Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: Alex on January 02, 2012, 11:32:46 PM
-
Scientists from the University of Paris have compared 3 old violins to 3 new violins with 21 professional players. All violins were "good" ones, no lemons. Interestingly enough, the "old" ones did not win the competition, instead the experiment showed results to be quite random. Players had two opportunities to play the instruments with dark glasses on (so they could'nt see them) and perfume on the chin rest (to disguise the smell). In the first set of experiments players were given instruments to play blindfolded, in some cases they were given the same instrument more than once (to show the disparity). In the second test players could choose instruments and play for up to 20 minutes whatever they wanted. The results: Highly inconclusive, if not to say almost random.
I would love to see some experiments like this with guitar stuff, such as different tubes, different cables, different PAF pickups, different tubescreamers. I think it would dispel a lot of myths as well.
Text unfortunately in German, I couldn't access the English version.
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/0,1518,806748,00.html
-
nice
not to say that some expensive stuff isn't good, and that some cheap stuff isn't cr@p, but i always like to see myths like this get busted. prejudice is very annoying. what's even more annoying is that the prejudiced ones seem to be more likely to throw round accusations that everyone else is biased (you know, insert-guitar-brand-here fanboy who claims that everyone who doesn't like his/her favourite brand is a hater). :lol:
-
That's a good experiment with interesting results. I've never really played a vintage instrument (1975 is the closest I have got) but have often wondered if "feeling the mojo" is more to do with knowing when the instrument is from rather than actually how it feels and plays.
On a similar topic I'm still not convinced about the Eric Johnson story of him being able to tell different brands of batteries being used in his pedals. Maybe it was an April fools joke.
-
It doesn't surprise me that the results are random. I know that I favour each of my guitars more on certain days than others even though they haven't changed at all. There's so much psychology tied up in what sounds and feels good to a player on a particular day that objectivity must almost go out of the window. Once you've got to a certain quality threshold in the instrument (no lemons) everything after that is subject to the vagaries of the musician at that moment in time.
One extra thing that occurs is that if the player knew the violin was a Stradavarius would they be inspired to play better and thus produce better music with that instrument than any other? If so, does that make the instrument better? Can you divorce the lump of wood that is the instrument from the psychology of it? I suspect not but it does make for an interesting thought experiment, unless you have a Strad in which case you can test it for yourself. :)
-
I don't think you can remove the emotion from the instrument. Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion. The mind is a powerful thing and if knowing you're playing a Strad or '59 Les Paul gives you THAT emotion when you play and you hit nirvana, then that's all that matters...
-
Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion.
Music IS largely scientific, although it can be very difficult to understand it from a scientific perspective, to the point that it can seem as if it is not scientific. I agree with you in principle though, because it is very difficult to test every last difference between a vintage instrument and another instrument, and because there is so much going on psychologically, all that really matters is what instrument you play best with, whether it is a vintage treasure, or a nice example of a modern instrument.
-
It is an interesting study - one thing to point out though, they're not comparing cheap to expensive violins, even the new ones that were the comparitor were very expensive by the looks of it. It doesn't explicitly say how much, but it suggests that the 3 new ones that were compared were worth about 100000 quid.
-
Great article.
Cheers Stephan
-
It is an interesting study - one thing to point out though, they're not comparing cheap to expensive violins, even the new ones that were the comparitor were very expensive by the looks of it. It doesn't explicitly say how much, but it suggests that the 3 new ones that were compared were worth about 100000 quid.
That's amazing - I always think of guitars as expensive, but £100,000 for a new violin? I can't actually understand what could separate a £50,000 instrument from a £100,000 one... fair enough I don't know anything about violins, but surely when you're paying £50,000 there is enough time and workmanship going into the instrument to make it perfect? (obviously perfect to the customer's spec...)
-
My wife plays the violin. Expensive game indeed. We recently bought her a new one. Basically, anything under about 10 grand in the violin world is considered "ok for a student", serious instruments are more. If you buy a new one from a relatively unknown luthier, you would expect to pay 3-4 grand. If you go for a big name, like one of the Cremona makers, its easily more than a car. Guitars are dirt cheap by comparison. The only roughly equivalent ones price wise are the hand made archtop guitars.
-
My sister is a violin and viola maker/restorer in Devon. She's currently got my viola and keeps it played. It took her some time to get used to it, after discovering that her viola (which she'd played throughout college) wasn't as good as she thought.
I've not read the study, and can't possibly comment on its quality or scientific validity, but I found personally that certain instruments are suited to you, and others aren't. The same is demonstrably true of guitars, though in theory there is far less variation, at least in style and wood choice (they're all maple as far as I'm aware...) within the violin/viola/cello world.
I presume all of the instruments were played in - that makes a massive difference to a violin. Certainly my viola sounded thin and scratchy after it hadn't been played for a few months. Once I'd played it back in over a period of a month or two, it was back to its warm, rich sound.
The last point I'd want to make is that just because an instrument is made by a 'big name', or because it has a ridiculous price (we've all seen some of those absurdly priced special editions, or Dumbles/Trainwrecks etc...), doesn't make it better than another (although it might be).
Roo
-
There's a recent study on how the brain perceives art and how it behaves when being shown a real Rembrandt and a fake.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/12/how-does-the-brain-perceive-art/
I think there's some analogy with what's being discussed here.
As I mentioned before as well as the "this instrument is a blah blah and worth x" type of psychological shenanigan there's also the emotional way you respond on a given day to a given instrument whether you know what it's worth or not.
I imagine that most of use who have a few guitars that are, as far as you can judge, well made will find that on some days one guitar feels right and is the "best" and on other days it's another. Having not played my Strat for a while I fell back in love with it over the holiday. It's no different to when I wasn't feeling the love for it, nor I have just discovered that it was hand made by John English but there's something about the way I'm hearing things at the moment that is Strat-centric. I am guessing (and I'm sure Roo can offer informed insight on this) that violinists probably go through similar phases.
-
very interesting and for me unsurprising. i'm familiar with the same myths being busted with champagne.
even very fine instruments newly made have a subjective aspect.how many poeple would really appreciate a very fine
strat say if they hadn't 'learned' what to look for.same with wine;you need to be shown how to appreciate the finer ones.(which is kind of daft,isnt it ?)
i understand the emotion thing(of playing an old'n) but for me the sound coming out of the speaker is what does or doesn't exite you into playing well.
i've never 'bought' the vintage instrument thing, not because fine ones don't exist but because fine new ones exist
and the premium over a new one is now more than ever absurd.equally there's plenty of vintage rubbish that was made
and the 2 vintage strats (early 60's) that i tried both fell into this categority.
i too would love to see this test with strats, teles & lp's
-
My wife plays the violin. Expensive game indeed. We recently bought her a new one. Basically, anything under about 10 grand in the violin world is considered "ok for a student", serious instruments are more.
Wow - I can understand those kind of prices for a grand piano, as it is made of a lot of metal and wood and has many precision parts, but is a violin really that much different from an acoustic guitar? I'm not saying that the 10K+ price tags for a decent instrument are not worth it (I really wouldn't know), but I'd love to know WHY they are priced that high.
-
Here's another one, although the original results are not quoted, but it basically suggests that in a test of three guitars which were identical other than neck-joint type, the bolt-on sustained better than the other types of construction, and listeners could not distinguish between notes played on each instrument:
http://www.guitar-list.com/guitar-science/set-neck-better-sustain-myth
He basically says that rather than comparing, say, a les paul to a strat for sustain to differentiate between set neck and bolt on, people should compare a set neck les paul with a bolt on les paul.
It would be interesting to hear what some of our resident luthiers think about this.
-
Every piece of wood is different, so the above result may say that:
a) The bolt on neck guitar had a better marriage of woods
b) Neck joint types are less important to sustain than wood quality and marriage of the parts
-
I am guessing (and I'm sure Roo can offer informed insight on this) that violinists probably go through similar phases.
The main difference is that, on the whole, string players tend to have just one (main) instrument they play - maybe this is why I'm the same with the guitars, because I was first a viola player. Most guitar enthusiasts of course have several to many different instruments.
This also makes guitarists more amenable to changing between instruments - in my opinion - than string players. I have one viola (which now my sister has), and one main guitar (not counting the stage backup which I haven't played for about 3 years). When I do play a different guitar, I find it very odd! I know I'm in the minority here though.
-
Every piece of wood is different, so the above result may say that:
a) The bolt on neck guitar had a better marriage of woods
b) Neck joint types are less important to sustain than wood quality and marriage of the parts
Fair point
-
It would be interesting to hear what some of our resident luthiers think about this.
Indeed it would - I'm sure I remember Jonathan commenting on something like this at one stage.
-
Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion.
Music IS largely scientific, although it can be very difficult to understand it from a scientific perspective, to the point that it can seem as if it is not scientific. I agree with you in principle though, because it is very difficult to test every last difference between a vintage instrument and another instrument, and because there is so much going on psychologically, all that really matters is what instrument you play best with, whether it is a vintage treasure, or a nice example of a modern instrument.
Not sure I agree with that - only in the sense that everything is basically physics and therefore can be measured!
-
^ yep, me too. Music to me is art, not science!
-
An article about the same study for those of us whose German language skills are lacking:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins-stradivarius-lags.html?_r=1
-
Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion.
Music IS largely scientific, although it can be very difficult to understand it from a scientific perspective, to the point that it can seem as if it is not scientific. I agree with you in principle though, because it is very difficult to test every last difference between a vintage instrument and another instrument, and because there is so much going on psychologically, all that really matters is what instrument you play best with, whether it is a vintage treasure, or a nice example of a modern instrument.
Not sure I agree with that - only in the sense that everything is basically physics and therefore can be measured!
There is more to it than that - musical scales are derived mathematically, and individual roles of each note (dominant, subdominant, tonic, etc.) can also be expressed mathematically. When you learn to play, even without learning the theory, but playing with a sense of 'feel', what you are really doing is learning patterns that represent the underlying mathematics, even though you are not formalising them. This is how we can build computers that can compose pretty good music - because it is largely mathematical. Also, with respect to the guitar, Physics is important because the way the pickups are wound, potted, etc. affects the tone of the instrument, and the scale length affects the sound, etc. All of these rely on principles of Physics and so should in theory be testable between a vintage and a new instrument.
Of course, there is also an art element to music too, which is why I said that music is largely scientific, not completely. This is why those computers that create music are usually no match for Clapton, or Van Halen, or whoever. You need to know what emotion you are targeting and what musical concepts will portray that well - that's where the art comes in.
TL;DR - I'm not saying that music is completely scientific, but a lot more so than most musicians usually realise.
-
Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion.
Music IS largely scientific, although it can be very difficult to understand it from a scientific perspective, to the point that it can seem as if it is not scientific. I agree with you in principle though, because it is very difficult to test every last difference between a vintage instrument and another instrument, and because there is so much going on psychologically, all that really matters is what instrument you play best with, whether it is a vintage treasure, or a nice example of a modern instrument.
Not sure I agree with that - only in the sense that everything is basically physics and therefore can be measured!
There is more to it than that - musical scales are derived mathematically, and individual roles of each note (dominant, subdominant, tonic, etc.) can also be expressed mathematically. When you learn to play, even without learning the theory, but playing with a sense of 'feel', what you are really doing is learning patterns that represent the underlying mathematics, even though you are not formalising them. This is how we can build computers that can compose pretty good music - because it is largely mathematical. Also, with respect to the guitar, Physics is important because the way the pickups are wound, potted, etc. affects the tone of the instrument, and the scale length affects the sound, etc. All of these rely on principles of Physics and so should in theory be testable between a vintage and a new instrument.
Of course, there is also an art element to music too, which is why I said that music is largely scientific, not completely. This is why those computers that create music are usually no match for Clapton, or Van Halen, or whoever. You need to know what emotion you are targeting and what musical concepts will portray that well - that's where the art comes in.
TL;DR - I'm not saying that music is completely scientific, but a lot more so than most musicians usually realise.
Yep, I know exactly what you're saying. But if that argument goes to it's natural conclusion then we have to say that EVERYTHING is scientific and mathematical - which is kinda is, because everything that has physical properties can be described by physics. I tend to want to describe music, choice of notes, improvisation etc as a culmination of technical skills, education, experience and emotional content rather than as chemical and electrical signals beetween ganglia. Even if the latter is technically correct.
-
i agree with what you're trying to convey chris, as 'scientific' but we need to remember physics is an abstraction of reality not the other way round.
-
Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion.
Music IS largely scientific, although it can be very difficult to understand it from a scientific perspective, to the point that it can seem as if it is not scientific. I agree with you in principle though, because it is very difficult to test every last difference between a vintage instrument and another instrument, and because there is so much going on psychologically, all that really matters is what instrument you play best with, whether it is a vintage treasure, or a nice example of a modern instrument.
Not sure I agree with that - only in the sense that everything is basically physics and therefore can be measured!
There is more to it than that - musical scales are derived mathematically, and individual roles of each note (dominant, subdominant, tonic, etc.) can also be expressed mathematically. When you learn to play, even without learning the theory, but playing with a sense of 'feel', what you are really doing is learning patterns that represent the underlying mathematics, even though you are not formalising them. This is how we can build computers that can compose pretty good music - because it is largely mathematical. Also, with respect to the guitar, Physics is important because the way the pickups are wound, potted, etc. affects the tone of the instrument, and the scale length affects the sound, etc. All of these rely on principles of Physics and so should in theory be testable between a vintage and a new instrument.
Of course, there is also an art element to music too, which is why I said that music is largely scientific, not completely. This is why those computers that create music are usually no match for Clapton, or Van Halen, or whoever. You need to know what emotion you are targeting and what musical concepts will portray that well - that's where the art comes in.
TL;DR - I'm not saying that music is completely scientific, but a lot more so than most musicians usually realise.
Yep, I know exactly what you're saying. But if that argument goes to it's natural conclusion then we have to say that EVERYTHING is scientific and mathematical - which is kinda is, because everything that has physical properties can be described by physics. I tend to want to describe music, choice of notes, improvisation etc as a culmination of technical skills, education, experience and emotional content rather than as chemical and electrical signals beetween ganglia. Even if the latter is technically correct.
Yeah, but music is closer to science than most other things that people would call art. A computer, which is programmed with the algorithms relating to scales, chords, note choice, etc. can produce very convincing music, i.e. music which is indistinguishable from that created by a person. However I don't think the same can be said of painting, for example, there are comparatively fewer formalisations that can be used to program a computer to do that convincingly.
I guess what I'm saying is that people tend to say that "music is art, not science", when actually it is both. Without the Science aspect, it would be a mess of notes with no structure, and without the art side, it would be sterile muzak.
-
i agree with what you're trying to convey chris, as 'scientific' but we need to remember physics is an abstraction of reality not the other way round.
Physics is a representation of reality rather than an abstraction (most of it that relates to musical instruments anyway, there are abstract areas such as QM but they are largely unrelated). Music, however, is abstract, and therefore can be well represented by mathematics (which is also abstract).
-
i agree with what you're trying to convey chris, as 'scientific' but we need to remember physics is an abstraction of reality not the other way round.
Physics is a representation of reality rather than an abstraction (most of it that relates to musical instruments anyway, there are abstract areas such as QM but they are largely unrelated). Music, however, is abstract, and therefore can be well represented by mathematics (which is also abstract).
Absolutely. Music can be represented by mathematics. The fact that you can describe something mathematically, or in physical terms, doesn't make it "scientific", in my humble opinion.
-
Uh oh.
This is turning into one of those contentious "highbrow debate" threads....
Who'd have thunk it?
-
The one thing I think we should not forget when transferring the results of the violin tests to the guitar world is that first there are more factors playing a part in electric guitars (wood, construction, pickups, scale...), not to mention the amp, and second, that the tonal spectrum of violins is much more in "higher frequencies", whereas electric guitars are more rooted in "mid frequencies". That would raise the question as what is easier to distinguish for the human ear - high, mid, or low frequencies.
-
I don't think you can remove the emotion from the instrument. Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion. The mind is a powerful thing and if knowing you're playing a Strad or '59 Les Paul gives you THAT emotion when you play and you hit nirvana, then that's all that matters...
i'd agree with that to a certain extent, but on the other hand it's kind of annoying as it sorta ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. an expensive self-fulfilling prophecy :lol:
Uh oh.
This is turning into one of those contentious "highbrow debate" threads....
Who'd have thunk it?
:lol:
let the record show i wasn't involved :D :lol:
-
A computer, which is programmed with the algorithms relating to scales, chords, note choice, etc. can produce very convincing music, i.e. music which is indistinguishable from that created by a person. However I don't think the same can be said of painting, for example, there are comparatively fewer formalisations that can be used to program a computer to do that convincingly.
That may be true for individual notes, but what about phrasing? Legato? Vibrato? All those subtle bits that when you hear the playing you go "that's SRV" or "that's Gilmour" etc. That, to me, is the art bit. The mechanics are science, like the brush strokes on a painting, but it's how you use them as an individual that is the artistic bit in my eyes.
-
A computer, which is programmed with the algorithms relating to scales, chords, note choice, etc. can produce very convincing music, i.e. music which is indistinguishable from that created by a person. However I don't think the same can be said of painting, for example, there are comparatively fewer formalisations that can be used to program a computer to do that convincingly.
That may be true for individual notes, but what about phrasing? Legato? Vibrato? All those subtle bits that when you hear the playing you go "that's SRV" or "that's Gilmour" etc. That, to me, is the art bit. The mechanics are science, like the brush strokes on a painting, but it's how you use them as an individual that is the artistic bit in my eyes.
Exactly, that's what I have been saying - you cannot say that music is purely art, or that it is purely Science, it is a fusion of the two and either one on it's own is insufficient.
i agree with what you're trying to convey chris, as 'scientific' but we need to remember physics is an abstraction of reality not the other way round.
Physics is a representation of reality rather than an abstraction (most of it that relates to musical instruments anyway, there are abstract areas such as QM but they are largely unrelated). Music, however, is abstract, and therefore can be well represented by mathematics (which is also abstract).
Absolutely. Music can be represented by mathematics. The fact that you can describe something mathematically, or in physical terms, doesn't make it "scientific", in my humble opinion.
The fact that music cannot be represented in any other way than mathematics is what makes it scientific. I guess you may define science differently though... fair enough... I'm not going to argue about semantics.
Uh oh.
This is turning into one of those contentious "highbrow debate" threads....
Who'd have thunk it?
:lol: This one may have been my fault. It was meant to be a throwaway comment to be honest, I don't think we need a big discussion about it. It is clear that some people here consider music to be purely art, and that's fair enough. Personally, I don't think it could exist without the scientific aspect also. To be honest it doesn't really matter and we are getting away from the point of the topic - no matter what your view on art and Science, I agree with the original point that you cannot easily quantify every last difference between a vintage and a new instrument, and you also cannot separate the emotion about playing a vintage instrument from your performance. So in effect, whether you buy the idea of vintage instruments being physically better or not, they maybe can still help some people to play better (I personally wouldn't know - I've never had the pleasure of playing a vintage instrument).
-
On this link you can try it yourself (soundclips of strad vs other)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad
-
On this link you can try it yourself (soundclips of strad vs other)
http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad
lol, I actually was right....I would like to get more samples to see if it was just luck...which it probably was. I have to say though that I prefered the new one.
-
I got it wrong... big surprise as I know nothing of violin :lol:
-
I have no clue how I would have identified the Strad, I know nothing about violins, but I preferred the sound of the new one: as much as you can tell such a thing through the fog of MP3 compression. :)
-
So what the study is basically saying is that if you want a strad style violin you can either pay millions for an original or pay 100's of thousands for a very good new copy
that settles it - i will take a new one please ;)
Lets face it, most of the who pay for one of those new copies would stretch to the real thing if they could. and most of the people making the most expensive new copies are probably the same experts who get to tear strads apart on a regular basis. the life of a violin involves being dismantled every so often and they are generally kept playable rather than pristine.
So how do we know what a strad actually sounded like when new? and how has this been influenced by the violin repair peeps over the years?
I would place a bet that the violins used in the study came from similar sources or contacts - which increases the chances of getting a strad and a strad copy set up by the same ears and hands
...
if you pay enough you can get very accurate les paul copies which you would not be able to tell from the real thing. Oddly enough they are generally made by people who have regular access to the real thing
-
@wez
All quite reasonable suggestions for possible ways that the new can sound like the old. That kinda misses the point though.
-
I dont think it does miss the point
We have a result which shows "there is no difference in the sound of original strad violins and modern reproductions"
The simple thing to do next is to accept it as proof that old and new sound the same and call it a myth busted (what was the myth that was busted?)... or you can be properly scientific and make an effort to consider the reasons behind the results
The reason for the results may be as simple as them actually sounding and playing almost indistinguishable... which would still lead me to wonder why they sound so close.
...
on a side note i think smells are very important to memory and emotions. they had to cover the smell of the old ones.
the smell of raw wood and hide glue takes me straight back to being a kid staring into my grandads half dismantled pianola. The smell of my 50's archtop and 30's resonator is similar and it has a direct effect on my mood
-
Its not really about whether old violins sound similar to new ones or replicas. Its about expectations and biases influencing perceptions. i.e. the point isnt that so many got it wrong, its that they thought they got it right.
Same with the summary that andrew linked to on paintings, and others that have been done on everything from wine to cables to valves to modellers, the point is about how we allow names, reputation and prices to fool us.
We see it in guitars all the time.
-
I'd like to see the best modelling amps blind tested against the real thing they're modelling - I'd like to think I could tell the difference, but honestly I'm not sure...
-
Interesting article on the guitar woods. My inclination is to broadly agree with them; and say that wood choice has a relatively small effect on amplified tone. Having said that, I got the impression they were not physicists. They note that the microphone is more sensitive to overtones than the bridge pickup, but I suspect this is at least in part because the microphone was positioned at the 12th fret above the open string- a node point for the even harmonics, that would leave it more sensitive to odd orders once results where normalised. They should really have placed the mic over the bridge pickup to counter that.
I also thought it was interesting that the bass strings where more affected by the body wood than the lighter gauge ones- I'm guessing because the body resonates far more in sympathy to the heavier strings than the light ones.
-
This can be one of those odd topics that can be highly dependant on perspective, reference and taste.
I remember seeing a program about Nicola Bennedetti meeting Aly Bain (Classical vs Folk) talking about the tone of
Nicola's Strad having quite a harsh tone versus the more mellow tone of Aly's modern swedish 'fiddle' however thinking about the way instruments may have been designed to sound in a certain situation acoustically - the Strad has probably been made to project into a large hall as much of the upper end energy will dissipate with distance and needs to cut through a larger accompaniment, whilst the fiddle needs to blend in at lower volumes (normally) and not sound so abrasive whilst playing loudly as it is more likely to be used in a smaller enviroment. If the two violins were recorded beyond the critical distance (point beyond where reverberation becomes dominant) there would likely be more noticable disparities.
See Aly/Nicola video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgDNSDadqos&feature=related
about half way through.
Then there's the whole thing about brand reputation or antique renown.
Obviously we all have our own particular tastes in guitar sounds so how could you say one sounded better than the other, it's really just different with each measurable characteristic being liked or loathed by the listener.
The whole thing about wine above is probably the best example of this.
-
I think it's extremely obvious why people expect to perceive (and therefore experience) much larger differences between vintage/famous instruments and those less so and don't really get why it's a conversation that would last much time at all :lol:
RE: Music as science though. Obviously it's MUCH more scientific than most people will grasp. But I think people overlook just how much science there is in almost everyone's playing. Aside from the construction of instruments themselves, which is obviously massively scientific or they couldn't even be tuned, every scale you're familiar with is mathematical. Whilst your phrasing might not be, every note choice is a scientific one - whether you think of it as science or whether it just feels right. Knowing that C, D, E, F, G, A and B will all sit happily on top of a C major chord IS scientific knowledge - even if you only know those notes and that chord as shapes on a fretboard or even just as a sound and feel in your head.
-
Its not really about whether old violins sound similar to new ones or replicas. Its about expectations and biases influencing perceptions. i.e. the point isnt that so many got it wrong, its that they thought they got it right.
This time last year i was doing an open day in a school and we decided to make stroop effect jelly. Jelly where the flavour and colour did not match. It was fun watching people struggle to name the flavour, but the best one came up saying she was a professional wine taster. obviously she didnt have a clue either
I am not trying to dispute the tricks our brain plays on us
unfortunately there is a growing trend on guitar forums to reduce everything down to psychoacoustics - its like a specific Godwins law for guitar forums.
but as a guitar builder my main focus is trying to control tone and occasionally discuss my views on it. just a shame it generally takes 5 minutes before someone says its all cr@p as your brain is playing tricks on you.
The main thing i take from the violin comparisons is that there is obviously now someone able to copy a strad very well - good advert for him/her.
-
The main thing i take from the violin comparisons is that there is obviously now someone able to copy a strad very well - good advert for him/her.
Definitely Wez - I'm with you there.
unfortunately there is a growing trend on guitar forums to reduce everything down to psychoacoustics - its like a specific Godwins law for guitar forums.
Yep, a lot of discussions end that way which is a shame. The fact that every blank of wood is different and that there are subtle species variations seems to get forgotten an awful lot too. When you've played enough guitars/violins/whatever you realise that the wood is EVERYTHING. Type, use, stability, how it's been dried, density etc all affect the finished product. Hearing Paul (Reed) Smith talk on the subject is fascinating.
-
I am not trying to dispute the tricks our brain plays on us
unfortunately there is a growing trend on guitar forums to reduce everything down to psychoacoustics - its like a specific Godwins law for guitar forums.
but as a guitar builder my main focus is trying to control tone and occasionally discuss my views on it. just a shame it generally takes 5 minutes before someone says its all cr@p as your brain is playing tricks on you.
I thought it was interesting that the authors of the violin study were very keen to point out early on that they weren't comparing any old rubbish to a Strad but the very best that instrument builders could make in the modern era.
I would hope that no-one with sense would argue that there aren't good and bad instruments out there and further, that a skilled professional can, with experience and talent, control that tone to a great extent. The results of the violin test mostly suggest to me that one individual's instruments aren't actually magically better than the best that others could make at any given time.
That said, I would have thought that as knowledge of acoustics and manufacturing techniques improve it ought to be possible to build a better violin now than in Stradivarius' day, assuming that the same quality of raw materials is still available. Or has the design of the instrument remained so static that there has been no real change in design since the 18th Century?
I did think that the critique of the study by the violinist who pointed out that a Strad was designed to fill a larger arena was very interesting. It makes me wonder how violinists demo a new instrument and how a maker can do the same. Is it just experience that enables them to hear certain qualties in the tone that may not sound great in a small room or workshop but they know will blossom in a concert hall?
Whilst, as nfe points out, the results of the test aren't a huge surprise, the conversation here and the article itself has made me think a lot more about tone shaping for certain environments and made me understand and appreciate the instrument maker's craft a lot more. So thanks for that everyone, it's been stimulating.
-
Whilst, as nfe points out, the results of the test aren't a huge surprise, the conversation here and the article itself has made me think a lot more about tone shaping for certain environments and made me understand and appreciate the instrument maker's craft a lot more. So thanks for that everyone, it's been stimulating.
This is a good point, and is really important. I suppose it hadn't really occurred to me regarding orchestral instruments. Most of us understand that what sounds good at home is very different to what sounds good loud on stage, and that what sounds good practicing by yourself is very different to what sounds good in a band. But with orchestral instruments, I mean, you can't soundcheck and hear that so easily. I can soundcheck at a gig (though lets be honest, I almost never bother :lol:) and stand where the audience will stand play my guitar and hear what they'll hear (barring the full place taking some top end off and so on, but you get the idea) whereas a violinist can't exactly play their violin and hear what someone in the balcony will hear 100 feet away from the instrument.
Also, whilst we obviously have instruments designed for different applications - in the same way as a folky's fiddle and a classical players violin may differ - but we don't really have guitars and basses specifically designed for certain types of venue (other than dreadnoughts coming about for country guys playing bigger and bigger halls or things suited to louder amplification).
-
But we have guitars designed for certain applications - hollowbodies for Jazz, baritones etc - so that would be our equivalent?
-
unfortunately there is a growing trend on guitar forums to reduce everything down to psychoacoustics - its like a specific Godwins law for guitar forums.
but as a guitar builder my main focus is trying to control tone and occasionally discuss my views on it. just a shame it generally takes 5 minutes before someone says its all cr@p as your brain is playing tricks on you.
I'm not sure that anyone is going quite as far as to say it is all down to psychological effects, well I know that I'm not going quite that far anyway, I'm sure that wood choice, construction, etc. does affect the sound quite a lot, but I just wonder how much of it is also influenced by expectation - surely it has some effect?
The one I'm really curious about now personally is the neck joint construction of a guitar, because I've convinced myself that I need a neck-through guitar in my collection for the extra sustain and the different sound, but that article that I posted earlier actually suggests that the neck through guitar sustained less than the other two (albeit the difference was very minor), and that test did not not rely solely on perception, so no psychoacoustics were involved. Being a guitar builder I'd be really interested to hear your views on that one.
-
But we have guitars designed for certain applications - hollowbodies for Jazz, baritones etc - so that would be our equivalent?
Well yeah, that's what I said in the first half of the first sentence in that last paragraph. But that's quite different from specifically setting out to make a Les Paul std that suits a pub and a Les Paul std that suits Wembley, which is more what is being suggested. The instrument isn't being changed to suit the genre, but the venue it'll be played in. That's something interestingly specific, and presumably, outrageously hard to achieve - certainly at the turn of the 18th century.
I suppose the point is that the nature of modern instruments is that we make them massively different to achieve different things, so they'll always be easier to tell apart than classical ones.
-
Its not really about whether old violins sound similar to new ones or replicas. Its about expectations and biases influencing perceptions. i.e. the point isnt that so many got it wrong, its that they thought they got it right.
This time last year i was doing an open day in a school and we decided to make stroop effect jelly. Jelly where the flavour and colour did not match. It was fun watching people struggle to name the flavour, but the best one came up saying she was a professional wine taster. obviously she didnt have a clue either
I am not trying to dispute the tricks our brain plays on us
unfortunately there is a growing trend on guitar forums to reduce everything down to psychoacoustics - its like a specific Godwins law for guitar forums.
but as a guitar builder my main focus is trying to control tone and occasionally discuss my views on it. just a shame it generally takes 5 minutes before someone says its all cr@p as your brain is playing tricks on you.
The main thing i take from the violin comparisons is that there is obviously now someone able to copy a strad very well - good advert for him/her.
Fair enough.
I dont think anyones offering 'your brain tricked you' as an explanation for most things. It comes up here and there, usually where theres little actual difference (if any at all) but lots of percieved or presentational difference (or price difference, of course :)).
-
Well yeah, that's what I said in the first half of the first sentence in that last paragraph. But that's quite different from specifically setting out to make a Les Paul std that suits a pub and a Les Paul std that suits Wembley, which is more what is being suggested.
Is it? I don't think anyone would say that's a worthwhile investigation. We have amps and pedals with EQs and volume controls to do that job.
-
Well yeah, that's what I said in the first half of the first sentence in that last paragraph. But that's quite different from specifically setting out to make a Les Paul std that suits a pub and a Les Paul std that suits Wembley, which is more what is being suggested.
Is it? I don't think anyone would say that's a worthwhile investigation. We have amps and pedals with EQs and volume controls to do that job.
Err...yes, we do. Which is why it's interesting - it's a very different approach with modern instruments. That's what I was saying when you replied that it's the same idea as "hollowbodies for jazz, baritones, etc" - because it isn't. It's a completely different way of approaching things for quite different reasons. I didn't suggest that it was something worth investigating or pursuing for guitars.
I'm not sure exactly what you think I was saying, but I doesn't seem to be what I intended :lol:
-
I thought you were on about guitars - sorry!
-
That said, I would have thought that as knowledge of acoustics and manufacturing techniques improve it ought to be possible to build a better violin now than in Stradivarius' day, assuming that the same quality of raw materials is still available. Or has the design of the instrument remained so static that there has been no real change in design since the 18th Century?
people have spent a very long time copying strads - the goal always seems to be 'as good as a strad'. Maybe they should focus on making them better, and i am sure some do. but then you have the problem that 'better than a strad' is also 'different from a strad' which to some is automatically always going to be 'worse than a strad'
I dont think anyones offering 'your brain tricked you' as an explanation for most things. It comes up here and there, usually where theres little actual difference (if any at all) but lots of percieved or presentational difference (or price difference, of course ).
I know i was exaggerating, in truth its nowhere near as bad on this forum, obviously because most of us are happy to spend money on refining our tone. But it does annoy me greatly on other (less enlightened ;) ) forums.
-
The one I'm really curious about now personally is the neck joint construction of a guitar, because I've convinced myself that I need a neck-through guitar in my collection for the extra sustain and the different sound, but that article that I posted earlier actually suggests that the neck through guitar sustained less than the other two (albeit the difference was very minor), and that test did not not rely solely on perception, so no psychoacoustics were involved. Being a guitar builder I'd be really interested to hear your views on that one.
its a difficult one because for me it always depends on the woods used and the quality of the join. Neck throughs dont really sustain more, but you can see why people assumed that making a guitar with less joins would sustain more... if you take an oversimplified 80's guitar shop view of teh instrument.
I di think they sustain differently, whilst i have made many of each type of neck join i do not have a definitive answer as there have always been other differences.
I mainly like neck throughs for extra stiffness and a comfy/aesthetically pleasing neck join. mine are usually laminated necks, which i do believe makes a difference to tone as the extra stiffness reduces wasted string energy that can come from a neck/headstock flapping about.
I generally approach any claims of increased sustain with a bit of caution - who really cares. The average guitar, well set-up, should have more than enough sustain for most things.
-
I mainly like neck throughs for extra stiffness and a comfy/aesthetically pleasing neck join. mine are usually laminated necks, which i do believe makes a difference to tone as the extra stiffness reduces wasted string energy that can come from a neck/headstock flapping about.
I've never owned a neck through, but the improved neck join (or neck to body transition) is certainly appealing - especially on something like an SG, where you can totally eliminate that notorious weak spot!
I can see the sense of laminated necks too - I'm surprised Gibson and (especially) PRS haven't tried them for efficient use of timber resources and improved stiffness/stability. I know Hamer have always used three-piece necks.
-
Gibson had a laminate necks in the Norlin era, which is generally seen as a bad time for guitar building, so I would guess the stigma of that has stuck a little?
I can't see PRS using laminated necks if they have a good supply of quality neck blanks.
-
Sounds sensible WezV, thanks for the reply. Even without the extra sustain I'm still tempted by a neck through - I guess I should get to a guitar shop and try some out.
-
I can't see PRS using laminated necks if they have a good supply of quality neck blanks.
Yeah, but I could imagine Paul Reed Smith at least experimenting with laminates to see how they affect the tone. After all, he builds guitars with that (Ed Roman despised) extended heel, specifically for increased stiffness.
As an aside, it seems almost contradictory that a one-piece body is (generally) seen as preferable to a two- or three-piece, but a multi-piece neck may well have distinct advantages over a one-piece. I guess it's partly aesthetics versus practicality.
-
It's probably perception too - one piece=better/higher quality?
-
Re: Violins/guitars
Purely distilling the quality of an instrument into its recorded sound isn't really a viable thing, either - unless the only criterion you care about is the recorded sound, of course. There are a whole host of other factors that make guitars desirable, such as cost, aesthetics, playability, hardware configuration, wood choices, style/size, comfort...
There are fewer factors of interest for violins. The size is sometimes changed (a bit), and there may be subtle (very subtle) changes in shape, other than that it really comes down to quality of the woods used, quality of the workmanship, and quality of the set-up. Given that the violins being compared are not any old cheap chinese mass produced knock-offs, but are high quality, expert-built instruments, it's hardly a result to find that there's not something 'magical' about the Stradivari. However, there is something desirable about them, because they were all extremely well made instruments, and those that have survived to this day are also antiques! That itself makes them desirable, collectors items so of course they're expensive!!
My viola was made somewhere around the 1900 mark, so in classical instrument terms it's a relative newbie. It's well made, but not superb, but I like the sound it makes. That's as subjective as it needs to be - an instrument that is comfortable to play, makes a good sound to your ears (and looks the part) is what any serious musician is looking for first and foremost. If it also happens to be an antique made by "one of the very finest" luthiers of all time, which also adds to your credibility/saleability as a professional musician (oh, he/she plays a Strad? Wow, I might go along to that concert), all the better!
Re: Music as a science
Beethoven was not a mathematician or a physicist. He was a composer and an artist. I would argue that any algorithm that 'composes' music is based on what has already gone before (well well before computers, or even the formalisation of scales in mathematical terms) and is therefore unable to come up with genuinely new genres or even able to make big jumps between genres which are perhaps heavily interrelated. I would conjecture that an algorithm that 'learned' how to compose having only been fed baroque is absolutely 100% NOT going to compose anything akin to, say Holst's Planets Suite. Let alone more modern music, all of which is built on previous music going back to Baroque and well beyond.
By the same token, what I do in my job is not art, despite parts of it requiring lots of technical skill and practice to perfect.
In addition, while you can describe our western scales in neat integer values of tone frequency, and rhythms and even timbres can also be described succinctly in mathematical terms, the same isn't true of other music forms, such as Indian-rooted music, and probably many tribal musics, too.
Finally, music is an art form that is subjectively appreciated. This is simply not true of science: something is correct or it is not, you don't pick and choose a theorem that you like because it speaks to you, whereas classic drawn/painted art, music, sculpture, creative writing - all of these are subjective.
To take this argument back to a much simpler one, while almost everything can be explained in physical/mathematical terms, that does not make it physics/maths. Chemistry, for example. So to take a huge leap over to music and say it's a science is just nonsense, I'm afraid. It's perfectly fine to be interested in the very real and interesting subject of the science/mathematics of music but that is not the same as 'music' itself and the two should not be confused!!
Just my most humble of opinions, of course :)
Roo
-
Re: Music as a science
Beethoven was not a mathematician or a physicist. He was a composer and an artist.
Erm... yes. Also, I'm not a statistician, but I use a lot of statistics every day. I'm not a writer, but I have to write an awful lot in my day to day life. Beethoven was not a mathematician, but he used mathematics a lot in his music, even if he did not know he was doing so. He may not have learned the formalisms (although I'd be surprised if he didn't), but either way he did use it.
I would argue that any algorithm that 'composes' music is based on what has already gone before (well well before computers, or even the formalisation of scales in mathematical terms) and is therefore unable to come up with genuinely new genres or even able to make big jumps between genres which are perhaps heavily interrelated. I would conjecture that an algorithm that 'learned' how to compose having only been fed baroque is absolutely 100% NOT going to compose anything akin to, say Holst's Planets Suite. Let alone more modern music, all of which is built on previous music going back to Baroque and well beyond.
By the same token, what I do in my job is not art, despite parts of it requiring lots of technical skill and practice to perfect.
This is true. I think you may have made the same mistake as a few of the earlier posters - nobody said that music was Science or Mathematics. Somebody posted saying that music had nothing to do with Science it was purely art, to which the reply was that music requires both Science and Art - either one alone is not going to cut the mustard, so to speak. Computers using algorithms can produce passable, familiar music, but in order to be innovative, you need to break out of the box and that is where the art, or feel, comes in. However art alone is also insufficient - without the Mathematics side it would just be a mess of notes that sound awful. A fusion of the two is what is required.
In addition, while you can describe our western scales in neat integer values of tone frequency, and rhythms and even timbres can also be described succinctly in mathematical terms, the same isn't true of other music forms, such as Indian-rooted music, and probably many tribal musics, too.
Actually it is true of any music system, including Indian music. The algorithms just have to be different, that's all.
Finally, music is an art form that is subjectively appreciated. This is simply not true of science: something is correct or it is not, you don't pick and choose a theorem that you like because it speaks to you, whereas classic drawn/painted art, music, sculpture, creative writing - all of these are subjective.
This is a bit too simplistic - I prefer string theory to quantum loop gravity, largely because it speaks to me better - I see more beauty in that theory. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is not that cut and dry. There is Art and Science in most subjects, in differing ratios, but people often make the mistake of thinking that some subjects are only Art, or only Science. It doesn't really matter when people make this mistake, except that it perpetuates some of the daft opinions that some people have about 'the other side'. A lot of Science-y people are derisive of arty subjects for being 'easy' or 'totally subjective', and a lot of arty people are derisive of Science-y subjects because they are 'boring' or 'lack beauty', etc. That's why I get annoyed when people try to say that there is no science in music or art, or that there is no art or beauty in Science.
-
Re: Music as a science
Beethoven was not a mathematician or a physicist. He was a composer and an artist.
Erm... yes. Also, I'm not a statistician, but I use a lot of statistics every day. I'm not a writer, but I have to write an awful lot in my day to day life. Beethoven was not a mathematician, but he used mathematics a lot in his music, even if he did not know he was doing so. He may not have learned the formalisms (although I'd be surprised if he didn't), but either way he did use it.
I would argue that any algorithm that 'composes' music is based on what has already gone before (well well before computers, or even the formalisation of scales in mathematical terms) and is therefore unable to come up with genuinely new genres or even able to make big jumps between genres which are perhaps heavily interrelated. I would conjecture that an algorithm that 'learned' how to compose having only been fed baroque is absolutely 100% NOT going to compose anything akin to, say Holst's Planets Suite. Let alone more modern music, all of which is built on previous music going back to Baroque and well beyond.
By the same token, what I do in my job is not art, despite parts of it requiring lots of technical skill and practice to perfect.
This is true. I think you may have made the same mistake as a few of the earlier posters - nobody said that music was Science or Mathematics. Somebody posted saying that music had nothing to do with Science it was purely art, to which the reply was that music requires both Science and Art - either one alone is not going to cut the mustard, so to speak. Computers using algorithms can produce passable, familiar music, but in order to be innovative, you need to break out of the box and that is where the art, or feel, comes in. However art alone is also insufficient - without the Mathematics side it would just be a mess of notes that sound awful. A fusion of the two is what is required.
In addition, while you can describe our western scales in neat integer values of tone frequency, and rhythms and even timbres can also be described succinctly in mathematical terms, the same isn't true of other music forms, such as Indian-rooted music, and probably many tribal musics, too.
Actually it is true of any music system, including Indian music. The algorithms just have to be different, that's all.
Finally, music is an art form that is subjectively appreciated. This is simply not true of science: something is correct or it is not, you don't pick and choose a theorem that you like because it speaks to you, whereas classic drawn/painted art, music, sculpture, creative writing - all of these are subjective.
This is a bit too simplistic - I prefer string theory to quantum loop gravity, largely because it speaks to me better - I see more beauty in that theory. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is not that cut and dry. There is Art and Science in most subjects, in differing ratios, but people often make the mistake of thinking that some subjects are only Art, or only Science. It doesn't really matter when people make this mistake, except that it perpetuates some of the daft opinions that some people have about 'the other side'. A lot of Science-y people are derisive of arty subjects for being 'easy' or 'totally subjective', and a lot of arty people are derisive of Science-y subjects because they are 'boring' or 'lack beauty', etc. That's why I get annoyed when people try to say that there is no science in music or art, or that there is no art or beauty in Science.
Nope, I'm pretty sure I've got what you're saying.
Just because you can describe something mathematically, doesn't make it maths.
Your argument simply doesn't make sense. The extension to it is that fine art is maths, too. After all, placement of certain geometric figures causes the observer's eyes to follow a predescribed trajectory, instilling a feeling in the observer.
I contest that Beethoven didn't 'use a lot of mathematics' in his music.
His music, as with all music, can be described in mathematical terms to some degree (but not completely), but that doesn't mean that it was calculated, it was written as a piece of art to be enjoyed as a piece of art.
I refer you to my last statement: the science of music is not the same as the music!
-
Nope, I'm pretty sure I've got what you're saying.
Just because you can describe something mathematically, doesn't make it maths.
Your argument simply doesn't make sense. The extension to it is that fine art is maths, too. After all, placement of certain geometric figures causes the observer's eyes to follow a predescribed trajectory, instilling a feeling in the observer.
I contest that Beethoven didn't 'use a lot of mathematics' in his music.
His music, as with all music, can be described in mathematical terms to some degree (but not completely), but that doesn't mean that it was calculated, it was written as a piece of art to be enjoyed as a piece of art.
I refer you to my last statement: the science of music is not the same as the music!
Well, if you really have got what I'm saying, then some of your later points don't make any sense...
- once again, I never said that music was maths, so that first statement is not necessary (if you did indeed read what I wrote above when I explicitly said that music is not maths in my post).
- the extension to my argument is not that fine art is maths, it is that fine art is partly art, and partly maths (mostly art, I'd argue).
- "the Science of music is not the same as the music" - again, that is what I said quite explicitly in my post, so I'm not sure what you're arguing with.
You still don't seem to get what I'm saying - once again, music is not science, music is not maths, music is not art. Music is a fusion of all of these. The same goes for any discipline you care to mention. We tend, as a people, to silo things into their own little categories. Biology, Chemistry, Maths and Physics are Sciences. Architecture, Painting and Music are arts. History, Geography and Religion are humanities. The list goes on. The point is that those divisions are all imposed by man; nature knows of no such boundaries. To try to separate History and Painting is impossible. To study Architecture without the inherent Maths is to make it impotent. To study music without its underlying Science is also impossible, even if you don't realise that you are learning of its Science in the process of learning music.
-
here we go again!
I'd post pictures of some massive tits, but the last lot got deleted.
-
here we go again!
I'd post pictures of some massive tits, but the last lot got deleted.
No bother - I've got me own :lol:
(pictures, not tits!)
-
here we go again!
I'd post pictures of some massive tits, but the last lot got deleted.
Did they?
I didn't think we were normally subject to such draconian modding.
-
I wonder if the same would happen to moobs...and if a transexual's boobs fall under the category of moobs.
annnnnd DEBATE!
-
here we go again!
I'd post pictures of some massive tits, but the last lot got deleted.
Did they?
I didn't think we were normally subject to such draconian modding.
Yep, they were lovely jumblats 'n' all!
-
I don't think you can remove the emotion from the instrument. Music isn't scientific, it's all about feel and emotion. The mind is a powerful thing and if knowing you're playing a Strad or '59 Les Paul gives you THAT emotion when you play and you hit nirvana, then that's all that matters...
This is exactly what I think about it too.
-
Uh oh.
This is turning into one of those contentious "highbrow debate" threads....
Who'd have thunk it?
I quite like this one though, but I guess everyone can contribute equally here.
I'm just drinking down everyones views, really interesting ideas.
-
I never quite make it all the way through the long posts, but I think I agree with Roo*.
(*...not about Teles, obviously. And I'm indifferent on the Macca thing.)
-
here we go again!
I'd post pictures of some massive tits, but the last lot got deleted.
maybe pikeys stole them?
-
Sorry, it's just such a pointless argument - all of our definitions are arbitrarily imposed by nature (even the definition of nature). You might as well argue that everything is pure physics, and that everything that occurs above the Planck length is merely an inconsequential extension of what happens near that minimum distance.
I do understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with you about it! As such, there's no point in continuing to argue: we'll not agree on it.
Cheers Philly - you know I'm right about teles and MacTw@ too, really ;)
-
Sorry, it's just such a pointless argument - all of our definitions are arbitrarily imposed by nature (even the definition of nature). You might as well argue that everything is pure physics, and that everything that occurs above the Planck length is merely an inconsequential extension of what happens near that minimum distance.
No, my argument has nothing to do with that. I have heard people make that argument before (often), but I would not agree with it personally - you can't say that everything is pure Physics. that's actually the opposite of what I'm saying.
I do understand what you're saying, but I don't agree with you about it! As such, there's no point in continuing to argue: we'll not agree on it.
From your comments it seems that you don't understand my point, as you still seem to be arguing against something else above, but that could very well be my failure to communicate it well. More than happy to agree to disagree though! I think it is a healthy attidude, after all if we all agreed on everything it would be a very boring world indeed.
This will be the second time this one has been put to bed in this thread - let's hope we can keep it that way this time! :lol: It is distracting me from the ladies in skimpy clothes wrapped around guitars...
-
I do understand what you're arguing, I just don't agree with you! I haven't explicitly re-stated your point that you think music is a fusion of science and art (not one or the other per se), but that doesn't mean I don't see what you're saying. I never meant to imply that you were saying music isn't at least part art.
What I'm saying is that I do not agree that music is part science, part art. In my opinion, music is squarely an art form, and is not even part science. You do not need to 'learn' or 'use' mathematics to make music, nor to make a painting, or write a poem, even though all of these may be studied and analysed in a very mathematical manner! The art/science/humanities boundaries that we apply are of course manifest constructs, but I think they're helpful and in general pretty accurate!
You disagree with that, that's fine!
-
I do understand what you're arguing, I just don't agree with you! I haven't explicitly re-stated your point that you think music is a fusion of science and art (not one or the other per se), but that doesn't mean I don't see what you're saying. I never meant to imply that you were saying music isn't at least part art.
What I'm saying is that I do not agree that music is part science, part art. In my opinion, music is squarely an art form, and is not even part science. You do not need to 'learn' or 'use' mathematics to make music, nor to make a painting, or write a poem, even though all of these may be studied and analysed in a very mathematical manner! The art/science/humanities boundaries that we apply are of course manifest constructs, but I think they're helpful and in general pretty accurate!
You disagree with that, that's fine!
I do disagree with that, as I already said, but again I think we can just agree to disagree - no issue.
Now what is all this about Teles? :lol: (Just kidding :wink: )
-
I do understand what you're arguing, I just don't agree with you! I haven't explicitly re-stated your point that you think music is a fusion of science and art (not one or the other per se), but that doesn't mean I don't see what you're saying. I never meant to imply that you were saying music isn't at least part art.
What I'm saying is that I do not agree that music is part science, part art. In my opinion, music is squarely an art form, and is not even part science. You do not need to 'learn' or 'use' mathematics to make music, nor to make a painting, or write a poem, even though all of these may be studied and analysed in a very mathematical manner! The art/science/humanities boundaries that we apply are of course manifest constructs, but I think they're helpful and in general pretty accurate!
You disagree with that, that's fine!
I do disagree with that, as I already said, but again I think we can just agree to disagree - no issue.
Now what is all this about Teles? :lol: (Just kidding :wink: )
Don't get me started! :P
-
The one I'm really curious about now personally is the neck joint construction of a guitar, because I've convinced myself that I need a neck-through guitar in my collection for the extra sustain and the different sound, but that article that I posted earlier actually suggests that the neck through guitar sustained less than the other two (albeit the difference was very minor), and that test did not not rely solely on perception, so no psychoacoustics were involved. Being a guitar builder I'd be really interested to hear your views on that one.
I have a neck-thru Vox Custom 24 and it does sustain for ages. Really impressive. Now I also owned a cheaper bolt-on neck strat-like Vox Standard 25 from the same maker (uncle matz) and year, and much to my surprise the sustain was almost on par with the Custom 24. Both guitars made mostly of thick heavy hard maple, the Standard 25 had a thicker neck profile and the neck pocket was really tight. Oh, and unplugged it was much more resonant than the Custom 24.
HTH
-
The one I'm really curious about now personally is the neck joint construction of a guitar, because I've convinced myself that I need a neck-through guitar in my collection for the extra sustain and the different sound, but that article that I posted earlier actually suggests that the neck through guitar sustained less than the other two (albeit the difference was very minor), and that test did not not rely solely on perception, so no psychoacoustics were involved. Being a guitar builder I'd be really interested to hear your views on that one.
I have a neck-thru Vox Custom 24 and it does sustain for ages. Really impressive. Now I also owned a cheaper bolt-on neck strat-like Vox Standard 25 from the same maker (uncle matz) and year, and much to my surprise the sustain was almost on par with the Custom 24. Both guitars made mostly of thick heavy hard maple, the Standard 25 had a thicker neck profile and the neck pocket was really tight. Oh, and unplugged it was much more resonant than the Custom 24.
HTH
Thanks for the info - You're echoing what a lot of other people have said too, that the neck joint doesn't make that much difference sustain-wise. I think I'll still invest in a neck-through guitar, because there are other things that appeal too, such as the less bulky heel, for instance, but at least I know now that sustain should probably not be a difference given similar woods and build quality, etc.
-
(...)
but at least I know now that sustain should probably not be a difference given similar woods and build quality, etc.
As far as I'm concerned, I think most of the difference between these 2 guitars wrt/ sustain comes from the bridge (vintage trem bridge on the Standard 25, heavy TOM-like bridge on the Custom 24) and nut (cheap plastic nut on the Standard 25, brass nut on the Custom 24).
Also and for the record: the Standard 25 weights something like 11 or 12 lbs (ouch), the Custom 24 is around 10lbs, very similar body shapes but the Standard 25 is bit bigger. Not to imply that "more mass == more sustain" - it's certainly much more complicated, as I've seen way lighter guitars with very good sustain - but there's still probably some relation between mass/density and sustain, depending on the exact material and whatnots.
My 2 cents...
-
Excellent, thanks for the info. I was looking for something with a hardtail, so maybe that will help...