If your main focus is to teach people how to tune a guitar, you should consider mentioning that you always want to tune a sharp guitar string to slightly below the correct pitch and then tune it up.
Any slack present in the string winding can cause the string to go out of tune easily if you loosen the string to the correct tension. Tightening to the correct tension doesn't have that problem.
If your guitar has locking tuners, this isn't necessary because there is no string winding and therefore no slack. For anyone who doesn't know, a locking tuner clamps down onto the string to hold it in place instead of having the string wound around it.
This picture is of a locking set of tuners. The person is about to press down the locking mechanism for the low E string to hold it in place. Note that the other strings have no winding around the peg.
Most guitars don't come with locking tuners but I would recommend that everyone use them because they make changing strings so much easier.
Anyways, I really like your web page. Cool stuff.
You can get around that by using harmonics. Because you play harmonics without pushing all the way down, you can achieve a more precise tune.
The strongest harmonic is achieved when you gently place your finger on the string directly over the metal fret. A harmonic can only be achieved when you do not press the string all the way down into the fret.
The harmonic on the 7th fret of one string is the same note as the harmonic on the 5th fret on the next higher string. This is true for all consecutive string pairs other than (G, B).
You can tune using these pairs of harmonics to tune more precisely than pressing all the way down.
You will need to tune the (G, B) pair without harmonics.
If you tune downard tonaly, so from an F# and you want an F, the string will more easily fall out of tune. I am not sure what causes this, some interplay between the friction of the peg and the final resting position of the string on the nut being different depending on the direction maybe. By tuning down perhaps you end up relying on some of the friction from the nut which goes away quickly as the string settles to an equal tension on either side of the nut.
I have noticed it's not as much of an issue on carbon nuts or well made nylon/bone nuts.
The big problem with trying to tune a guitar that way is that you're tuning a guitar so it's in tune when you don't press the strings, but then when you actually play it you do press down the strings. Strings 5 and 6 should be tuned slightly flat relative to the first four, the exact amount depends on your play style, but if you don't tune them a bit flat then they'll sound sharp when you're playing. If you haven't tried this yourself you might guess that it's subtle effect, but depending on your play style it can be huge.
The other problem is that the harmonics are actually 2 cents off of an equal tempered fifth, and if you tune six strings that way you'll end up 10 cents off. Your octaves will sound wrong.
When you press the strings, they will all press equally, playing a correct relative tune.
Hearing loss has no impact on this - unless it's really, really bad, of course.
It's good to be aware of this if tuning by harmonics:
You can also achieve the same stability with regular tuners. You don't need more than a wrap or two around the post if you lock the string under itself.
For a really decent set of el-chepo locking tuners, I highly recommend these:
Also, you can usually solve tuning problems by replacing the bridge and nut with something hard and smooth like Graphtech TUSQ (they call them "self-lubricating", whatever that means).
That's not to say locking tuners are bad, it's just that I don't have problems with tuning on any of my guitars that have decent nuts and decent tuners. I even used to play my Schecter (old 1990 California model Super Strat) without the Floyd Rose nut locks in place because I wanted to be able to switch back and forth between alternate tunings without the hex wrench. No problems with tuning, at all.
Here's a great video on stringing up Klusons: https://youtu.be/GqYrXh4D6wI
I'm always stabbing myself on sharp string ends sticking out of tuners. Safety posts really reduce the bleeding in my life.
It's my experience that locking tuners do help with tuning stability but I've also seen plenty of guitars stable enough without them.
Even if they don't help a guitar with tuning stability, they definitely speed up the string changing process which is worth it for me.
edit: I've just noticed that the link in the parent comment is for "gotoh style" tuners, not tuners made by Gotoh, and I have to say I agree with you about the low quality of cheap tuners. That said, a good set of locking tuners should only cost you $50-$70. Not a bad price.
So, sure, it's nice to have more convenient string changes. But, I don't want cheap tuners, no matter what. It's one of the big things that tells me immediately whether the guitar I'm playing is cheap or expensive. I used to think Klusons looked cheap and old, when I was a kid, but I have grown fond of them after so long playing. It's what's on both of my really expensive guitars (came from the factory that way), and I've never felt the need to change them because they've worked great for decades.
That said, if you've got a cheap-ish guitar and want to improve it, tuners, nut, and bridge are where I'd start (after getting a proper setup, and getting the frets in shape, of course). Also, while I'm ranting about the onion on my belt...bone is a poor choice for nut/bridge material. It has wildly inconsistent density and hardness, and just plain isn't as good as modern materials (and we can note that many of the very best and most expensive guitars today, like PRS, do not use bone).
Depending on the specific guitar I'd also look into swapping the pickups. That usually gives the best sound improvement but does nothing for the playability. Luckily, the playability of a lot of cheap guitars today is very, very good.
I agree that bone is a terrible material. It's only still used for historic reasons, I think. Guitar players are a notoriously superstitious bunch and often times dont necessarily want the best when they can instead have what we thought was the best in the 70s.
The quality improvements that come from heavily automating the process are hard to overstate. CNC machines, and improved metal fabrication methods, have revolutionized guitar making. They're still putting cheap hardware and electronics on the low end stuff, and it shows in the longevity, tuning stability and some other areas, but as you note they mostly play really great right off of the rack.
They're still using cheap-ish wood that doesn't age very well, also. Fret sprout and various sorts of warping is, as I understand it, still much more common on cheap guitars. My 29 year old Schecter has never had a setup or adjustment, and still plays beautifully (frets are a little worn and could probably use a touch up, but still very little buzz). The G&L L2000 bass I have is 31 years old and has maybe had a couple of turns of its truss rod in the time I've owned it. I dunno about any other setup or adjustments in its life as I've only owned it for about half of its life. But, I get the impression that cheap guitars are needing attention within a year or two, mostly because the wood is fresher when they build them and so they aren't as stable.
My G&L ASAT guitar is actually a Tribute, so it's one of the cheapish ones made in Indonesia. It's in need of attention already (quite a bit of fret buzz even without really low action), and it's only a few years old, so it seems to bear out my theory. It's not a "cheap" guitar, and it's not poorly made, but it's not an expensive guitar, either, and I'm guessing the wood was aged/dried for a much shorter period than my American G&L or the Schecter. The only other American-made instrument I have is a Gibson J-45, and it's holding up very well, too, but it's much newer...a 2008, I think.
Even my Gibson J-45 has them; it hasn't always been common for Gibsons to use Klusons, and while the stuff Gibson usually uses is also fine, I prefer the Kluson style. They're aesthetically pleasing in a functional, not showy, way.
I usually use the Fender branded ones because I'm usually putting them in Fender guitars. I've heard good things about Gotoh, Schaller, Planet Waves, Hipshot, and Grover. I'm pretty sure the Fenders are actually just rebrands of one of those manufacturers.
edit: For anyone curious, it seems that Fender American Deluxe's used to come with them and the new American Elite series that replaced the Deluxe's still come with them. I guess they want to keep it as a differentiating feature for their most expensive "modern" guitars. None of their reissue vintage styled guitars come with them, I suppose for authenticity.
You can even buy a $12,000 private stock PRS and it won't come with locking tuners.
edit 2: I've now noticed that the tuners you link to are "Gotoh style" tuners and not actually made by Gotoh. I don't think I would use any tuners made by a name brand I'm not familiar with, locking or not, because they tend to be noticeably lower quality than the bigger brands. There are exceptions, of course.
Grover tuners for the win though. I never used locking tuners, so no opinion on them. I'm good enough changing strings that one turn of the tuning peg is all I need.
This is like "the earth is a sphere", which is mostly right but if you want to be less wrong you have to dive deep.
The instant after a string is plucked, it begins to lose energy. The loss of energy shows up in amplitude (obvious, because the note gradually gets quieter), but also frequency. This is less noticeable, but for heavy strings with low tension (think down-tuned sludge metal) it can be pronounced.
The reason for this is that a vibrating string is constantly bending back and forth. Tension pulls it toward its lowest-energy position in the center. A familiar demonstration of tension is bending a fretted note to increase its pitch. But the same thing happens to a lesser degree whenever the string vibrates. Displace the string left or right and its tension increases.
Strings you consider "better" might exhibit less of this effect. But that depends on both your playing style (how hard do you strike the strings?) and your idea of what a better string is.
"It depends on technique, tension, and string mass" gets you to 95%.
For conventional electric guitars with magnetic pickups, there's an additional force slowing down the string: the magnets in the pickup. These are weird. For one thing, unlike tension, it's not distributed throughout the length of the string, but focused at 1 or a few (for multiple pickups or humbuckers) points. If you imagine the vibrating string as a weight-on-a-string-pendulum, then the effect of the magnetic pickup is like a small mass attached partway up the string. It interferes with the pure sinusoidal motion and gives it a little wobble.
On most guitars, the effect is not noticeable. But some pickups have very strong magnets, or some guitars put them very close to the strings. Then it can be noticed, and guitarists call the effect "wolf tones" and generally they don't like it.
This gets you to 98%.
My point is there's a lot going on. And while a certain brand of strings and/or tuners may work for you, someone else may have an entirely different experience. I get kind of frustrated with the whole guitar "gear" marketing being heavy on hype and light on data, so sorry if I come across as lecturing. My frustration isn't with you, but the context.
That's interesting, I never even thought about that. So theoretically, if you remove one of your pickups, you should get a slightly better tone, and longer sustain, right?
Personally, I never use the middle pickups on my guitar, and actually wonder what they're for. I only use the neck and bridge pickups. I've noticed a lot of newer guitars simply eliminate the middle pickups.
The middle pickup in a Strat-style guitar is often "reverse wound, reverse polarity" which, when combined with one of the other pickups, provides some hum cancellation.
If the neck+middle or bridge+middle combo is in parallel (most are) you'll get a slightly more hollow/nasal tone compared to the neck or bridge pickup alone. The jargon for this is "quack" as in "it has a lot of quack".
If the combo is in series, that's essentially a traditional humbucker (albeit with the 2 coils spaced farther apart than usual). It'll be louder and have more midrange. 2 single coils wired in series like a humbucker can often be too mid-heavy and start to sound "muddy" or "lacking in definition". Real humbuckers can get away with using smaller magnets (ballpark: half the size of single coil magnets) and their close physical spacing means the signals going into each coil are nearly identical, so adding them in series just makes it louder, without making it "muddy".
Often, players who don't use the middle pickup will keep it there but use the height adjustment screws to lower it deep into the pickguard, farther away from the strings. In my opinion, the most practical benefit of this is your pick doesn't bump into it, but there are probably very subtle tonal effects going on.
: Whenever you have "electric guitar" and "subtle difference" together, I demand blind testing before believing anyone else's claims. I trust my own ears, but I know myself well enough that my eyes will fool them.
It really comes down to the wood of your guitar. You can feel the vibration of the guitar when you play, and the difference between one with a lot of sustain vs one without is pretty noticeable.
The pickups and amp, and gain levels also make a difference. The pickups on my guitar are extremely sensitive, so any little touch is quite loud through my amp.
Another odd one is over tune new strings to get stretch, which often gets turned to don't put new strings on a guitar the same day as a show.
Well, call me a rebel, but I don't stretch my strings and I will go one stage 30 minutes after putting on new strings.
These are fine rules of thumb, I suppose, but as you are saying, a lot of nuance is involved.
The only thing I'll flat out disagree on is that old strings sound better... No just no.
I'm not sure stretching matters for the long term tuning stability of the strings but definitely has an effect on the immediate tuning stability. Players who don't bend much and fret/strum lightly might not need the added stability but I like it.
Also, I've only ever heard the old strings sound better thing about flatwound strings, particularly on bass guitars, in which case it's true as long as "good sound" to you means a serious lack of treble.
Which would probably work.
Back in the day I would break strings on stage. Yes, stretching strings helps a lot in that case.
Of course you can only do so much of it before the rest of the band has milked the specially rehearsed for just this occasion "intermission music”, but it really does help.
For maximum tuning stability, I also put locking tuners on my guitars and lubricate all of the parts where the string touches. This includes the nut, the saddle, and any string trees.
I use a humorous product called Big Bends Nut Sauce but I've heard graphite from a pencil works as well.
I’ve found slightly over-tightening most locking tuners will break the string. Not a frequent occurrence for me, but frequent enough to bug me. Usually happens when I’m in a rush.
If you like this one, check out other examples that have been made with the tool here: https://idyll-lang.org/gallery
Another suggestion is to model how the tone will go slightly sharp on the attack. How much depends on how much tension the strings are under, and thus all the things that effect that (tuned note, string tension & scale length).
Otherwise, great work!
Perhaps it's a limitation of Idyll, which was used to make this. Although I'd guess these parts are done in D3.
I checked it out in Firefox. Very neat :)
This time, chrome just feels broken.
What I've been doing is sending a pop-up to users on audio-critical pages (where audio is the entire point of the site) that says "hi, let's get started, you'll hear audio on this page so please adjust your headphones or speakers" and that seems to give the best result. It's also helpful on a page like yours where the sound is quite loud and I found it a bit loud for my headphones. You must also just provide a button that changes the sound volume which would have the same effect, of telling Chrome that the user has interacted with the page.
Furthermore, the intervals E-A/A-D/D-G and B-E are not exactly perfect fourths, they should be equal tempered. Luckily the difference is almost negligible for the fourth, the perfect interval would be 4/3 = 1.3333 versus 2^(5/12) = 1.3348 for equal temperament. The interval G-B however is a major third, here the perfect interval is 5/4 = 1.25 while equal tempered is 2^(4/12) = 1.26 Those minor errors accumulate if one string is tuned based on the preceding one, the interval from lowest to highest strings can be calculated:
(4/3)^4 * 5/4 = 3.95 for perfect intervals,
2^(4 * 5/12) * 2^(4/12) = 4 for equal temperament.
The highest string should be exactly two octaves (= a factor of 4) above the lowest one, so the equal temperament should be preferred. A practical result is that tuning a guitar using only intervals of adjacent strings will never really converge to the ideal result, so tuning (fretted) octaves and flageolets should be used in addition.
I'm not faulting the author for this, I probably would have done the same.
 as korethr described above, I chose to implement it this way because of the samples that I was working with
A just 4th (4:3 frequency ratio) is about 2 cents flat of an equal tempered 4th, and a just major third (5:4 frequency ratio) is about 14 cents flat of the equal tempered major third.
The el-cheapo guitar I bought once just didn't hold the note very accurately over time (i.e. pluck string, then it would vibrate at the correct-ish frequency for ~0.5s, then quickly veer off).
Had to use a spectrum analyzer since the guitar was so out of tune that the electric tuner couldn't even pick up which string it was...
(wasn't my idea to use the spectrum analyzer, back in college a friend of mine tuned his dorm piano - which are much harder to tune - using that technique, worked quite well)
I feel as though "much harder" to tune understates the difference between tuning a piano and a guitar considerably :P
It's ~40x as many strings!
Try tuning a guitar that has a Floyd Rose locking tremelo system. The bridge is floating on a pivot with springs, so the tension of the strings is collectively working against the 2 or 3 large springs on the bridge. So every time you tighten or loosen one string, you're changing the tuning on the other 5! And adjusting intonation is a pain too, because if you finally get the strings all in tune, then when you adjust one string's intonation, it throws off everything again. (And worse, to adjust the intonation on a Floyd Rose, you have to completely loosen the string so you can get to the tiny little hex screw to unlock the intonation adjustment, and the way it's designed you don't really have an easy way of fine-tuning it.)
With a guitar, you can at least still try to correct it by putting your finger down somewhat closer or farther away.
Does not work like that. It isn't a violin.
It is possible to pull notes sharp slightly (but it's done with pressure, not finger placement), but if the note is already sharp, there's nothing you can do.
What do you think was moving on that guitar? Was the neck bending?
After you tune the guitar and hit the 'play a lick', the notes ring on too long. I'm not sure how you've configured your sound generators, but you'll need to configure an envelope on the sound that cuts it off before the next note rings. This would come down to simply adjusting the 'release' parameter to be very small (though not zero) so that the sound decays quickly before the next note begins.
Also, after that, in the paragraph under "How does it work", the statement "Guitars generate noise through the vibration of their strings" is a little bothersome. While this is true, it would be more correct to say sound (or even pitches) instead of noise. The technical meaning of noise is a random distribution of frequencies across the sound spectrum, and actually sounds like the static you hear when you're radio is not tuned into a station. It's somewhat true because a guitar string will generate a quick burst of noise after being plucked, but after that the string settles into a resonating cycle that follows the harmonic series, which is definitely not noise.
Third nitpick... oh man, I'll try to be brief, but I would just take out the section on beats and 'overtones'. As elihu mentioned, its actually 'difference tones'. Overtones are a part of a single sound. I would take the part out because it's actually bad practice to eliminate beats when tuning a guitar using open strings (in other words, tuning by perfect fourths) because the frets of a guitar are tuned to 12 Tone Equal temperament. If you eliminate the beats in a perfect fourth it will be a Justly tuned perfect fourth, which is 498 cents. An equally tempered perfect fourth is 500 cents even. The result would be the A string will be 2 cents flat, and then the D string will be 4 cents flat, and the G string 6 cents.. etc. If you want to keep the part about beats and tune by ear, its better to play the A on the E string and tune using a unison. Then you can use the beats trick!
Disclosure: BA in Music with emphasis on Guitar and Sound Design. (See, BA's aren't completely useless!)
The best educated guitarist I've ever known (he was an LA studio guy who moved back to my home town to raise his family and was teaching at the high school for fine arts I attended...literally everyone here has heard songs he played on, and probably a few musicians he's taught) used a technique I haven't seen very often, but it's been my favorite method. It's based on chords and the naturally occurring "beating" when intervals in chords are "right". Basically, you're switching back and forth between perfect fourths and fifths across all the strings and finding the best balance between them; when the beating is minimized, your guitar's first position is about as well-tuned as it can possibly be, given the limitations and oddities of intonation on a fretted equal-tempered instrument and the different sizes of strings. This is how I tune, unless I'm going to be playing way up the neck, in which case I tune with an alternate further up the neck to accommodate that position better.
The interesting thing about this, and the thing that always confused people who see me tuning is that overdrive/distortion makes this method work better, not worse. It exacerbates the beating and makes it more clear when you're tuning it right.
James Taylor devised a system that accommodated the way lower strings tend to rise in pitch when strummed aggressively; he'd tune a tiny bit flat on the low strings, getting close to on-the-nose as you went up the strings until the high E was exactly right. You would adjust this method slightly based on gauge of strings and whether the G string is wound or not. In this way strumming hard wouldn't end up sounding sharp on the bottom and out of tune across the instrument. This seems like a pain in the ass, to me, since you need a tuner and to memorize the settings across the neck to get it exactly right, so I have only done it as an experiment. I couldn't hear a positive difference compared to my usual method of tuning with chords (which already accommodates the sharpening of low strings because we're tuning to chord shapes).
A common method I've seen maybe most often, especially among metal guitarists who tune down and bass players is the harmonics method (5th and 7th frets of strings next to each other). This has the benefit of bringing the tuning notes up into a higher register where our hearing is more accurate. Distortion doesn't hinder this method either, so rock guys can do it without changing their amp settings or whatever. But...and this is a big but. This isn't actually a great method for getting good tuning, because it will be the natural harmonics of the strings, which aren't exactly the same as the notes on an equal-tempered instrument. This was the method I used when I was a kid. The traditional fifth fret (and fourth fret) method, that is the first method most guitarists are taught, is still better than this one, because it accounts for equal temperament.
Having played guitar from a really early age I'm pretty lucky to able to get tuning pretty much bang-on from ear, plus some double-checking it still sounds okay further up the neck. The main downside is that the open G string never, ever sounds right.
When the fifth is in tune, it will sound uniform. When the interval diverges from a fifth you will begin to hear a pulse, a sort of wobble...slow at first (when very close to the right pitch) and faster as they get further apart (and then, eventually, if you go far enough in any direction the beating will get slow and stop again as you approach another perfect interval).
To visualize it, you can maybe think of sine waves at certain frequency ratios of each other (a fifth is a 3:2 ratio, fourth is 4:3, octave is 2:1; these are the "perfect" intervals that don't audibly beat when played together, and are not considered at all "dissonant"). The phase cancellation between this is regular enough and frequent enough and not complete so we don't perceive it as beating, but as a specific singular sound of its own. Most people aren't hearing two independent notes when hearing these intervals, though people with some training or with perfect/absolute pitch can recognize it for the combination of notes that it is.
But, as they drift out of tune, the phase cancellation happens in a shifting pattern up and down, so you end up with very clearly audible changes; this is called "beating" (at least, that's what I've always called it, and I believe it is the proper term in physics, audio research, and music...pretty much anywhere we talk about the phase of waves, I think?).
Here's a page with some diagrams of the basic idea of what is happening and what you're hearing, as well as audio samples of what it sounds like (it's more complex with the complexity of a guitar's timbre, but the principle is the same): http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/beats.htm
I just tested, and the results were inconclusive. Maybe I was doing it wrong, but there was nowhere I could put the paper that would result in movement when out of tune but not in tune. If I put the paper on the sound board with the guitar laying flat on its back, the paper didn't move much in either case; just a little bit of vibration/rattle. If I put it across the strings, it would fall off whether in tune or out (as I would expect, but I figured I'd try all the obvious options).
Perhaps I just don't know the proper chordal incantation, but I assume some combination of fourths and/or fifths or octaves, since those are the ones that will be very consonant/smooth/non-beaty when in tune and will beat very clearly when out of tune even a little bit.
When I played metal and tuned the whole guitar down to D or C# (this was before 7 strings were really a thing), I still used the stacked fourths and fifths method of tuning and it worked for that, too. Since you can strum at normal playing intensity when tuning this way, you can accommodate whatever you're normal playing style is.
The end result is that the strings get increasingly flat as you go down, with the low E quite flat (like 18 cents or something). I like doing this by ear, because it varies by guitar, and also by tuning - I often use non-standard tunings, and modal tunings want a different sort of sweetening due to the octave and fifth relationships.
It's kinda weird; I assumed it was something common, but now that I think of it, I don't think I've ever seen anyone use it that didn't learn it from that same teacher or from me. The professor who taught it to me was a teacher at University of Miami during the Jaco/Metheny era in the early 70s, toured with Bruce Hornsby for a few years, and then worked in LA as a session musician for a couple of decades (he was never famous, but traveled in famous circles), so I assumed he got it from one of those places and that it would be kinda common knowledge.
I should dig into this more, and if it's not common knowledge somewhere I should make a video (and a cult) about it, because it's really the bee's knees, IMHO. It's super fast to use, once you've got good ears for it, and it results in any guitar, even those with poor intonation, being at least playable for basic chords and such in the first position.
It isn't really complicated. You can derive it from first principles of just knowing that fourths and fifths and octaves are perfect intervals, and then just make chord shapes that are all fourths and fifths and octaves of any other note being played and walk them up and down across the strings until you've got no beating (or as little beating as is achievable, if the intonation is poor). By the time you've gone up and down a couple of times, you're pretty well locked in and it sounds great. Even if you don't have an ear for fourths and fifths, you can still use this to "tighten up" the tuning on a guitar by doing the usual fifth fret/fourth fret tuning that every beginner book or class teaches first and following up with this method to come to a reasonable compromise with the intonation of the guitar and the oddities of wound vs unwound strings (the fourth/third or third/second string changeover is always a bit tricky even with a compensated bridge).
Anyway, I'll keep poking at the google to see if I can find this method documented somewhere, and if not, I'll write it up and make a video. It really should be more commonly known/used now that I think of it.
Edit: This Stack Exchange thread includes people who do either fourths or fifths tuning, which is close to what I'm talking about, but they never quite get to stacking up fourths, fifths and octaves in a few chord shapes (which is where, I think, the magic for compensating for intonation problems comes from). https://music.stackexchange.com/questions/3078/what-are-the-...
options.context = new window.AudioContext();
After which point, it was cool. =)
Went to firefox instead and was able to go through it. Again, very cool. =)
I learning to play electric guitar, and have wanted to learn to tune by ear for ages. It's frustrating that I was able to follow along with ease up to this point, but now feel I've been pushed in at the deep end. It's just so close but not quite there.
First an alert: "It looks like Chrome audio autoplay is giving us troubles. Close this and tap the loading bar to continue loading audio."
Then "undefined is not an object (evaluating 'new Tone.FFT')" where I'm guessing some kind of media is supposed to go.
also if you tune, always tighten last. if you release tension then it might shift a little and be in shitty tuning again. if you tighten the last then it;s less chance of this de tuning suddenly while playing.
you can tune all strings using harmonics on the 5th/7th frets, where g/b set will need 4th / 5th fret or so. al the notes you need across the strings are around those frets anyway and it;s really easy to hear if you have the right ones.
See kmm's comment, chrome seems to be intentionally blocking it.
I like the idea, but the UX on mobile is a bit frustrating.
add: i'm using seamonkey 2.49.2 and the zooming of the guitar in and out doesn't quite work once in awhile obscuring the text. don't take it as your fault, i'm actually impressed this worked at all.
What technologies are you using for sound and for visualization?
The sound is using tone.js  (with a slight modification to make the tuning work).
The rest is built with
- idyll (for the overall structure of the post) 
- d3 with svg and canvas (for the tuner and visualizations) 
- sketchapp and a plugin  to design the guitar