G
Greg_L
Banned
The simple solution would be to smash the acoustic and play an electric because acoustic guitars suck.
Here it is with increased contrast.
Do you notice how the good saddle is so much darker than the bad one?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?
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.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?
I am flabbergasted at the robust scientific protocol being demonstrated here.
![]()
![]()
![]()
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).
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?....![]()
Argue with it? Fuck, I can't even say it.I mean there ain't no arguing with near field acoustic holography now is there?....
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.