It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
Prick would be the correct term if he was doing it to troll.
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.
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.
This seems to be, overall, the best approach.
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).
This is a great video,
The people who actually do that, though, don't go on guitar forums in the first place lol.
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.
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?