"Pickup Break-in" Any truth here??

[DreX]

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

We are also not talking about anything that has any mystery to it. Maybe to the average guitar player but pickup mfg's know exactly what happens with the life cycle of their pickups

Nevertheless, 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.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

i'm not saying Rob Chapman claimed to be a scientists, but he and Scott Grove both weighed in the tone wood debate. Neither said "I'm going to wait for more information to come along", and as I said, it's the high number of YouTube hits that make them "leaders", or otherwise highly influential, not any scientific merit.

So weighing in on the tone wood debate makes one a self-acclaimed guitar scientist? Chapman's tone wood video was a pretty dog gone good test of different tonewoods as he tried to isolate as many variables to just the tone wood all while filming a video for a YouTube audience.

Yeah, but Chappers doesn't ever claim to be an authority and says things are his opinion while Scott Grove curses at you, calls you all sorts of things that his mother would slap him for, and claims to be an authority.

And I don't take YouTube hits as a measure of being a leader. If so, cats would be our leaders because I'm pretty sure there's more cat videos with zillions of hits than anything else.

Yup, if YouTube hits measure being a leader then Pewdiepie and everything in this video would be our leaders

 

[DreX]

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

Yeah, but Chappers doesn't ever claim to be an authority and says things are his opinion while Scott Grove curses at you, calls you all sorts of things that his mother would slap him for, and claims to be an authority.

And I don't take YouTube hits as a measure of being a leader. If so, cats would be our leaders because I'm pretty sure there's more cat videos with zillions of hits than anything else.

It's like how they'll ask celebrities to endorse products or comment on recent newsworthy events. The celebrity isn't an expert, but their popularity and familiarity alone causes people to make them de facto leaders. People look up to them.

The YouTube hits shows how much attention they are receiving relative to other sources of information. Those YouTube comments should have comments like "none of this is scientifically rigorous or factual, I'm going to look for better YouTube videos and/or make better ones myself", but that's not how it pans out, they are given the celebrity treatment, their opinion are treated like fact, and Chapman has his name on the headstocks of guitars.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

It's like how they'll ask celebrities to endorse products or comment on recent newsworthy events. The celebrity isn't an expert, but their popularity and familiarity alone causes people to make them de facto leaders. People look up to them.

The YouTube hits shows how much attention they are receiving relative to other sources of information. Those YouTube comments should have comments like "none of this is scientifically rigorous or factual, I'm going to look for better YouTube videos and/or make better ones myself", but that's not how it pans out, they are given the celebrity treatment, their opinion are treated like fact, and Chapman has his name on the headstocks of guitars.

You are really big on "science" so lets take this approach. Here is a definition of the scientific method in an article by Live Science:

"The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. “Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University. Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against."

So tell me where was Chapman's video was unscientific?

1. Observation, tone wood differences
2. Questions, does tone wood make a difference? Do others hear a difference/others opinions etc
3. Hypothesis, tone wood makes a difference
4. Test: 2 almost identical Chapman ML-1 guitars with key difference as tonewood, both played by both guitar players in the video
5. Analysis, Audible difference between guitars (both guitar players played both guitars)
6. Have you, Drex, done a test this precise? Like, the exact same model guitars with the same pickups and hardware?

Seems to me like this falls under the scientific method, so I would say you are correct, we can assume Chapman is a scientist of sorts.

 

[DreX]

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

So tell me where was Chapman's video was unscientific?

1. Observation, tone wood differences
2. Questions, does tone wood make a difference? Do others hear a difference/others opinions etc
3. Hypothesis, tone wood makes a difference
4. Test: 2 almost identical Chapman ML-1 guitars with key difference as tonewood, both played by both guitar players in the video
5. Analysis, Audible difference between guitars (both guitar players played both guitars)
6. Have you, Drex, done a test this precise? Like, the exact same model guitars with the same pickups and hardware?

Seems to me like this falls under the scientific method, so I would say you are correct, we can assume Chapman is a scientist of sorts.

"almost identical" is the big problem there, and not strummed in a controlled and consistent manner, leaving open the possibility that he might have subconsciously played them differently because he wanted there to be a difference, or otherwise felt different about the guitars.

 

[GilmourD]

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

It's like how they'll ask celebrities to endorse products or comment on recent newsworthy events. The celebrity isn't an expert, but their popularity and familiarity alone causes people to make them de facto leaders. People look up to them.

The YouTube hits shows how much attention they are receiving relative to other sources of information. Those YouTube comments should have comments like "none of this is scientifically rigorous or factual, I'm going to look for better YouTube videos and/or make better ones myself", but that's not how it pans out, they are given the celebrity treatment, their opinion are treated like fact, and Chapman has his name on the headstocks of guitars.

Maybe it's all in how you look at it. Honestly, I think a lot of "celebrities" are idiots and I don't give a flying fork what they endorse. In fact, there are some products I won't use specifically because certain celebrities have endorsed them and I know the manufacturer is selling snake oil and the celebrity is a grade-A moron.

Chapman has his name on the headstock but he has a support staff that knows their stuff, which he refers to often since he freely admits he doesn't know all there is to know. He does know what goes into a good guitar and he has guitars made that other manufacturers don't make, so it gives the market more choice. I feel that's a good thing.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

"almost identical" is the big problem there, and not strummed in a controlled and consistent manner, leaving open the possibility that he might have subconsciously played them differently because he wanted there to be a difference, or otherwise felt different about the guitars.

Explain to me how you can have identical guitars in this type of test? I mean...like you can't test the exact same guitar out with different tone woods.

Did you watch the entire video? Please tell me the time on the video that Rob was playing different on the Mahogany than on the Swamp Ash (you know, hard scientific proof that he played different enough to affect the tone)

"leaving open the possibility that he might have subconsciously played them differently because he wanted there to be a difference"...what scientific proof do you have of this? What actions has Rob done in the past to make you think this?

And of course, you never answered my question, "Have you, Drex, done a test this precise? Like, the exact same model guitars with the same pickups and hardware?" Because, the only way you can scientifically make an argument against this test is to conduct one yourself.

 

[Archer250]

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

We need to get that ****ing Teuffel and end this debate once and for all.

 

[DreX]

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

Explain to me how you can have identical guitars in this type of test? I mean...like you can't test the exact same guitar out with different tone woods.

First you'd need some sort of constant strumming device that took the human element out of the equation, and make sure that it's mounted and measured securely in a fashion that ensure it strum both guitars in the same location with the same amount of force.

Next, at the very least, you'd need to use the exact same pickups and pots since those are known to vary widely from one example to the next.

If the guitars are bolt on neck, one neck should be used for both guitars and the screws should be tightened to even pressure.

Technically all the hardware should be shared also. I wouldn't make as big of a deal about the metal hardware, technically they could be sourced from two different runs with variations in the alloys or purity, but the metal parts make up a small enough part of the system, and the potential for variation is so small that I personally wouldn't care if they kept the hardware with the different bodies.

Did you watch the entire video? Please tell me the time on the video that Rob was playing different on the Mahogany than on the Swamp Ash (you know, hard scientific proof that he played different enough to affect the tone)


"leaving open the possibility that he might have subconsciously played them differently because he wanted there to be a difference"...what scientific proof do you have of this? What actions has Rob done in the past to make you think this?

The fact that he's strumming the guitars with his own hands is self evident "human factor". You can't know that he applied the same amount of pressure as he strummed the two guitars, or that he struck the string over the same nodes. Both are subtle differences that possibly account for a bigger difference than the wood itself.

And of course, you never answered my question, "Have you, Drex, done a test this precise? Like, the exact same model guitars with the same pickups and hardware?" Because, the only way you can scientifically make an argument against this test is to conduct one yourself.

I'm not claiming knowledge either way, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Archer250]

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

Controlled variables is why we should get that Teuffel

 

[treyhaislip]

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

First you'd need some sort of constant strumming device that took the human element out of the equation, and make sure that it's mounted and measured securely in a fashion that ensure it strum both guitars in the same location with the same amount of force.

Take the human element out of it? Where is it written that that is a requirement? Accepted scientific methods never say "take out the human element." The guitar requires the human element to play (even a computed program/device requires human input.) People, not machines, play guitar.

Next, at the very least, you'd need to use the exact same pickups and pots since those are known to vary widely from one example to the next.

If the guitars are bolt on neck, one neck should be used for both guitars and the screws should be tightened to even pressure.

Technically all the hardware should be shared also. I wouldn't make as big of a deal about the metal hardware, technically they could be sourced from two different runs with variations in the alloys or purity, but the metal parts make up a small enough part of the system, and the potential for variation is so small that I personally wouldn't care if they kept the hardware with the different bodies.

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?

I've yet to hear and play a JB that sounded and played like a '59. Again, just think about what you are requiring of this test AND keep in mind that he did not state this was a collegiate level test of academic standards.

And how does this make the test non-scientific? This was a simple test trying to keep the variables as low as possible–same guitar in Mahogany and Swamp Ash.

The fact that he's strumming the guitars with his own hands is self evident "human factor". You can't know that he applied the same amount of pressure as he strummed the two guitars, or that he struck the string over the same nodes. Both are subtle differences that possibly account for a bigger difference than the wood itself.

So...you did or didn't watch the whole video? And....you can't give a specific example of him playing different.

I'm not claiming knowledge either way, so it doesn't matter.

...

The YouTube hits shows how much attention they are receiving relative to other sources of information. Those YouTube comments should have comments like "none of this is scientifically rigorous or factual, I'm going to look for better YouTube videos and/or make better ones myself", but that's not how it pans out, they are given the celebrity treatment, their opinion are treated like fact, and Chapman has his name on the headstocks of guitars.

Again, he did a scientific test. He took two guitars that have the same hardware, dimensions, pickups, radius, fret size, same strings, etc. The only difference is the tone wood–Mahogany vs Swamp Ash.

You complained that he didn't give a formal statement about ""I'm going to wait for more information to come along", and as I said, it's the high number of YouTube hits that make them "leaders", or otherwise highly influential, not any scientific merit." I say bull. He did a repeatable observable test that follows the scientific method.

You were the one to rant about his lack of scientific merit, so I say buy a Mahogany and Swamp Ash ML-1 and conduct your own experiment. That is the scientific response. Enough said.

 

[MacBradley]

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

Treyhaislip:

Drex is actually 100% right here. He's talking about something known as "controlled variables," and human variance/error from one strum to the next is a VERY uncontrolled variable. So is any two different bridges, strings, ect. There is a reason tolerances exist in manufacturing, and its because no two things (even the same product from the same company) are identical in the universe. If you're not controlling these variables to the best of your possibilities, then you aren't going to get good peer reviews on a scientific study. This test would have got marked down in a schooling session as well, and for good reason with all the uncontrolled variables.

 

[GuitarStv]

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

Yep. Treyhaislip is really demonstrating poor understanding of scientific test design.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

Treyhaislip:

Drex is actually 100% right here. He's talking about something known as "controlled variables," and human variance/error from one strum to the next is a VERY uncontrolled variable. So is any two different bridges, strings, ect. There is a reason tolerances exist in manufacturing, and its because no two things (even the same product from the same company) are identical in the universe. If you're not controlling these variables to the best of your possibilities, then you aren't going to get good peer reviews on a scientific study. This test would have got marked down in a schooling session as well, and for good reason with all the uncontrolled variables.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

And like I previously said, "keep in mind that he did not state this was a collegiate level test of academic standards." Rob was doing a simple test using two guitars almost identical with the only difference from a manufactured prodcut standpoint is Mahogany and Swamp Ash (same necks, same pickups, same hardware, same electronics, same strings.)

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. Drex kept on complaining about Rob Chapman and after questioned about it, gave his reasons which included lack of scientific merit. I brought up the actual scientific method and showed how Rob's test fit the scientific method. 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.

 

[Funkfingers]

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

human variance/error from one strum to the next is a VERY uncontrolled variable.

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.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

Yep. Treyhaislip is really demonstrating poor understanding of scientific test design.

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.

 

[DreX]

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

It's as simple as this: without controls, you can't make claims to attribution.

 

[treyhaislip]

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

It's as simple as this: without controls, you can't make claims to attribution.

A. From a non-lab & non-academic level test, I'd say they kept the controls about as low as you can get for such a video. Think about it from your own perspective, no two pieces of wood or metal or plastic or etc. is going to be the exactly, precisely, down to the atomic level identically the same...one can never test this out on your levels. Will you count how many turns of the screws you did so the pickup height and pressure on the neckplate is 100% identical?

B. Practically speaking, two manufactured guitars of the same model are the same guitar from a manufactured perspective. Are they 100% the same, no. But will two strats with the only differnce being one was made a serial number or two later sound like completely different guitars? I haven't found that to be the case...I've tried many Strats and Les Pauls that had the same pickups, hardware, and tone woods...the Strats sounded like Strats and the Les Pauls sounded like Les Pauls.

C. You complained about his lack of scientific merit so why don't you buy two ML-1's that are Swamp Ash and Mahogany and then conduct the test replacing the neck, hardware, electronics, and pickups? Rather than dissing the man, why don't you refute his statements with a test of your own?

D. I don't see Rob graphing and charting the different Hertz and Frequencies, so I think it is funny to hold him and his test to an Einstein standard.

 

[Davii]

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

Perhaps this'll come down to it being more nuanced a difference to what we, as end users, expect to hear as distinct differences, by the way it's presented.

 

[DreX]

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.