Paul Reed Smith finally wises up to plastic tuning buttons
- Thread starter Rick
- Start date
micmil
Newbie
- Messages
- 23
I cannot imagine for a second that you'd be so full of crap as to try to convince people that plastic tuner knobs somehow magically increases midrange. You've done far too many comparison test videos. The moment Warmoth tried that everyone would demand a metal/plastic A/B test and it would all be over.
This video could have easily been "I like the vintage-y look and feel of plastic tuners so we're changing to plastic buttons on certain models" and nobody would have an issue with it. Trying to spin it with absolute tripe like "well, they're light and have MOAR TOAN!" is the kind of snake oil crap I thought Paul was better than. Compare it to their rhetoric around their TCI system. It's flowery marketing garbage bolted onto a reasonable system for creating consistency in frequency response. Overblown, but ultimately harmless.
Telling the dentists and lawyers of the world that their tuner buttons are magically adding "more midrange" is beyond laughable and is approaching legally actionable.
- Messages
- 3,330
Now wouldn't that be ironic.
Paul is free to take whatever approach he likes with the mega-company he built. Regardless of how you or I feel about it, I just don't want this place to become a dumpster fire of vitriol and criticism like so many other forums are.
micmil
Newbie
- Messages
- 23
No, because apparently PRS is actually serious which disqualifies him as a comedian no matter how laughable that video is.
Hello there,
I had worked in engineering for a number of years and I think I can add a little to this thread which I found by accident and find it very interesting. Although I have played guitar for many years this is the first site I ever joined where the focus was on guitars. That's cool in itself.
I got my first PRS guitar a few months back. I did not pick it randomly either, I tested several other guitars at the guitar center near me which includes Les Pauls and other makes. It had good action and nice tone, and the intonation was perfect as measured at the time. It was the only guitar that had good intonation that I tried at that time, the rest needed work. The tone reminded me of an older 1959 Les Paul which I had the pleasure of playing many years ago.
Anyway, what I really wanted to point out is that in the scientific world it is never about opinion really, public opinion or other, although I also realize that in some areas opinion is all we have. In this area and the issue being discussed here though, that is not the case. We can have scientific data, and since we CAN have that, we SHOULD have that. This is the one and only way to be sure, as long as we exclude personal preference, and doing that is the only scientific, objective way.
With that in mind, the video on the PRS tuning knobs is interesting, but there's no scientific data presented. I can not think of any real scientist that would present an idea that is going to improve something without any data to back it up. The proof is in the numbers. If one-tenth of one gram difference in the weight of the tuning head or anywhere else for that matter is going to make a difference in the tone, then the data from actual real-life measurements would show that without any question. You can't argue with data as long as it is not faked, and faked data can be disproved so it's not a good idea to publish fake data.
What surprises me is I have watched this video and other videos is I never saw any scientific data. That surprises me because that kind of data proves the concept, not, "I like it this way better". There could be some data on the web though that I just have not seen yet, that's always a possibility. But anyone who claims that something is scientifically better should have data to back that up, and a lot of data, and the exact setup and measurement tools used all carefully logged and enumerated. Working with Israeli Aircraft a number of years back, the inspectors would want this kind of information on products they were purchasing, including meter makes and model numbers and other information.
Now with all that said too, I have to say that of all the guitars I had played over the years this PRS guitar I have now is one of the best. I guess that means some of those claims have to be true. I was first impressed with the bridge which I don't think you find on a Les Paul. It's obviously an advanced design and very effective. The weight of the guitar is nice too because my older Les Paul imitation weighs a ton with that thick heavy wood. I like the lighter weight better.
My PRS has metal tuning knobs. I think all my guitars have that. I am not sure if I am against plastic though as long as it is durable. I had an 1950's acoustic Gibson that had plastic knobs and pegs and that was a great sounding guitar and I had no problem keeping it in tune or tuning it.
So after all is said and done, I like the PRS guitar I have, but I do not know if the more modern ones are any different offhand. The best thing the PRS guitar company can do is publish some good data on any claims it makes. That can be irrefutable evidence unless someone can repeat the measurements and prove they are inaccurate.
I had worked in engineering for a number of years and I think I can add a little to this thread which I found by accident and find it very interesting. Although I have played guitar for many years this is the first site I ever joined where the focus was on guitars. That's cool in itself.
I got my first PRS guitar a few months back. I did not pick it randomly either, I tested several other guitars at the guitar center near me which includes Les Pauls and other makes. It had good action and nice tone, and the intonation was perfect as measured at the time. It was the only guitar that had good intonation that I tried at that time, the rest needed work. The tone reminded me of an older 1959 Les Paul which I had the pleasure of playing many years ago.
Anyway, what I really wanted to point out is that in the scientific world it is never about opinion really, public opinion or other, although I also realize that in some areas opinion is all we have. In this area and the issue being discussed here though, that is not the case. We can have scientific data, and since we CAN have that, we SHOULD have that. This is the one and only way to be sure, as long as we exclude personal preference, and doing that is the only scientific, objective way.
With that in mind, the video on the PRS tuning knobs is interesting, but there's no scientific data presented. I can not think of any real scientist that would present an idea that is going to improve something without any data to back it up. The proof is in the numbers. If one-tenth of one gram difference in the weight of the tuning head or anywhere else for that matter is going to make a difference in the tone, then the data from actual real-life measurements would show that without any question. You can't argue with data as long as it is not faked, and faked data can be disproved so it's not a good idea to publish fake data.
What surprises me is I have watched this video and other videos is I never saw any scientific data. That surprises me because that kind of data proves the concept, not, "I like it this way better". There could be some data on the web though that I just have not seen yet, that's always a possibility. But anyone who claims that something is scientifically better should have data to back that up, and a lot of data, and the exact setup and measurement tools used all carefully logged and enumerated. Working with Israeli Aircraft a number of years back, the inspectors would want this kind of information on products they were purchasing, including meter makes and model numbers and other information.
Now with all that said too, I have to say that of all the guitars I had played over the years this PRS guitar I have now is one of the best. I guess that means some of those claims have to be true. I was first impressed with the bridge which I don't think you find on a Les Paul. It's obviously an advanced design and very effective. The weight of the guitar is nice too because my older Les Paul imitation weighs a ton with that thick heavy wood. I like the lighter weight better.
My PRS has metal tuning knobs. I think all my guitars have that. I am not sure if I am against plastic though as long as it is durable. I had an 1950's acoustic Gibson that had plastic knobs and pegs and that was a great sounding guitar and I had no problem keeping it in tune or tuning it.
So after all is said and done, I like the PRS guitar I have, but I do not know if the more modern ones are any different offhand. The best thing the PRS guitar company can do is publish some good data on any claims it makes. That can be irrefutable evidence unless someone can repeat the measurements and prove they are inaccurate.
stratamania
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 11,626
@MrAI, I hope you are some kind of AI as otherwise that is a lot of writing to not even mention which PRS you have, are not sure of which bridge or mention which model of PRS you have. And whilst important in many fields, not everything in life is data-driven or scientific, love and art are both good examples. The whole tone or what contributes to it debate, is a good example of whatever the data might be for some, it is not part of what drives their feelings or conclusions.
Many people argue with data or create false narratives for personal gain, among other reasons.
GAN is a thing in AI, as you probably know. I have my doubts on whether the question are you animal, vegetable, or mineral can be met.
Many people argue with data or create false narratives for personal gain, among other reasons.
GAN is a thing in AI, as you probably know. I have my doubts on whether the question are you animal, vegetable, or mineral can be met.
Last edited:
BroccoliRob
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,074
i mean, as much I would love for PS to share their data (assuming he actually has any) it's hard to hold him specifically to that standard over this particularly tiny issue when AFAIK no Big-Time Guitar Company ever provides any scientific data for anything they claim, ever
Last edited:
mayfly
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,960
Sorry - did not pass the Turing test.
VanHeGen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 307
This was an interesting thread 
Personal (strong) opinions, lack of (scientific) proof or facts, theoretical vs what makes sense, AI and hallucinations, and what not.
And all this because of plastic vs metal tuners.
Paul Reed Smith sure knows how to generate discussions
Personal (strong) opinions, lack of (scientific) proof or facts, theoretical vs what makes sense, AI and hallucinations, and what not.
And all this because of plastic vs metal tuners.
Paul Reed Smith sure knows how to generate discussions
stratamania
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 11,626
I see nothing wrong with folks using AI tools for certain tasks such as grammar or sentence improvement, translation etc.
Though, trying to interact / troll via AI alone or using an AI bot to post on the forum as a distraction to normal forum usage is not transparent and is not good.
So I suppose if there was a rule, where do we draw the line and avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
I guess if someone is spamming / trolling regardless of how, normal forum guidelines ought to cover it.
ghostrider25
Senior Member
- Messages
- 257
Brilliant! It'll be years before they find another place on a guitar to hide tone.
