A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

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

Little Pigbacon said:
Now, now. Let's apply a scientific approach to this. I posit that the video's awfulness, while considerable, is not absolute.
Click to expand...

Now, I have to disagree. The video is closed system, as defined by the end points of 0:00 and 3:01, wherein nothing that isn't terrible exists. Therefore, it can be said that the video is absolutely terrible.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

GoldenVulture said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've ordered most of the equipment I'll need, I have to find the wood still, and I have a pretty clear idea of how to proceed. I think the luthier blog guy whose kid sampled various wood slats had the right idea, they just didn't document their test procedure, except to describe what it was. Had there been some photographs, all sorts of interesting things might have emerged.

I looked for specs on the exciter and transducer, but not much was available. It doesn't matter though, because I can just attach one to the other to establish the baseline before attaching them to the wood. That would be a secondary test anyway, I'd rather see what happens with an ebow and a guitar pickup attached to various pieces of wood.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

DreX said:
Now, I have to disagree. The video is closed system, as defined by the end points of 0:00 and 3:01, wherein nothing that isn't terrible exists. Therefore, it can be said that the video is absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...

How do we measure terribleness? If we quantize it into a digital system, is it a binary value, or is there a range of values that we might measure for a given point in the domain of 0:00 <= t <= 3:01? More to the point, is the awfulness pegged at digital full scale over the entire running time of the video? Is this implicit in your assertion that the subset of non-terrible things present in the video is the null set?
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Little Pigbacon said:
How do we measure terribleness? If we quantize it into a digital system, is it a binary value, or is there a range of values that we might measure for a given point in the domain of 0:00 <= t <= 3:01? More to the point, is the awfulness pegged at digital full scale over the entire running time of the video? Is this implicit in your assertion that the subset of non-terrible things present in the video is the null set?
Click to expand...

Well, terribleness is more a quality of a thing, rather than a quantity, so if you were to, for example, take those three awful musicians, with their flawed reasoning and the white-noise they generate, and divide them up into many small, equally sized pieces, all of those pieces would still be utterly terrible.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

DreX said:
Well, terribleness is more a quality of a thing, rather than a quantity, so if you were to, for example, take those three awful musicians, with their flawed reasoning and the white-noise they generate, and divide them up into many small, equally sized pieces, all of those pieces would still be utterly terrible.
Click to expand...

But scientific terribleness can only be given through objective consensus of scientific authority not the subjective view of one whose authority is questionable!
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

We're on 15 pages and still discussing semantics. Not being negative, but this task seems to have become quite the undertaking. Carry on, fellas. I hope that progress is made.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

ExplorersRock said:
We're on 15 pages and still discussing semantics. Not being negative, but this task seems to have become quite the undertaking. Carry on, fellas. I hope that progress is made.
Click to expand...

You're going to have to quantify that a little more narrowly; is that one semantic, or multiple instances? You may also need to think about whether or not they can take negative values (carefully avoiding 0, just in case we need to divide by the sampled value at a later date)
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

ExplorersRock said:
We're on 15 pages and still discussing semantics. Not being negative, but this task seems to have become quite the undertaking. Carry on, fellas. I hope that progress is made.
Click to expand...

Its only become semantic because one side deplores the idea of a simple, conclusive test.

3 strat bodies of different materials, 1 strat (every other component), same amp, same cord.
Play 40 riffs with body 1, replace hardware and neck onto body 2. Play 40 riffs. Replace hardware and neck onto body 3, play 20 riffs.
100 riffs with unequal distribution.

Randomize riff clips, present to believers blinded, watch incredible (in the classical sense, as in non-credible) excuses rain in.
They either assert that tonewood isn't something that can be perceived in sound clips (thus discrediting their entire narrative, per what digital sound clips can actually accomplish in terms of reproduction) or they start making pathetic excuses about irrelevant variables that themselves detonate their earlier narratives of what is such a 'big deal' in a wood guitar when it comes to 'creating tone'. "Muuuh... well... see... MAYBE WHEN YOU CHANGED THE NECK YOU ENLARGED TEH SCREW HOLES AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT EFFECTS TOAN!!!"

If they think they can hear wood in a signal, its no problem whatsoever setting up a test to demonstrate whether or not that is true.
Its just that when you propose actually doing it, they try to find an excuse to either stymie the test at all costs by demanding variable control so refined that it undermines their tonewood concept, or the other old standard... I AINT CARE BOUT NO SCIENCE I PLAY GUITARS FOR FEEL AND SOUL ROCK AND ROLL WHO EVEN CARES YOU ARGUE BOUT TONEWOOD IMMA PLAY MY GUITARS!!!

Some kid did go to the trouble (a few days ago) to actually do it blinded. If the tonewood narrative is true and his test is credible, this should be a trivially easy freeroll for you guys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjHt9IqDmIA

But notice the things they will say about why that is invalid, oblivious to the fact that in doing so, they inherently discredit their own position.
 
Last edited:
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

SnakeAces said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have science.
You have belief.
You are in the (likely) majority, affirming something exists.
I am in the (likely) minority, asserting its incorrect.
Tonewood agnostics or no-opinion's probably don't get enough acknowledgement and make up more people than either side.

80% of Americans believe Angels exist.
20% believe they do not.

Who is responsible for demonstrating evidence of their stance?
The 20% do their thing by simply pointing out that there is no compelling evidence Angels exist and that the 'evidence' presented is either anecdotal or not credible (for exanmple, pictures of angels, etc) and the fact believers are in the majority is irrelevant. The 80%, well, they look pretty much completely like tonewood believers do, in this discussion.

Someone in the 80% might say "I KNOW ANGELS EXIST BECAUSE ONE VISITS ME EVERY TUESDAY!"

Someone in the 20% might say "OK, I'll bet you $10,000 if you can prove that, you win, if not, you pay me. Let me know the address and I'll be there Tuesday".

"DO YOU HAVE A GAMBLING PROBLEM???? I DON'T NEED TO PROVE IT TO ANYONE!!! I KNOW WHAT IS TRUE!!!! PEOPLE HAVE BELIEVED IN ANGELS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS! YOU THINK THEY BELIEVE THAT FOR NO REASON????? YOU'RE JUST ARROGANT WITH YOUR SCIENCE I KNOW WHAT IS TRUE ALONG WITH ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE!!! JOHN B. OZOASS WHO IS A PhD HAS ASSERTED THAT ANGELS ARE PROVEN BY ELECTRO MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION AND THE FLYNN EFFECT!!! SCIENCE SUPPORTS US, NOT YOU!!!"

Believers; LOL.
 
Last edited:
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Tonewoods said:
3 strat bodies of different materials, 1 strat (every other component), same amp, same cord.
Play 40 riffs with body 1, replace hardware and neck onto body 2. Play 40 riffs. Replace hardware and neck onto body 3, play 20 riffs.
100 riffs with unequal distribution.

Randomize riff clips, present to believers blinded, watch incredible (in the classical sense, as in non-credible) excuses rain in.
Click to expand...

You're neglecting to consider the very real and significant potential for the experimenter who is strumming the guitar to unwittingly taint the test setup. For example, supposed one wood sample differs from another primarily in terms of sustain and/or amplitude. The experimenter might strum the guitar, but believing it's too quiet strums that guitar a little harder, even though in doing so he has destroyed the test by making the two pieces of wood seem more alike than they really are.

Similarly, when your test only consists of listening to samples, it removes the ability to perceive any differences that might only be evident if you were also aware of the inputs, which is to say, how the strings were plucked, where along their length they were plucked, etc.

That whole issue can be side stepped by having a mechanized strummer that strums the samples the same way each time, but then again that's an experiment that's a tad more difficult for a 13 year old youtube hero to conduct in his bedroom.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Tonewoods said:
I have science.
You have belief.
You are in the (likely) majority, affirming something exists.
I am in the (likely) minority, asserting its incorrect.
Tonewood agnostics or no-opinion's probably don't get enough acknowledgement and make up more people than either side.

80% of Americans believe Angels exist.
20% believe they do not.

Who is responsible for demonstrating evidence of their stance?
The 20% do their thing by simply pointing out that there is no compelling evidence Angels exist and that the 'evidence' presented is either anecdotal or not credible (for exanmple, pictures of angels, etc) and the fact believers are in the majority is irrelevant. The 80%, well, they look pretty much completely like tonewood believers do, in this discussion.

Someone in the 80% might say "I KNOW ANGELS EXIST BECAUSE ONE VISITS ME EVERY TUESDAY!"

Someone in the 20% might say "OK, I'll bet you $10,000 if you can prove that, you win, if not, you pay me. Let me know the address and I'll be there Tuesday".

"DO YOU HAVE A GAMBLING PROBLEM???? I DON'T NEED TO PROVE IT TO ANYONE!!! I KNOW WHAT IS TRUE!!!! PEOPLE HAVE BELIEVED IN ANGELS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS! YOU THINK THEY BELIEVE THAT FOR NO REASON????? YOU'RE JUST ARROGANT WITH YOUR SCIENCE I KNOW WHAT IS TRUE ALONG WITH ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE!!! JOHN B. OZOASS WHO IS A PhD HAS ASSERTED THAT ANGELS ARE PROVEN BY ELECTRO MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION AND THE FLYNN EFFECT!!! SCIENCE SUPPORTS US, NOT YOU!!!"

Believers; LOL.
Click to expand...


Sorry pal, what you have is belief, not science. You can post in all caps as much as you would like, rant on and on about fairy tales and such as much as you like but it still does not change the fact that you have a theory. Not science.

Nice try though.
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Tonewoods said:
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.
Click to expand...

How did you make a circle when you only have the one wagon?
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

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

There you go again, getting all science on us, or is that an us ?
ANGELS ARE PROVEN BY ELECTRO MECHANICAL REPRODUCTION AND THE FLYNN EFFECT!!
Click to expand...
 
Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Hey let's get this thread back on track. First off, THERE ARE ANGELS AND I GOT PICTURES TO PROVE IT:

angels.jpeg

Although I admit that the kind of reproduction they bring to mind is not electro-mechanical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Alder wood batches in pre cbs
2
Replies
38
Views
1K
Sam SG
S
C
Staining body
Replies
10
Views
412
Chris Pile
Chris Pile
Mincer
Guitar things that cost more than they should....
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Artie
Artie
C
Check out this hot piece of ash
2
Replies
36
Views
673
ehdwuld
ehdwuld
blakejcan
Can you have a recessed floyd on a S/S/S strat?
Replies
14
Views
590
orpheo
O
Back
Top