Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass Simandl 30 Etudes Music Minus One
- Thread starter SAlcott
- Start date
Wouldn't you need to use the Amazing Speeder Upper in this case?
Just sayin'.
I don't have it. I'm OK with retuning to use the CD. I'm not playing with others for quite a while as far as I can see right now.
I check the tuning of all recordings I play against. Most are not proper and I adjust my Tascam GTR-1 to make the recording match what it should. The Tascam will adjust the pitch without affecting speed and speed without affecting pitch. You can quickly change keys, and fine adjusts by 1/100 ie .01 to .99. Most are close between .03 to .10. I mark all the books with the adjustment needed. I recently downloaded an app for my phone that will adjust the pitch without affecting speed and speed without affecting pitch also. It's much faster to adjust the playback when changing books. It sure beats the old Marantz PMD222 cassette recorder which could change pitch but it did it by changing speed. But it could drop the pitch by 1 octave by going half speed.
I always copy the cds from all lesson books to the Tascam so I could change them easier, and have the handier.
I found the Simandl 30 ETudes accompaniment very helpful, I really need to hear my practice in context.
I was told long ago they often changed up the speed of recordings at some point prior to making the masters to make them "brighter".
Not really. Hz is a linear scale, cents is logarithmic, so you can't really calculate it like that.
For example the interval between 1Hz and 2Hz is 1Hz (2-1=1), but as a musical interval it is an octave (1200 cents).
But for your calculation, the correct math wouldn't change the result too much.
It's really close enough.
I get all that. We're talking A=440 and A=437 and Ab = 415, and what I said is plenty close enough. Ab is 415.3 Hz if you want to be pickier about it but that doesn't change what we're talking about any more than talking about logarithms does.
Like you said and like I said, what I said was really close enough.
When I said, "here" in "The math is easy _here_ because Ab is 415 at A=440, so it's 25 Hz (440-415) for 100 cents. Each 1 Hz is 4 cents," "here" meant at this level of pitch, at A=440 and Ab = 415. At other pitch levels, it changes, e.g., an octave lower, it's 12.5 Hz between A and Ab, so each 1 Hz is 8 cents, and an octave higher, it's 50 cents between A and Ab so each 1 Hz is 2 cents, and so on, and so on. The math is less easy when the number of Hz difference (between two pitches that are a half-step apart) can't be divided evenly into 100 (because cents are 1/100th of a half-step).
And none of these, except around A=440, are precisely accurate, anyway. If you check the pitch on most pianos, each octave is stretched - made larger than a doubling or halving of frequency - due primarily to something called inharmonicity. It's quite common for the top and bottom notes of an 88-key piano to be 10 cents sharper or flatter, respectively, than "up an octave is double the frequency" would suggest. The smaller/shorter/cheaper the piano, the more the inharmonicity. So maybe that Ab is really 415.0 and not 415.3 after all ... I've tuned console pianos where I gave up even noticing how flat the bass notes where when I got to them being 20 cents flat.
So, like we're both saying, the math I did is more than close enough for the purposes of this discussion. It's as easy rolling off a logarithm.
We cool?
-S-
I just set the tuner to 437, tune up, and play.
We cool. No offense from my side.It's really close enough.
I get all that. We're talking A=440 and A=437 and Ab = 415, and what I said is plenty close enough. Ab is 415.3 Hz if you want to be pickier about it but that doesn't change what we're talking about any more than talking about logarithms does.
Like you said and like I said, what I said was really close enough.
When I said, "here" in "The math is easy _here_ because Ab is 415 at A=440, so it's 25 Hz (440-415) for 100 cents. Each 1 Hz is 4 cents," "here" meant at this level of pitch, at A=440 and Ab = 415. At other pitch levels, it changes, e.g., an octave lower, it's 12.5 Hz between A and Ab, so each 1 Hz is 8 cents, and an octave higher, it's 50 cents between A and Ab so each 1 Hz is 2 cents, and so on, and so on. The math is less easy when the number of Hz difference (between two pitches that are a half-step apart) can't be divided evenly into 100 (because cents are 1/100th of a half-step).
And none of these, except around A=440, are precisely accurate, anyway. If you check the pitch on most pianos, each octave is stretched - made larger than a doubling or halving of frequency - due primarily to something called inharmonicity. It's quite common for the top and bottom notes of an 88-key piano to be 10 cents sharper or flatter, respectively, than "up an octave is double the frequency" would suggest. The smaller/shorter/cheaper the piano, the more the inharmonicity. So maybe that Ab is really 415.0 and not 415.3 after all ... I've tuned console pianos where I gave up even noticing how flat the bass notes where when I got to them being 20 cents flat.
So, like we're both saying, the math I did is more than close enough for the purposes of this discussion. It's as easy rolling off a logarithm.
We cool?
-S-
I just found it strange, that you said, the math is easy and then did a totally wrong calculation. Like saying multiplication was the same as addition because 2+2=2*2
I'm pretty sure, you know what you're talking about, but I don't know, if everybody else also knows this, when reading your calculation.
I have seen many times badly understood maths and miscalculations in music book, presented as facts. Just because someone ignorantly quoted a simplification or reduction.
I love that app. The speed function is brilliant for creating something at the right speed for a student to practice with.
In that spot in the frequency range, the math is easy and 2+2 does give the same result as 2*2. I apologize for over-simplifying and not saying I was over-simplifying. I was trying to help make a connection between 437 Hz and the cents that show on many tuning apps.
I'm a private teacher for a living - sometimes, I over-simplify something because that's what my student needs to hear. I used to always add the disclaimer, "I'm over-simplifying but ..." and go on with what I wanted to say, but then I started feeling kind of pompous for doing that, since all that saying, "I'm over-simplifying but .." accomplishes is to remind the student I know more than they do and I'm breaking it down in a way that's going to be most useful to them. They already know that, and I already know that, so there's no point in me reminding us both about it. It was a more appropriate disclaimer to add when I taught college because there were enough people in the room that there was a reasonable chance someone already understood what I was about to say at a deeper level than I was about to teach it.
Talkbass isn't a private lesson, and a lot of different folks are reading along, including people like you who can and do understand things without it being explained as being simpler than it really is, and I need to remember that, too. My apology again, and no offense intended towards you whatsoever.
-S-
I have this problem with another recording. If you don't have perfect pitch, how do you all find out the correct pitch?
Tuning your bass to the recording until it sounds right and then check your tuning to the tuner?
Using a tuner to the recording and watch out for a note that's holding long enough so that the tuner reacts?
Using a piece of software that analyzes the music? If you do, which one do you use?
I use method one but I'm currently not trusting my ears that much so I'm feel that subtleties like 440 to 442 are beyond my abilities with that method and I want to make sure.
Tuning your bass to the recording until it sounds right and then check your tuning to the tuner?
Using a tuner to the recording and watch out for a note that's holding long enough so that the tuner reacts?
Using a piece of software that analyzes the music? If you do, which one do you use?
I use method one but I'm currently not trusting my ears that much so I'm feel that subtleties like 440 to 442 are beyond my abilities with that method and I want to make sure.
In the case of the Simandl Etudes, there are tuning notes at the beginning of the CD. Your method 1 would be my choice.
