Inconsistencies in bone saddles.

[Greg_L]

The simple solution would be to smash the acoustic and play an electric because acoustic guitars suck.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Here it is with increased contrast.

Aye, but how much of that is due to variations within the bone, and how much of it is due to the angle at which the light is striking it? I mean, the top is clearly shadowed by the windowshade, whereas the bottom is just further away from the light source. To really say for sure there were visible differences within the bone, you'd need to either put it under a uni-directional light source (maybe a photocopier would be able to bring out the differences? Probably not though), or flip it and take a picture from the other side, and demonstrate the lighter area moved when the bone was reversed.

EDIT - I mean, in a sentence the point I'm trying to make is that the "lightest" area of bone in that picture corresponds almost perfectly with the "brightest" area of the splash of light on the wall behind it. That's probably not a coincidence, you know?

 

[Victory Pete]

Aye, but how much of that is due to variations within the bone, and how much of it is due to the angle at which the light is striking it? I mean, the top is clearly shadowed by the windowshade, whereas the bottom is just further away from the light source. To really say for sure there were visible differences within the bone, you'd need to either put it under a uni-directional light source (maybe a photocopier would be able to bring out the differences? Probably not though), or flip it and take a picture from the other side, and demonstrate the lighter area moved when the bone was reversed.

EDIT - I mean, in a sentence the point I'm trying to make is that the "lightest" area of bone in that picture corresponds almost perfectly with the "brightest" area of the splash of light on the wall behind it. That's probably not a coincidence, you know?

Do you notice how the good saddle is so much darker than the bad one?
I dont have time for anymore photograghy right now, I am of course completely convinced of this whole matter, so is my customer.
ViP

 

[ocnor]

Aye, but how much of that is due to variations within the bone, and how much of it is due to the angle at which the light is striking it?

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Do you notice how the good saddle is so much darker than the bad one?
I dont have time for anymore photograghy right now, I am of course completely convinced of this whole matter, so is my customer.
ViP

Of course you don't, you just might accidentally prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

I did notice that, actually. However, I also noticed it was pretty uniform in translucency, and that near as I could tell there was no section that was measurably more or less translucent than the other. Considering your original hypothesis was:

The problem was the bone saddle. It had different densities in it, it was visible in front of a light with a magnifying glass. the suspicious area was more translucent and therefore less dense. I have since cut a new one and now it works great.
ViP

I'm just curious, which section exactly was visibly more translucent?

 

[Victory Pete]

Of course you don't, you just might accidentally prove you have no idea what you're talking about.

I did notice that, actually. However, I also noticed it was pretty uniform in translucency, and that near as I could tell there was no section that was measurably more or less translucent than the other. Considering your original hypothesis was:



I'm just curious, which section exactly was visibly more translucent?

Well after all it is a picture, It would be hard to take a picture through a magnifying glass.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Well after all it is a picture, It would be hard to take a picture through a magnifying glass.

Shouldn't be an issue - I mean, it was a big enough area to impact the B and G strings, right? that's probably a good 5 mm right there... It should be plainly visible to the naked eye.

 

[Victory Pete]

Shouldn't be an issue - I mean, it was a big enough area to impact the B and G strings, right? that's probably a good 5 mm right there... It should be plainly visible to the naked eye.

I have a 3X power illuminated magnifying glass I use. It is quite different than the naked eye or a camera.
VP

 

[Zaphod B]

I am flabbergasted at the robust scientific protocol being demonstrated here.

 

[crazydoc]

Aye, but how much of that is due to variations within the bone, and how much of it is due to the angle at which the light is striking it? I mean, the top is clearly shadowed by the windowshade, whereas the bottom is just further away from the light source. To really say for sure there were visible differences within the bone, you'd need to either put it under a uni-directional light source (maybe a photocopier would be able to bring out the differences? Probably not though), or flip it and take a picture from the other side, and demonstrate the lighter area moved when the bone was reversed.

EDIT - I mean, in a sentence the point I'm trying to make is that the "lightest" area of bone in that picture corresponds almost perfectly with the "brightest" area of the splash of light on the wall behind it. That's probably not a coincidence, you know?

The bone appears to have luminance heterogeneity. Whether that is transillumination or reflected is not clear, though much of it seems to be trans to my eye.

Nonetheless and notwithstanding to me the evidence points to a defective saddle, whatever the cause.

 

[Victory Pete]

I dont give up easily! Do you see this?

 

[dodgeaspen]

And now the continuing saga of an age ol' story Dem Bones Dem Bones. Last time we heard from VP he was explaining the problems he's having with his guitar. Muttley comes in and says Hey Pete your an idiot. Talcum powder? I can't believe it. I mean, your wood will decay and the skin will melt off your hands if you do it that way. (Pete replies) I've done it this way for years. (Muttley replies), no way man. (Pete replies) uh-huh (Muttley inerjects) with a nu-huh. Prove it. Will Pete ever get his point across??? Will Muttley give ol' VP a chance to be right without being called out on every single word he writes??? Tune in next time when we hear VP say, __!?!?!?________

 

[Greg_L]

I don't think any of them know what the fuck they're talking about.

 

[slowmotion]

You guys crack me up.

Is there any actual proof that natural colour variation in bone has anything to do with variation in it's actual density? I mean actual hardness tests?

How great would this variation have to be to actually translate to a noticeable volume drop across strings? It would have to be wildly different, so much so that no-one would risk using bone for anything (considering so many newer "better" alternatives exist).

Sounds like the original saddle wasn't uniformly flat on the bottom (swapping it around only confirmed this).

 

[muttley600]

I am flabbergasted at the robust scientific protocol being demonstrated here.

Tell you what we'll get VP to stick that saddle in an envelope to me and next time I've got the Fourier analysis gear cranked up when I'm in uni next semester I'll get my students to run some tests on it. Settle this thing once and for all how's that sound. I mean there ain't no arguing with near field acoustic holography now is there?....

 

[Victory Pete]

You guys crack me up.

Is there any actual proof that natural colour variation in bone has anything to do with variation in it's actual density? I mean actual hardness tests?

How great would this variation have to be to actually translate to a noticeable volume drop across strings? It would have to be wildly different, so much so that no-one would risk using bone for anything (considering so many newer "better" alternatives exist).

Sounds like the original saddle wasn't uniformly flat on the bottom (swapping it around only confirmed this).

No it doesnt sound like that (pun intended). That was first thing I checked over and over!
VP

 

[Zaphod B]

Tell you what we'll get VP to stick that saddle in an envelope to me and next time I've got the Fourier analysis gear cranked up when I'm in uni next semester I'll get my students to run some tests on it. Settle this thing once and for all how's that sound. I mean there ain't no arguing with near field acoustic holography now is there?....

Now, that's what I'm talkin' about.

 

[Sky Blue Lou]

I mean there ain't no arguing with near field acoustic holography now is there?....

Argue with it? Fuck, I can't even say it.


lou

 

[crazydoc]

So, since no one has proposed a reasonable alternative to the bone density theory, nor refuted it, it looks like it wins the day.

VP - make sure wherever you get your bone in the future, that it's not from a post-menopausal female who hasn't taken her biphosphonates regularly.

 

[Roguetitan]

As I have pointed out to you in the past, I teach this shit at graduate and post graduate level. If you'd like to dig up the old threads where I pointed out you were wrong I'd be happy to explain it again.

As long as people keep posting bullshit without regard to the way physics or material science and musical acoustics works I will keep pointing out that it is bullshit. As I was always fond of saying to you, you ain't disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with accepted and demonstrable science.

You never pointed that out to me nor do I really care

and no I don't care to dig up any of my old threads because I have better things to do with my time than to argue with an arrogant old knowitall
Have at it