Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: Bradock PI on April 16, 2009, 10:32:35 PM
-
Just looking at all the folks with loads of guitars and I am wondering how many you need? How many do you actually have to have before you can cover all the tones and styles you want. Then if you have more is it
A) A disease I just cant help myself I have bad GAS
B) A collection I always wanted X,Y,Z and I am going to have them
C) An investment this is my pension pot and it beats bricks and morter hands down
D) What do you mean have more than I need I NEED every single one
E) I have to have a range of colours and styles to match my shoes and shirt I can't possibly be seen with a guitar that clashes
Please indicate current number of guitars along with number you need.
/nosey
-
I have 11 guitars
You can have as many as you want, for whatever reason you want. Case closed. NEXT!
-
A bit of A,B and D......10 guitars, 1 bass, 1 mandolin think I only had my SG, 12 string accoustic, classical and 6 string accoustic for years..then kinda went mad, then sold, traded etc until I got here.
You havn't mentioned amps..ahh A, B and D again
-
the number varies quite a lot, i have just sold off 3 from the collection to make way for at least 2 more - thats my version of streamlining
D is the only answer, even for people like me who dont play much anymore
-
B or D, I think. (Just realised I put C, lol..)
I usually have guitars for different tunings but also for string through, Floyd, different bridges, number of strings, different pickup configs, woods.
But if I love a guitar, I'll pull a Twinfan.
-
A bit of A,B and D......10 guitars, 1 bass, 1 mandolin think I only had my SG, 12 string accoustic, classical and 6 string accoustic for years..then kinda went mad, then sold, traded etc until I got here.
You havn't mentioned amps..ahh A, B and D again
Are we not counting non-6 electrics as guitars?
Ok
7 x 6 string electric
1 x 7 string electric
1 x 6 (steel) string accoustic
2 x 4 string bass
Currently want
- my next custom to be finished (6 string electric)
- Nylon string accoustic
- Steel string accoustic with cutaway
- 5 string bass
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
-
D for me. I have 3 acoustics-all tuned differently. 3 Electrics all used very often plus a bass that I use a lot when I get asked to record or play with a few mates.
-
be smug
i would just need to know how to spell acoustic for that :P ;)
....
I really shouldnt mock peoples spelling, mine is very poor sometimes, but the misspelling of acoustic is a really common one and does bug me. typing accoustic into ebay just got 80 results!! :)
-
A and B definitely.
D.... hmmmm, not really, the number of guitars I need is precisely ZERO. But I feel like I need them.
I currently have 25-ish, including several in-progess projects and a few which are past saving.
If I didn't have more than one of any particular type of guitar, I guess I could theoretically get it down to 7 or 8. But it ain't gonna happen! :?
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
-
be smug
i would just need to know how to spell acoustic for that :P ;)
....
I really shouldnt mock peoples spelling, mine is very poor sometimes, but the misspelling of acoustic is a really common one and does bug me. typing accoustic into ebay just got 80 results!! :)
Meh. My spellings terrible, and I know it. Ergo, I am immune to any derogatory comments about it!
-
EVERYONE knows you need at least one more than you currently have. PDT_008
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
Pure sophistry.
Sorry MDV... But it is and you know it..
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
-
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
The qualification was based on the designation of the primary function of a guitar, its purpose for existance namely the production of musical sounds. The identification of need was qualified with the "want" to produce a particulary range of musical styles or tones having made the decision to produce those sounds then there is now the need to have the capable instrument. Instruments procured outside of this scope would not be fulfilling the need with respect to the primary function.
It is need in the same way that a cyclist in order to cycle needs a bike, The cyclist that wants to race on a track needs a track bike and a cyclist that wants to compete in down hill needs a mountain bike. The need in this case is produced by the specific subset requirements of the particular activity.
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
Pure sophistry.
Sorry MDV... But it is and you know it..
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
Awwwww but its fun :(
-
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
The qualification was based on the designation of the primary function of a guitar, its purpose for existance namely the production of musical sounds. The identification of need was qualified with the "want" to produce a particulary range of musical styles or tones having made the decision to produce those sounds then there is now the need to have the capable instrument. Instruments procured outside of this scope would not be fulfilling the need with respect to the primary function.
It is need in the same way that a cyclist in order to cycle needs a bike, The cyclist that wants to race on a track needs a track bike and a cyclist that wants to compete in down hill needs a mountain bike. The need in this case is produced by the specific subset requirements of the particular activity.
These criteria are too limited, and fail to consider the many aspects of a guitar that are not musical per se, and may cause one to find any given example desirable.
These include, but are not limited to, feel, playability, looks, weight, nostalgic value, ascosiation with respected musician and and so on.
There are many reasons to want a guitar, and a lot of them have no connection with the sound or sounds its capable of producing.
Your analogy is applicable (if superflous, you may have simply said that you need a guitar to play a guitar, rather than complicate the matter with yet another indulgent and expensive hobby!), but the reasons one may find to 'need' a guitar are far more varied, emotional, ascosiative, asthetic and kinesthetic than the requisite of having the device to perform the function.
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
Pure sophistry.
Sorry MDV... But it is and you know it..
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
Awwwww but its fun :(
Putting aside the many deontological issues axiomatic to your response...
PDT_031 PDT_008 PDT_002
-
I have 18 guitars ranging in value from not many quid to quite a lot. They fall into two categories:
1) Working guitars
These are my giggers, the usual guitars I will use live. Sometimes I will gig others, but these are the "must haves" for me.
2) Nice to haves
These are category (B). And here I totally agree with MDV:
You can have as many as you want, for whatever reason you want. Case closed. NEXT!
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
Pure sophistry.
Sorry MDV... But it is and you know it..
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
Awwwww but its fun :(
Someones getting tetchy, must be GAS :D
Ok, we have 7 x 6 string electric and 1 acoustic (or Akoostik)
A little from A certainly
some from B, but it's more a case of I want a guitar that can do a particular style reasonably well, rather than a 'I always wanted'
As for amps....
A and D all the way :)
-
the need for me currently works like this.
I need a bass guitar. I have a vintage Teisco bass guitar i have decided to sell as the sound is not modern enough - its short scale with mahogany body so has a tendency to fart low notes at you in that special way some vintage basses can. I have made a few basses before but they are either sold or out on loan to friends. The ones out on loan are my older work and do not reflect how i build stuff now. I dont have a bass i have built at home so i need to build one to show people who want to commission me to build a bass.
I clearly need a bass guitar - and i am about halfway through the process of sorting it out!!
I need a new guitar. I brought an original fender wide range humbucker from HTH and now i need a guitar to put it in. I dont have any guitars here that would suit a vintage fender pickup so i have decided to create a squier 51 style guitar with tele bridge, blackguard bridge pickup and a few other things i want to try for a kinda retro mixing the styles guitar in a fano guitars way.
I suppose i dont really need a new guitar, maybe this is just want, but i am having one anyway!!! :P
-
Was a time when some folks that didn't want acoustic did want a koo stark(sp)
Oh, and no one NEEDS to play guitar in the first place. Hate to get semi-philosophical on you but a 'need' is just something you want to facilitate something else you want. Need = 2nd order want.
For example, I need to eat = I want to not be hungry, therefore I need to eat.
I need a new guitar = I want a guitar that has/can do/comes with/doesnt has/etc so I can use other tuning/have trem/no trem/more frets/less frets/different pickup config/different tone/different shape/be smug/brag on internet/subjugate n00bs
The term need was qualified with the requirement of tones and styles wanted therefore was a subset need generated by a want and identified implicitly in the statement, having already stipulated the process of choice the term need is entirely applicable.
The original enquiry proposed 'need' as being the selection of a guitar by an apriori or conditional justification leading to the aquisition of a guitar. I put it to you that in place of this requirement for rational underpinning of accumulation of guitars, a need in general is an abstract and misleading concept whereby one fails to consider the underlying desires that drive all needs. Need is therefore means to fulfilment of desire or aversion of undesired consequence. In light of this modification to the original stipulation of a (limited) selection process all guitar purchase decisions (as, ultimately, with everything else) may be reduced to
"I have it because I wanted it, so I got it".
Pure sophistry.
Sorry MDV... But it is and you know it..
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
Awwwww but its fun :(
Putting aside the many deontological issues axiomatic to your response...
PDT_031 PDT_008 PDT_002
I fail to see how rational justificaiton of my moral obligations to others pertains to GASosophy being fun?
n.b. the above use of 'axiomatic' is rather jarring and ostensibly nonsensical, would you be kind enough to avail me of the deeper wisdom behind the use of the term in this context - how is the ethical irrationality of my enjoyment of philosphising about GAS connected to the application of a universally applicable truth?
-
Oh, I forgot all the obligatory text-doesnt-convey-tone-so-these-will-do-instead thingies:
:D 8) :lol: :P :o :o :shock: :D
Yep. Thats a pretty accurate representation of my intended tone.
-
E
I always get comments to this end, along with "Exactly how many guitars do you have?"
Like I tell my wife, "I don't know, I stopped counting....." :lol:
-
along with number you need.
Sorry I missed this bit.
I need n+1 guitars, where n is the number I will have when the next one turns up.
-
along with number you need.
Sorry I missed this bit.
I need n+1 guitars, where n is the number I will have when the next one turns up.
:lol:
I'd sig that, but its too big :(
-
I only have guitars I use, so currently 2 electrics and 1 acoustic. I have a feeling that when I get my next one, I will never use my Epiphone (I hardly use it as it is since I got a good setup on the Pearl) and thus I will want to sell it as itd basically be redundant. Just cant stand having things sat around doing nothing!
Only need one though really, I can easily get by with one good guitar.
-
My theory is you should have at least as many guitars as you are years old! How many do I need, well that depends, I currently have 8 basses, all sound different and all play differently. Do I need 8 basses? Yes - if I want the particular sound of a Jazz Bass vs a Thunderbird, then I need the bass to get it. Same with acoustics, I have a Gibson J185, a Martin 000-28, a 1917 Washburn Parlour, an Ovation Matrix, and Ovation 12 String, a Yamaha classical and an Espana twin neck 6 & 12 String. No one can say that any of them sound the same, so again I need all of them. I'm not even going to get into the electrics, but once more they all sound different and do I need a 57, 61 and 63 Strat? Once again they sound different and are totally different to play. At the end of the day that is why I get other guitars (that and also because I like them). So at the moment I have more than I am in age. Just don't ask me about amps - same arguments - they all sound different!
-
My theory is you should have at least as many guitars as you are years old! How many do I need, wel that depends, I currently have 8 bases, all sound different and all play differently. Do I need 8 bases? Yes - if I want the particular sound of a Jazz Bass vs a THunderbird, then I need the bass to get it. Same with acoustics, I have a Gibson J185, a Martin 000-28, a 1917 Washburn Parlour, an Ovation Matrix, and Ovation 12 String, a Yamaha classical and an Espana twin neck 6 & 12 String. No one can say that any of them sound the same, so again I need all of them. I'm not even going to get into the electrics, but once more they all sound different and do I need a 57, 61 and 63 Strat? Once again they sound different and are totally different to play. At the end of the day that is why I get other guitars (that and also because I like them). So at the moment I have more than I am in age. Just don't ask me about amps - same arguments - they all sound different!
The King of GAS speaks, and we obey.
Now I need 28 guitars.
Suits me :D
(dunno where to put them though...)
-
along with number you need.
Sorry I missed this bit.
I need n+1 guitars, where n is the number I will have when the next one turns up.
:lol:
I'd sig that, but its too big :(
Fits if you take out the italics. :)
-
along with number you need.
Sorry I missed this bit.
I need n+1 guitars, where n is the number I will have when the next one turns up.
:lol:
I'd sig that, but its too big :(
Fits if you take out the italics. :)
Not with the quoatation though. It'd look like I said it. Cant not give someone credit for their funnies
-
how is the ethical irrationality of my enjoyment of philosphising about GAS connected to the application of a universally applicable truth?
As your response contains an admission that there is "ethical irrationality" within your philosophising about GAS, it would not be too taxing for one to elucidate the deontological maxims transgressed. Should one have the inclination.
As I do not, I am trusting you will engage in a process of intellectual reflection (guided by the issues discussed thus far) in your efforts toward discovering the epistemological foundations of GAS.
-
how is the ethical irrationality of my enjoyment of philosphising about GAS connected to the application of a universally applicable truth?
As your response contains an admission that there is "ethical irrationality" within your philosophising about GAS, it would not be too taxing for one to elucidate the deontological maxims transgressed. Should one have the inclination.
As I do not, I am trusting you will engage in a process of intellectual reflection (guided by the issues discussed thus far) in your efforts toward discovering the epistemological foundations of GAS.
There was no such admission, merely a refference to your implicaiton that there were, and subsequent queery as to what ethical transgression buying guitars because I want them commits.
-
Here is your answer there are on average around 25 wall hangings pictures mirrors etc in an average house if all of these are replaced with guitars you would only need a floor mount for three.
-
Here is your answer there are on average around 25 wall hangings pictures mirrors etc in an average house if all of these are replaced with guitars you would only need a floor mount for three.
This average doesnt take into account the area taken by each wall hanging, and thus space freed for guitars by their removal, and that I refuse to use such contraptions so the neck isnt under load.
-
Okay I Just thought of a simple solution
How many guitars do you own and play
How many guitars do you own
The difference between these two numbers can be taken as fitting the identified category and it's easier for MDV to understand!!! :lol:
-
Okay I Just thought of a simple solution
How many guitars do you own and play
How many guitars do you own
The difference between these two numbers can be taken as fitting the identified category and it's easier for MDV to understand!!! :lol:
11 + whatever I can get my hands on
11
:P
And you clearly mean harder for me to pick holes in :)
-
What is the impact of neck load that you describe ? Surely the action is a minor counter tension to the string load on the neck and therefore ostensibly beneficial.
And boy is this a hot thread !!!
-
What is the impact of neck load that you describe ? Surely the action is a minor counter tension to the string load on the neck and therefore ostensibly beneficial.
And boy is this a hot thread !!!
The weight of the guitar pulling down on it. Its equivelent to roughly an extra string thats not always there, and while the effect isnt that large, I prefer to avoid it.
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
-
The weight of the guitar is acting against the strings.
-
The weight of the guitar is acting against the strings.
Oh yeah. Then reverse what I said - its a string less. Either way, dont like it.
-
I was worried about using hangers but I think i've had my hercules ones for (roughly) 2 years now and have been great. No noticeable difference in my guitars as of yet..
-
E) I have to have a range of colours and styles to match my shoes and shirt I can't possibly be seen with a guitar that clashes
as denim'n'leather once said to me: "get out of here poseur!!"
i don't know how many guitars i have any longer, but i'd like a 70s V, a V XPL, and a Hamer Vector KK... at least
i'm not that much of dick to say its just about the style, but its nice to have one that suits your mood. i usually wear black anyway ;)
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
-
I was worried about using hangers but I think i've had my hercules ones for (roughly) 2 years now and have been great. No noticeable difference in my guitars as of yet..
I just dont trust it, but duly noted.
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
-
Ok just for MDV will these do - 25 of them would surely look cool fully loaded around your house. A discrete method to store your guitars and I am sure very partner friendly.
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.
Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.
-
Ok just for MDV will these do - 25 of them would surely look cool fully loaded around your house. A discrete method to store your guitars and I am sure very partner friendly.
A little inconvienient, but you get an A for effort!
-
It is one hour past midnight, and after hopelessly analysing the last two pages of the conversation between Dave and MDV, has resulted in an expected, if not obvious (or possibly those two words mean the same thing?), conclusion of the condition of my brain and surrounding pressure in my skull..
In other words, my head is completely $%&#ed.
I'm going to bed.
-
Likewise mate.
Up at 6:30 :(
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.
Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.
Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.
If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.
If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence, passion or enthusiasm as in "hot topic" undermines your original position.
-
Likewise mate.
Up at 6:30 :(
Night, Night mate.
PDT_003
-
HOLY cr@p
i have 2 guitars
but i think i would need 10
1 dean cadillac
1 - fender japan stratocaster
1 - fender custom shop with all mahogany body and neck thru mahogany with pau ferro fretboard
1 - same version of the above, with floyd rose.
AHH shite
i wont mention them all.
just add a gibson les paul custom
adn a gibson flying V
maybe a seven string with my own mods
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.
Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.
Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.
If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.
If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence, passion or enthusiasm as in "hot topic" undermines your original position.
Woefully untrue, since for the same logic to be applicable to myself I would have to have no awarness of my own state of mind.
I have made no statements on the temperature of the bare knuckle forum host servers, which would be the closest thing to the thermodynamic temperature of the thread one could find, and you have merely substituted a lack of experiementally derived certainty for my stance as a falsification for it, presenting no reasonable grounds for objection, merely declaring by feat that my position is incorrect.
You would do well to exercise some critical analysis of your own analysis, sir.
-
Let's not get into a philosophy debate over GAS. PDT_038 PDT_019
EPIC FAIL.
Oh, and a priori should be two words, not one.
In answer to the original topic question (whoa, Roo trying to drag a topic back on track??!), 1 guitar to play all the time, 1 as a backup for gigs, and I also have a bass in a cupboard somewhere (20 quid off a mate when I was 17, and it's awful!), and an acoustic downstairs to pick up and strum as frequently as possible!
But when it comes to electrics, the answer is 1. The second is only there if something goes horribly wrong at a gig ;)
Roo
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.
Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.
Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.
If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.
If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence, passion or enthusiasm as in "hot topic" undermines your original position.
Woefully untrue, since for the same logic to be applicable to myself I would have to have no awarness of my own state of mind.
I have made no statements on the temperature of the bare knuckle forum host servers, which would be the closest thing to the thermodynamic temperature of the thread one could find, and you have merely substituted a lack of experiementally derived certainty for my stance as a falsification for it, presenting no reasonable grounds for objection, merely declaring by feat that my position is incorrect.
You would do well to exercise some critical analysis of your own analysis, sir.
Your lack of rigour is once again apparent. I had hoped my clear reference to "conditional attributes" would have guided your thoughts toward the topic.
Your rhetorical gambit of continually referencing what you "haven't" said in an attempt to obfuscate will not serve you well on this occasion.
Such are the tools of sophistry not philosophy.
(Thanks Roo for correcting MDV's on his misuse of a priori PDT_004 PDT_028)
-
Oooh, 'ark at them and their epistemologicals. :|
-
For the sake of eveyones sanity I refer Dave and MDV here (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/)
-
And, no its not. Theres that pesky imposition of the mindstate of the reader on the tone of text ;)
You mean supposition.
I mean imposition.
Well, if you meant to use imposition in this context your initial refutation ("no its not.") was illogical.
The mindstate of the reader is subjective and outside of your direct experience.
You would have no epistemological grounds to construct such a challenge.
The assertion that the thread was hot refferenced the thread, an independently observable phenomenon.
Since my interpretation of the thread is that its all in good fun as usual, and his was distictly at odds with that interpretation, and cursory enquiry into the possibility of one interpreting the thread as hot led me to think it plausible, and given the known tendency of readers to impose their own mindstate on text in the absence of the additional communication from tone of voice and body language, I concluded that it was more probable that the comment was a representation of his state of mind rather than the thread itself (by which I mean the state of mind of all the contributors to the thread), and that he had imposed that state onto the thread.
Should such be the case, you would be equally susceptible to your own criticism as all the conditional attributes of this thread experienced by Bradock PI would have had to have been experienced by you.
If your refutation of Bradock's claim to the thread being "hot" relied upon observable attributes such as temperature, I would question its rationality.
If your refutation relied upon inductive reasoning (as I suspect) the extended definition derived from the colloquial use of the term "hot" to imply intensity, vehemence, passion or enthusiasm as in "hot topic" undermines your original position.
Woefully untrue, since for the same logic to be applicable to myself I would have to have no awarness of my own state of mind.
I have made no statements on the temperature of the bare knuckle forum host servers, which would be the closest thing to the thermodynamic temperature of the thread one could find, and you have merely substituted a lack of experiementally derived certainty for my stance as a falsification for it, presenting no reasonable grounds for objection, merely declaring by feat that my position is incorrect.
You would do well to exercise some critical analysis of your own analysis, sir.
Your lack of rigour is once again apparent. I had hoped my clear reference to "conditional attributes" would have guided your thoughts toward the topic.
Your rhetorical gambit of continually referencing what you "haven't" said in an attempt to obfuscate will not serve you well on this occasion.
Such are the tools of sophistry not philosophy.
(Thanks Roo for correcting MDV's on his misuse of a priori PDT_004 PDT_028)
Kindly review the discussion thus far and, as is plain for all to see, confirm that my allusions to what I have not said have been only in response to false accusations or suppositions (note the correct use of the term, that you might learn to apply it better in future) beyond actual my statements: you have stated to me that I have stated that which I have not, I have retorted that I have not and that you have fabricated these suppositions (some revision for you) and placed the words in my mouth for your own convienience.
These are works of fiction in the interpretation of the reader, mingled with over-excited attempts to undermine a reasonbly stated position while providing no falsification of the position or alternative interpretation or hypothese.
That, my good man, is the very heart and soul of sophistry, rhetoric, demogogy, strawman-creation, smokescreening and fallacious argument! Tend to your own house before casting such accusations at mine, good sir!
-
For the sake of eveyones sanity I refer Dave and MDV here (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/)
A repugnant and deplorable attempt to inhibit and constrain exercise of linguistic inventiveness, the enhanced specificity and descriptive power available with expanded vocabulary and command of the english language, and stunt the level of commonly read speech to that of the lowest common denomenator!
No, I tell you!
(to put it another way, the dumbest mother$%&#ers in various districts round the country, that speak their local dialect rather than english and dont understand anything more complex than football comentary complained to their councils and this happened. I dont like it, I dont need it, I dont want it, and while this pontification-fest between dave and I is obvioulsy toungue in cheek and humourous (at least to us), its frankly embarrasing that I know germans, spaniards, japanese, dutch, french and greeks that speak better english than the average cumbrian, c--kney, scouser, gordie, mancunian or brummie).
-
I have no idea what MDV and Dave are talking about :lol: :oops:
-
For the sake of eveyones sanity I refer Dave and MDV here (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/)
A repugnant and deplorable attempt to inhibit and constrain exercise of linguistic inventiveness, the enhanced specificity and descriptive power available with expanded vocabulary and command of the english language, and stunt the level of commonly read speech to that of the lowest common denomenator!
No, I tell you!
(to put it another way, the dumbest mother$%&#ers in various districts round the country, that speak their local dialect rather than english and dont understand anything more complex than football comentary complained to their councils and this happened. I dont like it, I dont need it, I dont want it, and while this pontification-fest between dave and I is obvioulsy toungue in cheek and humourous (at least to us), its frankly embarrasing that I know germans, spaniards, japanese, dutch, french and greeks that speak better english than the average cumbrian, c--kney, scouser, gordie, mancunian or brummie).
well up yours mate innit blud
-
theres two sets of stairs leading from my flat to the ground.
one night i heard shouting from one of the stairs and i took the other flight. naturally i stopped and listened to what the argument was about:
"you're talking sh1t bruv"
"no, YOU'RE talking sh1t bruv"
"NO!, YOU'RE talking sh1t bruv!!"
"NO!, YOU'RE talking sh1t bruv!!"
"you're the one talking sh1t bruv!!"
etc etc
i shook my head and went on my way...
i think the MDV/Dave argument is a fancy version of that
-
Oooh, 'ark at them and their epistemologicals. :|
LOL!
I prefer to use plain English as far as is possible. Not only does it make one seem less pretentious, it also is often a greater challenge: the art of communicating difficult subjects to a diverse audience is perhaps the greatest hurdle for a modern-day scientist to overcome. I'd love to wow you all with talk of the determination of the three-dimensional structure of proteins, but alas that topic will have to wait for another day.
The bottom line is this: you guys (MDV and Dave) may be able to use a plethora of little-used words in a rather high-brow manner, but you're both WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY off topic :)
Roo
-
Oooh, 'ark at them and their epistemologicals. :|
LOL!
I prefer to use plain English as far as is possible. Not only does it make one seem less pretentious, it also is often a greater challenge: the art of communicating difficult subjects to a diverse audience is perhaps the greatest hurdle for a modern-day scientist to overcome. I'd love to wow you all with talk of the determination of the three-dimensional structure of proteins, but alas that topic will have to wait for another day.
The bottom line is this: you guys (MDV and Dave) may be able to use a plethora of little-used words in a rather high-brow manner, but you're both WWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY off topic :)
Roo
Linguistic capability is like theory, sustain, gain, low end, strings, beer, fags and women - I'd rather have/have access to more than I really need, just in case.
I for one would like to hear about determination of protien structure. How'd you do it? NMR? X-Ray? STM? AFM?
-
For me, probably a mix of B & A (in that order)
Perhaps there's a bit of D in there too and
F) Some guitars I wouldn't buy again, but now I have them it would be a hassle to sell them (+ I'd lose money)
I have 25 guitars :oops: Realistically it's too many for a non-professional musician. But of those guitars, there are 3 - maybe 4 at a stretch - that I'd happily get rid of.
Believe it or not, there are still some things I need:
Nylon strung/classical
4-string bass (would like a Warwick $$)
& plenty of things I want:
MORE JACKSONS!! :twisted: (at least one more KV2, an RR1, any interesting used custom shop models from the 80s/90s)
Something pointy with a Kahler (see above)
Some Feline creations (have at least two ideas)
A Bernie Rico Jr Vixen (pref the Gary Holt sig model)
More PRSes (an SC250 & a Custom 22)
More Taylors (a GS6, GS8, maybe a 610CE too)
A "real" strat (as opposed to HSS/floyd) - never owned one
A Tele (sorry Roo)
An SG (someone with a middle name of Angus really should own at least one :))
An ES335 or some other semi - again, never owned one, would like something completely different & non-rock.
A whole bunch of guitars that are no longer made that I either owned & regret selling or covetted but didn't buy...
-
Oh, I am quite irrationally gassing for a jackson warrior
I like the shape.
-
I for one would like to hear about determination of protien structure. How'd you do it? NMR? X-Ray? STM? AFM?
Oh god Roo, if you must do it, do it in a PM. Please.
(That's a PM to MDV. Not me.)
-
I for one would like to hear about determination of protien structure. How'd you do it? NMR? X-Ray? STM? AFM?
(That's a PM to MDV. Not me.)
LOL
Philly, you disappoint me! There are few better feelings than correctly building an alpha helix! :)
MDV - I'll not drag this topic off further, suffice to say X-ray is my bag at the moment.
And back, kicking and screaming, on topic: whoa hang on, 5 pages? Methinks there is no topic any more!!
-
Philly, you disappoint me! There are few better feelings than correctly building an alpha helix! :)
I'm sure it's the proverbial "better than sex".
:|
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
-
I think the 'REAL' problem here is that many of the forum users have no idea how many guitars they have and have forgotten which ones they play. The delay in responding is therefore due to them having to go and count them with their better half saying " Don't forget the one under the sofa", "you have two in the garden shed", "didn't you leave one with your cousin Brian", "I do know about the three on top of the wardrobe you know", "Yes I think you should add up the parts bins as well 7 necks, 8 bodies, 16 pickups, 12 sets of tuners, 143 packs of strings", "you know something I'm leaving you we can't move for *$*^$* guitars here"
Oh dear I am sorry I didn't realise conting your guitars could get you in so much trouble, still now at least you can post!!
-
I own 1 guitar, my better half owns the rest :)
-
I own 1 guitar, my better half owns the rest :)
You have a woman that has more guitars than you?
Where did you find her?
me want
(Best I ever got in that regard was a girlfriend that wanted to learn and had a beat up epiphone she never played).
-
I own 1 guitar, my better half owns the rest :)
You have a woman that has more guitars than you?
Where did you find her?
me want
(Best I ever got in that regard was a girlfriend that wanted to learn and had a beat up epiphone she never played).
the best i ever had was a girl whose brother had a squier strato and asked me some playing advice...
-
going back to topic i'm starting to neglect the exact number of electric guitars i own, but i think i've reached 11. or 12, maybe.
in strict technical tems i NEED one of them.
i know, one is more vintage oriented, another has got p90s, another has got a trem i don't use, another has coil split... but i know people who play everything, and much, much better than me with one. single. guitar.
but it's like girls... you actually NEED one, but who wouldn't like an harem? ;)
the best thing about having a girlfriend that doesn't play guitar is that she'll never read these words...
-
B) A collection I always wanted X,Y,Z and I am going to have them
I NEED-
Red sparkly Mattocaster (almost done, yay!)
Chrome Mattocaster
Olympic White Strat
Gold Tele Thinline
CreamVintage-esque tele
and a yet to be decided blue something
with the exception of the gold thinline (its a rather charming squier) all will be future Legra's so it will be awhile (Red Sparkle will be done this year, and the vintage tele hopefully next year)
E) I have to have a range of colours and styles to match my shoes and shirt I can't possibly be seen with a guitar that clashes
lol, sadly a red mattocaster to match red pants and a chrome one to match black pants
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
i bet so. and very fascinating...
but i'm just a surgeon, when i got frustrated by a thing i can't understand i OPEN IT.
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
Actually, organic small-molecule crystallography is considerably easier. Due to the nature of the beast, those guys tend to grow crystals on the scale of sugar granules in granulated sugar, and those crystals tend to diffract very strongly, giving high resolution (usually considerably better than 1 Angstrom). In protein crystallography we tend to deal with crystals in the order of 10-50 micrometres in each dimension, which in general you have to 'fish' by hand from a drop of anywhere from 4 microlitres to 100 nanolitres with a small nylon loop, mounted on the end of a metal pin. Once you have the crystal in the loop (probably having first transferred it using the same loop method to another drop which contains a cryoprotectant solution to stop ice formation in the next step), you then typically plunge freeze the crystal in liquid nitrogen, or place it in a cryostream of nitrogen gas at 100K.
The next tricky thing is the sheer number of approximations required in protein crystallography. Assuming that you have a protein crystal which diffracts X-rays, and that those diffracted X-rays are reliably measurable to a usable resolution (we tend to like 2.5 Angstroms or better for the ligand-bound structural work I do), you then integrate your whole dataset (something like 50-200 images, each around 10-20 megabytes), and solve the structure (increasingly by using an existing structure that's similar to generate an approximate set of phases (information which you cannot gain from the diffraction pattern), but also by locating heavy (or anomalously dispersing) atoms in the unit cell (exactly like small molecule crystallography)).
Having solved the structure, you then need to refine it. You'll typically have 1000-4000 heavy (non-H) atoms in the single protein molecule, so the positions, temperature factors and occupancies of these atoms need to be refined - the product of which is your 'X-ray crystal structure', which is in fact a model based on the data you collected.
Because the data you collected probably comprises something like 10,000 to 30,000 unique data points, and you have, say 2000 atoms, each with x, y and z coordinates (that's 6000 parameters), and some contribution from temperature factor estimation, and probably a further 20-400 water molecules (depending on resolution), each of which has another 4 parameters associated (assuming an occupancy of 1 for each), your observation to parameter ratio gets quite small (approaching 1 is bad!).
Protein crystals which diffract more strongly and give measurable diffracted X-ray spots at around, say, 1.5 Angstrom resolution tend to give much more reliable models, but even these require a LOT of approximations. We are helped enormously by the requirements of chemical bonding, of course: peptide bonds tend to be planar, due to the lone pair of electrons on amide nitrogen atoms being partially delocalised with the formal pi orbitals of the adjacent carbonyl group; bond angles and bond distances tend to be pretty well defined; there are fairly few rotamers (conformations of amino acid side-chains) which are much more likely than others (again, due to chemical bonding restraints); certain values of phi and psi (and omega) - the angles within and between adjacent peptide bonds - are much more likely than others, and define the secondary structural elements, such as alpha helices, beta sheets, strict beta turns, eta helices and so on. All of these restraints, which we know largely from small molecule crystallography, help to reduce the apparent observation to parameter ratio by restricting the values that some of our parameters can take (eg by limiting in space (x,y and z) where a certain atom can be based on its bonding pattern with neighbouring atoms).
Oops, looks like I got a bit carried away and re-derailed this topic again...
Roo
-
[fingers in ears]
LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa not listening
LaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLaLa not listening
[/fingers in ears]
-
You can have as many as you want, for whatever reason you want. Case closed. NEXT!
+1
I have 8 at the moment... personally there are a few more which i "need" in order to get certain classic tones (e.g. I don't have a tele yet), so I'm guessing I won't know whether or not I have a disease until I have all those classics covered... that's my excuse anyway :lol:
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
Actually, organic small-molecule crystallography is considerably easier. Due to the nature of the beast, those guys tend to grow crystals on the scale of sugar granules in granulated sugar, and those crystals tend to diffract very strongly, giving high resolution (usually considerably better than 1 Angstrom). In protein crystallography we tend to deal with crystals in the order of 10-50 micrometres in each dimension, which in general you have to 'fish' by hand from a drop of anywhere from 4 microlitres to 100 nanolitres with a small nylon loop, mounted on the end of a metal pin. Once you have the crystal in the loop (probably having first transferred it using the same loop method to another drop which contains a cryoprotectant solution to stop ice formation in the next step), you then typically plunge freeze the crystal in liquid nitrogen, or place it in a cryostream of nitrogen gas at 100K.
The next tricky thing is the sheer number of approximations required in protein crystallography. Assuming that you have a protein crystal which diffracts X-rays, and that those diffracted X-rays are reliably measurable to a usable resolution (we tend to like 2.5 Angstroms or better for the ligand-bound structural work I do), you then integrate your whole dataset (something like 50-200 images, each around 10-20 megabytes), and solve the structure (increasingly by using an existing structure that's similar to generate an approximate set of phases (information which you cannot gain from the diffraction pattern), but also by locating heavy (or anomalously dispersing) atoms in the unit cell (exactly like small molecule crystallography)).
Having solved the structure, you then need to refine it. You'll typically have 1000-4000 heavy (non-H) atoms in the single protein molecule, so the positions, temperature factors and occupancies of these atoms need to be refined - the product of which is your 'X-ray crystal structure', which is in fact a model based on the data you collected.
Because the data you collected probably comprises something like 10,000 to 30,000 unique data points, and you have, say 2000 atoms, each with x, y and z coordinates (that's 6000 parameters), and some contribution from temperature factor estimation, and probably a further 20-400 water molecules (depending on resolution), each of which has another 4 parameters associated (assuming an occupancy of 1 for each), your observation to parameter ratio gets quite small (approaching 1 is bad!).
Protein crystals which diffract more strongly and give measurable diffracted X-ray spots at around, say, 1.5 Angstrom resolution tend to give much more reliable models, but even these require a LOT of approximations. We are helped enormously by the requirements of chemical bonding, of course: peptide bonds tend to be planar, due to the lone pair of electrons on amide nitrogen atoms being partially delocalised with the formal pi orbitals of the adjacent carbonyl group; bond angles and bond distances tend to be pretty well defined; there are fairly few rotamers (conformations of amino acid side-chains) which are much more likely than others (again, due to chemical bonding restraints); certain values of phi and psi (and omega) - the angles within and between adjacent peptide bonds - are much more likely than others, and define the secondary structural elements, such as alpha helices, beta sheets, strict beta turns, eta helices and so on. All of these restraints, which we know largely from small molecule crystallography, help to reduce the apparent observation to parameter ratio by restricting the values that some of our parameters can take (eg by limiting in space (x,y and z) where a certain atom can be based on its bonding pattern with neighbouring atoms).
Oops, looks like I got a bit carried away and re-derailed this topic again...
Roo
How do you get the baseline models to extrapolate from? It strikes me that a computational technique like DPD, or straight up atomistic modelling would be usefull to create some starting points? 1.5 angstroms is a tad clumsy - can you get atomistic resloution reliably out of that? Seems that its very much the broad strokes of the molecular structure, how do you fill in the fine detail? The statistical interpolation at the end worries me...
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
Actually, organic small-molecule crystallography is considerably easier. Due to the nature of the beast, those guys tend to grow crystals on the scale of sugar granules in granulated sugar, and those crystals tend to diffract very strongly, giving high resolution (usually considerably better than 1 Angstrom). In protein crystallography we tend to deal with crystals in the order of 10-50 micrometres in each dimension, which in general you have to 'fish' by hand from a drop of anywhere from 4 microlitres to 100 nanolitres with a small nylon loop, mounted on the end of a metal pin. Once you have the crystal in the loop (probably having first transferred it using the same loop method to another drop which contains a cryoprotectant solution to stop ice formation in the next step), you then typically plunge freeze the crystal in liquid nitrogen, or place it in a cryostream of nitrogen gas at 100K.
The next tricky thing is the sheer number of approximations required in protein crystallography. Assuming that you have a protein crystal which diffracts X-rays, and that those diffracted X-rays are reliably measurable to a usable resolution (we tend to like 2.5 Angstroms or better for the ligand-bound structural work I do), you then integrate your whole dataset (something like 50-200 images, each around 10-20 megabytes), and solve the structure (increasingly by using an existing structure that's similar to generate an approximate set of phases (information which you cannot gain from the diffraction pattern), but also by locating heavy (or anomalously dispersing) atoms in the unit cell (exactly like small molecule crystallography)).
Having solved the structure, you then need to refine it. You'll typically have 1000-4000 heavy (non-H) atoms in the single protein molecule, so the positions, temperature factors and occupancies of these atoms need to be refined - the product of which is your 'X-ray crystal structure', which is in fact a model based on the data you collected.
Because the data you collected probably comprises something like 10,000 to 30,000 unique data points, and you have, say 2000 atoms, each with x, y and z coordinates (that's 6000 parameters), and some contribution from temperature factor estimation, and probably a further 20-400 water molecules (depending on resolution), each of which has another 4 parameters associated (assuming an occupancy of 1 for each), your observation to parameter ratio gets quite small (approaching 1 is bad!).
Protein crystals which diffract more strongly and give measurable diffracted X-ray spots at around, say, 1.5 Angstrom resolution tend to give much more reliable models, but even these require a LOT of approximations. We are helped enormously by the requirements of chemical bonding, of course: peptide bonds tend to be planar, due to the lone pair of electrons on amide nitrogen atoms being partially delocalised with the formal pi orbitals of the adjacent carbonyl group; bond angles and bond distances tend to be pretty well defined; there are fairly few rotamers (conformations of amino acid side-chains) which are much more likely than others (again, due to chemical bonding restraints); certain values of phi and psi (and omega) - the angles within and between adjacent peptide bonds - are much more likely than others, and define the secondary structural elements, such as alpha helices, beta sheets, strict beta turns, eta helices and so on. All of these restraints, which we know largely from small molecule crystallography, help to reduce the apparent observation to parameter ratio by restricting the values that some of our parameters can take (eg by limiting in space (x,y and z) where a certain atom can be based on its bonding pattern with neighbouring atoms).
Oops, looks like I got a bit carried away and re-derailed this topic again...
Roo
How do you get the baseline models to extrapolate from? It strikes me that a computational technique like DPD, or straight up atomistic modelling would be usefull to create some starting points? 1.5 angstroms is a tad clumsy - can you get atomistic resloution reliably out of that? Seems that its very much the broad strokes of the molecular structure, how do you fill in the fine detail? The statistical interpolation at the end worries me...
i'm beginning to feel the urge to OPEN UP someone... :twisted:
-
My collection comprises...
* a Les Paul standard (the only guitar I ever wanted BADLY and will always own)
* a 72 Tele Custom RI (gotta have a Tele in the collection, it's a tone that ONLY a Tele can do).
* an Explorer with EMGs for metal (thinner neck and flatter board makes it play MUCH faster than the LP)
With the guitars above I can get pretty much all the tones I want for gigging.
My 'wants' are as follows...
* Les Paul Junior in tobacco sunburst (had one recently but was skint and sold it, was GORGEOUS too with that BKP91)
* '60s SG Junior in white (P90s SCREAMED in this era of Gibsons)
* Gibson 335 in cherry-red with a Bigsby
* Gretsch White Falcon
* Rickenbacker 360 in jetglo (black) like Peter Buck's one
* '58 Gibson Flying Vee RI (Korina)
* Ran 'Dean Vee' replica as a metal-monster with a Khaler and white binding around the whole body fitted with Painkillers :twisted:
-
I have "20-something" guitars. Depending on which ones I include in the count, and which ones I forget to include.
Late last year, I picked up one of them which I hadn't played for ages, and realised how good it felt and sounded. I then asked myself why I'd neglected it for so long ... and realised that it was because I'd been playing other guitars instead. The "others" might have been newer, or easier to get to, or some other dumb reason, but they weren't as good.
So I decided that the New Year would bring a clearout, and I'd get down to a core of "great" (to me) guitars. I even drew up a hit list and ranked them.
I've managed to sell 2. I took one apart, but then re-built it. But I'll take that one apart again, 'cos it's still cr4p. SO that's -3 for the year. There are a couple of others (1 Brian Moore, 1 Nathan Sheppard, just in case anyone's interested!) that I'd sell if I get sensible offers, but I'm not giving them away and there doesn't seem to be a lot of spare cash around atm.
So that could be -5 ... except that I've bought 2 new ones (both Kawais, which completed my mini-collection). There'll be another new arrival when Wez finishes it. And I've got another one half-built in my workshop. So the clearout hasn't been hugely successful. :P
The reason ... my Kawai collection has taken me at least the last 5 years to track down - after buying my original one about 30 years ago. The male species are genetically programmed to collect stuff (actually, that's a serious statement) and I figure that at least I'm collecting something useful, rather than old stamps, beermats, bird eggs, et al. And the Wez build is because I promised myself one when I saw a couple of his earlier builds, and you really shouldn't break promises. Specially not promises to yourself.
-
Theres a topic?
X-ray...cool. Been a while since I did that, and it was only crystalography. Probably much more straighforward.
uhm... cristallography is done with x-rays, so i think it's the same thing...
yeah, I know its the same method - its that the x-ray diffraction shows clear repeating geometries in crystalography given different lattice shapes, and its pretty easy to interpret.
Organic molecules would be harder.
Actually, organic small-molecule crystallography is considerably easier. Due to the nature of the beast, those guys tend to grow crystals on the scale of sugar granules in granulated sugar, and those crystals tend to diffract very strongly, giving high resolution (usually considerably better than 1 Angstrom). In protein crystallography we tend to deal with crystals in the order of 10-50 micrometres in each dimension, which in general you have to 'fish' by hand from a drop of anywhere from 4 microlitres to 100 nanolitres with a small nylon loop, mounted on the end of a metal pin. Once you have the crystal in the loop (probably having first transferred it using the same loop method to another drop which contains a cryoprotectant solution to stop ice formation in the next step), you then typically plunge freeze the crystal in liquid nitrogen, or place it in a cryostream of nitrogen gas at 100K.
The next tricky thing is the sheer number of approximations required in protein crystallography. Assuming that you have a protein crystal which diffracts X-rays, and that those diffracted X-rays are reliably measurable to a usable resolution (we tend to like 2.5 Angstroms or better for the ligand-bound structural work I do), you then integrate your whole dataset (something like 50-200 images, each around 10-20 megabytes), and solve the structure (increasingly by using an existing structure that's similar to generate an approximate set of phases (information which you cannot gain from the diffraction pattern), but also by locating heavy (or anomalously dispersing) atoms in the unit cell (exactly like small molecule crystallography)).
Having solved the structure, you then need to refine it. You'll typically have 1000-4000 heavy (non-H) atoms in the single protein molecule, so the positions, temperature factors and occupancies of these atoms need to be refined - the product of which is your 'X-ray crystal structure', which is in fact a model based on the data you collected.
Because the data you collected probably comprises something like 10,000 to 30,000 unique data points, and you have, say 2000 atoms, each with x, y and z coordinates (that's 6000 parameters), and some contribution from temperature factor estimation, and probably a further 20-400 water molecules (depending on resolution), each of which has another 4 parameters associated (assuming an occupancy of 1 for each), your observation to parameter ratio gets quite small (approaching 1 is bad!).
Protein crystals which diffract more strongly and give measurable diffracted X-ray spots at around, say, 1.5 Angstrom resolution tend to give much more reliable models, but even these require a LOT of approximations. We are helped enormously by the requirements of chemical bonding, of course: peptide bonds tend to be planar, due to the lone pair of electrons on amide nitrogen atoms being partially delocalised with the formal pi orbitals of the adjacent carbonyl group; bond angles and bond distances tend to be pretty well defined; there are fairly few rotamers (conformations of amino acid side-chains) which are much more likely than others (again, due to chemical bonding restraints); certain values of phi and psi (and omega) - the angles within and between adjacent peptide bonds - are much more likely than others, and define the secondary structural elements, such as alpha helices, beta sheets, strict beta turns, eta helices and so on. All of these restraints, which we know largely from small molecule crystallography, help to reduce the apparent observation to parameter ratio by restricting the values that some of our parameters can take (eg by limiting in space (x,y and z) where a certain atom can be based on its bonding pattern with neighbouring atoms).
Oops, looks like I got a bit carried away and re-derailed this topic again...
Roo
How do you get the baseline models to extrapolate from? It strikes me that a computational technique like DPD, or straight up atomistic modelling would be usefull to create some starting points? 1.5 angstroms is a tad clumsy - can you get atomistic resloution reliably out of that? Seems that its very much the broad strokes of the molecular structure, how do you fill in the fine detail? The statistical interpolation at the end worries me...
1.5 Angstroms is actually very good resolution for X-ray crystal structures of protein. You can see alpha helices at around 6 Angstroms, amino acid side chains at around 3.5-4 Angstroms, ring pucker on 5-rings of proline at about 2.4 Angstroms, holes through phenylalanine, tyrosines and tryptophans at about 1.6-1.9 Angstroms, holes through histidines at around 1.5 Angstroms, bulges where hydrogens go at around 1.2 Angstroms or so. Full 'atomic' resolution for proteins at any rate would be typically better than 1 Angstrom. But, considering the bonding requirements, you'll find extremely high confidence in atomic positions even at 2.5 Angstrom resolution data.
In any case, the initial model for molecular replacement will typically be another protein structure (less waters and any bound ligands), and the current dataset is usually trimmed at about 2.5 to 3.5 Angstroms (ie using the low resolution data only) for correct positioning of the starting model. Once this is in place, you can calculate approximate phases for each reflection and compare the model with the experimental data.
Be under no illusions: as inexact as this may seem, the results are surprisingly accurate. I would contest anyone who builds this structure with any atoms even 0.05 Angstroms from their current positions (the blue stuff is a representation of electron density weighted towards the experimentally observed values, the resolution is 1.55 Angstroms):
-
Whats the error bar on the final atom locations in each axis?
-
So what we find is most forum users have more gas than brains *L*
Going a long way back all the guitars I own I play...and my partner she's taken up the drums....just got to persuade her to play in what she calls "the Dad Band"
-
Phew, a 7 page thread in a day :lol: Bradock surely knows how to do it.
Well, to answer the actual topic, it's a B with the occasional D thrown in.
I have 2 electrics at the moment, a vintage-style strat built by a finnish luthier, and a PRS McCarty. Both are equipped with BKP pickups. Both pickup upgrades were carefully thought and ended up great!
And then I have a beat-up acoustic that used to belong to my father, he bought it in the eighties. It was the guitar I played for the first year or so, and still play a lot.
And what I WANT
1) a superstrat with a non-locking but modern bridge (being built)
2) a nice LP
3) a guitar with a locking trem (most probably floyd)
4) a tele
5) a semi-acoustic
6) another steel string acoustic
7) a 7-string
8) a guitar with P90's, like an LP junior
But then again, I might for example want 2 LPs. One more modern and one more vintage :) Say Miracle Man vs. The Mule. And a maple-board strat, etc..
The beauty is that each guitar is unique. You never know what you're gonna find when you go into a music store! Sometimes you just connect with a guitar. A pleasure for me, a possible torment for my wallet.
Walking into a music store is doubly more dangerous if I'm in a hangover.
-Zaned
-
Whats the error bar on the final atom locations in each axis?
That's not quite how we measure errors or overfitting, although technically it can be calculated, but typically as an average over the whole protein (and you'll have greater coordinate error at the surfaces of the protein due to multiple conformations within the crystal (if there are only 2 or 3, these can usually be defined, if there are more, the density is too 'smeared out').
Instead we use R factors and Rfree - Rfree is the same as the Rfact, but is calculated on a (typically 5%, but more if there isn't much data) subset of the dataset which is completely excluded from refinement, and is only ever used to calculate Rfree. Naturally, this reduces the number of observations used during refinement, but does allow a good indicator of overfitting to be calculated! In this case, the Rfact and Rfree values for that model were pretty good, but I don't have the exact data to hand to show you that (although that structure was one we published (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19124027?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) earlier this year).
I think I might have epic failed as much as Afghan Dave did earlier :D
-
Dont you need a pre-existing reference to fit R values to?
And theres no fail in physics!! (only falsification, which is a win in itself)
-
I have a guitar for each of the different places that I live, lol. Makes sense...
-
Dear Mr Three.Letter.Acronym...
Please refer to the following televised debate which fully encapsulates what I believe to be the quality of your argument so far...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc
(This has been working up to my posting this so I hope you enjoy it. I miss comedy like this.)
-
Dear Mr Three.Letter.Acronym...
Please refer to the following televised debate which fully encapsulates what I believe to be the quality of your argument so far...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc
(This has been working up to my posting this so I hope you enjoy it. I miss comedy like this.)
Quality programming :D
-
Dear Mr Three.Letter.Acronym...
Please refer to the following televised debate which fully encapsulates what I believe to be the quality of your argument so far...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc
(This has been working up to my posting this so I hope you enjoy it. I miss comedy like this.)
:lol::lol::lol:
See that this previously telvised debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Thats you that is.
-
Mostly A
I have 9 so far but try to keep additions down to 1 per year (2 if the price is low).
-
Dear Mr Three.Letter.Acronym...
Please refer to the following televised debate which fully encapsulates what I believe to be the quality of your argument so far...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc
(This has been working up to my posting this so I hope you enjoy it. I miss comedy like this.)
:lol::lol::lol:
See that this previously telvised debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Thats you that is.
:lol:
i love MP!
-
Trying to keep this post on topic is like trying to bob for fish which is considerably more difficult than bobbing for apples which is much harder than buying apples at a supermarket.
-
GAS is always around the corner with guitar players. me and my friends have these gear lists which are pages long and contains everything from guitars, amps, cabs, effects, cables, tuners, strings, pickups, bridges, etc it is insane.
the answer to your question is: --> you can never have enough guitars because there will always be something new which you just have to try.
-
The question wasn't aimed at GAS as a bad thing there was no limit put on the number of guitars someone may need the need was meant to relate to the number of genuinly different guitars wou have to have to give you all the playing styles you want to play and how many guitars are there for some other reason. So someone may need 3 LPs one with bluesy pickups, one with a vintage tone and one contemporary to cover a range of styles they may also need a heavy metal jackson etc. Having got this range it is perfectly legitimate to improve one for a better tone or closer simulacrum.
Some people will be happy with the approximations to tone they can get with a single guitar and digital emulators or effects where others are not. So the question goes back to how many do you need to play what you want to play.
I could have asked another question with a similar feel which is how many of the guitars you own have significantly different tone or are significantly different to play. Or how many guitars can you group into genre clusters.
Some one with 11 guitars - an acoustic, a semi acoustic, a classical, a flamenco, a strat style heavy, a strat style 50s, a metal master, a vintage LP, contemporary LP, a super strat with trem, a tele
Would not classify the same as someone with 11 strats in different colours.
/Ontopic
-
The question wasn't aimed at GAS as a bad thing there was no limit put on the number of guitars someone may need the need was meant to relate to the number of genuinly different guitars wou have to have to give you all the playing styles you want to play and how many guitars are there for some other reason. So someone may need 3 LPs one with bluesy pickups, one with a vintage tone and one contemporary to cover a range of styles they may also need a heavy metal jackson etc. Having got this range it is perfectly legitimate to improve one for a better tone or closer simulacrum.
Some people will be happy with the approximations to tone they can get with a single guitar and digital emulators or effects where others are not. So the question goes back to how many do you need to play what you want to play.
I could have asked another question with a similar feel which is how many of the guitars you own have significantly different tone or are significantly different to play. Or how many guitars can you group into genre clusters.
Some one with 11 guitars - an acoustic, a semi acoustic, a classical, a flamenco, a strat style heavy, a strat style 50s, a metal master, a vintage LP, contemporary LP, a super strat with trem, a tele
Would not classify the same as someone with 11 strats in different colours.
/Ontopic
actually I have 13 strats:
1957 White maple neck - Apaches
1957 Sunburst Bravewood - a copy of my real 57 so that I can play it out and it has a slightly wider nut and A5 Apaches*
1957 Sunburst reissue - 1969 original fender pickups
1961 White Slab board - 2 original pickups - 1 BKP AV Apache
1963 Burgandy Mist - all original
1964 Fiesta Red Bravewood - HSS RY & 2 Mothers Milks
Shell Pink Hardtail - Pau Ferro fingerboard - BK 1962 Strat set **
Black HSS - Ebony fingerboard - HSS Stormy Monday & 2 Sultans
White - Aframosia Neck - Apache set with baseplates
Sunburst Wenge/Bloodwood neck - large headstock - BK 69 Strat set **
Flamed Redwood rear cavity warmoth with half scalloped ebony fingerboard - HSS - Holy Diver & 2 Trilogy Suites
Sunburst Rosewood board HH - will have VHII's soon
hollow quilted maple, maple neck, lh neck pickup slant, reverse vintage stagger Irish Tours
* due next month
** waiting for these pickups to arrive.
I put the colurs in to show that I do have some the same :)
They all play differently, sound very different, make me play in a slightly different style and are suited for different styles of music (though I admit on this there is quite a lot of crossover). Do I need all of them - probably not, but I want all of them and I would miss one if I sold it. I don't have kids and I was able to buy the guitars I wanted at decent prices, so they've all come along over the years. However several people on the forum have played them and I am sure they will say the same as I do, they all play differently and sound different.
-
Dear Mr Three.Letter.Acronym...
Please refer to the following televised debate which fully encapsulates what I believe to be the quality of your argument so far...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nCKYEM8qRc
(This has been working up to my posting this so I hope you enjoy it. I miss comedy like this.)
:lol::lol::lol:
See that this previously telvised debate?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Thats you that is.
:lol:
i love MP!
Holy grails my favourite.
We want
A SHRUBERY!
-
The question wasn't aimed at GAS as a bad thing there was no limit put on the number of guitars someone may need the need was meant to relate to the number of genuinly different guitars wou have to have to give you all the playing styles you want to play and how many guitars are there for some other reason. So someone may need 3 LPs one with bluesy pickups, one with a vintage tone and one contemporary to cover a range of styles they may also need a heavy metal jackson etc. Having got this range it is perfectly legitimate to improve one for a better tone or closer simulacrum.
Some people will be happy with the approximations to tone they can get with a single guitar and digital emulators or effects where others are not. So the question goes back to how many do you need to play what you want to play.
I could have asked another question with a similar feel which is how many of the guitars you own have significantly different tone or are significantly different to play. Or how many guitars can you group into genre clusters.
Some one with 11 guitars - an acoustic, a semi acoustic, a classical, a flamenco, a strat style heavy, a strat style 50s, a metal master, a vintage LP, contemporary LP, a super strat with trem, a tele
Would not classify the same as someone with 11 strats in different colours.
/Ontopic
actually I have 13 strats:
1957 White maple neck - Apaches
1957 Sunburst Bravewood - a copy of my real 57 so that I can play it out and it has a slightly wider nut and A5 Apaches*
1957 Sunburst reissue - 1969 original fender pickups
1961 White Slab board - 2 original pickups - 1 BKP AV Apache
1963 Burgandy Mist - all original
1964 Fiesta Red Bravewood - HSS RY & 2 Mothers Milks
Shell Pink Hardtail - Pau Ferro fingerboard - BK 1962 Strat set **
Black HSS - Ebony fingerboard - HSS Stormy Monday & 2 Sultans
White - Aframosia Neck - Apache set with baseplates
Sunburst Wenge/Bloodwood neck - large headstock - BK 69 Strat set **
Flamed Redwood rear cavity warmoth with half scalloped ebony fingerboard - HSS - Holy Diver & 2 Trilogy Suites
Sunburst Rosewood board HH - will have VHII's soon
hollow quilted maple, maple neck, lh neck pickup slant, reverse vintage stagger Irish Tours
* due next month
** waiting for these pickups to arrive.
Out of curiosity due you have any interest in the D'Temple, Anderson, Surh, D'Pergo strat-clones or simply pure fender?
Also what's a BK 69 strat set?
-
if phil was into pure fender do you think he would have a 1957 strat with apaches??
from what i know of phil he buys guitars because of how they sound acousticly and then buys pickkups to make them sound as good as they can
most people i know who own 57 strats are all about trying to find original parts to make them as perfect as possible - sometimes at the detriment to the sound
barein mind with BKP, the have a list of products but you also have somebody at the helm who knows a lot... so whilst thee may be a BKP 69 strat set at some point - never forget you can ask tim for that anyway even ifits not on the product list and he will deliver. like i just got a perfect P-bass pickup which they have made for a while but never advertised
-
I thought he posted BK 1962 strat set not BK 69 ?
And sorry for picking on strats like that was thinking more of someone that had aa stack of 2006-2008 strats over time and with age there have been a lotta changes? Really was trying to see how many people collect as a collection and how many collect to play, and by play I don't mean once a year I mean regular !! like you don't need cascara !!
-
D. I want loads cos I love them. I can't function properly if I don't get the gear I want so I need them.
-
Do you see that girl's bicycle?
That's your collection of guitars, that is.....
:D