Interesting video #tonewood #internetselfcombusts

thegummy

gringopig 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.

Unfortunately that's not possible as one variable in the equation is the human player with countless sub-variables of hearing acuity, perception of sound and inherent psychological learned preferences. So, strict scientific testing is not possible but this is interesting in that some variables of the sound seem to stay with the guitar and not move with the pickups.

I personally think that the sum total of all the variables; including the physical vibration of the guitar as held by the player, feedback into the perception of the sound.

That's exactly why scientific testing is done, because there are so many barriers that stop humans being able to just judge something reliably. There's plenty of techniques to overcome the type of things you mention.

It would definitely be possible to test any of the common guitar tone questions, it's not a particularly complicated topic. I've just never seen much done.

Possibly because it would take a lot of effort compared to just making a normal YouTube video like this one but the results don't really have much value even to a recording guitarist, much less anyone else.

I'm more keen to find out for the sake of curiosity rather than any change I'd make to my guitars or anything.

thegummy

gringopig said:

thegummy said:

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.

Yes but he's not being a 'prick' if he's attempting scientific rigour as you suggest. Might be slightly too strong a term lol

That's exactly what I said.

Prick would be the correct term if he was doing it to troll.

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

That's exactly why scientific testing is done, because there are so many barriers that stop humans being able to just judge something reliably. There's plenty of techniques to overcome the type of things you mention.

It would definitely be possible to test any of the common guitar tone questions, it's not a particularly complicated topic. I've just never seen much done.

Possibly because it would take a lot of effort compared to just making a normal YouTube video like this one but the results don't really have much value even to a recording guitarist, much less anyone else.

I'm more keen to find out for the sake of curiosity rather than any change I'd make to my guitars or anything.

You don’t want to explain to
us what specifically the guy could/should have done differently because we don’t understand scientific testing, yet you say it’s not a particularly complicated topic. 

Which is it?

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

You don’t want to explain to
us what specifically the guy could/should have done differently because we don’t understand scientific testing, yet you say it’s not a particularly complicated topic. 

Which is it?

Seriously, why are you trying so hard to drag me in to an argument? What could you possibly gain from it?

p90fool

I haven't seen the video yet, but musicians don't need scientific proof that an ES175 and an SG don't sound the same. 

I wouldn't bother arguing with anyone who can't hear that difference any more than I'd argue with someone who can't drive about different Jaguar E-type cam profiles. 

Of course there's a lot of bullshit surrounding guitar construction, but that doesn't make every good guitarist, luthier or studio engineer some kind of gullible moron. 

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

You don’t want to explain to
us what specifically the guy could/should have done differently because we don’t understand scientific testing, yet you say it’s not a particularly complicated topic. 

Which is it?

Seriously, why are you trying so hard to drag me in to an argument? What could you possibly gain from it?

What argument are you taking about? 

Who exactly is arguing you? I’m not, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from.

darthed1981

impmann said:

FUCK "science".

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

This seems to be, overall, the best approach.

rossi

I am sure when playing in your wanking pit of doom formerly  known as your bedroom  all this  is very important .However when playing your local gig ,dodging bottles, sometimes empty ,from men, and  knickers ,used and even sometimes  clean, from both sexes , it doesnt matter a fig .No one cares frankly but if it keeps from  you harming sheep then good luck  .

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

You don’t want to explain to
us what specifically the guy could/should have done differently because we don’t understand scientific testing, yet you say it’s not a particularly complicated topic. 

Which is it?

Seriously, why are you trying so hard to drag me in to an argument? What could you possibly gain from it?

What argument are you taking about? 

Who exactly is arguing you? I’m not, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Hitting me with false dichotomies or asking me over and over again isn't going to achieve anything. I'm just not going to reply if you ask me the same thing again.

That's not me saying I won't happily reply to you in other threads or even this one as long as you're not just asking me again to write out the plan for an experiment that I don't want to write out (i.e. it's nothing against you, it's just a waste of time to go round in a loop).

tabano

This is a great video,
This is a great video,

thegummy

darthed1981 said:

impmann said:

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

This seems to be, overall, the best approach.

There's absolutely no question that it's the best approach to actually making music.

The people who actually do that, though, don't go on guitar forums in the first place lol.

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

You don’t want to explain to
us what specifically the guy could/should have done differently because we don’t understand scientific testing, yet you say it’s not a particularly complicated topic. 

Which is it?

Seriously, why are you trying so hard to drag me in to an argument? What could you possibly gain from it?

What argument are you taking about? 

Who exactly is arguing you? I’m not, I’m just trying to understand where you are coming from.

Hitting me with false dichotomies or asking me over and over again isn't going to achieve anything. I'm just not going to reply if you ask me the same thing again.

That's not me saying I won't happily reply to you in other threads or even this one as long as you're not just asking me again to write out the plan for an experiment that I don't want to write out (i.e. it's nothing against you, it's just a waste of time to go round in a loop).

Ok, cool, though I don’t really understand why you bothered even posting in the first place

Anyways, thanks for letting us know there is a better way to do this, but we wouldn’t understand it and/or if it was explained to us it would be so complicated/controversial that we would disagree with it (and you) and/or you don’t want to go to the trouble of explaining it.  

It’s been enlightening.

thegummy

Seziertisch said:

Ok, cool, though I don’t really understand why you bothered even posting in the first place

Anyways, thanks for letting us know there is a better way to do this, but we wouldn’t understand it and/or if it was explained to us it would be so complicated/controversial that we would disagree with it (and you) and/or you don’t want to go to the trouble of explaining it.  

It’s been enlightening.

Don't know what I can say to that.

If you actually interpreted the things I've said in this thread as that gobbledegook then it's pointless saying anything to you.

So I won't after this.

Seziertisch

thegummy said:

Seziertisch said:

Ok, cool, though I don’t really understand why you bothered even posting in the first place

Anyways, thanks for letting us know there is a better way to do this, but we wouldn’t understand it and/or if it was explained to us it would be so complicated/controversial that we would disagree with it (and you) and/or you don’t want to go to the trouble of explaining it.  

It’s been enlightening.

Don't know what I can say to that.

If you actually interpreted the things I've said in this thread as that gobbledegook then it's pointless saying anything to you.

So I won't after this.

Anyways, thanks for letting us know there is a better way to do this, but we wouldn’t understand it and/or if it was explained to us it would be so complicated/controversial that we would disagree with it (and you) and/or you don’t want to go to the trouble of explaining it.  

There is a better way to do this

 "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".

 but we wouldn’t understand it and/or if it was explained to us it would be so complicated/controversial that we would disagree with it (and you)

"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."

,  and/or you don’t want to go to the trouble of explaining it.  

"... as long as you're not just asking me again to write out the plan for an experiment that I don't want to write out (i.e. it's nothing against you, it's just a waste of time to go round in a loop)."

What other interpretation is there of what you wrote?