A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

[DreX]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Really? Or are you kidding? Reading this thread has reduced my ability to recognize humour by 40%.

Only the admins can see our IPs, and kramersteen is about as far from an admin as you could get.

 

[voggin]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Only the admins can see our IPs, and kramersteen is about as far from an admin as you could get.

thanks for clarifying. like I said, this thread has taken its toll.

 

[dazzel]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

A word about pressure and how it moves. Do you know what weather is? Slow moving pressure. Do you know what sound is? Fast moving pressure! With this as a guide can you guess that pressure moves slower through denser woods causing more latency or sustain? Mahogany, Basswood are dense woods. Ash, alder are not so pressure moves quicker though the wood. Now Ive given you the science about tone woods. You want the art side. If 2 people played the same guitar, cables, amp and cab setup exactly the same. The will never sound the same dude ever because of the way they hold thier mouths or wear thier hats. Its in the way thier fingers lovey dub the neck and how they pick the strings; angle, attack, smoothness. Roughness whatever, no 2 people can play the very same instrument and sound the same. Thats why a guitarists tone is so personal. IT IS HIS/ HER TONE! Test your wood and test it again 2 minutes later and I will bet you you wont have 2 things come out the same. Humidity changed it already. Haha give it up.

 

[Falloffthebonetone]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Well **** now I'm not even sure if pickups do anything anymore...

 

[Jeffblue]

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!!!!

Ah.......so perhaps in your time of dying........and the moments of your last breaths........when life is being drawn away from you.......and you call out......and continue to grasp at your last moments of existence on this Earth...........you can cry out.......reach for........ you forefathers........the tree hangers and armpit scratchers.......where you believe you were evolved from........maybe the grand poohbah of the monkey clans will help you with your passing into your netherworld. What will you come back as? I can just imagine.

 

[Falloffthebonetone]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

C'mon dazzel, it's more consistent than that.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

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)

Bravo.

 

[Tonewoods]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

I provided information regarding the requirements for the study to meet the demands of science.

Tonewoods has has made repeated demands for scientific proof that wood makes a difference, insisting that it does not, while providing only citations from the peer reviewed publication "uT00B".

Where? I must have missed it. A few people in this thread are instant gloss-overs since you know they're not adding anything of substance, so please forgive if I missed it.

In a nutshell he has said, "I'm right, you're wrong, and YOU must provide the evidence of your position while I provide none to support my assertions."

I am indeed saying I am right, I am indeed saying you are wrong but the onus is not on me to prove the negative. It is on you to provide compelling evidence to the affirmative. Since there is a huge credibility implication in no tonewood believers willing to take a wager under blind conditions, the best you can offer is hopefully, something theoretical. My education and background tells me this part won't be forthcoming from the electro-tonwood camp any time soon, but I realize its still a puzzling 'question' to a lot of people since most of them couldn't really explain how a pickup works, never mind how the systems interact.

What occurs is you wind up posting some unblinded A/B test with no variable control, or maybe a blog post by some luthier about why he thinks tonewood makes a difference, or some moron who knows nothing about physics proffering his ideas about "Newton"... or maybe you talk about what Steve Vai or Eric Johnson thinks.

After I (and others) point out you've not only 'failed to articulate your case' but in the process, have put on a three ring ****show and master class on how people embarrass themselves in conversations that are inherently over their head, the conversation IMMEDIATELY reverts back to the conversation itself, or me, or someone like Kramersteen making imbecilic ****posts. I'll write paragraphs on scientific rigor and say "man, anyone who doesn't understand this stuff is a drooler" and what is the takeaway of the tonewood believer who reads it? Not the paragraphs. That sentence, and how I'm 'namecalling'.

This whole thread is a good example of what happens when group of stridently ignorant people circle the wagons and try to defend an indefensible position. I realize YOU don't realize how you come off, but believe me. Anyone with any background in the sciences, even if they've never touched a guitar in their lives and have no opinion whatsoever on the tonewood muyth, would read this thread and instantly recognize your side for precisely what it is, per what they've seen from similar 'believers' on other issues.

Its consistent.

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Where? I must have missed it. A few people in this thread are instant gloss-overs since you know they're not adding anything of substance, so please forgive if I missed it.



I am indeed saying I am right, I am indeed saying you are wrong but the onus is not on me to prove the negative. It is on you to provide compelling evidence to the affirmative. Since there is a huge credibility implication in no tonewood believers willing to take a wager under blind conditions, the best you can offer is hopefully, something theoretical.

What occurs is you wind up posting some unblinded A/B test with no variable control, or maybe a blog post by some luthier about why he thinks tonewood makes a difference, or some moron who knows nothing about physics proffering his ideas about "Newton"... or maybe you talk about what Steve Vai or Eric Johnson thinks.

After I (and others) point out you've not only 'failed to articulate your case but in the process, have out on a three ring ****show and master class on how people embarrass themselves in conversations that are inherently over their head, the conversation IMMEDIATELY reverts to the conversation. I'll write paragraphs on scientific rigor and say "man, anyone who doesn't understand this stuff is a drooler" and what is the takeaway of the tonewood believer who reads it? Not the paragraphs. That sentence, and how I'm 'namecalling'.

This whole thread is a good example of what happens when group of stridently ignorant people circle the wagons and try to defend an indefensible position. I realize YOU don;t realize how you come off, but believe me. Anyone with any background in the sciences, even if they've never touched a guitar in their lives and have no opinion on the tonewood muyth, would read this thread and instantly recognize your side for precisely what it is, per what they've seen from similar 'believers' on other issues.

If you are saying you are right in an argument you have equal responsibility to prove your case. If you were to go into a court and present your case by saying: "I am indeed saying I am right, I am indeed saying you are wrong but the onus is not on me to prove the negative. It is on you to provide compelling evidence to the affirmative." your case would be dismissed in favor of the opposition.

What you have is a theory. What your opposition has is a theory. Also, I might add you are of the minority opinion pool versus the majority. That pretty much means the onus is, well, on you.

 

[voggin]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

So let's see what we've learned. You can hijack a thread, call the entire community morons, and nothing happens to you.

I post one joke in questionable taste and get an infraction.

Got it.

 

[DreX]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

C'mon dazzel, it's more consistent than that.

That video is absolutely terrible.

 

[hydro]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

After reading this thread I decided that from now on, I am only going to play guitars made out of cheese. Hard cheese, like cheddar or manchego - but not because it changes the tone; we all know cause smart scientist guys told us that it doesn't matter - but because if you use chile con queso, the pickups fall out. Plus the green chiles get stuck in the pots which changes the resistance.

 

[hydro]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Also, I know the perils of requesting gloss, but if "Tonecheese" isn't taken yet...

 

[DreX]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

For the record, I'm not claiming to know what results this experiment will produce. I believe some of my basswood Strats sound different than others, both acoustically and through the same set of pickups, but I question my own assumptions and would like to measure the responsiveness of wood to get more objective insight.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

That video is absolutely terrible.

Now, now. Let's apply a scientific approach to this. I posit that the video's awfulness, while considerable, is not absolute. If we limit our sample space to distorted rhythm passages in a gnü-metal context, we are able to reach a reasonable conclusion: It doesn't matter what it sounds like if you're so bored that you're actually crying.

 

[hydro]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

gnü-metal

lmao!!

 

[voggin]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Now, now. Let's apply a scientific approach to this. I posit that the video's awfulness, while considerable, is not absolute. If we limit our sample space to distorted rhythm passages in a gnü-metal context, we are able to reach a reasonable conclusion: It doesn't matter what it sounds like if you're so bored that you're actually crying.

I have to admit, it would be cool to redo that video with the same riffs, the same rig and tone, but with a bunch of guys from the Gear Page playing nothing but real '59 bursts.

 

[Falloffthebonetone]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Now, now. Let's apply a scientific approach to this. I posit that the video's awfulness, while considerable, is not absolute. If we limit our sample space to distorted rhythm passages in a gnü-metal context, we are able to reach a reasonable conclusion: It doesn't matter what it sounds like if you're so bored that you're actually crying.

Thanks, you beat me to it!

Point is, if everyone is playing the same thing through the same gear with minimal to no processing, chances are the average joe and maybe a few pros, wouldn't even be able to tell the difference, especially when it comes to straight up rock rhythms.

This is what was said,
"Its in the way thier fingers lovey dub the neck and how they pick the strings; angle, attack, smoothness. Roughness whatever, no 2 people can play the very same instrument and sound the same."

Not totally true. Of course they can. My A chord played through somebody else's gear will sound just like their A chord practically enough. No 2 strums are ever identical either is basically what I'm saying. I mean how many people could tell EVH was the one who did the Beat It leads just by listening to it? Now think how many people were able to tell that the rest of the guitar parts in that song were Steve Lukather the same way? I still know people, professionals even, that think the song was/is Eddie all the way through.

But this is off topic.

 

[GoldenVulture]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

hydro

Prayin' to Cheeses

Likes (Given)222Likes (Received)182

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Also, I know the perils of requesting gloss, but if "Tonecheese" isn't taken yet...​

:lmao:

 

[GoldenVulture]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

For the record, I'm not claiming to know what results this experiment will produce. I believe some of my basswood Strats sound different than others, both acoustically and through the same set of pickups, but I question my own assumptions and would like to measure the responsiveness of wood to get more objective insight.

At this point there is no need for a " blind test " and other supposed scientific garbage proposed by Tonewoulds " amongst his Hi-jack.
You have a basic objective with no presumed outcomes. Set your parameters for the test and go for it.