"Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

[Davii]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Just to say, I'm not trying to give an opinion on the merits of experiments/demonstrations, just that the way some descriptions on what the differences should be might come across far more noticeable than it actually is, so some hear a difference, but others are expecting a bigger difference that isn't apparent (based on how those descriptions come across)

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Once again, it goes to show how many people consider folk wisdom and personal experience to be interchangeable with facts and science in the world of electric guitar.

I've posted on several threads with you that have touched on this subeject and you have posted against tone woods making a difference multiple times. I will say, you still haven't answered my question, "6. Have you, Drex, done a test this precise? Like, the exact same model guitars with the same pickups and hardware?" I have and there is clearly a difference between Alder and Basswood.

True science is repeatable observable testing. A hypothesis is not a theory until it has been tested multiple times. I say put a JB in a Floyd Rose equipped Maple Neck & Rosewood board strat that is Alder and then one that is Basswood...a simple test that can be done multiple times.

And with that being said, this thread has gotten way off topic, so I will say lets save the tone wood debate for another thread.

 

[GilmourD]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

I agree with treyhaislip on the general idea but I have to admit I agree with DreX on the methodology.

If we're testing differences between two things anything else that is not those two things must be eliminated as factors. That's why I liked the methodology of the test I saw recently (thought it was another thread here). Basically, it was a test rig with a mechanical picking arm which would pick with identical speed and pressure every time, and that could be adjusted. Having a human play two guitars will add variability in picking (pressure, speed, pick angle, etc.).

I absolutely believe that each tonewood has a general range of tone and certain tonal quirks, regardless of variability within the species.

I also think that the guy that wrote the article linked to in the OP is living on another planet, possibly the same one as Scott Grove.

 

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

First, did you watch the video of Rob's test.

Yes.

Second, tell me how Rob's test is not scientific. I'll wait for you to explain from the scientific method how his test is bad science.

There isn't one properly isolated variable. There is more variables than just the wood in the test. Different bridge, different strings, human variation, ect. Properly Isolating variables is the basis for which an accurate scientific method study is done, and Rob's test doesn't do that, therefore it isn't properly following the scientific method. Forgive the elementary nature of the link, but here's an explanation since it appears the concept of different variables in the scientific method is going over your head.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_variables.shtml

Third, the only way to scientifically prove tone wood does not make a difference is to run a test. Drex never replied to my question of if he has done this, so I assume he has not done so.

I don't need to have done a proper scientific study to know that Rob's isn't accurate. I personally have done a test with a replacement body, but I could not isolate the variables enough to conclude whether or not wood influences the amplified tone of an electric guitar. Until I see I strong scientific evidence to prove the popular theory of electric tone woods, I have no LOGICALLY reason to believe it. I used to believe it on anecdotes, however, like many people do, but that's simply not an accurate way to draw a conclusion.

Fourth, tell me from the video where both guitar players are picking/strumming so differently as to "alter the tone". Drex could not do so, can you?

No need to pinpoint. The tonal difference of picking position is a much easier isolated variable to test than two different wood bodies. If you pick the same guitar with different velocity and/or location, the sound alters drastically. That means that to test another variable, the picking variable must be isolated. I though this stuff was covered in high school, so hopefully you'll start recalling some of what we're talking about.

Fifth, the test was the difference in tone between two identical stock guitars with the only difference being tone wood.

I've played two identical model guitars that played better, but never played two identical models that sounded vastly different. Some had better sustain or more of a ring to it, but not where one sounded like a Les Paul and the other sounded like a Strat. MIA Fender American Standard Strats with the same tone wood, pickups, necks, hardware sound like, *gasp*, Strats.

That's an anecdote. There's too many variables to consider (scale length, string type, string gauge, string age, ect, ect, ect) to conclude the differences/similarities is due to wood. Once again, you're entirely missing the whole concept of why a variable is isolated. You must isolate an independent variable to determine a dependent variable, NOT the other way around, which is what your talking about with your "fifth" point.

When the guy doing the test never claimed to be a scientist nor claimed to be conducting this test on a collegiate peer-to-peer review level, then it is silly in the first place to even hold him to such a level.

If his test isn't on a peer reviewable level, that its not accurate enough to draw any accurate conclusions from, and does not show the tone wood does or doesn't make a difference either way.

I brought up the actual scientific method and showed how Rob's test fit the scientific method.

Well, you tried to. You failed to address the variables of the scientific method properly, and they weren't isolated properly in the test.

To scientifically prove this test wrong, one would need to prove that a stock Mahogany ML-1 does not sound any different than a stock Swamp Ash ML-1. Again, the test was of stock guitars with the only difference being the tone wood.

Once again, you have things backwards. You can't have a scientifically flawed test and say "one would need to prove" it wrong. A hypothesis isn't considered true or false until its proven so. The burden of scientific proof is on the one trying to prove a hypothesis, not people This test doesn't prove either because its a flawed test.

 

[DreX]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

That test rig might be mine. It's actually all done, reliable plucking arm constructed, recording and analysis software and procedures all worked out, I'm just nervous about all the aspersions that will be cast my way once its all done with, this thread all but confirms my fears, so I've been testing less hot button things like magnets in the mean time.

 

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

It is a fundamental error to assume that every strum should be absolutely identical.

In terms of isolating the variable of wood type by a proper test following the scientific method, then you're wrong. I'm not talking about practical playing. I'm talking about why its an uncontrolled variable in a testing application. "Uncontrolled variable" isn't just lingo, its an actually term.

 

[GilmourD]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Just remember, guys, play nice with each other. If things get heated I'll lock this.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

pcorn:

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

It is a fundamental error to assume that every strum should be absolutely identical.

*

Imagine, if you will, that you have access to half a dozen Gibson Les Paul electric guitars. They all sound, largely, similar, but with some perceptible differences in the details. You have a sound in your head for a recording but the guitar that best makes that sound is not available. In all probability, you can take one of the other Les Pauls and adapt your picking attack to get the sound that you wanted in the first instance.

In the context of this thread, even when a new pickup does not conform exactly to your expectations under "normal" playing conditions, you can probably get the sound that you wanted by playing slightly differently.

If I show up and play your guitar, through your amplification, in my way, it would probably sound different again.

One of the things that makes swamp ash one of my favorite woods for both guitars and basses is it's responsiveness. I love when an instrument can respond to my emotions, intensity and desire to play with dynamics as well as swamp ash can. And yes, it will definitely sound different in my hands than somebody else's hands.

Swamp ash.

 

[uOpt]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Many of these questions could be answered by recording something right after receiving the axe and then later again.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Explain how.

Funny, the scientific method is repeatable observable testing, which is how this test was conducted and how one can refute it is not through opinions & comments but by actually doing the test themselves. That, my friend is true science.

The test was of two stock ML-1s with the only difference being Mahogany body vs Swamp Ash Body. Say I have poor understanding, it was a simple test using 2 stock guitars with the only difference (from a manufactured product standpoint) was Mahogany and Swamp Ash.

Like I said before, "Just think about this from a practical standpoint, how many people are going to change their pickup every time they go from one guitar to another? How many people are going to take the neck off and put it on another guitar?"

This was a simple test of a manufactured product. To me, having a robotic strumming device, swapping out the pickups & neck & hardware & electronics, does not make sense for the purpose of this video. Neither does swapping about the necks and electronics on two guitars that are probably either on sale at the website or at the Andertons' store. Think about it logically, a simple test involving two stock guitars with the only difference being two different woods.

You are rejecting comments that have already been made showing how inconsistencies and uncontrolled variables have prevented the test from conclusively providing evidence to support the hypothesis. It doesn't matter if you believe that the controls are good enough, you have to be able to prove that they're good enough.

To break it down another way . . . we've all played MIM Fender guitars. Same wood, same setup, same hardware, same pickups, same finish, same shape, same neck profile, same neck constuction. Why is it that they don't all sound the same? If the above test were valid, they should sound exactly the same . . . remember, you already stated in your assumptions that "swapping out the pickups & neck & hardware & electronics" doesn't make enough difference to worry about. See how that's a silly stance to take?

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Yes.

There isn't one properly isolated variable. There is more variables than just the wood in the test. Different bridge, different strings, human variation, ect. Properly Isolating variables is the basis for which an accurate scientific method study is done, and Rob's test doesn't do that, therefore it isn't properly following the scientific method. Forgive the elementary nature of the link, but here's an explanation since it appears the concept of different variables in the scientific method is going over your head.

http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_variables.shtml



I don't need to have done a proper scientific study to know that Rob's isn't accurate. I personally have done a test with a replacement body, but I could not isolate the variables enough to conclude whether or not wood influences the amplified tone of an electric guitar. Until I see I strong scientific evidence to prove the popular theory of electric tone woods, I have no LOGICALLY reason to believe it. I used to believe it on anecdotes, however, like many people do, but that's simply not an accurate way to draw a conclusion.



No need to pinpoint. The tonal difference of picking position is a much easier isolated variable to test than two different wood bodies. If you pick the same guitar with different velocity and/or location, the sound alters drastically. That means that to test another variable, the picking variable must be isolated. I though this stuff was covered in high school, so hopefully you'll start recalling some of what we're talking about.



That's an anecdote. There's too many variables to consider (scale length, string type, string gauge, string age, ect, ect, ect) to conclude the differences/similarities is due to wood. Once again, you're entirely missing the whole concept of why a variable is isolated. You must isolate an independent variable to determine a dependent variable, NOT the other way around, which is what your talking about with your "fifth" point.



If his test isn't on a peer reviewable level, that its not accurate enough to draw any accurate conclusions from, and does not show the tone wood does or doesn't make a difference either way.



Well, you tried to. You failed to address the variables of the scientific method properly, and they weren't isolated properly in the test.



Once again, you have things backwards. You can't have a scientifically flawed test and say "one would need to prove" it wrong. A hypothesis isn't considered true or false until its proven so. The burden of scientific proof is on the one trying to prove a hypothesis, not people This test doesn't prove either because its a flawed test.

1. I'm glad you watched it all, most of the YouTube commenters didn't see that Rob actually switched to the other guitar.

2. Let's see, from a manufactured stock product these are the same exact for one is Swamp Ash and the other is Mahogany. Same pickups, scale length, electronics, neck, hardware, and strings. From a stock guitar off the shelf perspective, they are the same.

And thank you for your maturity, I won't go down your level.

3. Actually, the scientific way to refute a test is to rerun it showing different results. That's why a hypothesis is not a theory with only one test.

4. So you watched the whole thing but can't say "strumming harder at 2:01 than 5:25"...? Seems to me that if it was that noticeable of a difference you wouldn't have a problem telling where...

5. Totally missed my point in that statement. Again, two stock Starts with everything the same stock, sound very very similar. Like, you don't pick up one Start that is a serial number or so older and hear a Start and then pick up the same guitar a few numbers down and hear a SG. Stock ML-1s sound like...ML-1s. I agree no two guitars are the same, but Stock Strata sound like Strata just like Stock 335s sound like 335s.

6. I don't see a lab, I don't see a device measuring the differences, I don't see a graph he mode showing the different frequencies, etc so to hold him to a dissertation level is comical--a simple test using stock guitars with the only difference being one the wood.

7. Again, these are stock guitars that from a finished product perspective are the same. The fact that both guitars are being played almost at the exact same time implies the same exact neck, hardware, pickups, etc were not being used.

8. So it is flawed because he didn't specifically spell out that he wasnt switching out the neck and all? Please explain how it is flawed. And again, to prove that his conclusion is wrong one would have to reconduct the test and come up with different results. Again, scientifically a hypothesis is only a hypothesis until multiple testing has resulted in repatble observable results.

And without Rob using any form of written measurement, nor did he say this was a scientific test, I think holding it to an Einstein level is comical.

And back to the OP, I think Bill Lawrence's website has some great articles on this very topic.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

And a side note, I'm typing on my phoneand it thinks Strats* should be Start or Strata lol

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

And you are rejecting the simplicity of this test. I don't see any measuring devices producing charts and graphs to compare, so to hold it to the level of a World Health Organization report is silly. Drex was complaining about Rob Chapman and mentioned science several times. I brought up the scientific method showing how his test followed that method. Perhaps you didn't read that post?

Concerning the variables, from a stock guitar perspective they are the same. When Fender produces a Strat with they same wood, pickups, hardware, etc then from a produced product they are considered to be the same--Fender advertises maple necked alder bodied Strats and you can buy them online or go to a store and buy them. Rob has his own brand, which were used in this video. From his finished products, they are the same guitar with the only variance being Mahogany and Swamp Ash.

And thank you for misquoting me and taking my comment out of context. Again, these are stock guitars and a practical way to test the issue of tone wood is to take two identical model guitars with the same strings, hardware, pickups, electronics, etc. with the only difference being tone woods and see how the two sound.

If the video was taking frequency measurents then I would see where you are coming from on the variables, but not for a YouTube video of two stock guitars that were most likely put back on display/inventory after the recording.

 

[MacBradley]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Treyhaislip...multiple people have explained to you why these videos are inconclusive tests and don't follow the scientific method. There is no "Einstein" standards here...we're just talking about basic testing and deductive reason. Since this video has plenty of variables changing the end result, there is no conclusion that can be drawn out of this. We've tried to explain it to you, and you keep either ignoring and not absorbing the information. I'm not going to repeat facts to you again so you can repeat your anecdotes and assumptions again. The video is a flawed test that doesn't "prove" anything, and no part of the scientific method or common logic begs this inaccurate test to be be dis-proven either, because it is a flawed test to begin with and no conclusions should have been drawn in the first place.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Treyhaislip...multiple people have explained to you why these videos are inconclusive tests and don't follow the scientific method. There is no "Einstein" standards here...we're just talking about basic testing and deductive reason. Since this video has plenty of variables changing the end result, there is no conclusion that can be drawn out of this. We've tried to explain it to you, and you keep either ignoring and not absorbing the information. I'm not going to repeat facts to you again so you can repeat your anecdotes and assumptions again. The video is a flawed test that doesn't "prove" anything, and no part of the scientific method or common logic begs this inaccurate test to be be dis-proven either, because it is a flawed test to begin with and no conclusions should have been drawn in the first place.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. It is not a matter of me lacking the ability to asborb info and being stupid as you have implied multiple times, we are looking at it from different perspectives--you ARE holding it to a much higher standard that the test was conducted at. With nothing actually measured, I find it hard to hold atomic level variables as making this a flawed test. This shows that a stock ML1 in Mahogany doesn't sound like a Stock ML-1 Swamp Ash, with the guitarists stating a different tone and response from the two.

Again, had Rob produced charts and graphs where he mapped out the frequencies then I would be agreeing with you in that it wasn't conducted accordingly. But for a test wth the conclusion of "yeah it makes a difference" without any special recording equipment or measurements taken...I think it was a good test of the differences between a stock ML-1 Mahogany and a stock ML-1 Swamp Ash.

So you guys disagree with me--thats fine. I don't see it as a flawed test as all the variables you mention will be present when you are faced with comparing two stock guitars that only have different wood...like what the test showed. Its the internet and this is a forum. But we really have gone down a rabbit trail from the OP and we are not going to see eye to eye and neither of us are going to change the other's opinion of the test.

 

[GuitarStv]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Concerning the variables, from a stock guitar perspective they are the same. When Fender produces a Strat with they same wood, pickups, hardware, etc then from a produced product they are considered to be the same--Fender advertises maple necked alder bodied Strats and you can buy them online or go to a store and buy them. Rob has his own brand, which were used in this video. From his finished products, they are the same guitar with the only variance being Mahogany and Swamp Ash.

If we accept your claim, all stock alder body maple neck MIM strats must sound exactly the same. Is that what you're trying to argue here? That there is no variation in sound between different guitars of the same model?

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

The test was the difference in tone between two identical stock guitars with the only difference being tone wood.

I've played two identical model guitars that played better, but never played two identical models that sounded vastly different. Some had better sustain or more of a ring to it, but not where one sounded like a Les Paul and the other sounded like a Strat. MIA Fender American Standard Strats with the same tone wood, pickups, necks, hardware sound like, *gasp*, Strats.

I'll use above as an example of proof where I never said two guitars will sound identical. I've acknowledged this multiple times thru this thread. Not 100% the same, but two similar Strats will sound like Strats, not like a totally different type of guitar.

My perspective all along has been from a Stock product. I understand and have experienced small differences between two MIM Fender Strats with basically all things being equal, but it wasn't in that one sounded like a completely different guitar. These are two stock ML-1s, such a test seems practical to me because you can't go into a store and start swapping parts.

And terms such as "better" and "more responsive" are not measurable, you can't quaitify those. Saying "there is a difference" without measurements tells me the test was just a simple test of two stock guitars being demoed by two guitarists. As I've said before, if he had charts showing the different frequencies then I would agree with y'all about the variables and holding the test to a higher standard.

And like I've said multiple times, test it yourself. That is the best way to A. Personally refute/accept tone wood makes a difference and B. Feel and hear for yourself. I say take the same guitar and put the same spec all maple neck on it and then a maple and rosewood neck...and tell me there is no difference. Take a JB and put it in Alder and then Basswood and hear for yourself.

 

[treyhaislip]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

If we accept your claim, all stock alder body maple neck MIM strats must sound exactly the same. Is that what you're trying to argue here? That there is no variation in sound between different guitars of the same model?

Sorry, couldn't grab your quote and mine from my phone.

From the perspective of a manufacturer, such as Rob Chapman, then yes they are the same.

From the perspective of a guitar player, I quoted above and have said multiple times that of course no 2 guitars will 100% identical. We are dealing with organic materials that are never going to be 100% the same. That's why I think the non-measured test is not flawed because how many people out there only own one set of hardware, neck, pickups, and electronics and swap them out for a new body when they want Mahogany instead of Basswood?

Practically speaking, the guitars are the same except for the body wood. The test was simple and provided zero data other than audio. For all we know they could have overdubbed or messed with the mix, just because its on the internet doesn't make it true. But as a test of two stock ML-1s with the only difference being the tone wood, I thought the video did a good job showing off the two guitars.

 

[Archer250]

Re: "Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

Well, no two guitars, even theoretically 'identical' ones, sound the same because of the accumulation of different variables.