terry had in reading crookedtune's plot. Not too many folks would see what he saw. Interpretations of raw charts will be all over the map. I don't think maker's names need to be attached to the plots and just posted. If you have truely learned something useful - good or bad - I see no reason a maker's name shouldn't be known once there is a fact or conculsion to a study.

That said, the tool is in the wild, and what will happen, will happen. Recordings are posted with names. Reviews are posted with names. Maybe RTTA will start to be used in some reviews. The posting of plots with names is not a problem. Invalid conclusions made from looking at the plots is a problem. (People being bored and not looking at the plots is not a problem.)

I say counsel people against attaching names where names are not truely helpful or where misinterpretations could besmirch a maker needlessly. I want makers spending time making, not running defensive PR campaigns. But in the end any information posted and the consequenses threof is the responsibility of the poster.

[monkey587]

Is that it Jon? That's the best you can come up with? We know there's some flute players who have trouble playing in tune despite their best efforts, including at least one who has posted here playing a flute you made.

And there we go, you just used RTTA to cast FUD a living maker because of one random inexperienced player. How scientific of you.

[flutefry]

Graeme's last post directed at Jon strikes me as an object lesson on how to misuse RTTA. Graeme what's the point of your pious disclaimer about not using an RTTA plot to make a judgment about the flute/flutemaker if it's not to prevent posts like your last one?

Seems to me that the RTTA can do a lot of good to improve flute design. Too bad Graeme prefers to use it as a weapon.

Hugh

[greenspiderweb]

Some are drawn to Science, some to Art. When something gets too technical, with graphs, charts and such, I tend to flee, even if it is about Art (or Music in that sense).

I can understand Greame's enthusiasm, but one should not hold what's true for himself to be true for all others in any matter, let alone Science and Technical subjects. I haven't read any of this up to this point, except for flutefry's comments, which made me look. I don't intend to read it either-that's just me. Bored? Probably, or more to the point-I don't have the head for it, nor the patience. There are those who are born to analyze, and those who are not. Good we have both!

Think I'll go play a flute now.

[Jon C.]

I was so bored, I missed your comment Rob, good one!
Maybe we can make another forum for tuning? Just a thought. When you hear players like Catherine, kind of puts everything in perspective.

Is that it Jon? That's the best you can come up with? We know there's some flute players who have trouble playing in tune despite their best efforts, including at least one who has posted here playing a flute you made. We finally have a tool that if used correctly could tell us what's going on and you're bored?

Rod Cameron, Terry McGee, Maurice Reviol, Dave Copely, Hammy Hamilton, Jonathon Landell.... all think RTTA is a tool that could be used to teach us something, but you don't?. Make sure you tell your customers that you find discussion about flute tuning boring.
Cheers
Graeme

The program can be usefull, but the avaglistic overtones remind me of a RTTA religion, where you are making me out to have just commited a mortal sin for telling you how boring it is. So I would say to you, lighten up a little, it is just a tuner, and it will not change the world.
I find the program tends to be colored by the player, more then the flute being played.
So now I will tell all my future customers, "I find this topic boring" and please buy a flute from one of the above mentioned flute makers, who have embrassed the new found religion.
It is nice not having customers, gives me more free time, to play the flute.

[daiv]

Heh heh, but not so bored that either of you could resist reading the thread and commenting!

If you need a computer to tell you if something is out of tune, then why exactly does it matter if it is or not?

Um, how about for the sake of the rest of the people in the session?

I see and hear of lots of flute players taking a tuner along to the session to tune up. Admirable, in my view, if they don't feel confident enough to tune by ear in the often rough'n'tumble acoustic environment of the session. But what point tuning to A4 if the rest of the flute, or the flute playing, is all over the shop, and A4 is nowhere near the middle of the scatter?

I bet when old Galileo first invented his telescope, the astrologers all poked fun at him needing magnification. After all, they could see the stars quite well enough with the naked eye.

Terry

i never used to, but this past weekend i brought a tuner to a session. but i do not use it the whole time, i only use it once.


here's how i use it: instead of saying, "give me an A," i tune my entire flute in about 10 seconds max. i hit an A, a G, low D, twiddle around a bit, and then move my slide so that i am within 10 or 20 cents sharp or flat for all notes, pu the tuner away, and do it all by ear for the rest of the session. instead of getting one note right, i go for a median tuning, putting none of the notes on ideal pitch, so that none are too far to adjust on the fly. i set up the flute so that i can tune by ear, not so that i can expect it to be in tune.

i agree, in that it is unrealistic to say, "well, this note is the most representative on my flute, so i shall put this one dead on." if i put none of them dead on, i can use my ear to make all of them in tune. having an unrealistic benchmark, for me, makes it impossible to get those one or two notes that are furthest out to the right place.

[daiv]

I see and hear of lots of flute players taking a tuner along to the session to tune up. Admirable, in my view, if they don't feel confident enough to tune by ear in the often rough'n'tumble acoustic environment of the session. But what point tuning to A4 if the rest of the flute, or the flute playing, is all over the shop, and A4 is nowhere near the middle of the scatter?

For initial tuning up you obviously should tune to G, not A, unless you know exactly how quirky your A is. But if you not feel confident enough to tune your flute by ear you better play accordion
Being able to adjust each note's tuning while one plays, and doing so by ear, seems essential to me.

I don't see much value in RTTA for analysing someones playing, or would not trust such analysis. The ear is a much better instrument for this, including subjective impressions. Don't waste time playing against a tuner, or Flutini. Record your playing and listen to the recording gives you much better insights.

But for makers RTTA can have a value I can believe. It is up to makers to take up using this new tool in order to help them improve their flute making. Publishing RTTA graphs of their instruments should be left to them, if they wish to do so.

How many makers here are starting to use RTTA, and how many are comfortable to publish RTTA graphs for their flute models? Unless we can see significant support from many makers in this respect no RTTA graphs should be published regards other maker's flutes.

This thread was started to find out about this, but I don't see much support yet from other makers apart from Terry and Graeme.

of course. let no one put their work up for peer review, and let no one refute what has been published. let's keep all the bones in the closet.

some makers make their flutes out of tune on purpose. some make them out of tune because they cant make them in tune. both could be helped by RTTA.

just because no one is showing support for it doesnt mean its not valid. terry's ideas for headjoint design to prevent cracking are very good ideas. i have never heard of anyone else using them. this does not mean that terry's ideas do not work, or that the other makers are bad. it just means that nobody else has bothered to use them.

RTTA can tell you whether or not the computer thinks you are in tune. this is very valuable to know. however, that does not mean you have to obsess over it. it is great way to make you a more mindful player, not a more technology-laden practicer. there is no reason to not use a tool available to you, and i think the best tools help you focus your attention back on yourself and your playing. that does not mean there is anything wrong with your flute, or your playing, but the fact that you think about your playing and your tuning is never a bad thing. a tuner is a great tool. checking your flute against a tuner can tell you your flute is out of tune, and where. it makes it easier to hear, as it makes you more aware. as a crutch, it is like all other unnecessary crutches--debilitating. if i practice, i use a mirror to watch my embouchure, which makes me play better when i am not looking at a mirror. i record myself to know how to play better when i am not recording myself. every once and a while, i play to a tuner to see how the math works out.

one concern of mine for tuners and RTTA is that i have never heard whether or not these tools register wooden/antique flutes correctly, nor have i heard what role the harmonics and tone color have to do with the psychoacoustic, perceived pitch of the wooden flute tone. i know that many tuners do not register piccolo's, and sometimes i wonder at the tuner as well. i can play a steady tone on a silver flute, with a clear tone, and the needle will not move. if i have a reedy tone, the needle will move. i suspect that sometimes these machines are registering the overtones as the note, or being confused. for psychoacoustics, i suspect that although (the fundamental of a) note may not be in tune, the harmonics may be lined up in a way as to make the ear hear it in tune. how do tuners work? do they take the loudest pitch, or do they take a mean of all the overtones, or do they look for the fundamental?

i know that the ear hears things differently than machines measure them. it is very difficult to get actual readings on amplitudes and pitches, as you have to run algorithms to compute what the ear perceives compared to what the machine is measuring, due to the logarithmic nature of hearing, hearing thresh holds, and interference between notes and overtones.

none of this discounts or says anything at all, but that i wonder. likewise, as stated above, i dont think that these tools should be either taken to be gospel truth, or be cast aside as heresy. ultimately, it comes down to whether or not you want to use a tool to help you make a decision; tools should never make your decisions for you.

[Jack Bradshaw]

Interesting thought Carey.

Does anyone know if it's easy to "stretch" MIDI pitch? I wonder if we could somehow use a flute MIDI recording (yes, I know they sound ghastly!) to test what we think of flute recordings that have a stretched scale (like my much maligned Metzler) or a flat scale or a compressed scale (top notes flat ref low notes). Indeed, it wouldn't ahve to be a MIDI recording, it could be a human if we could somehow manipulate the pitch. We'd need to keep the middle of the range correct (eg middle C) but be able to compress and stretch the notes around it.

Ideally we should be able to switch in and out a reference track of a fixed pitch instrument to see whether we have differing opinions of what's best solo and in session.

Terry

It should be easier to "stretch" or otherwise manipulate MIDI because of the way it generates each note. The "live" recordings can also be "stretched" to any given function the same way that frequency is shifted. ie. take the fourier (Fast Fourier) transform, and instead of a linear shift, use the "whatever" then transform back.

Some one who works w/ either packages could probably do it (relatively)easily....

A nice system would be the transform type w/ the ability to ask for a simple function rather than just the amount of frequency shift.

Any volunteers ?

Edit: Just thinking...the MIDI type wouldnt have any problem w/ harmonics because it uses a lookup table. The transform type would need to restrict the range of variation to an octave (ie the same function for each octave) so that the harmonics would remain coherent......

[eskin]

Yes, I've setup my Roland JV1080 with specific offset tuning for each note in the scale to compare various temperments, so its fairly easily done.