|
Post by sumgai on Jun 8, 2016 17:29:19 GMT -5
blade,
I didn't mean that wood has no effect, I was aiming more to point out that wood is only one factor - no snarkiness intended!
At the end of the day, every part and piece on our guitars, and everything we do to them, all contribute to what we call That Elusive Tone. Whether or not we agree on any one particular aspect of how to achieve this tone is not subject to debate, for as you say, it's all up to each individual, period. Anyone arguing with that factoid is grinding the wrong axe, IMO.
Indeed, if any part is swapped out beyond the body exchange, then all bets are off as to which way sounds "better".... cheap has it correct there. Tough to do, especially with those guitars that require the strings to be removed in order to lift off the scratch plate - who wants to restring a guitar with used strings? Those winds around each peghead make this a difficult task at best, eh? But if we don't use the same strings as before, well... see the first sentence in this paragraph.
Which brings one back to modeling.
As to latency, that's supposed to be an issue with synthesizers, not with modelers. I realize that there might be some equipment out there with which I am not familiar, I'd be an idiot to claim that I've seen everything ever made in this segment of the music world. It could be that your particular device was from an era of older technology, or it could have been poorly setup/adjusted, I can't say. But for at least the last 10 years or so, Roland, Axon, and possibly Shadow, have had no issues detectable by either ear or yeoman-grad instrumentation.
Taking the industry gold standard, the Roland GK-55, reports are on the order of 2-4ms latency, possibly excepting the low-E string, where it might be as much as 5-6ms. And I need to emphasize, this is for driving the synth portion of the unit, not the modeling portion - therein all users report no discernible latency at all.
[DISCLAIMER] The TIBOTIA (Truth In Bragging On The Internet Act) requires me to state that while I use Roland exclusively, the Axon units are reputed to have even less latency, on the order of 1/2 to 1ms while driving a synth. Yes, that means they can detect the proper frequency in less than one full cycle. Quite a feat, but everyone that has one won't part with it, except perhaps under great duress.
There you have it, or at least as tidy as I can deliver it. HTH
sumgai
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 8, 2016 20:29:51 GMT -5
blademaster2,
I definitely agree that the pickup isn't the only thing that affects the timbre. I'm also a believer in some factors not everyone agrees with, like ferrous bridge plates on telecasters. I definitely believe that electronics, cables, the electromagnetic waves where you are, and the weight of a guitar matter. I guess for the record now I can say I managed to notice the difference between acrylic and wood in 9/10(feel free to doubt) of the strumming rig tests by listening to how soon the chords resolved to fundamentals and lower order harmonics. I bet if other Nutz followed the same strategy they could get it right.
But honestly, I'm still not going to use that as a musician. I'll keep buying light guitars for comfort. I'll probably convince myself that lighter guitars sound better, even though I don't think I can actually make that judgement by ear.
I'm just gonna go on preferring what's convenient for me, because this factor is so small that mere convenience and peace of mind outweighs the musical value. And one of these days I'm gonna actually buy a sustainer pedal.
...
Tonewood schmonewood.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 8, 2016 22:42:02 GMT -5
Cheap-
I'm with you on the cheap guitar front. Did you paint those flames, or was that already on the body when you got it?
And, Blademaster2-
A difference in how a pickup is mounted can certainly affect tone. EVH famously took his HB out of the mounting ring and screwed it directly into the wood- and many thousands of players emulated that, liking the (Subjective wording here) "chunky-ness" of the sound. Same thing with removing the Strat pickup from the pickguard- yes, there's a change, but it's a function of the pickup, and the way the pickup is mounted, not the presence or absence of a particular type of wood.
In other words, would that Strat pickup, mounted directly to the body, sound different screwed to a mahogany body versus a pine body? (And, again, in a blind test).
I, too, appreciate the debate on tonewoods. It's one we've had before, and as noted, there's often some acrimony out on the webs over the topic. People are into this stuff. As one can tell from my prior posts, I'm in the camp of minimizing any meaningful contribution of the wood.
But, we should also be honest, and admit that there's a darker side to this debate, because many of the woods most valued by guitarists in the "tonewood matters" camp tend to be species harvested out of the world's rainforests. What's the cost to the planet of someone having some exotic tonewood body, as compared to someone who builds from sustainably-sourced lumber? And, if there is a tonal difference, does the difference justify the societal cost? Mind you, just thinking out loud here, but the day may come when these choices no longer exist, as overharvesting leads to scacity of some species (and also leads to legislation protecting those species).
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 3:40:54 GMT -5
Nah, I did repaint my tele though. The first act's as cool as when I bought it, plus some black plastic and pickups. Of course, I can't brag too much about the tele which chips like crazy. Still love it!
Good point about the species. Lucky for us cheap guitar guys cheaper wood is generally younger, more sustainable stuff. But it isn't always, and knowing where your wood is coming from isn't that easy when you're buying "no-name" stuff. Most things in life you find the more environmentally friendly option costing more. I'll be honest, I think that makes me only as conscientious as I am cheap.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 4:03:18 GMT -5
The way I see it, the direct mounting thing is just a low pickup. Throw some shims under it, and you're back where you started tonally. I had to look this stuff up to see why people think this changes the tone, and it's all over the board. So I don't want to get ahead of myself on this. Instead I'll ask, why do you guys think direct mount changes the tone? Well, not that having a reason changes the end effect or anything. I don't know what the circuit diagram for each knob on my amp is, but I still turn 'em! Anyway I think this falls neatly in line with the tonewood argument. What factors do change tone? Especially things besides the obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 4:20:27 GMT -5
wet sand? anyway mahogany is not the stiffer wood. Anyway, pls share the main idea here, I cannot find the time to watch it all. Personally I do think the weight relieved guitars ought to have less sustain, I can't tell the difference though. We're dealing with a small factor, after all. If that was the case you would see thousands of collectors (ehhmm I meant Gibson fanboys) protesting outside Gibson's HQ. I cannot see this "ought" by any means. Weight might add inertia to a soft material. A stiff material does not need inertia to begin with. That's why older dried woods sound better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 4:22:55 GMT -5
No measurements or experiments can tell me what I know I hear. Just like a chemical analysis will not distinguish a fine wine from a cheap wine. Human senses are needed. Guitar tone lies mostly in the transient response of the string and body/bridge/fret interaction, and what this phenomenon does when the pups detect the signal and the amplifier amplifies it. This must be at least partly influenced by the stiffness of the body material, which will vary as a function of frequency. Night and Day difference? No, but audible enough between types in guitar bodies even with the same pickups. More weight means more inertia, and that leads to more stiffness to vibration across all (most) frequencies where the same material is used - hence more sustain. Change the material stiffness, however, and it all changes again. A guitar body made of tire rubber, however heavy, would never exhibit the same stiffness and sustain as one made of stiffer material like wood. Different woods will present different stiffness to vibration, varying across frequencies, which will colour the tone. Most people can hear this if the material changes enough, but for wood to wood it is a narrower range of difference. Beyond a certain point where the body material is suitably stiff (i.e. no tire rubber or silicon gel), different species of wood will not have a night and day impact on tone and it starts to get muddled up with other factors, not the least of which is the pups themselves (in fact they are hugely influential, as they have their own frequency responses and gain) and the amplifier. Additionally, given that most of the tone is evident in the transient response, the attack of picking of the string itself will make a big difference as we all know. So in my opinion (and I can never prove this, either), "tonewood" refers to woods that are stiff enough across the frequencies of interest to respond well for guitar applications. No one uses balsa wood for a guitar - and yet it could be made strong enough with a little ingenuity. Their stiffness and the structural homogeneity (such as the neck joint, which introduces a discontinuity that impacts coupling of these vibrations across this interface), will be subtly audible - albeit not measurable - in a guitar. Some are VERY subtle, I know, and I could never reliably tell one from another blindfolded either. No one can prove any of this with measurements, so the "why tonewood" debate will rage on..... Agree...
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 5:29:02 GMT -5
I doubt I can do the wet sand video justice other than to tell you the result and have you believe me, so I'd say just watch it! If I paraphrased, there'd be plenty of arguments against the results, already covered in the video, that I'd have to expand on. Honestly, this video is a must watch for those who want to get as detailed about tone as selecting a wood. There's very little in the experiment that can be construed as against tonewood, and although the guy making the video makes some arguments in his commentary, the experiment itself answers much simpler questions.
As far as why people don't demand a slight difference in sustain, I think on one hand is a matter of trust. People trust Gibson to tell the truth. Gibson says that their weight relief increases resonance and sustain. They also say that more resonance helps sustain. It's statements like this that make me think you just can't ask a salesman for a straight answer. On the other hand, people don't care as much about sustain with better and better ways to get sustain from factors apart from the guitar.
I think when it comes to Gibson in particular, people will believe what they want. Gibson guitars are the holy grail of guitars. Some people worship them, but I don't think tone is a matter of faith.
Resonance aiding sustain is just wrong. I think that the guitar world misuses the term resonance, though. To give Gibson the benefit of the doubt, what they mean by resonance may not be what I think. But certainly in layman's terms the guitar that shakes more when you strum it sustains less.
By the way, I found this video about direct mounting pickups. It really explained well to me what the difference is.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 5:38:38 GMT -5
I guess it's also worth mentioning Gibson offers stuff that's weight relieved and not weight relieved, so maybe I'm getting ahead of myself here. Anyways, we shouldn't use sales data or any such approval to judge tone. It's too roundabout, and untrustworthy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 9:09:21 GMT -5
go grab some cheapo strat with lousy sustain and do the test. You will only get a cheapo heavier strat with lousy sustain. Well, this guy did the test. I don't think wet sand is any stiffer than mahogany! It's a long video, but worth watching. Personally I do think the weight relieved guitars ought to have less sustain, I can't tell the difference though. We're dealing with a small factor, after all. wet sand? I only see thin air in there. In any case, the guy just measures the same thing twice: A guitar with broken neck attached firmly to some stable points, in the 1st case with the neck in place and then without the neck in place. The neck is not a structural element in any of the tests. The measures exactly the same results in this same setup and then brags how wood makes no different. His ex-domain is avaliable at godaddy.com btw.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 9:33:18 GMT -5
In the video he compares the same rig with and without sand, then removes the neck as a demonstration. The first two tests, both clamped, are the more relevant ones. I will agree his thoughs on whether the wood makes a difference are totally unrelated to the experiment. After all, he's saying that the character apart from the resonance and sustain was constant, something which he made no attempt to measure, only to make sound clip samples of.
But I found the comparison as it applies to sustain relevant. Please consider this video background information to inform about the effect of damping on resonance and sustain. It absolutely doesn't prove anything about frequency response, other than what you can hear from the samples.
...That said, I did think the samples between no sand and sand were surprisingly similar in terms of brightness, etc. It seemed like a good way to demonstrate a change in resonance while keeping other factors constant. I think while removing the neck was kind of gimicky, it did make a good, albeit minor point. If one were to try to reproduce this test, I think it would have been better to only clamp the body of the guitar to the container for the sand, as a demonstration that damping at the bridge alone by a heavier body would have similar results.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 9, 2016 10:53:29 GMT -5
blademaster2, I definitely agree that the pickup isn't the only thing that affects the timbre. I'm also a believer in some factors not everyone agrees with, like ferrous bridge plates on telecasters. I definitely believe that electronics, cables, the electromagnetic waves where you are, and the weight of a guitar matter. I guess for the record now I can say I managed to notice the difference between acrylic and wood in 9/10(feel free to doubt) of the strumming rig tests by listening to how soon the chords resolved to fundamentals and lower order harmonics. I bet if other Nutz followed the same strategy they could get it right. But honestly, I'm still not going to use that as a musician. I'll keep buying light guitars for comfort. I'll probably convince myself that lighter guitars sound better, even though I don't think I can actually make that judgement by ear. I'm just gonna go on preferring what's convenient for me, because this factor is so small that mere convenience and peace of mind outweighs the musical value. And one of these days I'm gonna actually buy a sustainer pedal. ... Tonewood schmonewood. Ferrous metal plate in proximity to the pickups influencing the response. Now *that* is a fascinating thing that never occurred to me before. It would certainly redirect the magnetic field lines to a small degree, and how that would subsequently couple into and alter the frequency response and sensitivity of the pickup when a string vibrates near it is quite possible. I never heard that theory before. As an experiment it is an easier comparison to make than many others. I might try it sometime.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 11:56:45 GMT -5
Here's some more ramblings. This discussion has really captured my interest. In this post I'm gonna try to come up with explainations for some of the sort of ideas that apply characteristics to the entire guitar.
I think that the difference between guitar bodies with similar sustain, or for the purposes of argument, exactly the same sustain when the whole fretboard is averaged, is where the peak resonant frequencies lie. One thing that's clear from the discussion so far, is that you're not going to see something like 5th harmonic response stay consistent as one frets sharper and flatter notes. But, maybe one could say that if a guitar has a peak or two at very low frequencies, while another only has peaks at higher frequencies, that the former guitar will be brighter and the latter guitar will be warmer? Obviously that's the reverse of the acoustic properties, remembering that a wolf tone is a dead spot.
So, maybe even though it's not consistent, it should be mostly lower order harmonics getting damped, enough to establish a trend over a decent section of the instrument's register... This would also be in line with the view among guitarists that lighter guitars have a brighter tone. Since lighter guitars have lower peak resonances in general, that is.
I think the question here partly comes down to, how wide a range of frequencies is a wolf tone capable of attenuating? Does a wolf tone attenuate those frequencies on a string equally, or nearly equally, whether the tone is a harmonic or fundamental? One way to test the later of these questions would be to make a Fourier transform of the wolf tone of a guitar, and see if the 2nd harmonic(octave) is louder in proportion to the fundamental, compared to other notes.
To answer the former question, however, would require measuring every note on the fretboard to see the attenuation of the harmonics that happen to fall near wolf tones. Also, that would only really tell you acoustic response, since it's possible that pickup placement at harmonic antinodes would upset this trend. But, I think if you measured acoustically, you could say that the trend existed, and was only partially obsfuscated by pickup placement.
Another theory is that heavy guitars have very many smaller peak resonant frequencies at high frequencies, moreso than a light guitar, and these frequencies due to their abundance, despite only attenuating a narrow band, create thw sort of trend we'd be able to ascribe "warmth" to. This is especially plausible because almost every note you play is going to have some very high order multiple overtone that falls near one of these peak resonant frequencies. One issue with this theory is that as frequency increases, the range a wolf tone attentuates might decrease. Also, the capicitance of your guitar might be leaking these frequencies that are being dampened anyway.
Another important question to ask, is if acoustically, would a damped high end result in a louder low end, or would that sensation be only relative? This question matters because of capacitance, as mentioned above.
And finally, the big one: Does overall resonance, the kind we can measure, have an effect on the bass and treble content of notes when you aren't playing a chord?
Well, that's some food for thought. Now I really am tempted to do some tests of my own! I'm blowing holes in my own position left and right! Still, these are things that I can't find research on either way.
And honestly, there's almost no way to even touch upon attack with measuring tools. And probably the one thing we all agree on is that the attack is the most important part of timbre!
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 9, 2016 12:43:33 GMT -5
Good points, and I agree with all of those for which I have formed an opinion myself (some are new to me).
I think the body, if infinitely stiff, would attenuate no frequencies and maximize sustain (I imagine a bar of iron as the body for this). With no influence to consider, I expect it would sound cold and 'metallic', with very crisp attack. So the wood, by adding its (admittedly subtle) frequency response would alter that and add 'warmth'.
One thing that no one has mentioned yet in this thread (including me) is the influence of the sound coming back from the amplifier and causing the body (and strings) to resonate from that, thereby adding to (or detracting from) the harmonic content. Solidbody guitars will therefore sound different when played loud (even if the amplifier remains clean). When guitars can feedback a note partially it adds to the sustain, and when the volume and the note his a body-matched resonance it permits infinite sustain of the note. This is the body's influence on the resonance of the note, not just the string itself (otherwise all notes would feedback equally well). If it can do this, then there must be a lot of harmonic content added to the guitar tone as a result of the acoustic feedback from the amplifier, even when it is not feeding back infinitely.
With that in mind, an electric guitar as a system (guitar and amp), with feedback built in, uses the solid body to attenuate (but not completely eliminate) the resonance of the body's material - as opposed to an acoustic guitar - and instead introduces the amplifier to increase the volume. Sufficiently increased, the solid body's acoustic properties - albeit greatly attenuated - become excited and introduces its harmonic content back into the sound. Louder is better, of course. If we consider this phenomenon, then a chambered body may well have less sustain at low volumes or unplugged, but the increased resonance could give it *more* sustain at the same amplifier volume when you bring the amplifier back into the system.
This effect is exemplified well by Brian May's Red Special guitar, with resonant chambers that he claims (and demonstrates) will actually promote feedback sustain. I am sure that nobody would be able to convince Brian May that the body, its wood, and its construction, have little impact on tone - especially when amplifiers are brought into the picture.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 13:10:39 GMT -5
I agree on the feedback front 100%.
But I have to disagree completely about stiffness. Stiffness does have an effect on resonance but it is a very minor one(to my knowledge so far). I know that's counter-intuitive. What really is changed by a stiff material such as metal is the speed at which sound waves move through it. Now, it's hard to say if this will result in less phase shift, or what the effect is on damping. But a metal guitar will still have wolf tones, and acoustically will differ much less than you seem to imagine in terms of peak resonant frequencies. I could imagine less measurable peaks in the upper harmonics thanks to stiffness, though. I have no source on that though, it'll require more research. But I believe a metal guitar body would sound more similar to a wood guitar of the same weight, than a heavier guitar made of whatever material you like, metal included. The gittler guitar seems to support this idea though it is a poor analog to compare to in many ways.
While not a great comparison, a traditional aluminum guitar is a much poorer comparison since they tend to weigh far more than wooden guitars. I'd guess the gittler weighs a lot closer to a lightweight guitar. I believe you'll find it shares the resonant characteristics of lightweight guitars, the only attribute in that category I'm confident in being chords resolving to fundamentals and lower order harmonics sooner.
I still haven't really convinced myself of a single identifiable attribute when single notes are played and all other strings are muted that can be attributed to body, or even, in fact, bridge(assuming buzz and slip-free bridge performance).
Actually, I'd really like to get into bridges at a low level(fundamental level that is) as well, but maybe I'd be moving on too soon. Anyway, I understand bridges(from a theory standpoint) even less! I know how to set them up, I know how to fix them(sometimes), but I don't know how different properly set up bridges affect tone. I'm actually suspicious that any tonal differences they have among hard-tails is thanks to electromagnetic interference! As if I didn't have enough crazy ideas...
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 13:19:03 GMT -5
To clarify: By "less measurable peaks" I meant fewer peaks, not smaller or harder to measure peaks.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 9, 2016 18:25:30 GMT -5
[Thanks, I am enjoying this thread and the exchange of ideas and theories!]
To me, the single note example that shows body influence on the tone would be an infinitely-sustained note that you can play indefinitely when a guitar is cranked up loud. Brian May does this a lot, and I have also myself (when I knew no one nearby was going to be bothered too much by the volume). That is the amplifier sound in the air, causing the body to resonate with it, which in turn continues to excite the string and keep it playing. The fact that it will not work on *all* notes played indicates that it is the body and not the strings picking up the sound in the air (the slide guitar solo on Nazareth's Love Hurts is an excellent example of this).
On the topic of stiffness and resonance, I still maintain that a stiffer material will resonate at a higher natural frequency (like a lead crystal glass compared to a glass one). A very stiff metal body (steel is much stiffer than aluminum for the same thickness), or perhaps a concrete slab with a string stretched between to anchor points, will create more sustain and resonate less than a wooden body with the same string. I will give up on this point now, as I have not done this myself (yet ;-) ).
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 18:57:09 GMT -5
Unfortunately I have a very poor example of a concrete guitar which I now feel obligated to share. I kinda don't trust the player's testimony, and sustain of a slide guitar has a lot to do with the player. But the video is fun, and the guy gets a nice tone to boot.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 9, 2016 19:26:33 GMT -5
The video of Love Hurts in the clip below is terrible (does not even show him playing with a slide), but the solo has notes sustained indefinitely via acoustic-body feedback:
If you give it a listen, at 2:40 it is definitely feedback and not only a slide technique.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 9, 2016 19:39:29 GMT -5
I checked out the concrete guitar video. Interesting - To me it illustrates how well an extremely stiff and dense body maximizes the natural sustain of the vibrating string. It would never win any beauty contests .....
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 9, 2016 21:20:40 GMT -5
Blade2-
Yes it will redirect the magnetic field. Yes, it will therefore change response and sensitivity. But the odds that this yields undesirable results with the response and sensitivity are much greater than the odds that you magically find some heretofore-unknown tonal "sweet spot".
I seem to recall someone doing these kinds of experiments around here years ago. If I can come up with a reference out of my dim recesses, I'll let you know. But, think about what you'd be doing to the magnetic field. You can only place the metal plate in proximity to the pickups by placing the plate either to the sides of the coil or underneath the coil- since, of necessity, you have to attach the plate either to the surface of the guitar, or below, in the cavity. The plate has to mount somewhere, it can't hover out above the strings. So, of necessity, your plate will be skewing the field lines either to the sides, or downwards- away from the strings either way. We want that field interacting with the strings, not with a plate.
So, don't let me deter you, experiment away. But recognize that the possibilities of a deleterious effect outweigh the chances for good.
In a related vein, however, I have often wondered about the old-style pickups used on steel guitars, the ones shaped like a horseshoe, where the coil wraps around, both under and over the strings. I've always wondered how something like that would sound on an electric guitar, where the field around the string is coming from both sides. Custom pickup winders who specialize in steel guitars still make that style of pickup for the DIY crowd.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 22:12:18 GMT -5
I thought that ferrous tele bridge plates were fairly common. I do think it would hurt clarity. On the other hand, I think a p90 is a pretty poor pickup design by those standards. That is to say, I don't think bad performance always yeilds bad tone. Otherwise we'd see a lot more jaguar-style pickups on the market, if you buy that the focusing claw works. Or lace pickups. Well, really I'm just trying to defend my tendancy to raise pickups way too high. Seems like you can't find a tone that there isn't somebody somewhere who likes it. But I'd say there's no such thing as an upgrade that improves tone, only changes it. I do see some new players too eager to upgrade various parts of their guitars simply for a "better" tone. Makes me wonder what was wrong with it in the first place. Particularly something like a ferrous bridge plate, I can imagine people doing it just because it's on some vintage guitars. Oh, boy... We know how that goes. I did find this thread covering something I overlooked. www.tdpri.com/threads/pickup-inductance-change-with-ferrous-vs-non-ferrous-bridge.44690/
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 22:34:02 GMT -5
I've also heard that a ferrous bridge can feed back more. Certainly non-ferrous seems like a better performer there. If only an FEM image of the bridge plate existed. Well, just for fun here's images of the pickup baseplate's (is it called an elevator plate?) widening effect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 23:00:51 GMT -5
In the video he compares the same rig with and without sand, then removes the neck as a demonstration. The first two tests, both clamped, are the more relevant ones. I will agree his thoughs on whether the wood makes a difference are totally unrelated to the experiment. After all, he's saying that the character apart from the resonance and sustain was constant, something which he made no attempt to measure, only to make sound clip samples of. But I found the comparison as it applies to sustain relevant. Please consider this video background information to inform about the effect of damping on resonance and sustain. It absolutely doesn't prove anything about frequency response, other than what you can hear from the samples. ...That said, I did think the samples between no sand and sand were surprisingly similar in terms of brightness, etc. It seemed like a good way to demonstrate a change in resonance while keeping other factors constant. I think while removing the neck was kind of gimicky, it did make a good, albeit minor point. If one were to try to reproduce this test, I think it would have been better to only clamp the body of the guitar to the container for the sand, as a demonstration that damping at the bridge alone by a heavier body would have similar results. Sustain as being reversely proportional to resonance is very well known. And again he adds "structural" weight to the tube/neck. Who knows how the vibrations of tube (plastic/metal), water, sand, work in there. He didn't just hang a bag of sand or lead from the straplock. Interesting indeed tho. However I think that adding weight in your worst 'caster would be very easy. And I guess you would find no change in sustain unless you managed to "fill" the neck cavity with weight. e.g. by adding a super massive truss rod.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 9, 2016 23:46:48 GMT -5
Well, I think my first act might have to undergo some trials and tribulations. It seems like the best candidate for something like this. So, here's what I'll ask you guys. How would you like to see such an experiement set up? An issue I would need to resolve first is audio cutting out on my computer, so this probably won't get done this weekend at any rate. Not to mention, I still have another project to wrap up. I also don't have two channel recording capability... My interface supports stereo, but it's one input and I don't have any stereo guitar cable around. Well, let's consider this a hypothetical for now. I don't want to make any promises I wind up too lazy to keep. Better yet, maybe a proposition for another better-equipped member to try out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 1:31:37 GMT -5
Well, I think my first act might have to undergo some trials and tribulations. It seems like the best candidate for something like this. So, here's what I'll ask you guys. How would you like to see such an experiement set up? An issue I would need to resolve first is audio cutting out on my computer, so this probably won't get done this weekend at any rate. Not to mention, I still have another project to wrap up. I also don't have two channel recording capability... My interface supports stereo, but it's one input and I don't have any stereo guitar cable around. Well, let's consider this a hypothetical for now. I don't want to make any promises I wind up too lazy to keep. Better yet, maybe a proposition for another better-equipped member to try out? man humanity has been waiting for 1000s of years to find that "tone". No prob for us to wait a little longer btw why mono input is a show stopper? Do you have any USB guitar multi-effect pedal? That should provide stereo. PS I still believe that the wet sand + tube effect would be replicated with very stiff yet lightweight industrial materials. + the impracticality aspect : no one wants to carry 10 Kg on their shoulders.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 10, 2016 1:49:26 GMT -5
Yeah, my interface is a multifx with stero. but I need to set up two pickups with decent seperation, graphed seperately, to be able to measure one string as the resonating string and the other as the plucked string. If I was to only measure the sustain, I could just use mono. Anyway my multifx has stereo usb out, but doesn't have two mono inputs, just one stereo in. I don't really want to open the thing and run wire leads out.
By your estimation, the weight won't increase sustain, since rigidity doesn't change? Or is it just that both more weight and more rigidity could increase sustain? Personally I still think rigidity would play a minimal role, but I just can't think of any experiment to test something like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 2:56:12 GMT -5
By your estimation, the weight won't increase sustain, since rigidity doesn't change? Or is it just that both more weight and more rigidity could increase sustain? Personally I still think rigidity would play a minimal role, but I just can't think of any experiment to test something like that. Weight might help create some inertia that prevents certain frequencies to resonate and thus save them from dying out. So if you have softer materials, structural weight might help them. Rigidity plays minimal role? Go build a guitar out of lead (or something that can withstand the 50Kg of string tension). I guarantee the tone/sustain will be absent. Think it about like this. If rigidity is +infinity, then there is absolutely no way that any vibration happens after the two ends of the string. This makes the rest of the system or the weight irrelevant.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 10, 2016 3:10:43 GMT -5
I dunno about infinite rigidity... But, y'know, tuning forks are pretty rigid... I think I'm kinda confused on how you see the relationship. Lead is soft and heavy. I would see it as having a ton of sustain. I think I better re-read your post tomorrow, actually, I've been up too late for physics.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 13, 2016 9:39:09 GMT -5
If something is heavy but not rigid, like a silicon gel, then I imagine sustain would be almost gone despite the overall weight.
However, it is hard to separate the weight from the stiffness of a structure in some cases as the two can be related. In aircraft and spacecraft, structural pieces are made stiffer by cutting round holes in them (stiffer against their own weight) and this raises their resonant frequencies, which is very desirable for launching on rockets and needing natural frequencies to be well above the rocket's vibrations so that none of them are excited and amplified by resonance.
Carbon fiber is used to make stiff yet light structures (and some guitar necks have had carbon fiber in them for that purpose but I do not see it much any more in literature, so stiffness can be achieved in a manner that is less dependent on mass depending on the material.
Since an acoustic guitar is really a mechanical impedance-matching transformer (string impedance to air impedance), the weight-to-stiffness and resonance achieved by the bracing becomes a whole new topic. In those guitars the structure needs to be light, stiff and strong all at the same time.
|
|