| Author |
Topic: Vibrations |
ed packard
From:
Show Low AZ
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 10:01 am |
|
No slot, no pins, just a hole.
Tuning system shown on an axle on a non ped.
How much effect would this have on vibrations and tonal "nuances".
My position:
Different ears hear differently.
Same ears hear things differently at different times.
Different minds want different "good" sounds.
Today's instrumentation can resolve better than the ears, eyes, touch, etc, and more repeatably.
Computer modeling can save a lot of the "cut and try" time used to make a PSG, SG, or?
Agreement is not essential, discussion is. |
|
|
 |
Bent Romnes
From:
London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 10:37 am
|
|
Ed,My answers while quoting you:
Different ears hear differently.
Very much in agreement
Same ears hear things differently at different times.
Yes. Our ears can have off days same as the rest of our body.
Different minds want different "good" sounds.
Oh yes. There ARE certain basic sounds that the majority agree on and, I guess, what the builders are chasing after to satisfy. But basically I agree with your statement.
Today's instrumentation can resolve better than the ears, eyes, touch, etc, and more repeatably.
Not sure I know exactly what you mean here.Explain?
Computer modeling can save a lot of the "cut and try" time used to make a PSG, SG, or?
To a point computer modeling can be a help. But they are useless for modelling a sound nuance that the ear catches, and use this as any kind of guideline to establish that an instrument has to be built according to a computer model. There is a danger here as well, and that is to rely too much on computers, and thereby lessening the importance of the human brain and ear. People these days are led to believe that "if it was done on a computer...if the computer says so, then it HAS to be so, when in fact it was the human brain made the computer. A computer without any emotion is in no way a match to a human's thinking, emotions, ears etc.
Since tone and sound is so subjective and highly personal, a computer graph is just of a little help in the start. Once the starting point has been established, graphs are hardly helpful. And this starting point has been established years ago by players and builders cooperating, listening and changing, but also holding on to what has been long established as the tried and true.
_________________
BenRom Pedal Steel Guitars
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212050572323614/ |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 10:45 am
|
|
| One of the things many "old timers" in Nashville consider a major asset/quality of a pedal steel is how much vibration you can feel in the legs. |
|
|
|
Carl Williams
From:
Oklahoma
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 11:11 am Hollow Legs vs Solid or Filled Legs
|
|
Ed, Bent & Jack,
Regarding the legs, I recently had a "brainstorm". Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the legs hollow? What if they were filled with whatever, lead, etc., would this help/hinder the transfer/conduction of vibration from the main body through the legs to the floor? If so, what, if any, sound/tone enhancement would be the result? (Obviously you would have increase weight but with split cases becoming the norm nowadays, that wouldn't be a problem)
Last edited by Carl Williams on 6 Jul 2012 7:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 6:35 pm
|
|
Leg vibration is mainly an indication of how much body vibration a particular instrument has. Only if the PSG is placed on a resonating base/floor will leg vibration affect its tone.
If it was possible to play a PSG with strong body vibrations without legs - suspended in thin air so to speak, it would basically vibrate and sound the same as when set with legs on a normal floor.
As for computer measurements: there isn't a thing in the audible spectrum that can't be caught in bits and bytes and presented in greater details than the human mind can interpret what it hears, so that's not the problem. The problem is to find materials that are "constant" enough to build identically sounding copies of an instrument, regardless of design tools. |
|
|
|
Franklin
|
Posted 6 Jul 2012 8:31 pm
|
|
George,
I hear the subtle tonal differences of vibrating and non vibrating instruments in the studio.....If you can't hear the bell ringing it doesn't mean its not ringing.
My friend just bought an expensive acoustic bass that is twice as loud as his other great basses and this new one vibrates so much that you can feel the notes in the wall...........Its tone is to die for.....Just saying you guys are dismissing some pretty important tone factors as meaningless.
Paul |
|
|
|
Joseph Meditz
From:
Sierra Vista, AZ
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 8:01 am
|
|
| Georg Sørtun wrote: |
| If it was possible to play a PSG with strong body vibrations without legs - suspended in thin air so to speak, it would basically vibrate and sound the same as when set with legs on a normal floor. |
In my opinion this is, in general, untrue. If in one case the guitar sets the legs vibrating and in the other there are no legs to vibrate, I would think that the tone would be different. Even if you could suspend the guitar in thin air and play it without legs, and then, while keeping it suspended, play it with legs I would think there has to be a difference.
When something sets something else, as in the body setting the legs, to vibrate, the legs, most of the time, do not behave like a drain in the sink where the water just goes out. Instead, some energy is reflected back to the body of the guitar.
On the other hand if the legs just happen to match the acoustical impedance of the signal, the legs would radiate it all just like the body, and your experiment would work. In essence they would behave as though they weren't there.
However, for legs to match "the" impedance of a broadband signal such as that of a PSG is impossible, or more correctly, provide a match for every frequency that the legs see from the PSG.
PS: I hate to use the word "impossible," but in this case I'll stick my neck out. That's what a forum is for. Right? 
Note: Removed the part about legs in putty because even that would not work.
Last edited by Joseph Meditz on 7 Jul 2012 2:15 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
ed packard
From:
Show Low AZ
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 9:10 am Legs, vibes, instrumentation
|
|
Bent, builder of beautiful PSG’s:
Re instrumentation vs senses…Instrumentation far exceeds the resolution of bandwidth and magnitude of the eye, ear, smell, touch, etc. of the human body. A look at any scientific instrument catalog will give the various instruments. What is more, most have a computer interface to collect the data for further analysis and/or modeling purposes.
Because we are on a stringed instrument kick, here is a chart of an instrument capture for a single open vibrating string excited at the 12 fret with a thumb pick.
CHART 1
Shown in the above chart are the fundamental and harmonics of that single string as seen at the pickup output. How would you describe this “sound” using the ear/brain loop and words? Could you convey the amount of each harmonic? Would you give the same description a week from now on a rainy day (different humidity, temperature, and so on)?
Lets look at a strum of all strings.
CHART 2
Now try to describe this “sound”. Using simple instrumentation and software we can record the sound, show the spectrum involved in a chart, and save the numbers for further analysis/modeling use at any convenient time.
Next is a “scrub” of all strings at all frets = “all” that this particular instrument has to offer sonically.
CHART 3
We can put these all on a single chart for quick comparison.
CHART 4
All the above charts are like a single frame from a movie…a moment in time. The excited string is a dynamic thing that changes harmonic content and magnitude with time = attack, dwell, and decay (sustain)…next is a presentation of the harmonic content as a function of time = decay.
CHART 5
The lines in descending order are the smoothed strum excitation taken at 0,1,2,4,8 seconds. A bit hard to describe in words with any detail, but with instrumentation it shows (nuances) beyond hearing capability.
Using this approach, and the ear/brain loop we can compare an instrument’s documented performance vs the “tastes” of the many individual players.
The computer just manipulates data at an accuracy and speed humans can’t match.
Modeling is a convenient way for one familiar with it and the problem to get solutions involving changes in the hardware without cutting and fabrication = time and effort saved. Remember GIGO = garbage in garbage out.
Jack, Carl, George, Paul, Joe…re the “leg” thingy:
The leg is almost an independent structure hang out in space as it is. The only place that is gets its excitation is from the body/endplates, which get their excitation from the nut and bridge assys, which get theirs from the strings. Each of these assys have their own set of resonances due to shape and material. These are called “vibrational modes”. They are longitudinal, tortional, etc. There are many of these happening in each assy/section/part. These preferred resonances for each part of the instrument may or may not be the same as in any other eexcited pieces/part/section. What causes them to vibrate is the energy it sees coming from the adjacent pieces/parts/sections to the degree that there is “solid” contact between the adjacent pieces/parts/assys etc.
Tight or solid contact means energy transmitted…poor contact means less energy transmitted hence less vibration excited and finally less leg vibration. The frequencies, magnitudes of these modal vibrations vary with the materials and shapes used, as well as the joining methods. A round led will vibrate at different frequency(s) than a square one…a short one different than a long one…related to string vibrational frequencies only by accident.
Ok…now strum the instrument, feel the leg vibration(s) and tell us what the leg vibe are in frequency, spectrum, and magnitude. Meanwhile, using instrumentation, the fundamental frequencies (complex modal vibes) and their harmonics can be charted as in the above charts, info in numbers stored for future use as in modeling etc.
Here is the chart for vibrations found in the center of the front apron of an aluminum extrusion body covered with formica (sorry, can’t find my leg shots at the moment). The excitation is the strummed strings.
CHART 6
The same captures were done for the ends and centers of the aprons, the end plates, the changer, and the nut and more. These were compared against the results of modeling to “close the loop”.
For those that don’t like the instrumentation/modeling possibilities, may I paraphrase PF…’hear any bells ringing yet’? |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 10:40 am
|
|
| Franklin wrote: |
George,
I hear the subtle tonal differences of vibrating and non vibrating instruments in the studio.....If you can't hear the bell ringing it doesn't mean its not ringing. |
Agree, and I wasn't arguing against the effects. Didn't spend years on modifying instruments for best (personal preferences) combinations of body-vibrations, sustain and overall tone for nothing.
| Franklin wrote: |
| My friend just bought an expensive acoustic bass that is twice as loud as his other great basses and this new one vibrates so much that you can feel the notes in the wall...........Its tone is to die for.....Just saying you guys are dismissing some pretty important tone factors as meaningless. |
We are not dismissing anything, but all any human can hear -including subtle effects, can be measured and presented in more details than the human sense of hearing, backed up with a well-trained brain, can master.
Problem is the microphones. Humans hear through their ears and parts of their body, and microphone set-ups to emulate that so we can really measure what we "hear", are rare. Difficult to measure something that isn't picked up by first stage.
Tests of deaf people have caught scientists by surprise many times, in that many totally deaf could sense/hear air-vibrations well outside (above and below) the range of normal sense of hearing, simply because it wasn't masked by normal sense of hearing. We can sense/hear well beyond the normal range too, but it is usually dismissed. Good thing we can measure most of it. |
|
|
|
Lane Gray
From:
Topeka, KS
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 11:32 am
|
|
Yes, but if you go hunting that je ne sais quois that certain axes have that others of the same model lack, I'd think you'd have a hard time learning what to look for.
Then ya gotta figure out what made the difference.
_________________
2 pedal steels, a lapStrat, and an 8-string Dobro (and 3 ukes)
More amps than guitars, and not many effects |
|
|
|
Bent Romnes
From:
London,Ontario, Canada
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 11:34 am
|
|
Ed,you wrote:
Bent, builder of beautiful PSG’s:
Re instrumentation vs senses…Instrumentation far exceeds the resolution of bandwidth and magnitude of the eye, ear, smell, touch, etc. of the human body. A look at any scientific instrument catalog will give the various instruments. What is more, most have a computer interface to collect the data for further analysis and/or modeling purposes.
Ed, no doubt in my mind that resolution and band width exceeds the human senses.
BUT: Is this computer modeling able to hear the individual emotions, body, soul(and all the other adjectives we normally use)that the human ears hear and interprets as good/not so good tone? I went along with your computer modeling theory to a point.
If we place any kind of reliance on these graphs, all steel guitars would sound the same IMO and that is not good, again IMO.
_________________
BenRom Pedal Steel Guitars
https://www.facebook.com/groups/212050572323614/ |
|
|
|
Frank Montmarquet
From:
The North Coast, New York, USA
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 12:02 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| The excited string is a dynamic thing that changes harmonic content and magnitude with time = attack, dwell, and decay (sustain)… |
That is the key. Musical instruments sound the way they do because of that. That is how synthesizers work, you can hear it by comparing how a synthesized trumpet sounds compared to the trumpet voice on an organ. Voltage controlled filters allowed Moog to vary the harmonic content as the note progressed from attack through sustain into decay. That is why it sounds more "real".
Joseph mentioned in another thread that vibrating parts of the guitar would act as a filter and remove some harmonics from the string. That must happen but the removal of that energy will make the decay of some frequencies/harmonics faster than others. That is probably what makes guitars sound different. (other than Pups etc.). If that was not true to some extent than you could make any guitar sound like any other with EQ, but you can't. At least not in the way Paul and many others hear it.
Ed,
You no doubt have graphs of the decay spectrum of single stings on Push Pulls vs all Pulls of various brands. Would be nice to see some. |
|
|
|
Dave Grafe
From:
Hudson River Valley NY
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 12:40 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
Is this computer modeling able to hear the individual emotions, body, soul(and all the other adjectives we normally use)that the human ears hear and interprets as good/not so good tone? I went along with your computer modeling theory to a point.
If we place any kind of reliance on these graphs, all steel guitars would sound the same IMO and that is not good, again IMO |
The computer does not take into acount the real-time nuances of the player, but does a marvelous job of measuring the physical properties of a given instrument. As such its use does not mandate that all guitars become the same, any more than using a common copedant does, but rather it provides a tool for builders and players in identifying and developing the subtle differences that set individual marks - and performers - apart.
That and what Paul said.... |
|
|
|
Carl Williams
From:
Oklahoma
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 12:40 pm Kudos
|
|
Ed,
First, thanks for your sharing of all the graphs/tests/evals you've conducted...obviously alot of work has gone into your efforts! Just curious, but have you found that the type of flooring contributes to or detracts from the vibration factor, e.g., Carpet vs Wood or even Concrete, etc?
Or, have I crossed the line into more of the "room's accoustics" side of the equation? Thanks again, Carl |
|
|
|
Dave Grafe
From:
Hudson River Valley NY
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 12:43 pm
|
|
| Just curious, was this set of measurements taken from Ed Wheeler's old 14-string pedal guitar dubbed "The Beast" or is there another steel out there bearing the same name? |
|
|
|
Franklin
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 12:47 pm
|
|
Ed,
Your in a strange head place to debate tonal issues.
Here's an actual test.......There was a light weight leg in the eighties called Lonnie Legs.....Hal Rugg, Stu Basore, Crawford, Marrs, and several PP guys along with yours truly gave them a test trial...It was a great concept, lighten the legs by several lbs to provide a lighter steel......Only problem, all who tried them complained that the tone of their guitars changed ever so slightly....Nobody was influencing the next guy, we're all a head strong crew....Interestingly we all heard the same change in tone due to a non vibrating leg.... these legs were so light, they stopped vibrating about an inch from the cabinet whereas the other heavier legs vibrated to the floor.....Needless to say without the endorsements from great sounding guitars and players they never succeeded....Your list of where tone comes from on instruments is only partial at best, you'd be surprised at how much cumulative issues contribute to the overall tone of an instrument if you could ever open your mind to listen beyond your computer screen.
Trial and error is also a scientific approach. Just Sayin......
Paul |
|
|
|
Franklin
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 1:15 pm
|
|
George wrote:
We are not dismissing anything, but all any human can hear -including subtle effects, can be measured and presented in more details than the human sense of hearing, backed up with a well-trained brain, can master.
George,
Actually, you agreed with ED who "is" dismissing the legs vibrations and Pins as a contributing factor to the tone of exceptional sounding instruments. Are you now saying you don't dismiss them as a contributing factor?....
So for clarification, where are you exactly? Do you believe that a guitar tone comes from the sum of all its parts or do you believe you can change things specific to a guitars design like the PP and still maintain its exact tone?
Paul |
|
|
|
ed packard
From:
Show Low AZ
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 1:46 pm Vibrations and the pickups
|
|
Before responding to the last set of comments, let me finish up this phase of the vibration chain.
My previous post touched upon the vibrations IN the PSG and their causes.
It is the vibrations that remain in the PSG strings in the pickup area that the pickup sees and passes on to the signal chain. The pickup sees these vibrations as disturbances in the magnetic field. Different pickup designs (magnets/wire/winding style/etc) give different spectrum filtering effects to the perceived string vibrations. Vibrations outside the “window of acceptance” will not be passed thru the pickup. Different magnetic circuits/structures will give different windows of acceptance because the magnetic field will be shaped differently.
Magnetic fields are hard to see. Here are charts showing a simple the shape of the magnetic field around two pickups of different design. One has two rows of magnets and return screws…the other a bar magnet of Barium Ferrite…you judge.
CHART 7
A more advanced way to study the effect that changing magnet shape, strength, wire size, and other properties is computer modeling.
Here are some charts to show the modeled magnetic fields for several pickup designs…easier to understand in colors than in numbers for us humans.
CHART 8
CHART 9
CHART 10
CHART 11
CHART 12
CHART 13
CHART 14
Most folk know that putting the pickup near the bridge gives a larger amount of higher harmonics than putting it near the neck. Many are sensitive to the pickup to string spacing changing harmonic content and loudness/volume. These can be evaluated as shown in The charts in my previous post.
So much for the mechanical aspects of the pickup…now for the electrical:
The pickup’s electrical properties are R,L,C . R = Resistance, L = inductance, C = Capacitance. The R and C are properties of the winding wire size, number of turns, and style of winding. Add the magnetic field into the mix to get the L. The R, L, C will determine the spectrum (vibrational frequencies seen by the magnets) that will be passed on to the signal chain, assuming no loading effects like a LoZ VP and or other in line device. The pickup is a physical filter, followed by an electrical filter.
The pickup can also pick up vibrations from other sources. One source is Barkhausen noise from a poor choice or use of magnet. Another is microphonic noise caused by striking the pickup housing when the windings or magnets are not firmly constrained. Some pickups are hard mounted to the cabinet/body, and some are spring mounted…again, your choice.
Some rules of thumb re pickups:
Doubling the turns causes the R to double , and the output voltage to double.
Doubling the turns causes the Inductance to double twice = square.
Doubling the turns causes the Capacitance to increase as a function of winding style and wire size.
R increase has no effect upon frequency response…L & C do. L kills highs, more so if the load (as in VP) is lowered.
We could play around with the frequency response shaping equations for the R,L,C = Impedance (Z), reactance (X), and so forth but……..
If we take all the string vibrations from a string “scrub”, let their energy cause the body et al to vibrate, and look at the result as seen and filtered by the pickup with any attendant load, we have pretty well defined the sonics available from the instrument…but not it’s player.
Last edited by ed packard on 8 Jul 2012 7:34 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
|
|
ed packard
From:
Show Low AZ
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 3:00 pm responses to comments
|
|
George…to define the instrument sound output vibrations, I go direct to the pickup output…no mics. For body/leg vibrations an accelerometer, or as a poor mans approach, a contact mic such as that supplied by Peterson.
Lane…it is just frequencies, phase, and magnitude…all of which can be defined to a gnats eyebrow…the rest is your taste, the package attractiveness, and the instrument feel when playing.
Bent….no, as yet the computer and modeling has no emotion. The order of understanding is this: Some instrument sounds good to someone. This instrument is then analyzed for signal output via FSA. It’s structure is also fed into a computer for modeling purposes. This info contains materials, shapes, joining methods et al (think Autocad or sim).
Energy transfer solutions result in a vibration map for the instrument. This is compared to the above signal output. If there is agreement, we have a workable useable model.
Redo the experiment for other instruments not so liked by someone. Now we have two points of reference. We could have just started loosening various parts of the first instrument to see what would happen to the output and local vibrations, but I don’t think that BE, PF, JDM etc would allow that on their favorite instruments.
The loosening activities (change in parameters) would be applied to the model which would then be compared to the output response, and the model assumptions corrected accordingly.
Every instrument will have it’s own signature at each step of the way. The result is a tightened up (refined) model upon which to make material, structural, etc changes to determine the next mod to be made to the PSG.
No emotion needed except to accept the opinion of the chap that heard the bells ringing…I don’t have to like what I hear, the chap with the ears does, I just have to define the mechanism and associate change in structure to change in sound. Again…each instrument will have it’s own signature.
Frank…no single str decay profiles for pp etc. Lucky to have had the time to do what we did on the 30 PSGs at Jim Palenscar’s shop. JDM was nice enough to bring his pp and LeGrande in for the experiment.
Dave…sounds good to me.
Carl…all the charts so far have been taken on carpet…my opinion is that everything afftects everything else, some things more than others, some noticeable by some people and others not…that includes legs, pins, slots. Instrumentation can hear/see /feel more than people, but it does not prefer one over the other…people do that.
Dave…don’t know about Wheeler’s BEAST. Mine got the name from bob at an AZ show. He looked and listened and said “that is a beast” and the name stuck. It has a 30” scale, 2 tapped pickups, 10 &7 plus a lok, 14 strings, an integrated tuner/changer, and the changer/tuner is on the players left…hence BEAST.
Paul F…Wherein am I debating…I am discussing from my point of view, which brings a point of view you seem to “dismiss” if I may borrow one of your terms (No, I don’t “dismiss” pins, slots etc. I just put them way down on the list of contributors to vibrational changes.)
In my opinion the subject legs did not stop vibrating…your “feel” threshold was exceeded…instrumentation might illuminate.
No comment on your “computer screen” remark. You don’t know what else I am into.
The fact that you can/may hear things that we mortals don’t is of no consequence to me other than to find it and define it and it’s cause. Someone else will want something else, so that needs to be defined also.
Appreciate your anecdotes and opinions. |
|
|
|
Franklin
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 3:49 pm Re: responses to comments
|
|
Ed wrote:
The fact that you can/may hear things that we mortals don’t is of no consequence to me other than to find it and define it and it’s cause. Someone else will want something else, so that needs to be defined also.
Ed,
We're all mere mortals and I believe some things can't be exactly defined such as love and music.......I prefer discussing what we hear, not discussing visually analyzed frequencies....I am not driven to define why everything contributes to tone, I just accept them as contributing factors and I also place no single importance on one issue...I'm on record for saying a guitars tone comes from the sum of all of its parts according to its design.
So I am curious beyond your computer graphs which guitars sound best to your ears when you play them? Do you have a preference of a brand...Maybe there is a sound that first inspired you? Most players like myself have a trail of sonic loves.....Mine started with the Fender to Bud's to Emmon's and now to the Franklin....By the time I was playing 5 years in I could play enough to actually hear the differences between guitars and I began knowing exactly the type of tone I was after...Before that I was influenced by what I saw others play.......Nothing Godly about having a sonic direction and training the ears to hear nuance.......Most players have a sound in their head, I'm assuming you are no different....So what is your criteria for listening to tone and choosing something to go after? I believe special instruments have a personality in their tone which is also a factor in the instruments tone. Some call that soul, warmth, bite, growl....I call it nuance....Some hear it some don't.
Paul |
|
|
|
Georg Sørtun
From:
Mandal, Agder, Norway
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 5:14 pm
|
|
| Franklin wrote: |
| So for clarification, where are you exactly? Do you believe that a guitar tone comes from the sum of all its parts or do you believe you can change things specific to a guitars design like the PP and still maintain its exact tone? |
Only two options?
OK, I will try to expand. As for "leg vibrations", my preferred PSGs vibrate quite strongly through to the floor, and my modified instrument of same brand vibrates through a lot stronger than the original. Leg vibration is a very good indicator of strong "body tone" - positive if it is sympathetic with the string tone, but what comes out via the PU/amp chain and can be heard and measured, is the same even if the PSG is not standing on its legs on a floor - unless the floor itself is made as a sympathetic resonator that gives something back.
I am not particularly interested in "keeping a PSG's tone unchanged while changing parts or how it is built". Push/Pull sound is for instance not close enough to my preferences to want to keep it while modifying a P/P - something I haven't bothered to do because of the mechanical limitations in a P/P.
I usually want a bit more "acoustic" sound in a PSG, without losing any of its ability to sustain string vibrations. If I can increase both "acoustic" character and sustain, while reducing detuning tendencies (body drop), that's what I'll aim for. Not all PSGs can be improved the way I want them, so of course I have to apply all my knowledge, ear and instrumentation in a non-destructive way to figure out if an instrument is a good candidate or not.
Before modifying anything in a PSG I test what parts contribute what to the total sound-experience. I do that somewhat the same way as Ed - by measuring, but apparently Ed and I do not measure the same points looking for the same characteristics when it comes to the influence "body tone" has on total sound, and we may as a result of differences in procedures and personal preferences easily reach very different conclusions.
I measure to make sure I know an instrument's characteristics in enough details to proceed with modifications, when my ears combined with 3 decades of experience can't quite give me all the answers I need. See no point in measuring first, as my ears can sort out all but the finer details in a potential candidate.
Since I do not build or modify for sale, I don't have to care about what others think about any project or bother about deadlines. I now have a Dekley, a GFI and an MSA that are deemed OK for minor modifications with positive impact on overall sound, and they will get what I think they need, in time.
Also have lent an ear to a Jackson as potential candidate, but if I decide to buy one I'd prefer if they custom produce it to my specs instead if me having to modify it later. Am getting old and lazy... 
Hoped that clarified things ever so slightly. |
|
|
|
Billy Carr
From:
Seminary, Mississippi, USA (deceased)
|
Posted 7 Jul 2012 11:23 pm vibrations
|
|
| Vibrations through the legs. Definitely something to look for, in my opinion. I also found vibrations not only coming thru the legs on a particular new guitar but vibrations were also coming thru thr RKR knee lever also. My opinion is, vibrations are an indication of a good sounding guitar, once it's tweaked and played a little. Changer and keyhead mounting, I think, also play a major role. I prefer a guitar with a birdseye maple body covered with mica. Vibrations to me, is several things coming together. Guitars have personalities ( my opinion ). By the way, the guitar I was talking about was a new S-10D Rains that was built by Gary Carpenter. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Jack Stoner
From:
Kansas City, MO
|
Posted 8 Jul 2012 2:35 am
|
|
To reinforce what Paul said about that bass that really has it.
When I worked at Little Roy Wiggins' Lower Broadway "Music City" music store it was also the factory outlet for Grammer Guitars. Each one had its own personality - both in feel and sound. Some sounded like crap, some sounded good and occasionally there would be one that was special and really sounded great. They could be the same model (same type of woods) and still be different as they were basically all "hand made" (except for the Grover machine keys) - no computer aided design or equipment as is done on most factory made guitars today. |
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 8 Jul 2012 5:58 am
|
|
Electric stringed instruments haven't been in existence long enough to have a significant effect on human evolution. Even going back to very early acoustic stringed instruments among Hittites and Sumerians, I think it doubtful that fans of that music reproduced at a rate so much higher than others as to affect human biology... so it's commonly thought that the instruments that gain the most favor are ones that excite the same parts of the ear->brain loop as the human voice. Certainly the heavy metal guys and some "art" musicians are delving into subsonics, the only thing I can think of is they're trying to trigger some alarm and fear responses. But what we call "midrange" is where the human voice operates - and there are many who feel that "singing" of some sort actually preceded the spoken language. My question (finally!) is:
Has anyone ever done a frequency analysis similar to Mr. Packard's of the human voice? Female, male, singing, and speaking. And then compared that to the output of the most popular musical instruments. My hypothesis would run something like:
The very special instruments like Buddy's Blade, Paul's Franklin, Duane Allman's 1958 tobacco burst Les Paul, Henryk Szeryng's "Le Duc" Guarneri violin, Stevie Ray Vaughan's "#1" are instruments that in the hands of a great musician can more closely resemble the frequency output of the human voice than do other, lesser instruments.
Perhaps apropos of nothing, Allman & Szeryng could also get a huge, sustaining foghorn sound that's usually more the in province of tenor saxophones. Salvatore Accardo is the only other violinist I've heard it from, out of those little bitty violins - but Magic Dick (J. Geils), Pat Ramsey & his disciple Jason Ricci could get it out of even smaller harmonicas! Of course in the case of electric instruments you'd have to judge the sound coming out the speaker, the high frequencies coming off an aluminum & maple instrument undoubtedly affect the innards of whatever processors, preamp and power stage; however, it's a rare steeler or six-gunner who uses bi-amped horns or tweeters to present the full "natural" sound - and the frequency reproduction of big speakers fall off a cliff somewhere between 2.2K and 2.5K.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PK8EbLU4qU&feature=relmfu |
|
|
|
