Scientific Tone Tests

[hannaugh]

Is it just me, or does it seem like some scientific style testing is in order to prove or disprove various claims that are made about what affects tone and sustain?  I mean, there is has been an argument about the sustain in a glue in neck vs a bolt on neck guitar for how long now?  It seems to me that someone with a reasonable understanding of the scientific process could take a guitar with a bolt on neck, measure the sustain, then glue the neck in on the same guitar and measure the sustain again to see if there is any difference.  Or the sound of different neck woods could be easily tested by switching the neck on a guitar and recording the tone and letting people hear the difference in a pure side-by-side test. 

I really wish the Mythbusters would do this. 

 

[rockskate4x]

This kind of testing is very difficult to control. For one thing your bolt neck converted to to a set neck would not be an accurate representation for a set neck, lets say an LP, since it doesn't have a traditional dovetail joint with long tenon, or whatever LP's have. This means that you would have to make two different guitars, and you would have very little ability to make everything exactly the same, except for the neck joint, because wood and pickups are both (not to mention setups) will be very difficult to keep exactly the same.

 

[OzziePete]

This kind of testing is very difficult to control. For one thing your bolt neck converted to to a set neck would not be an accurate representation for a set neck, lets say an LP, since it doesn't have a traditional dovetail joint with long tenon, or whatever LP's have. This means that you would have to make two different guitars, and you would have very little ability to make everything exactly the same, except for the neck joint, because wood and pickups are both (not to mention setups) will be very difficult to keep exactly the same.

I appreciate what you are saying there with the set neck heel being different in design to the bolt on neck, but maybe a setneck design could be bolted on first, then glued on, to assess if there's any scientific difference?

I really wish the Mythbusters would do this. 

It actually wouldn't be such a bad idea to email them if they are contactable, and put the question to them.... Might make a seriously unspectacular episode though, no explosive materials or poor Chester being belted/shot at/ catapulted..

 

[tubby.twins]

.... Might make a seriously unspectacular episode though, no explosive materials or poor Chester being belted/shot at/ catapulted..

Agreed.  I like guitars and all their technical details, but for MythBusters I think it'd be more fun to watch them shoot silver dollars than debate the finer points of neck joints.  Just my $0.02.

 

[hannaugh]

I realize it would be boring for anyone who isn't a gear head.  Actually, it would be a really cool blog rather than tv show.

 

[stubhead]

There's a guy named Ed Packard over on the steel guitar forum who designed a picking machine (to impart consistent velocity) and did quite a few tests on pedal steel guitars (the users tend to be machinists, sound engineers and technicians and such, not rednecks - rednecks play telecasters :icon_biggrin.

The obvious people who should be doing this are the guitar mags, but there's no way to publish the results without pissing off some kind or another of paying advertisers, I think. From their point of view, it's better if set necks sound better, and bolt necks also sound better. And maple fingerboards are better than rosewood, and vice-versa - that way you're supposed to buy one of everything. I've often though it would be a real hoot to stick Bill Lawrence, Larry DiMarzio, Seymour Duncan, Jason Lollar, Greg Kinman, Lindy Fralin etc. in a room with some blindfolds on, a pile of "identical" guitars plugged into the same soundboard played by the same guys, and see if they could pick out their own (or anybody else's) pickups by sound alone. No wait - you'll just have to buy them all.... :laughing7:

creamy....
detailed....
spanky....
muscular...
throaty...
girthy.....

Blooo-ming...... :blob7:

As long as "mojo" remains both indefinably mystical AND easily-manufactured, you're just supposed to keep bleeding out the wallet, desperately searching for that one last little tweak that will finally make everything perfect.

 

[Dan025]

^ that's an interesting take on it. i agree that a magazine should try this then the oems would have to prove it wrong and i think alot of testing and information and misinformation would come of it, in the end it would be interesting.

to test this correctly you would need a large sample size. you obviously cant make multiple guitars from the same piece of wood so you will need a whole lot of guitars and the findings would mearly suggest a winner. i would also like to see heavy bridge vs light bridge, material vs material with mass being equal, chambered vs solid vs thinline, ect. ect.

in the end double blind audio tests of a large number of instruments, id like to see if patterns emerge in how tone is described by multiple "experts" average listeners and musicians. 

 

[Alfang]

Im not convinced that a set neck or bolt on is better than the other.

The biggest factor in sustain is how rigid are the Nut to bridge relation.  In other words, every time a string moves left or right from center,that string is pulling the nut and bridge closer together, sure its a small amount, but its happening.

The more flex in the guitar, weather its the wood, the neck joint or even the height of your action, the more easily the nut bridge gets pulled toward each other, and therefore acts to dampen the string vibration resulting in shorter or less sustain.

Look how long a piano sustains, very rigid points at both ends of the string, open a piano and find the strings that are close to 25.5 inches long and time the sustain of those strings

Of course string guage and scale length has influence as well, but consider them equal.

 

[Alfang]

One more thing, I believe a rigid guitar with more sustain is also a bright sounding guitar.

So you may want to sacrifice a little sustain for a warmer tone

And of course your electronics are the biggest factor in tone anyway

 

[erogenousjones17]

I don't think this was meant to be another thread where we argue over what influences sustain and tone.

It would be cool to see the Mythbusters hanle guitar myths, though the target audience is so limited that I doubt it would ever happen. But I agree that someone somewhere with the proper know-how and equipment should do some kind of scientific test to debunk all these tone myths (set-neck vs. bolt-on, trem vs. fixed bridge, tube vs. solid-state, etc.).

 

[Alfang]

Don't get me wrong, I love mythbusters, and I'd love to see someone actually figure out how to proove or disproove any theory on what helps sustain

I didn't mean to try and create an argument, I was simply describing what I think is happening mechanically, so that someone might be able to create a scenario to test things,  ccasion14:

 

[mayfly]

I think that the only way to get any data on wood, construction, and tone is to do it statistically.  Compare 100 strats, 100 LPs and 100 teles, all with basically the same parameters.  On average you will see trends of "brighter", "darker", "more sustain", "more quack" etc.

Using the scientific method of keeping all but one of the variables constant is just too difficult in guitar land.  IMHO of course.

 

[OzziePete]

IMHO, there's the issue of sustain and the issue of tone and then there's the sustain vs. tone.

Then there's the issue of using mixed woods in a guitar build and what the end result will be.

I think that scientifically it would be quite easy to identify which single piece of wood sustains longer than another piece of wood, but the variations within the species of each tone wood used in guitar building must be a wide range. So while one single piece of ebony might sustain a note for 10 times longer than say alder, a denser stronger piece of alder might sustain longer than a softer ebony.

If you also look at what the guitar manufacturers are looking at, they are also looking at the tone.

I saw these two clips by Paul Reed Smith a while ago and thought that while, OK, he's spinning his products, he does make some observations from his side of the issue about tone and woods that are maybe interesting for those of us who are just players.

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSbjCfK5Iq8&NR=1[/youtube]

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bAgZ6l-oEw&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[stubhead]

"Tone" now resembles religion in just about every way, shape and form; most importantly, demanding something like "proof" or "evidence" just means you're a poopyhead. When nothing is real, everybody can be an expert, and thass the way we like it dammit. :guitaristgif:

 

[Superlizard]

Certainly there is a vast market for "tone" proper (a la religion), due to the huge number of average, know-nothing schlubs who buy into it.

Said market is full of buzzwords; like stubs says, "creamy", etc.

But let's not throw the baby out with the bath water - there's a reason why adjectives like "creamy" exist,
and it's not found in just imaginations.  Some amps/geetars/fx have those adjectives... the problem
is, not enough of them do (they're getting more scarce by the decade).

And many times there's false representation going on tone-wise.

But because the average, know-nothing schlub pays $thousands$ for it, it "must" have (in his mind) those elusive tones... even though
the ears say, "this sounds meh".  "Hey, I paid $2500 for this amp, but it sounds like cardboard... I will trick my own mind into thinking it sounds
t!ts because hey, what $2500 amp doesn't sound t!ts?"

Listen to your ears, and *learn* your stuff.

So, scientific tests or not, you'd better tune in to your ears and tune your brain with knowledge about
your equipment (geetars, amps, speakers, etc) if you don't want to be like all the other average, know-nothing schlubs
with average, know-nothing schlub tone.

And remember - you only know what sounds "good" to you if and only if you've heard it already... there's plenty out there
that you *haven't* heard... yet.  Think of the dude who has only heard Crate SS amps... that's gonna be the best he's heard
in person... but all the while, he's thinking to himself, "this amp doesn't get the tone on that one album", etc...

Again, listen to your ears and *learn* your stuff... and F the scientists.  :laughing7:

 

[hannaugh]

Geez, I just said it would be interesting to have the different woods compared side by side in an actual controlled experiment.  I never said scientists should choose our gear for us. 

 

[Wyliee]

Geez, I just said it would be interesting to have the different woods compared side by side in an actual controlled experiment.  I never said scientists should choose our gear for us. 

It would be interesting, IMO.  I've wondering about different ways of clamping a piece of wood and how to automate striking it and recording the resulting sound.  Wouldn't prove much of anything on its own though...  The biggest challenge would be interpreting the results and extrapolating to a completed instrument.

Ultimately, conducting large scale testing of multiple instruments having identical construction may be necessary before reaching any sort of generalized conclusion.

Tough task!

 

[jackthehack]

Any testing would only be very generalized as the tonal properties of any given wood can vary a lot from piece to piece even of the same species.

 

[bagman67]

Any testing would only be very generalized as the tonal properties of any given wood can vary a lot from piece to piece even of the same species.

Or even from the same tree.  Swamp ash ain't necessarily so swampy above the waterline, if you know what I mean.

 

[Patrick from Davis]

Again, listen to your ears and *learn* your stuff... and F the scientists.   :laughing7:

Yes and no.  Reproducibility in experiments gives insight why one thing is different than another.  The experiments can be designed to make that effect.  Then they can be compared to the original, that is the sound that is desired.  At this point redesigns can happen to to get closer.  The end product is what you asked for: Pedals, and guitars, and amps that sound like the desired original.  This is all dependent on the set of ears that determined which sound is desired.  So reproducibility in the experiments become very valuable.  Then when two dissimilar, yet through some mystical process, desired sound are compared, then you can determine what about each contributed to the desired sound.  Repeat process.  The entire thing depends on the set of ears that determines what is good.  

At that point it is up the the end user to practice.

Why type all of that out.  Well, I am a Scientist.  It also points out the gains from controlled experiments.  And as had been said previously, part of the problem is human opinion.  So remove as much of that as possible from the system that compares.  Then figure out what the hell Mojo is and argue over that.
Patrick