Interesting Video , does body mass/weight really affect the tone ??? ,

Gassage

There is a simple rule of Youtube vides that we should all apply

If the presenter is an excitable American hipster beardy type then usually it's a load of bollocks.

jeztone2

I owned a really lightweight Les Paul & it sounded like someone had turned the bass players amp up. Not necessarily a bad thing. But I always thought wood mass affects low end.

But then I saw Mick Ralph’s playing a chambered Les Paul & it sounded huge. I dunno. 

Sassafras

thegummy said:

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Do you mean you would rather trust a scientific report than your own ears?

thegummy

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Do you mean you would rather trust a scientific report than your own ears?

It depends on the report - if it has evidence that proves something then of course I'd absolutely trust that over my own perception.

The fact that there are many people who believe their own senses over scientific proof is one of the main reasons there's so much nonsense in the world.

What about you, if there was proper scientific proof that something you thought you could hear didn't exist, would you still continue to believe it did regardless?

If the answer to that is yes - what if you were involved in the test and couldn't tell more than chance in a blind test but went back to hearing it when playing normally, would you believe it existed then or not?

Sassafras

thegummy said:

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Do you mean you would rather trust a scientific report than your own ears?

It depends on the report - if it has evidence that proves something then of course I'd absolutely trust that over my own perception.

The fact that there are many people who believe their own senses over scientific proof is one of the main reasons there's so much nonsense in the world.

What about you, if there was proper scientific proof that something you thought you could hear didn't exist, would you still continue to believe it did regardless?

If the answer to that is yes - what if you were involved in the test and couldn't tell more than chance in a blind test but went back to hearing it when playing normally, would you believe it existed then or not?

Only if my life depended on it.
You forget that some so called scientific reports are absolute tosh carried  out solely to justify research grants and publication of 'scientific' papers. You'll rarely get 2 scientists to agree on the same thing. I also believe that our auditory system is far more sophisticated than any electronic gadgetry. We put far too much store and faith in technology..
The machines aren't always right.

terada

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Do you mean you would rather trust a scientific report than your own ears?

It depends on the report - if it has evidence that proves something then of course I'd absolutely trust that over my own perception.

The fact that there are many people who believe their own senses over scientific proof is one of the main reasons there's so much nonsense in the world.

What about you, if there was proper scientific proof that something you thought you could hear didn't exist, would you still continue to believe it did regardless?

If the answer to that is yes - what if you were involved in the test and couldn't tell more than chance in a blind test but went back to hearing it when playing normally, would you believe it existed then or not?

Only if my life depended on it.
You forget that some so called scientific reports are absolute tosh carried  out solely to justify research grants and publication of 'scientific' papers. You'll rarely get 2 scientists to agree on the same thing. I also believe that our auditory system is far more sophisticated than any electronic gadgetry. We put far too much store and faith in technology..
The machines aren't always right.

I for one welcome our new technology overlords 

thegummy

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

Sassafras said:

thegummy said:

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Do you mean you would rather trust a scientific report than your own ears?

It depends on the report - if it has evidence that proves something then of course I'd absolutely trust that over my own perception.

The fact that there are many people who believe their own senses over scientific proof is one of the main reasons there's so much nonsense in the world.

What about you, if there was proper scientific proof that something you thought you could hear didn't exist, would you still continue to believe it did regardless?

If the answer to that is yes - what if you were involved in the test and couldn't tell more than chance in a blind test but went back to hearing it when playing normally, would you believe it existed then or not?

Only if my life depended on it.
You forget that some so called scientific reports are absolute tosh carried  out solely to justify research grants and publication of 'scientific' papers. You'll rarely get 2 scientists to agree on the same thing. I also believe that our auditory system is far more sophisticated than any electronic gadgetry. We put far too much store and faith in technology..
The machines aren't always right.

Some scientific reports aren't great, that's why I said it depends on the report.

It's not true that 2 scientists rarely agree on the same thing.

Surely even something as simple as watching that McGurk demonstration on YouTube shatters your belief that human's perception of audio is reliable, doesn't it?

There's no need to get machines or fancy gadgetry involved anyway, just proper blind testing with good sample sizes. If people are repeatedly able to pick out differences, e.g. can tell a sound clip is either from a rosewood fretboard or maple fretboard the vast majority of times then it becomes believable that they really can hear the difference.

When people say they hear the difference when they know what they're playing, there's really no reason to believe that they are when we know the massive extent various biases affect our perceptions. I'm sure they believe they do, I'm not suggesting they're lying in any way.

Audio engineering has a lot of this because there's so many times one has to compare incredibly subtle differences that effects add etc. I've been an amateur audio engineer for over 15 years so have spent a massive amount of time sitting comparing very subtle changes and being 100% convinced I'm hearing differences. It's only when I started blind testing myself using ABX software, I realised I couldn't tell the difference after all. I was just expecting the difference so "heard" it.

I've read quite a few of the top names in the world of audio engineering admit they've sat tweaking effect units til it's perfect only to then discover it had been in bypass mode the whole time.

Bigsby

Sassafras said:

You'll rarely get 2 scientists to agree on the same thing. 

Sorry, but that's just utter nonsense. There's a massive body of scientific knowledge that is widely agreed upon - just take DNA and heritability as an example: No one in the scientific community disputes the role of DNA in heritability, and is suggesting an alternative theory. But you make it sound as though scientists simply don't agree on any subject. They actually agree about far more than they disagree about - but that potential for disagreement is actually the power of science, rather than a weakness. A graduate can challenge a nobel prize winner, and if they have the evidence that challenge will win. 

The idea that scientists don't agree about anything is both fake and poisonous: It suggest we can't 'trust' science, because even the scientists don't agree on anything, yet science is simply the best process for developing knowledge that humans have devised. 

Danielsguitars

science isn't emotive that's the problem with guitars and wood varys alot so can't be scientific imo, it's what you like that counts the rest is just wasting our time watching this crap

I don't care about pallets or pickups nailed to something it still sounded shit to me or carpboard guitars you name it, just wastes endless hours of debating bollocks, ain't gonna change my mind from what i like and build 

WezV

ESBlonde said:

I thought the video should have continued.
Add some mass to the headstock. Then remove that and a chunk of wood from there too.
Anyway lots of  interest it seems.

That would have been easy.  Anyone can try it with a clamp.  The change will affect some guitars more than others.   

This "test" should also have been tried on a non-trem guitar....