Chipped My Nut!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr.Bootleg
  • Start date Start date
Victory Pete said:
Is everyone you challenge suppose to promptly produce "evidence" for what they experience and as to what works for them? I bet the majority of people believe different material will affect the sound of a guitar. Lets have a poll.
VP
Click to expand...

Again, you never answer my questions!
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
Well, of course this is my own belief and my theory at this point. It may well be fact but I dont have the time to do research on everything I believe in, who does? Are you telling me what I described doesnt exist? If you are I will say "bullshit" Look at any line that is suspended beween 2 points and notice how stiff the line is right at the ends. there can be no movement right at these points, it is common sense. I dont know how to start a poll, How is it done?
VP
Click to expand...

This doesnt exist?
VP
 
muttley600 said:
Assume it does, you prove it to me.
Click to expand...

Did you ever notice a classical guitar has very little offset compensation, the saddle is almost straight. I feel the strings all have nearly the same flexability. This "dead spot" I speak of is nearly the same in all strings regardless of size.
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
Did you ever notice a classical guitar has very little offset compensation, the saddle is almost straight. I feel the strings all have nearly the same flexability. This "dead spot" I speak of is nearly the same in all strings regardless of size.
VP
Click to expand...

That isn't why classical guitars have perpendicular saddles and not racked saddles in fact it is because of the nature of the strings and the material they are made from that they don't use them so it's the opposite to what you say.

How does this prove your statement of fact by the way?
 
muttley600 said:
That isn't why classical guitars have perpendicular saddles and not racked saddles in fact it is because of the nature of the strings and the material they are made from that they don't use them so it's the opposite to what you say.

How does this prove your statement of fact by the way?
Click to expand...

I know!!! They are very flexible unlike metal strings. So they will vibrate very close to the saddle unlike metal strings.
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
The only "evidence" I have has been in my hands tonight inspiring me to make majic! I cant wait to finish my studio renovation and getting some of this "evidence" on tape.
VP
Click to expand...

You are correct to put the word "evidence" in quotes, since what you are talking about isn't evidence. Saying you that believe something unprovable is fine; stating it as objective fact is BS.
 
muttley600 said:
Really? Can you demonstrate how that is the case for me?
Click to expand...

Simple, classical strings are very flexible and such will vibrate near to the actual mathematical correct point at the saddle. A metal string is much more stiff so its saddle has to be pushed back (compensated) to achieve the correct mathematical string length. Please read and consider this carefully, considering it has been theorized by an idiot troll.
VP
 
Milnoque said:
My bad, Please accept my apology.
Click to expand...

Nothing to apologize for.
I can see why the word "epoxy" used in the same sentance as "guitar" could make people freak! :eek:

:D

I hate working with the stuff...having to mix the resin and hardner...and no matter how neat you are it still gets all over you hands and other stuff.
But it has it's uses if you can avoid a mess!
 
snacks.gif
 
Victory Pete said:
Simple, classical strings are very flexible and such will vibrate near to the actual mathematical correct point at the saddle. A metal string is much more stiff so its saddle has to be pushed back (compensated) to achieve the correct mathematical string length. Please read and consider this carefully, considering it has been theorized by an idiot troll.
VP
Click to expand...
the reason saddles need to be compensated is because of the different diameters of electric strings which vary a MUCH greater amount than classical strings. Some electrics might have a .009 on the little E and say a .52 on the big E (and this difference in diameter is much less on classical strings).
Because of that ...... the bigger strings tend to have a different ratio of mass to length as you fret them higher and higher on the necks and that's what has to be compensated for.

And though you're correct ...... at the contact point of the saddle, there is zero string movement ... the dead zone, as you put it, doesn't extend into the speaking length of the string at all. There may be minimal vibration close to the saddle but there is still vibration all the way to the saddle contact point. At the actual contact point is the only place where string vibrations go to zero. Immediately after the contact point there is string movement.

And this BTW, is why the nut material only affects open strings ...... because there is zero string movement at the other end also .... i.e. the fret which also works like the saddle ..... at the fret the string goes to zero vibrations and therefore, above the fret there are no vibrations for the string to transmit to the guitar.

I'll give you credit for coming up with what seem to be logical conclusions and doing thought experiments to try and understand things.
But it's to your discredit that you're so unwilling to ever accept facts that you don't want to accept.
 
I'm afraid that VP has fallen into the trap of thinking that all opinions are equal, whether they are supportable by fact or not.

VP, there is nothing wrong with offering an opinion. But it is wrongheaded and willfully ignorant to insist on pushing an opinion that has no evidential support.

Every time you do this you lose credibility, not that you have much left any more. It's unfortunate because you don't come across as stupid, just stubborn and defensive. And as an occasional liar, which doesn't help either.

Muttley has no vendetta against you, but you can be sure he's fact-checking you and calling you out whenever necessary. If that is offensive to you then you are the one with the problem.
 
Lt. Bob said:
the reason saddles need to be compensated is because of the different diameters of electric strings which vary a MUCH greater amount than classical strings. Some electrics might have a .009 on the little E and say a .52 on the big E (and this difference in diameter is much less on classical strings).
Because of that ...... the bigger strings tend to have a different ratio of mass to length as you fret them higher and higher on the necks and that's what has to be compensated for.
Click to expand...
Exactly and it is designed to accommodate the extra tension that fretting puts into the string. The amount and relationship varies depending on the strings material. Nylon and gut being less effected.

And though you're correct ...... at the contact point of the saddle, there is zero string movement ... the dead zone, as you put it, doesn't extend into the speaking length of the string at all. There may be minimal vibration close to the saddle but there is still vibration all the way to the saddle contact point. At the actual contact point is the only place where string vibrations go to zero. Immediately after the contact point there is string movement.
Click to expand...
Correct again. To expand a bit for the benifit of others who may be interested, the string directly adjacent to the fixed point does have a slightly higher reluctance to start into motion. The string however is not dead it is just trying to overcome the stiffness that is inerrant in it's own material and the fact that it is closer to the fixed point. This does not have an impact on the sounding string length it's tension or pitch which remain constant. This is all well documented.
 
Lt. Bob said:
the reason saddles need to be compensated is because of the different diameters of electric strings which vary a MUCH greater amount than classical strings. Some electrics might have a .009 on the little E and say a .52 on the big E (and this difference in diameter is much less on classical strings).
Because of that ...... the bigger strings tend to have a different ratio of mass to length as you fret them higher and higher on the necks and that's what has to be compensated for.

And though you're correct ...... at the contact point of the saddle, there is zero string movement ... the dead zone, as you put it, doesn't extend into the speaking length of the string at all. There may be minimal vibration close to the saddle but there is still vibration all the way to the saddle contact point. At the actual contact point is the only place where string vibrations go to zero. Immediately after the contact point there is string movement.

And this BTW, is why the nut material only affects open strings ...... because there is zero string movement at the other end also .... i.e. the fret which also works like the saddle ..... at the fret the string goes to zero vibrations and therefore, above the fret there are no vibrations for the string to transmit to the guitar.

I'll give you credit for coming up with what seem to be logical conclusions and doing thought experiments to try and understand things.
But it's to your discredit that you're so unwilling to ever accept facts that you don't want to accept.
Click to expand...

Can you prove me wrong?
VP
 
Zaphod B said:
I'm afraid that VP has fallen into the trap of thinking that all opinions are equal, whether they are supportable by fact or not.

VP, there is nothing wrong with offering an opinion. But it is wrongheaded and willfully ignorant to insist on pushing an opinion that has no evidential support.

Every time you do this you lose credibility, not that you have much left any more. It's unfortunate because you don't come across as stupid, just stubborn and defensive. And as an occasional liar, which doesn't help either.

Muttley has no vendetta against you, but you can be sure he's fact-checking you and calling you out whenever necessary. If that is offensive to you then you are the one with the problem.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, I have never lied on this forum.
VP
 
Victory Pete said:
You are wrong, I have never lied on this forum.
VP
Click to expand...

When you state a "fact" that you cannot substantiate to any objective degree, then the usage of the word fact is indeed a lie. You would probably call it "theoretically possible" thereby not false. That form of rationalization is a lie and a deceit at the most base level. Figure it out. It aint rocket science.
 
Victory Pete said:
Can you prove me wrong?
VP
Click to expand...

You need to understand something here.

The person that asserts something as fact (as you did when you claimed that there is a "theoretical dead spot" next to the saddle contact point) bears the burden of proof.

The person asking you to provide proof is under no burden to disprove the original assertion.

If you cannot back up a statement of "fact" with evidence, then it remains an untested hypothesis and its validity is indeterminate. Story over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top