Archer250
Well-known member
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
I urge you to read Unweaving The Rainbow
I urge you to read Unweaving The Rainbow
Last edited:
A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
- Thread starter DreX
- Start date
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
Weren't you the guy I've already offered an escrowed $1K wager to see who between us has a superior comprehension of science in a real time format? You gonna get back to me on that? Or just pretend it never happened?
Again, with the 'discussion of the discussion'. This seems to be all your side has left at this point, since I guess you've finally realized that if you persist on the tonewood issue into scientific waters, you'll eventually run into stuff you don't really understand, but vaguely feel you do not like because it disrupts the nonsense you believe about being able to 'hear an ash guitar' or 'hear a maple fretboard'.
You can go back and read my posts for plenty of detail on methodologies and why basically everything your side has said thus far is beyond garbage. Its completely cringe-worthy. Matter of fact, why doesn't everyone make this simple pledge: No more pathetic, weaksauce rhetoric 'discussing the discussion' which is the last, inevitable refuge of anyone who has badly lost a debate. Why don't we instead discuss science and/or relevant methodologies? Allow me be the first to sign the pledge. Can we agree on that?
I very much look forward to what the pro tonewood side can offer in the ambit of scientific discussion, since I'm sure by now you realize your embarrassing appeals to authority don't hold water (with anyone but total mouth breathers). For everyone who takes the position of 'I AINT CARE BOUT NO SCIENCE I JUST PLAY GUITARS AND FEEL WHAT I WANT!!!' , hooray! Since this is literally the only thread in this forum about tonewood mythology while every other thread is about something else, you needn't feel obliged to waste your time posting here. For those of you who want to talk science? Lets talk science. Just understand that the vast majority of science isn't a matter of 'opinion' nor will you be able to effectively 'fake it' for very long and the less educated are about science, the worse you're going to fail when trying to discuss it since you'll eventually wind up at 'electro-mechanical reproduction' and posting these.
:cop::32::firing::firing::kabong::banghead:
(and for the record, appeal to scientific authority is not a logical fallacy. Claiming the best handgun caliber is (x) because a cop told you, that is a logical fallacy ala appeal to authority)
Weren't you the guy I've already offered an escrowed $1K wager to see who between us has a superior comprehension of science in a real time format? You gonna get back to me on that? Or just pretend it never happened?
Again, with the 'discussion of the discussion'. This seems to be all your side has left at this point, since I guess you've finally realized that if you persist on the tonewood issue into scientific waters, you'll eventually run into stuff you don't really understand, but vaguely feel you do not like because it disrupts the nonsense you believe about being able to 'hear an ash guitar' or 'hear a maple fretboard'.
You can go back and read my posts for plenty of detail on methodologies and why basically everything your side has said thus far is beyond garbage. Its completely cringe-worthy. Matter of fact, why doesn't everyone make this simple pledge: No more pathetic, weaksauce rhetoric 'discussing the discussion' which is the last, inevitable refuge of anyone who has badly lost a debate. Why don't we instead discuss science and/or relevant methodologies? Allow me be the first to sign the pledge. Can we agree on that?
I very much look forward to what the pro tonewood side can offer in the ambit of scientific discussion, since I'm sure by now you realize your embarrassing appeals to authority don't hold water (with anyone but total mouth breathers). For everyone who takes the position of 'I AINT CARE BOUT NO SCIENCE I JUST PLAY GUITARS AND FEEL WHAT I WANT!!!' , hooray! Since this is literally the only thread in this forum about tonewood mythology while every other thread is about something else, you needn't feel obliged to waste your time posting here. For those of you who want to talk science? Lets talk science. Just understand that the vast majority of science isn't a matter of 'opinion' nor will you be able to effectively 'fake it' for very long and the less educated are about science, the worse you're going to fail when trying to discuss it since you'll eventually wind up at 'electro-mechanical reproduction' and posting these.
:cop::32::firing::firing::kabong::banghead:
(and for the record, appeal to scientific authority is not a logical fallacy. Claiming the best handgun caliber is (x) because a cop told you, that is a logical fallacy ala appeal to authority)
Last edited:
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
That is psuedo-science.
Also, creationism is such a huge, existential, mega-macro question that in spite of having no compelling evidence, its entirely possible for otherwise smart people to believe it for emotional reasons. Its inherently non-scientific, though.
'Creation Scientists' or people like the guy with a PhD in Geology from Harvard who is a New Earth Creationist are brilliant examples of why 'being a scientist' doesn't matter nearly as much as articulating cogent, accurate and methodologically valid scientific ideas.
I tried to tell the geniuses that earlier in the discussion even though I could've easily bludgeoned them with my background and left them rapidly changing the tack of their discussion, but the fundamental cluelessnesss with some people leaves you wondering how they even figure out how to turn on a computer.
Yeah, though. Scientists can lie. Science does not.
Appeal to authority = Appeal to a scientist.
Appealing to science = not an appeal to authority = not a fallacy of logic such as we see with ALL SORTS OF LUTHIERS BELIEVE TONEWOOD IS TRUE!!!!
That is psuedo-science.
Also, creationism is such a huge, existential, mega-macro question that in spite of having no compelling evidence, its entirely possible for otherwise smart people to believe it for emotional reasons. Its inherently non-scientific, though.
'Creation Scientists' or people like the guy with a PhD in Geology from Harvard who is a New Earth Creationist are brilliant examples of why 'being a scientist' doesn't matter nearly as much as articulating cogent, accurate and methodologically valid scientific ideas.
I tried to tell the geniuses that earlier in the discussion even though I could've easily bludgeoned them with my background and left them rapidly changing the tack of their discussion, but the fundamental cluelessnesss with some people leaves you wondering how they even figure out how to turn on a computer.
Yeah, though. Scientists can lie. Science does not.
Appeal to authority = Appeal to a scientist.
Appealing to science = not an appeal to authority = not a fallacy of logic such as we see with ALL SORTS OF LUTHIERS BELIEVE TONEWOOD IS TRUE!!!!
Last edited:
Archer250
Well-known member
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
And you'll find many people citing woo-scientists to support their agenda. A fallacy is still a fallacy.
And you'll find many people citing woo-scientists to support their agenda. A fallacy is still a fallacy.
Last edited:
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
No one has left the discussion and there are definitely not two sides here. Your post certainly has not advanced the topic. Most of your assertions about the participants in this thread are false and simply not grounded in any fact. You clearly do not know the people you are talking to. SD forum members have a variety of views on this topic - those that have been here a while are more familiar with each other's views. No one in this thread claimed they can hear a fretboard, nor have any of the members you've accused of being of a particular view actually stated a firm position on the matter. We all are equally interested in finding out if, or to what degree, wood plays a role in tone and sound. The discussion here has all been around how to test the theory. So far plenty of productive discussion has taken place in this thread about possible ways to set up an experiment, from using a uniform boards to flat planks, links to various research have been provided, debate about how near to the shape and size of a guitar the test wood sample needs tobe, to different methods to stimulate the strings - from an ebow to mechanized plucking systems, etc., and that discussion is continuing, despite your interjections.
It's clear from your join date and username that you created an account solely to interject in this one thread and be obnoxious. This is something this forum could certainly do without.
No one has left the discussion and there are definitely not two sides here. Your post certainly has not advanced the topic. Most of your assertions about the participants in this thread are false and simply not grounded in any fact. You clearly do not know the people you are talking to. SD forum members have a variety of views on this topic - those that have been here a while are more familiar with each other's views. No one in this thread claimed they can hear a fretboard, nor have any of the members you've accused of being of a particular view actually stated a firm position on the matter. We all are equally interested in finding out if, or to what degree, wood plays a role in tone and sound. The discussion here has all been around how to test the theory. So far plenty of productive discussion has taken place in this thread about possible ways to set up an experiment, from using a uniform boards to flat planks, links to various research have been provided, debate about how near to the shape and size of a guitar the test wood sample needs tobe, to different methods to stimulate the strings - from an ebow to mechanized plucking systems, etc., and that discussion is continuing, despite your interjections.
It's clear from your join date and username that you created an account solely to interject in this one thread and be obnoxious. This is something this forum could certainly do without.
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
I edited for a bit more clarity but yes.
Nobody disagrees that psuedo-science and terrible scientists exist.
Peer review was invented for a reason. Grandiose claims made as a result of 'Secret science' and/or flat-out awful science is why.
I edited for a bit more clarity but yes.
Nobody disagrees that psuedo-science and terrible scientists exist.
Peer review was invented for a reason. Grandiose claims made as a result of 'Secret science' and/or flat-out awful science is why.
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
Basically everything you just said was discussion about the discussion.
Behold, my point.
You can keep vaguely asserting 'science' as an abstract generality but at what point does the rubber hit the road and your side actually start talking substantively about it? Something? Anything? Instead of rhetorically discussing the aesthetic of the conversation itself and thinly veiled begging with the mods to 'do something about me'? I'm really waiting for that. It seems a few tried in the beginning but quickly realized that bro-science and authority appeals didn't work, so all I'm really seeing is more predictable discussion-of-discussion.
Can you stop that now? Please? We're trying to talk science here. All I'm asking for is the pro tonewood side to interject SOMETHING in that regard that isn't another sad, sad 'electro mechanical reproduction'.
Basically everything you just said was discussion about the discussion.
Behold, my point.
You can keep vaguely asserting 'science' as an abstract generality but at what point does the rubber hit the road and your side actually start talking substantively about it? Something? Anything? Instead of rhetorically discussing the aesthetic of the conversation itself and thinly veiled begging with the mods to 'do something about me'? I'm really waiting for that. It seems a few tried in the beginning but quickly realized that bro-science and authority appeals didn't work, so all I'm really seeing is more predictable discussion-of-discussion.
Can you stop that now? Please? We're trying to talk science here. All I'm asking for is the pro tonewood side to interject SOMETHING in that regard that isn't another sad, sad 'electro mechanical reproduction'.
Last edited:
Archer250
Well-known member
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
I'm not on a 'side.' There aren't sides, particularly if you were truly scientific. There is a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
I think it's time for you to put up or shut up. Set up the experiment and report back the results. Let's see your version of 'science' produce some results, instead incessant talking.
I'm not on a 'side.' There aren't sides, particularly if you were truly scientific. There is a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
I think it's time for you to put up or shut up. Set up the experiment and report back the results. Let's see your version of 'science' produce some results, instead incessant talking.
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
"Put up or shut up" exists in the form of any tonewood believer who is willing to barrel the cash in a blind test and get 95/100 correct.
I can put you in touch with the right people.
You game? Or just another in the long line who expect someone else to go to all the cost and effort of setting something up, only to claim that your 'blood pressure' or 'room temperature' or 'file compression' or 'moon phase' was the reason you failed? Because nobody is interested in going to any time nor expense to demonstrate that 'phenomenon'.
Well, except for maybe these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI
"Put up or shut up" exists in the form of any tonewood believer who is willing to barrel the cash in a blind test and get 95/100 correct.
I can put you in touch with the right people.
You game? Or just another in the long line who expect someone else to go to all the cost and effort of setting something up, only to claim that your 'blood pressure' or 'room temperature' or 'file compression' or 'moon phase' was the reason you failed? Because nobody is interested in going to any time nor expense to demonstrate that 'phenomenon'.
Well, except for maybe these guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VAasVXtCOI
ExplorersRock
X-Files Duckbucker
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
So other than trying to have some kind of childish game of chicken, what's the point of the wager? So you can point out I blinked first? How very adult of you.
Besides, weren't you the guy who just said science comprehension didn't matter?! Go back and reread what you quoted. I said you can't argue effectively. That has nothing to do with science comprehension but I guess that's too difficult for you to grasp. Like for example, how can you say background, credentials, and authority do not matter yet challenge me to which one of us is a stronger authority with better scientific background via a $1,000 wager?!?! That's circular logic. "Being an authority on the subject does not matter, and I can say that because I can prove I'm the better authority on the subject." I'm sure you'll find more B.S. to fling at me, though. Your scientific comprehension may be great. I'll never know, because your ability to use logical argumentation sucks!
I have said nothing on this thread supporting your opposition, but like with Evan, anyone who challenges you gets lumped together. I find it amusing that you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing here. Furthermore, you are not disrupting what I believe at all. That arrogantly assumes that you are the first person to take up this position. You are new to this forum so do a search. Are you really so naive as to believe that this topic has never come up before and been discussed at great lengths on a guitar-related forum? For a scientist, you are amazingly short-sighted if that's the case! You're not even close! Last summer we had some guy called "The Pontif" or something similar saying almost verbatim what you are saying now, arrogance included. You're not enlightening anyone and you're not even being original. You are very narrow-minded and excruciatingly biased. I hope to God you are not in charge of anything that someone's life may depend on as your fragile ego would get people killed. And if you think I'm being insulting, well, I'm more than happy to return your serve, "in-kind."
I have read your posts and you point out scientific details and methodologies most of us learned in high school or even middle-school, so there's a reason no one is giving you a pat on the back. What you do NOT do is point out any scientific support for any claims that your position is the correct one. You have shown no evidence in support of your theory whatsoever. You also haven't shown any scientific data disproving your opposition either. You have used insults and condescending language in a foolish attempt to create a reductio-ad-absurdum argument. But you fail, ultimately, because insults and condescension offers no proof or validity to your position via reducing the opposing view point to absurdity. You have proved nothing. What you have done is show us that you have an impatience and complete intolerance for those who think differently than you.
Furthermore, I have given you nothing to be shown as "far beyond garbage," because, and I know this will blow your narrow, little mind, I HAVE NOT SAID AND I AM NOT SAYING NOW THAT YOUR THEORY THAT TONE WOOD DOESN'T MATTER IS WRONG! I HAVE ONLY ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR POOR ARGUMENTATION HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO PROVE YOUR BELIEF. And, hypocritically, isn't that what you are accusing your opposition of? This is WHY you don't want any more 'discussing the discussion' because what I have done, and others are doing to you, is pointing out your "pathetic, weaksauce rhetoric" that is used to indicate you are smarter than everyone here. You can't stand to have someonw point out the flaws in your argument, can you because that just shatters your self-worth, doesn't it?
If you want to discuss the topic at hand without insulting everyone and being condescending, I don't think you'd be having to ask for this pledge. You are the reason you are here, in this position, now. Behave like a gentleman, and I assure you, the folks of this forum will treat you that way. If this is what you want, adjust your behavior and it will, I guarantee, follow.
This is NOT the only thread talking about "tonewood mythology". For the love of Seymour, do you know what a "Search Button" is?!
This is interesting. You already talked down to Frank. Are you aware of his background? AT ALL?! He did work for Seymour Duncan for years, developed the Fishman Fluence pickups, and has been building guitars since he was around 11 or 12. The guy has done some REALLY serious work on this subject matter of materials with very carefully controlled scientific testing. Go look up the thread in the Pickup Lounge where I asked about bobbin materials. If you pick his brain on that, he had equipment set up to carefully measure what, if any, effect the type of bobbin material in a pickup had on tone. And he has done experiments on this more times than he probably remembers. And probably has been doing stuff like this since before you were in born, or at least while still in grade school. But you dismissed him, because your intolerance tells you that if someone disagrees with you, they are foolish and wrong. Way to go!
Appealing to authority does not make delineations on the specific authority. Now you're trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole so it can suit your purpose! The scientific authority of 60 years ago would be no authority today. I feel certain we'd agree on that. So saying scientific authority is sound only applies if it can NEVER be shown later that it was in fact wrong. And unless you can see the future, you know that this is not possible and the fallacy still stands.
Now, you say whatever you want on this topic. I don't really care. Your posts aren't worth reading and I have already wasted too much of my time with them (and yes, I earnestly regret reading them). I feel sorry for you. Good luck with your argument. I feel confident that through convincing yourself of whatever it is you want to think, you will find what you hope to find.
So other than trying to have some kind of childish game of chicken, what's the point of the wager? So you can point out I blinked first? How very adult of you.
Besides, weren't you the guy who just said science comprehension didn't matter?! Go back and reread what you quoted. I said you can't argue effectively. That has nothing to do with science comprehension but I guess that's too difficult for you to grasp. Like for example, how can you say background, credentials, and authority do not matter yet challenge me to which one of us is a stronger authority with better scientific background via a $1,000 wager?!?! That's circular logic. "Being an authority on the subject does not matter, and I can say that because I can prove I'm the better authority on the subject." I'm sure you'll find more B.S. to fling at me, though. Your scientific comprehension may be great. I'll never know, because your ability to use logical argumentation sucks!
I have said nothing on this thread supporting your opposition, but like with Evan, anyone who challenges you gets lumped together. I find it amusing that you accuse me of doing exactly what you are doing here. Furthermore, you are not disrupting what I believe at all. That arrogantly assumes that you are the first person to take up this position. You are new to this forum so do a search. Are you really so naive as to believe that this topic has never come up before and been discussed at great lengths on a guitar-related forum? For a scientist, you are amazingly short-sighted if that's the case! You're not even close! Last summer we had some guy called "The Pontif" or something similar saying almost verbatim what you are saying now, arrogance included. You're not enlightening anyone and you're not even being original. You are very narrow-minded and excruciatingly biased. I hope to God you are not in charge of anything that someone's life may depend on as your fragile ego would get people killed. And if you think I'm being insulting, well, I'm more than happy to return your serve, "in-kind."
I have read your posts and you point out scientific details and methodologies most of us learned in high school or even middle-school, so there's a reason no one is giving you a pat on the back. What you do NOT do is point out any scientific support for any claims that your position is the correct one. You have shown no evidence in support of your theory whatsoever. You also haven't shown any scientific data disproving your opposition either. You have used insults and condescending language in a foolish attempt to create a reductio-ad-absurdum argument. But you fail, ultimately, because insults and condescension offers no proof or validity to your position via reducing the opposing view point to absurdity. You have proved nothing. What you have done is show us that you have an impatience and complete intolerance for those who think differently than you.
Furthermore, I have given you nothing to be shown as "far beyond garbage," because, and I know this will blow your narrow, little mind, I HAVE NOT SAID AND I AM NOT SAYING NOW THAT YOUR THEORY THAT TONE WOOD DOESN'T MATTER IS WRONG! I HAVE ONLY ESTABLISHED THAT YOUR POOR ARGUMENTATION HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO PROVE YOUR BELIEF. And, hypocritically, isn't that what you are accusing your opposition of? This is WHY you don't want any more 'discussing the discussion' because what I have done, and others are doing to you, is pointing out your "pathetic, weaksauce rhetoric" that is used to indicate you are smarter than everyone here. You can't stand to have someonw point out the flaws in your argument, can you because that just shatters your self-worth, doesn't it?
If you want to discuss the topic at hand without insulting everyone and being condescending, I don't think you'd be having to ask for this pledge. You are the reason you are here, in this position, now. Behave like a gentleman, and I assure you, the folks of this forum will treat you that way. If this is what you want, adjust your behavior and it will, I guarantee, follow.
This is NOT the only thread talking about "tonewood mythology". For the love of Seymour, do you know what a "Search Button" is?!
This is interesting. You already talked down to Frank. Are you aware of his background? AT ALL?! He did work for Seymour Duncan for years, developed the Fishman Fluence pickups, and has been building guitars since he was around 11 or 12. The guy has done some REALLY serious work on this subject matter of materials with very carefully controlled scientific testing. Go look up the thread in the Pickup Lounge where I asked about bobbin materials. If you pick his brain on that, he had equipment set up to carefully measure what, if any, effect the type of bobbin material in a pickup had on tone. And he has done experiments on this more times than he probably remembers. And probably has been doing stuff like this since before you were in born, or at least while still in grade school. But you dismissed him, because your intolerance tells you that if someone disagrees with you, they are foolish and wrong. Way to go!
Appealing to authority does not make delineations on the specific authority. Now you're trying to make a square peg fit in a round hole so it can suit your purpose! The scientific authority of 60 years ago would be no authority today. I feel certain we'd agree on that. So saying scientific authority is sound only applies if it can NEVER be shown later that it was in fact wrong. And unless you can see the future, you know that this is not possible and the fallacy still stands.
Now, you say whatever you want on this topic. I don't really care. Your posts aren't worth reading and I have already wasted too much of my time with them (and yes, I earnestly regret reading them). I feel sorry for you. Good luck with your argument. I feel confident that through convincing yourself of whatever it is you want to think, you will find what you hope to find.
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
I proposed putting together a team made up of forum members on both sides of the argument to put forth an appreciable amount of both of those resources, in the interest of exploring the topic in a spirit of cooperation and free inquiry. What was that you said about it again?
I proposed putting together a team made up of forum members on both sides of the argument to put forth an appreciable amount of both of those resources, in the interest of exploring the topic in a spirit of cooperation and free inquiry. What was that you said about it again?
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
Its do-able, in the spirit in inquiry. Very do-able.
The only hang-up seems to be variable-mongering but I think most people who are operating with any degree of good-faith are good with the basic parameters.
We can't lose focus that the first and most relevant question here is what can be heard.
That is determined by testing ears with samples, not testing samples with oscilloscopes.
Its do-able, in the spirit in inquiry. Very do-able.
The only hang-up seems to be variable-mongering but I think most people who are operating with any degree of good-faith are good with the basic parameters.
We can't lose focus that the first and most relevant question here is what can be heard.
That is determined by testing ears with samples, not testing samples with oscilloscopes.
L
Little Pigbacon
Guest
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
So what variables do you feel hang in the most critical state of mongering?
So what variables do you feel hang in the most critical state of mongering?
GoldenVulture
Braindeadologist
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
Your one mega deluded pony eh ?
We will now resume normal posting.
I Corrected that for you.
For something so sad and irrelevant why do you keep coming back to it ?
Your one mega deluded pony eh ?
We will now resume normal posting.
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
DreX proposed a simplified precursor-variable test that I like very much.
To keep things oriented towards guitars, anything outside of different body/neck/fretboard (or whatever wood) materials hosting the same mechanical and electrical hardware, played and blinded, is variable-mongering.
I prefer played musically but will settle for sterile, one note plucks so long as there is decent enough sample size and its blinded.
DreX proposed a simplified precursor-variable test that I like very much.
To keep things oriented towards guitars, anything outside of different body/neck/fretboard (or whatever wood) materials hosting the same mechanical and electrical hardware, played and blinded, is variable-mongering.
I prefer played musically but will settle for sterile, one note plucks so long as there is decent enough sample size and its blinded.
Last edited:
kramersteen
PowerMetalRaph
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
How come you and Drex share the same iP address?
How come you and Drex share the same iP address?
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone
We are the same person!
We are the same person!
