Interesting video #tonewood #internetselfcombusts

Seziertisch

https://youtu.be/n4puGOEmGjs

This is interesting and probably about as scientific as this kind of thing can get (presuming that the guy has actually set the guitars up the same)

thegummy

Will have a watch when I'm home.

My money's on it not being very scientific

impmann

FUCK "science".

Just play the guitar and stop bothering with shit like this.

crunchman

The character of those two guitars does come through even when the electronics and hardware are changed over.

It doesn't surprise me.  It's what I've experienced over the years.  Even now, I have two Strats - one of them is much brighter sounding unplugged, and it's much brighter sounding plugged in.

Sassafras

impmann said:

FUCK "science".

Just play the guitar and stop bothering with shit like this.

That's what we used to do before the internet.
How the hell did we manage?

thegummy

impmann said:

FUCK "science".

Just play the guitar and stop bothering with shit like this.

I'm intrigued why you'd see the thread title so know what it was going to be about then bother to click in to it and write that.

gringopig

.

thegummy

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The guy wanted to show that two different guitar sounded different independent of the hardware and pickups in them. I think he did a pretty good job of removing the variables. 

Though I don’t think he changed out the entire wiring harness, so that might have had an impact. 

Anyway, what would you have done differently to make it more “scientific”? 

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The guy wanted to show that two different guitar sounded different independent of the hardware and pickups in them. I think he did a pretty good job of removing the variables. 

Though I don’t think he changed out the entire wiring harness, so that might have had an impact. 

Anyway, what would you have done differently to make it more “scientific”? 

The reason I didn't go through and point out the ways this video went wrong is because I have zero interest in arguing with anyone who doesn't understand scientific testing but, this being the internet, there's always a good chance someone would try even if I took time to explain in detail.

That's why I say to anyone who genuinely wants to know why for their own benefit that they'd only have to learn the basics about the topic to know what makes this video poor evidence as well as generally improve their understanding of many other things for the rest of their life.

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The guy wanted to show that two different guitar sounded different independent of the hardware and pickups in them. I think he did a pretty good job of removing the variables. 

Though I don’t think he changed out the entire wiring harness, so that might have had an impact. 

Anyway, what would you have done differently to make it more “scientific”? 

The reason I didn't go through and point out the ways this video went wrong is because I have zero interest in arguing with anyone who doesn't understand scientific testing but, this being the internet, there's always a good chance someone would try even if I took time to explain in detail.

That's why I say to anyone who genuinely wants to know why for their own benefit that they'd only have to learn the basics about the topic to know what makes this video poor evidence as well as generally improve their understanding of many other things for the rest of their life.

I have no horse in this race. I came across the video, thought it was interesting, decide to post it. Nobody is arguing with you.

But what concretely should he have done differently to make it more “scientific”? I know there is obvious stuff, like there should have been more instruments (though realistically who has more than a couple of CS Les Pauls available to them) , the test should have been blind (at least the playback of the audio) and we only have his word as to the setup of the instruments. And then there is stuff like how even though he used the same brand of strings on both guitars they were not the exact same strings (we have no idea as to the level of uniformity between 2 sets of strings of the same brand) and the fact that there is human actually playing the guitar, hitting the strings a bit differently every time. 

It’s a bit of a cop out to say that people wouldn’t understand the scientific method, so that’s why you won’t explain it/apply it to the situation.

crunchman

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The guy wanted to show that two different guitar sounded different independent of the hardware and pickups in them. I think he did a pretty good job of removing the variables. 

Though I don’t think he changed out the entire wiring harness, so that might have had an impact. 

Anyway, what would you have done differently to make it more “scientific”? 

The reason I didn't go through and point out the ways this video went wrong is because I have zero interest in arguing with anyone who doesn't understand scientific testing but, this being the internet, there's always a good chance someone would try even if I took time to explain in detail.

That's why I say to anyone who genuinely wants to know why for their own benefit that they'd only have to learn the basics about the topic to know what makes this video poor evidence as well as generally improve their understanding of many other things for the rest of their life.

It's not that one in isolation.

I've owned lots of guitars.  The acoustic sound (i.e. the wood) comes out in the electric sound.  A guitar that is bright sounding acoustically is bright sounding plugged in.  My first Les Paul was very bright - too bright, and thin sounding for a Les Paul.  I swapped pickups but it didn't fix it. When sold that one, I bought another one.  It was a lot fuller sounding unplugged, and that was reflected in the plugged in sound.

Like I said above, I have two Strats.  One of them is a lot brighter than the other unplugged, and it's a lot brighter plugged in as well.

I used to own a PRS McCarty with a solid rosewood neck.  That had a noticeably different sound (unplugged and electric) to the regular mahogany necked version.

I've said this before but if the wood and construction made no difference, an SG, a Les Paul, and a 335 would sound the same.  They all have the same pickups, and the same wiring, and I think Gibson have made versions of all of them with the same pickups (57 Classics) at some point.  They do not sound the same.  If your theories make you think that an SG and a Les Paul sound the same, then you need to come up with some better theories.

ICBM

The tone is in the wood.

If you think otherwise then you probably haven’t played enough guitars to tell.

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

Nobody is arguing with you.

Let's keep it that way

thegummy

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The guy wanted to show that two different guitar sounded different independent of the hardware and pickups in them. I think he did a pretty good job of removing the variables. 

Though I don’t think he changed out the entire wiring harness, so that might have had an impact. 

Anyway, what would you have done differently to make it more “scientific”? 

The reason I didn't go through and point out the ways this video went wrong is because I have zero interest in arguing with anyone who doesn't understand scientific testing but, this being the internet, there's always a good chance someone would try even if I took time to explain in detail.

That's why I say to anyone who genuinely wants to know why for their own benefit that they'd only have to learn the basics about the topic to know what makes this video poor evidence as well as generally improve their understanding of many other things for the rest of their life.

It's not that one in isolation.

I've owned lots of guitars.  The acoustic sound (i.e. the wood) comes out in the electric sound.  A guitar that is bright sounding acoustically is bright sounding plugged in.  My first Les Paul was very bright - too bright, and thin sounding for a Les Paul.  I swapped pickups but it didn't fix it. When sold that one, I bought another one.  It was a lot fuller sounding unplugged, and that was reflected in the plugged in sound.

Like I said above, I have two Strats.  One of them is a lot brighter than the other unplugged, and it's a lot brighter plugged in as well.

I used to own a PRS McCarty with a solid rosewood neck.  That had a noticeably different sound (unplugged and electric) to the regular mahogany necked version.

I've said this before but if the wood and construction made no difference, an SG, a Les Paul, and a 335 would sound the same.  They all have the same pickups, and the same wiring, and I think Gibson have made versions of all of them with the same pickups (57 Classics) at some point.  They do not sound the same.  If your theories make you think that an SG and a Les Paul sound the same, then you need to come up with some better theories.

Did you quote me by mistake or are you saying that to me?

Funkfingers

There was an obsessive character on the Seymour Duncan User Group forum from some university Physics department who took the “science” of guitar tone to the extreme. He eliminated the human player variability by devising a robotic strumming contraption. 

The guy uploaded video recordings comparing the tones yielded by different pickups and body woods, as “played” by Eric Contraption. (Terrible but irresistible pun.) I never could decide whether he was in earnest or a high tech troll?

thegummy

Funkfingers said:

There was an obsessive character on the Seymour Duncan User Group forum from some university Physics department who took the “science” of guitar tone to the extreme. He eliminated the human player variability by devising a robotic strumming contraption. 

The guy uploaded video recordings comparing the tones yielded by different pickups and body woods, as “played” by Eric Contraption. (Terrible but irresistible pun.) I never could decide whether he was in earnest or a high tech troll?

lol surely he must just be eccentric but actually believe he's doing the right thing.

I don't even want to believe someone would go to that much effort just to be a prick.

gringopig

.

gringopig

.

Sassafras

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

If people enjoy this video or find it entertaining then great, glad you found it.

But as far as actually providing reliable evidence for anything it's literally equal to zero.

If there's anyone who sincerely and open-mindedly wants to find evidence but just doesn't get why this isn't it, I'm sure there are many short books, or even free websites, that will explain "101" level scientific testing.

The reason I didn't go through and point out the ways this video went wrong is because I have zero interest in arguing with anyone who doesn't understand scientific testing but, this being the internet, there's always a good chance someone would try even if I took time to explain in detail.

That's why I say to anyone who genuinely wants to know why for their own benefit that they'd only have to learn the basics about the topic to know what makes this video poor evidence as well as generally improve their understanding of many other things for the rest of their life.

Nice patronising!!!

NelsonP

Nice video, thanks for posting. Tonewood debate done.

Now let's get onto the most pressing question of the day....

Is the earth flat?

;-)