Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2016 23:13:42 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. Thanx for sharing ! BTW what happened to the artificial material guitars? Has the traditionalist-vintage mafia shut them all down?
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 15, 2016 23:47:50 GMT -5
Thanx for sharing ! BTW what happened to the artificial material guitars? Has the traditionalist-vintage mafia shut them all down? That's it man, it's all a conspiracy! There are still companies making carbon fiber necks, and of course acrylic bodies still have a market. Music man makes this carbon-fibre topped guitar. If someone made a carbon fibre body it would be interesting to compare it to a wood body that weighs around the same. The rigidity question is an interesting one for sure.
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 16, 2016 6:07:28 GMT -5
I would think the whole point of doing so would be that it wouldn't weigh the same. You'd have to add weigh (as discussed above) to get a match, and then the debate would shift to the material you used to add the weight, and what its stiffness and resonance is . . . Rainsong Guitars makes carbon fiber acoustics, they claim superior tone compared to wood, and also claim to be "greener" in that no threatened wood species are used. (However, making things out of carbon fiber is hardly environmentally friendly, either.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2016 9:08:26 GMT -5
That's it man, it's all a conspiracy! Sorry, I forgot that heavenly market is run by innocent angels.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 16, 2016 9:09:09 GMT -5
I'd think you'd want to make the wooden guitar lighter to match up. So, it'd be smaller. In any case, a more likely comparison someone might actually try is to compare it to a similarly shaped body. If it had less sustain than a basswood body, it might lead us to think its rigidity didn't aide sustain much, but it would be pretty inconclusive. If it sustained more, despite being lighter, then rigidity definitely has an affect on sustain. That's the trouble with the sort of amateur tests you find about tonewood. Most people can't do controled experiments, so a lot of them really have only one possible conclusion, or else it's inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jun 16, 2016 9:46:56 GMT -5
cheap,
You just said it, and said it best: "controlled experiments". Lacking any viable (and probably all!) controls, every argument I've ever seen on the Interwebs is nothing more than confirmation bias for whomever is speaking at the moment. I almost have to include myself in that statement, but I'll tell you (all) now, whenever I picked up an instrument, I listened for what it did (or could do, if it needed repairs) - I was never about "well, it has this kinda wood, but not that kinda pickups, so maybe I should pass it up", or any other similar statements.
Let me remind you all, we're here because we believe in Tone, not in how to achieve it. As cynical1 will tell you (time and again), you can chase it down any number of rabbit holes for as long as you want, but when all the shouting is done and over with, it's how you interact with your axe while playing that will make your music sound attractive to others. Sure, being prepared ahead of time with lots of tonal possibilities, that's all to the good. But don't forget, Roy Buchanan told his story with just an ordinary Telecaster that for all practical purposes, he treated like an Esquire - always the Bridge pup, and that was it.
Done for the day, I'll be back at in the cat's house* later tonight, and will make whoopee with the keyboard a little less stringently.
HTH
sumgai
* It's their place, they just let us stay with them!
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 16, 2016 11:46:07 GMT -5
This confirmation/expectation bias is everywhere. It's so hard to trust anyone, and personally I don't even trust myself when it comes to what sounds best. Might be cynical of me, but this sort of bias is no joke and it goes both ways. You can just as easily imagine a difference and a similarity. It's human nature. I really, really like blind tests whenever they're available, even if they're not perfect. I wish there were more when it comes to things like pickups, too, just so I wouldn't always pick the cheap ones. That always fills me with doubt.
The motivation for me personally to try and figure out the reasons behind tonal changes is to try to take my bias out of the equation a bit. In a guitarist's utopia, you could just worry about the end result, but over here in reality, you can only exercise so many options with a limited budget. Gradually eliminating extraneous factors starts to make life easier and cheaper real fast. But to be honest, tonewood is the least practical thing to go after. Maybe that's why it's so intriguing(or controversial, depending on who you ask).
Most recently, I thought I prefered the sound of one amp sim to another, found a blind test online, and picked the opposite one 90% of the time! Well, I know that one amp sim might have done better with that guy's guitar specifically, but it gave me pause. Reminded me I'm just a newbie, at the very least. But really what I optimistically blame it on is inherent bias rather than my poor hearing.
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Jun 16, 2016 15:46:08 GMT -5
At this point, I think we've beaten the "tone is subjective" mantra to death...in fact, I believe I saw weeds growing on the grave...
I'll probably put my head in the vice on this one, but these discussions always miss the most obvious point. And what is that point? In a word, stability. I'll say it again, STABILITY.
Ever wonder why mahogany is such a popular choice for guitar building? It's about as stable as any wood you're going to find. Back in the 50's it was cheap and readily available...along with true ebony. Sadly, it worked so well we used up the prime stock decades ago. This explains the shortages, prohibitions, substitutions...and the drama Gibson went through a few years ago due to the Lacey Act...but that's all ground we've tread before...
To the point, when you pick up a guitar or bass, you want the thing to stay in tune. The best guitar\bass necks are the ones that you can't ever remember the size of the wrench to adjust the truss rod with. The more stable the wood, the more consistent the guitar\bass will play and the less it will be effected by environmental conditions.
We've already established that the term "tonewood" is subjective. I would go a step further and say the term is misleading. I've been repairing and building guitars off and on since the early 70's. The time spent repairing and "rescuing" existing guitars was invaluable in learning what works and what doesn't. The one lesson I learned that applies most here is "the string has to vibrate" to make a note. Anything that preserves that vibration is good. The longer it preserves that string energy, ergo; vibration, the better.
Any guitar can be chambered to promote specific resonant frequencies. Pick any wood and it's intrinsic resonant frequency can be modified this way.
Carbon fibre, polycarbonite, aluminum...whatever...the quest is for a material that preserves that string energy...without causing a hernia for the player and bankruptcy for the builder. 99% of the time you get the compromise.
IMHO, Gibson's original Les Paul design with a mahogany body\neck with a rock\sugar maple (not western maple) top was as good as it got. Coupled with the pattern maker quality of the build on these early instruments and you have a "machine" that preserves string energy better than anything I've ever seen. Sadly, wood of that age and quality are long gone.
OK, flame away.
Happy Trails
Cynical One
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jun 16, 2016 22:56:35 GMT -5
I'm not going to flame you, Cyn1. I think you're spot-on.
I'd even take it a step further, when we talk about stability of the wood, "tonewoods", etc.
Even if we are comparing two like species, basswood to basswood,let's say, unless those woods are very old, their moisture content will vary. One piece may have been dried better than the other, another one maybe sat a little longer. So, even if we're comparing apples to apples, we don't have a known "base" for any given species.
I would think it non-controversial to state that density of the wood affects tone, and wetter wood is denser. If the variation between two pieces of basswood, due to differing moisture content, would exceed the differences between equally-dried basswood vs. say, ash, then we really won't have any basis for comparison.
No data, just suspicion, but I venture to guess there may be greater variation between two pieces of basswood than between basswood and some other species.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 0:53:47 GMT -5
No data, just suspicion, but I venture to guess there may be greater variation between two pieces of basswood than between basswood and some other species. I agree, remember my attempts with local "fresh" pine from just down the road to make dowels ended up in failure. Is it the greek pine so soft? or so wet? Some builders from Crete island, claim that Olive wood, when dried correctly can achieve maximum hardness, but is very heavy (heavier than water). Definitely humidity plays a major role. I guess dry wood is more rigid and sustains much better. Cheap, as you see, most of the ppl with experience (not me) say that wood/materials matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 0:59:21 GMT -5
The best guitar\bass necks are the ones that you can't ever remember the size of the wrench to adjust the truss rod with. The more stable the wood, the more consistent the guitar\bass will play and the less it will be effected by environmental conditions. Cyn1, you remember this Ibanez 7-string with the double titanium rods? Once I tried to make this neck bend, in the usual way that I do with my other floyds. I tell you, the funker would not move by all my strength.
|
|
|
Post by blademaster2 on Jun 17, 2016 9:19:53 GMT -5
I certainly concur that moisture content in any wood will impact is resonant properties and may well dominate some of the differences between species.
Dry wood seems to have more resonance, and less absorption of vibration. I notice that on violins that I have played, too, and any acoustic guitar I have played as they appear to be louder and richer in harmonics. Drier wood seems to mean less weight but equal stiffness, and vibrations seem to travel more readily and rapidly. Of course I have no controlled experimental test results to support these assertions.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 17, 2016 12:28:12 GMT -5
I would expect the same piece of wood to resonate more and sustain less if dried... I think the method is relevant because some methods might dry the inside of the wood more than others. Absorbing vibrations, if that's what's happening, seems to be beneficial to sustain. I don't think you can use acoustics as an example unfortunately because the guitar with more sustain would in general be quieter, so the term becomes muddled. I also feel like mentioning, a cut of a tree closer to the center(forgive me for not knowing the right term) will be more dense. As far a basswood goes, I would also expect more variation between pieces. I would think a less dense wood could have more variety in moisture content, not because I know a single thing about wood, but because I'd think less dense = more room for water. When I visited the kala ukulele shop, they payed very close attention to drying the wood. I remember the guide, who in fact was the owner, said that he dries the logs as much as possible while avoiding cracks. Koa wood used in ukueleles and guitars today is old growth, from dying trees, or sometimes from branches trimmed from live trees. My project for this weekend will be calculating the ratio of elastic modulus to specific weight for various woods, and perhaps various mosture contents for the same woods, if I can find the data. Why? Because I have no life. www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-221X2015000400011&script=sci_arttext
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2016 13:14:09 GMT -5
Humidity makes things disintegrate, softer, not rigid, unstable, uncontrolable. Guitar makers choose to dry their wood to achieve maximum hardness, robustness and sustain.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 17, 2016 13:18:39 GMT -5
The density and rigidity of wood share a close relationship. This makes the two factors difficult to seperate. Furthermore, I haven't found info that tries to establish a relationship between rigidity and damping that compensates for density. If I can find the right data it might be possible to come to a real conclusion about this relationship... So forget finding out how much variance exists among woods, I'd rather use what little variance there is to confirm the relationship between damping and rigidity. I probably won't be the first one to do this but I ain't paying any money for access to a research paper.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 17, 2016 13:31:49 GMT -5
Humidity makes things disintegrate, softer, not rigid, unstable, uncontrolable. Guitar makers choose to dry their wood to achieve maximum hardness, robustness and sustain. I think that's a valid reason for acoustics, but a doubter like myself would be suspicious of whether the structural strength of the woods are relevant when they're a 2" slab. The key is damping here, and I dunno if a more rigid material damps more when you compensate for density. More and more, however, I am becoming convinced that this is the case. In other words, to nobody's great surprise, the ideas brought forward in this thread by more experienced members are likely correct. ...I still don't know jack about frequency response though. Sustain is obviously a greater concern for we electric guitars. But my ears tell me that frequency response isn't as affected by species as marketing suggests, and it sure would be comforting to be able to call that sort of thing out. Obviously guitar marketing like all marketing has its fair share of bologna, no doubt about that. The hippie in me wants to know. It's definitely one thing at a time though, and addressing sustain seems like the easier target.
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 17, 2016 13:42:53 GMT -5
Well well, lookie what I found! Turns out there has been a study on specific modulus vs. damping! The study itself mentions how rarely reported this is. The study was all using the same species of wood, though I'd bet the basic relationship is the same for any species. Using the same species is pretty helpful for our purposes. And here's the result! With this study we know the affect of stiffness compensated for density. I recommend reading the whole article. www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-77602012000100006
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 17, 2016 17:58:59 GMT -5
This article seems to show that damping is not merely a result of rigidity and density, but that there are other factors in play. Sigh. Well, not that it's surprising. The article says: By applying a cyclic process, drying (60°C) and ambient re-conditioning, which mimics wood seasoning and short-term aging, the damping coefficient (tanδ) was decreased down to 10% without negatively affecting specific modulus of elasticity (E’/ρ). Long-term (up to 4 months) soaking in cold water removed extractives, and decreased density as well as E’/ρ, but did not affect tanδ. Short-term hot water treatment removed as many extractives, but caused a smaller decrease in E’/ρ than cold water, and significantly increased tanδ. Well, that's all I'm gonna try to figure out today. Considering both that I've posted 4 times in a row and that my brain is starting to hurt, I think it's for the best.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2016 1:48:10 GMT -5
Humidity makes things disintegrate, softer, not rigid, unstable, uncontrolable. Guitar makers choose to dry their wood to achieve maximum hardness, robustness and sustain. I think that's a valid reason for acoustics, but a doubter like myself would be suspicious of whether the structural strength of the woods are relevant when they're a 2" slab. The key is damping here, and I dunno if a more rigid material damps more when you compensate for density. More and more, however, I am becoming convinced that this is the case. In other words, to nobody's great surprise, the ideas brought forward in this thread by more experienced members are likely correct. ...I still don't know jack about frequency response though. Sustain is obviously a greater concern for we electric guitars. But my ears tell me that frequency response isn't as affected by species as marketing suggests, and it sure would be comforting to be able to call that sort of thing out. Obviously guitar marketing like all marketing has its fair share of bologna, no doubt about that. The hippie in me wants to know. It's definitely one thing at a time though, and addressing sustain seems like the easier target. easy. drop your electric in water, leave it there overnight, and go check the sustain of your super dense and heavy guitar the morning after. You say the key is "damping". Damping in english means smth related to moisture - humidity. Maybe you mean "dumping"? What do you mean "if a more rigid material damps more when you compensate for density"? Why do you think density is so important? As I said, weight or density MIGHT be the accidental cure for an INHERENT problematic system. Like e.g. medicine X. e.g. Aspirine *might* help with some illness. But by default both the illness *AND* the aspirine are unwanted, you dont take an aspirine every morning hoping of getting sick in the process. Rigidity, strength and stability not weight nor water is the answer. Would they make super cars so lightweight if there was any chance of dangerous vibrations or loss of energy?
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Jun 18, 2016 1:59:11 GMT -5
You're thinking of the word dampening, that has nothing to do with damping.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 19, 2016 11:20:12 GMT -5
You're thinking of the word dampening, that has nothing to do with damping. according to your logic (wet sand, sustain, density, weight, etc etc etc, moisture adds weight and thus sustain, and the rest of your claims) "damping" as in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping is related to www.dictionary.com/browse/dampening . I guess you haven't yet tried to increase your guitar's sustain by dropping into water
|
|
enver
Rookie Solder Flinger
I'm new to guitar repair and trying to find new more efficient ways to "quiet the beast".
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
|
Post by enver on Feb 8, 2017 16:37:00 GMT -5
I firmly did not believe in tonewood until recently I purchased a set neck guitar, with amazing sustain and a rich tone... but could be the pickups right... No half of my playing style involves knocking the wood to get the strings to vibrate and create a drum like effect instead of producing a chunky drum like rhythm this thing produces crisp harmonic like notes depending on where I strike the guitar audible through the pickups or without if not plugged in... Interesting the video with the sand showed that different parts of the guitar resonate differently... very much so but if tonewood had no effect then these natural resonating harmonics would not be so prominent in the amplified tone especially when I am playing very different notes than the tones the wood is creating from my knocks. Just my two cents from a converted non- believer.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 8, 2017 17:23:03 GMT -5
enver,
First, welcome to The NutzHouse!
Second, the original debate, started (and long since paused) years before monkeyhotel came on board, really summed it up nicely - the wood used in a guitar's construction has some input to the final results, but by no means is it the be-all, end-all controlling influence over tone. I think it was greekdude that hit the nail on the head (though I'm going from memory here, and I could be mis-attributing the source). In essence, he said:
It's not just any one component, but all of them put together. Even things like how well the assembler put everything together will have an effect, sometimes a major one. Yes, some parts contribute more than others, but to exclude a majority of items in favor of only one or two items is folly.
And as in absolutely all cases where wood is used (not just in guitars), there's no such thing as absolute repeatability - every piece is extremely unique, and to assert that "all pieces of ash are superior to all pieces of alder" is, as noted above, pure folly. Which gives rise to the second most famous maxim ever uttered/written here in The NutzHouse - YMMV.
(Our most famous maxim? ChrisK gets the honors for that one.... "Someone is always the fuse. Make sure it isn't YOU!")
HTH sumgai
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Feb 8, 2017 19:22:24 GMT -5
I always enjoy reading these tonewood discussions. They're rich with anecdotes to make up for the short supply of science.
It's not hard to witness the importance of construction techniques and materials in an acoustic instrument. You aren't going to get a cardboard guitar to sing like this.
(I'm fairly certain I've posted that video of Shawn before, but it's worthy so I doubt any of you will sue me.)
When it comes to solid body electric guitars, It's far less clear. One way we can know for certain that tonewood is good for tone is that it's generally very pretty. And pretty ALWAYS sounds better. Even when it doesn't.
Sustain for days? Very desirable. But most people can't hear it because they aren't professional musicians.
In general, most people don't appreciate the delicate nature of maintaining the value of a precious guitar. When Sumgai interviewed me several years ago, he wanted to hold my Fender. Seriously, don't touch it. Don't even look at it!
Now that my stage days are mostly behind me, I've dedicated my time to precise scientific experiments in a highly-controlled environment, in an effort to bring the truth to the masses.
Here at GuitarNutz, we leave no stone unturned. If you search for "tonewood" you'll get more than twenty pages of posts. And why not? Guitars are primarily made of wood. But most guitars also have a pickguard. Search for "tone plastic" and you'll get more than three pages of posts.
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 9, 2017 1:06:32 GMT -5
'TrEaD,
I'm glad you reminded me - I never did thank you for not throwing me out on my keister during the interview that day, because unbeknownst to you, I did go back and look some more at that Fender!
But for the most part, Ms. Colvin is exhibiting a high-quality demonstration of what I'll now call Tone-Air. Yes, she's not just modulating wood grain, she's actually invigorating and exciting a whole butt-load of air molecules, right there inside o' her geetar! I'll be hornswoggled if that ain't the durndest thing I ever did see!
Now, for extra credit, tell us how we can separate the effects of wood from the affect it has on air found in a hollow conformation. If you please......
sumgai
|
|
|
Post by reTrEaD on Feb 9, 2017 10:11:26 GMT -5
If you want to prevent the heir inside from being excited, just give him a couple of Valium and a small glass of wine. Works a treat. Better yet, coax him outside and make a reservation for him at The Plaza.
What's that you say? AIR, not heir?
|
|
cheap
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
|
Post by cheap on Feb 11, 2017 0:42:51 GMT -5
Now, for extra credit, tell us how we can separate the effects of wood from the affect it has on air found in a hollow conformation. If you please...... Actually, Carleen Hutchins did a lot of research of violins that alleged shape was far more important to the sound of a violin. Interesting stuff I'd check out if you're interested. Anyways, it can't be said enough that pretty much everyone is on the same side when it comes to acoustics. The question people contest more is the effect on the electronic signal.
I spent so much time and got so much feedback in this thread that I really resolved a lot of the finer details of this for myself. I know I failed to explain what I found very well on a number of issues, but I got a lot for myself out of it. Separating the issues of sustain, resonant peaks, and overall resonance clarifies much of the confusion. I believe the greatest misunderstanding stems from one tonal aspect that is not affected by any of those issues appreciably. That is the "warmth" of the tone. That is, how much highs are cut. Clearly this is not affected by the wood of the instrument appreciably. While there are MANY tonal factors changed by wood, the one people most commonly attribute to wood is false.
This is where the "tonewood debate" is tough. Not the facts, not the physics, just that one surface detail used in marketing is false. That gives those on the lookout for marketing BS a knee-jerk reaction. I really wish I had the eloquence of speech to succinctly explain something like that, but nothing speaks as clearly as just saying "yes" or "no."
In summary: the internet is a pain in the butt for intellectual discussion. Guitarnutz is really the best place I've found on the web to discuss this issue and guitars in general. Still, I've had a lot more luck explaining the technicality to people in person. When I do that, I don't have to resort to zingers like, "I could make a guitar out of wet sand with more sustain than your Les Paul."
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Feb 11, 2017 11:30:25 GMT -5
cheap,
I thank you. This was the first thing I read this morning, and I don't think my day is gonna get any better, not after seeing this particular epistle. Truly, you have expressed the spirit of this place with far more eloquence than I've ever exhibited. When I go to bed tonight, I'll still be smiling for the fact that at least one Nutz has both enjoyed, and been enlightened by, our measly efforts here. Put most simply, the mission of The NutzHouse (because we chose to accept it) is to try and bring together players from all walks of life to discuss all the facets of this amazingly versatile, and yet excrutiatingly complex instrument.
BTW, I usually like zingers, they tend to open things up for debate quite quickly.
Thanks again.
(Let the record show that ProBoards sucks the hind one for having taken away our beloved Karma points! )
sumgai
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 8:47:29 GMT -5
I smiled as well, till I remembered I am still at work
|
|
|
Post by antigua on Feb 17, 2017 13:02:24 GMT -5
I forget why the "tone wood" debate is even a thing. If it's meant to justify spending more money on a guitar, I've never even seen evidence that expensive guitars use a selection of wood that is in any way different than what is used on cheaper guitars. Many Asian imports use nato or basswood because that's what grows over there, but even then, it's a case of different, not better or worse. Cheaper guitars might be several pieces of wood glues together when expensive guitars use fewer pieces, but that's not really a wood type issue, it's more of a structural one.
I don't necessarily agree that the high pitched frequencies have to be the ones that are effected in order to alter the perceived "warmth", because if you add or remove bass or mids, then the perception is that highs have been increased or reduced by virtue of contrasts.
The underlying problem with how the tonewood debate plays out on the internet is the same problem that comes with capacitor dielectric debates, or the merits of wax potting, or scatter winding, and it's that there is zero respect for scientific rigor. The fundemental assumption, is if *I* hear a difference, then there must be a difference, and it's up to someone else to do the hard work of explaining why I heard a difference. Or, if I think the wood is responsible for the tone difference, then the wood is responsible for the tone difference, and it's someone else's job to explain why I'm right.
This phenomenon is contagious, too. It seems like the state of collective wisdom about guitar has actually decreased in the past fifteen years. Pre-internet, you had to buy a book about how guitars worked, and those books tended to be well researched, written by people with serious personal investment. Nowadays, if you want to know how something works, you do a Google search, and the results you get are from Internet forums filled with answers from people who have done no research, or from companies that sell guitars and guitar related accessories, whose goal is to make guitars seem as magical and mysterious as they possibly can, so that they can cast themselves as the magical wizards who have somehow unlocked the secrets to "vintage tone". So people become emboldened by this anti-science, they start forming their own opinions about why this thing is tonally superior than that things. Some people hit the "like" button on your broad generalization about how AlNiCo 2 sounds different form AlNiCo 5, and it's mission accomplished, no more investigation required. People just sign their posts with "FWIW,YMMV,IMHO" to cover for those edge cases when someone else's completely unscientific opinion differs from their own completely unscientific opinion.
What I would love to see if for a lot of the published works through the 70's to the 00's made available online, so that they can appear in search results, instead of rambling TGP posts.
|
|