Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
Shhhh! I'm looking for a sponsor over here, dammit!Light said:
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
To be serious, though, you could get pretty far towards a comprehensive data set as long as you understood the variables you would be working with.Light said:
With the wood, I can think of several factors that you could break out as factors that affect tone - specific gravity, grain direction and structure, the cut of wood, porosity, species, age, etc. Correct me if you think I'm blowing it out my ass.
Still, though, as you say, each piece of wood is unique so there is no way you'd ever be able to predict exactly how a build would sound.
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Zaphod B said:
Don't forget your cumulative frequency and poisson distribution!!
Mark7
Well-known member
Poisson as in fish? 
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Mark7 said:Poisson as in fish?
Yup think so. Ask Zaphod.
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
Hey, I wasn't the one to bring it up!
(Besides, I don't think that distribution statistics applies in this case. In fact, I think the whole thing sounds.....fishy.
)
(Besides, I don't think that distribution statistics applies in this case. In fact, I think the whole thing sounds.....fishy.
)
N
notbradsohner
Compression Addict
Doesn't matter, tone is in the hands. 
Anfontan
Banned by eurt
TelePaul said:
You are just asking to be Smited by Light don't you know!
G
ggunn
Crystal Flavolian
Anfontan said:You are just asking to be Smited by Light don't you know!
You mean "smote", don't you? I assume you don't mean "smitten"... ;^)
Anfontan
Banned by eurt
ggunn said:
Quite correct-I was typing in my sleep at that point last night!
Supercreep
Lizard People
Light smite, makin' things with light.
Out of sight, makin' things with Light Smite.
Out of sight, makin' things with Light Smite.
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Supercreep said:
Dude they need you in the rap forum!!!!
Light
New member
Supercreep said:
I have absolutely no idea how to respond to that.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
muttley600
Banned
Light said:
Absolutely spot on!! Add to that that learning as much as possible about the physics and mechanics that are involved in the workings of your instrument will do two things. First you'll find that whatever you do has an effect on something else and that the guitar is far to complex to explain with science alone. Secound if you understand how the guitar works in physical and mechanical terms you are better able to explain what you believe intuatively or can explain what you have learnt from hands on experience.
In my experience I would agree with lights assesment. With a bolt on neck you have a barrier between the neck and the body. No matter how well the neck pocket is fitted and bolted it is a barrier. It will to some degree stop sound waves from moving around the body and quite a bit of energy will be lost. Now seeing as how one end of the string is fixed to the neck and one end to the body this is quite important. With a glue joint of straight through neck the sound waves have an easier time moving around the body of the guitar....giving greater sustain and less volume.
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Shouldnt this post be Bolt on Vs Set Neck Vs Thru Neck?
muttley600
Banned
Zaphod B said:
You answered yourself there I'm afraid. Every peiece of timber is different and will render most imperical data useless from a musical acoustics standpoint. There has been loads of work done over the years on examining these things and although its fascinating in it self they are no nearer any concrete conclusions than when the research started despite the claims made by their researchers. For anyone wanting a start point in musical acoustics get over to the Catgut Acoustical Society and start there. For a more casual read check this from this weeks NY Times The whole subject fascinates me and after a getting upto quite a high level of useless qualification I still find I have to put it aside and work to a set of intuitive principles...
Zaphod B
Raccoons-Be-Gone, Inc.
Excellent links, muttley - thanks. 
Light
New member
muttley600 said:
See, now, the problem I have with that article is the same as I have with the Kasha designed stuff. They are trying to make a quantifiable measurement, so they go for "volume" and "responsiveness." The thing is, neither of those things has much to do with "pleasant," "balanced," or "dynamic." It's not actually that hard to build a loud and responsive instrument. The problem is, they tend to either be unpleasant to listen to, unbalanced, or (most commonly) completely lacking in dynamic range. They will sound great if you play them softly, but as soon as you lay into one of these things, they fall apart.
Interesting, yes, but I can't say that I see much point in it. Particularly the "team" of reasearchers in Australia who are trying to prove that instrments improve over time. Any one who has ever built a guitar can answer that one! The difference between a guitar when you first string it up and the same guitar an hour latter (much less 24 hour, or a year) is HUGE. It can't be missed.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi
muttley600
Banned
Seems like we've hijacked another threadLight said:
As it happens I think most of the stuff in the NY Times article has dubious merit. I posted it as an example of some of the current research into musical acoustics that is in vogue at the moment. Its very hard when you get into the subject not to become obsessed with one or two really small details and lose sight of the bigger picture. I fell into that trap myself once when involved in researching damping or the "Q" factor in spruce. Convinced that impedence in timber was critical to its final sound I dived in and started looking for relationships between that and stiffneress and mass. I learnt a lot but, and this is the rub. I couldn't prove anything conclusively because it is impossible to factor everything else in and out. I may have been correct but we are years from ever being able to prove it..Eventually I moved on and concentrated on using the skills I had and the knowledge of acoustics combined to try and build better instruments.There is no question that a good basic understanding of mechanics and physics will help you build better instruments but it just another tool in you arsenal. As such you have to know when the right time is to use it. Many of the published methods of guitar construction such and Benedetto, hiscox et al all owe the guidelines on thicknessing and size and shape to research that has proved give good results. Without good hand skills and practice they are useless. As you have already pointed out true craftsmanship is the key. God is in the detail..
Light
New member
muttley600 said:Seems like we've hijacked another thread
There is no question that a good basic understanding of mechanics and physics will help you build better instruments but it just another tool in you arsenal. As such you have to know when the right time is to use it. Many of the published methods of guitar construction such and Benedetto, hiscox et al all owe the guidelines on thicknessing and size and shape to research that has proved give good results. Without good hand skills and practice they are useless. As you have already pointed out true craftsmanship is the key. God is in the detail..
I don't know that we've exactly hijacked it. I mean, it had already more or less come to it's natural conclusion.
At any rate, the real issue I have is with anyone trying to fine extremes in guitar building. The highest stiffness-to-weight ratio doesn't mean it's the RIGHT stiffness-to-weight ratio. The same goes for any of the other scientific study of instruments. To be frank, I've never noticed that any of the guys who do any of the scientific method stuff end up with guitars which are any more consistent that what dad does, or Jim Olson, or anyone else who has enough experience to know what they are doing. Dad doesn't tap tune tops. He FEELS them as he is sanding them to thickness, and as he is bracing them, but he doesn't have a particular measurement he is after; it just needs it to feel right. After 500 guitars (well, he's working on it right now), he knows what he needs from a piece of spruce. And his guitars are as consistent as any small shop builder I know of. And then there is the Taylor example. The most consistent guitars ever made, and Bob is doing his best to get EVERY guitar in his factory out the door in 15 hours or less of labor. They don't tap tune nothing working that quick.
The fact is, we have an expectation of what a guitar will sound like (or a violin, or a piano, etc.) Those expectations include the sound of wood. Most guitar players want their guitars to have a Martin X-brace sound. Just ask Charles Fox about his experience trying to mass market a perfectly fine double X style guitar (well, I thought they were pretty underwhelming, but then I have thought that about every double X guitar I've ever played - the workmanship was without fault, however). They ended up making not much more that a thousand of them, and going out of business. The sad thing is, if they had stayed in business just a couple of years longer, they probably would have done a lot better because they had come out with a more traditional x-braced top which I think would have sold much better. But he wanted to make "louder" and "more responsive" guitars. No one wanted them.
You can make small adjustments, but guitar buyers are awfully hide-bound, and are unlikely to go for anything which is too far away from what they are used to. And since these things are nothing more than a tool for the musician to make music with, whose to say they aren't right. They know what they want, and that is what they will play. Hell, most players won't even pick up a guitar which doesn't look right to them, much less buy one which doesn't sound familiar.
Light
"Cowards can never be moral."
M.K. Gandhi