| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Guitar mumbo-jumbo http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=23292 |
Page 1 of 3 |
| Author: | David Newton [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Do you ever read something put forward as science, it may sound credible, but wonder if it may be dreamlike theory? I read this recently, the writer explaining why a top "wakes up" after playing a while. "The resin trapped in the wood cells has dried to powder over time, solidifies in the cell tubes and has to be broken up to powder again, freeing up the top." I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just wondering if you've also found unproved theories accepted as science. |
|
| Author: | Mike Mahar [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Practically everything I've read on how guitar work reads like your quote. Guitar makers often embraces theories and treat them as fact. They may be unable to tell the difference themselves. I usually give them a pass on it and mentally insert a "According to my current theory," in front of everything they say. Of course putting "According to my current theory" in front of everything makes for an unreadable document. As for the quote on wood waking up, I've heard this theory before and there is some evidence that there might be some truth to it. Doing the science would be quite tricky. Electron micrographs of the cells both before and after "playing in" would be nice as well as spectrums and any other measurement you might want to make. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Actually top do wake up (OPEN UP) with time and play. It will also changes through out its life time. The top and bracing loosen up with use (becomes ever so slightly more flexible). This is true of any material that is repeatedly stressed. Also the resin does not turn to powder it becomes crystalline. |
|
| Author: | John Platko [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Quote: I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, just wondering if you've also found unproved theories accepted as science 99.9% (although I didn't do a scientific study to measure this) of all the theories I read about guitars are unproved speculation. My proven theory as to why this is so: Quote: Platko's law: It's infinately easier to speculate on what is true than it is to prove what is true. And the more a speculation is repeated, the more it is believed. (I didn't come up with this one but I have tested it and it is scientifically true.) |
|
| Author: | John Platko [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
It would be interesting to compile a list of theories related to guitar building that actually are science. |
|
| Author: | David Newton [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
I'm not saying the theories aren't interesting, but... You can build a good playing, good sounding guitar in absence of all of the deep knowledge. |
|
| Author: | woody b [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 1:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
David Newton wrote: I'm not saying the theories aren't interesting, but... You can build a good playing, good sounding guitar in absence of all of the deep knowledge. Now there's a "theory" even I can understand 
|
|
| Author: | John Platko [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
David Newton wrote: I'm not saying the theories aren't interesting, but... You can build a good playing, good sounding guitar in absence of all of the deep knowledge. Now that is a proven fact if there ever was one. As I was painting my house today I remembered a TV show I caught a glimpse of the other night where they explained why Newton was wrong about his "theory" about the force of gravity between two masses. It seems that they have been very acurately measuring the path of the moon around the earth since we landed on the moon. They measure within a few cms accuracy! Newton was off by a few meters. Turns out that mass moving through space effects space and that effects gravity- or something like that. Sometimes science isn't even science. |
|
| Author: | Mark A Thorpe [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
I read somewhere that some builders actually put their unfinished guitars in front of a speaker and played music into them for extended periods of time to loosen up the top to simulate years of playing. I've never tried it just read about it but I can't remember where, might have been here. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
John Platko wrote: David Newton wrote: I'm not saying the theories aren't interesting, but... You can build a good playing, good sounding guitar in absence of all of the deep knowledge. Now that is a proven fact if there ever was one. As I was painting my house today I remembered a TV show I caught a glimpse of the other night where they explained why Newton was wrong about his "theory" about the force of gravity between two masses. It seems that they have been very acurately measuring the path of the moon around the earth since we landed on the moon. They measure within a few cms accuracy! Newton was off by a few meters. Turns out that mass moving through space effects space and that effects gravity- or something like that. Sometimes science isn't even science. Actually Newton was not wrong about gravities affect. In fact he was pretty much dead on if all bodies are in static orbit. What Newton could not calculate because he did not know was that the moon is in orbit at a speed ever so fractionally faster than the required escape velocity for it mass and orbit in relationship to earth’s mass. Newton was unable to measure that. In fact it was only a few sort decades ago that anyone (on earth that is) was able to measure accurately enough to determine this. It was not till Shoemaker discovered that the universe was expanding that most scientist began to even conceive that the moons orbit was an ever expanding orbit. Still to this day Newton’s gravitational laws are still reinvent for general use proposes. Were people make a mistake is confusing science with fact. Science is the study of object and events. Not the facts about object and events. By nature science evolves with technology. |
|
| Author: | Michael Dale Payne [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 3:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Mark A Thorpe wrote: I read somewhere that some builders actually put their unfinished guitars in front of a speaker and played music into them for extended periods of time to loosen up the top to simulate years of playing. I've never tried it just read about it but I can't remember where, might have been here. I do that with finished guitars not unfinished to help speed up brake in.
|
|
| Author: | SteveCourtright [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 4:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
"By nature science evolves with technology." I guess I would say that actually (because I am a nit-picker about these things, as Michael knows) the practice of science changes as technology evolves. Science is a process of acquiring knowledge using the scientific method, which hasn't changed at all. And I agree with the general feeling that the originally posted mumbo-jumbo should be disregarded unless mated with sound factual underpinnings. |
|
| Author: | John Platko [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Quote: Actually Newton was not wrong about gravities affect. In fact he was pretty much dead on .... Pretty much, but not exactly, dead on was what they suggested. At the same time, at another level they suggested Newton's law of G was just an approximation of reality. At least that's what I got from the show. Hey, it's TV, can it be wrong? You can watch for youself and see what you think. This should get you started. |
|
| Author: | Dave_E [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Hi All, Dave I was pondering that same question last week while doing something in the shop (forgot what it was). But I got to thinking about some of the processes I was doing and going through and asked myself "why am I doing this". Why, because a book said so or the forum said so and the answer is normally, "cause that's the way it's always been done". Without scientific instruments, I'd lay money on a bunch of blinfolded experts NOT being able to tell if the guitar they were playing was made by a traditionalist, do it for a living or a hobby builder as long as the tone was reasonably good. I think to much of what we pour into our instruments is consmetic construction (it's what the buyer expects) and whatever degree of building theory each of us "has to do" due to our individual beliefs.  That was a mouthfull.Dave |
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Having been doing this for over 10 years and watching the internet grow , I can't help but say that often facts don't over ride opinions. Most of us that do this for a living offer out our experience but it is true many will pass on it for someones less experienced offering. It is good to try for your self and learn from your own mistakes. It is difficult to separate fact from fiction on not just this site but most sites. Just because you see it on the net , doesn't make it true. I would love to see a good BS meter that could be made to filter out the bad advice for the good. We all learn from experience , so I hope you all get some and share. The advice you receive from me will be worth what you paid. |
|
| Author: | David Newton [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
I've enjoyed the posts so far guys, thanks. I'll admit that I was prompted out of exasperation with a group of hyper-traditionalist guitar owners, over on a forum that dares not say it's name. When I first started out building, 1975, I hung out with Bill Collings (and don't I love to drop names) in Houston, and he was really one to challenge beliefs. He once said to me as we were looking at a braced top, and discussing the treble bars (tone bars) "who says the treble notes come out on the treble side?" What newbie hasn't placed the tone bars over on the bass side, and have the guitar sound very good despite a gross "error" in placement? If a Kasha-braced guitar can sound ok, anything is possible! 
|
|
| Author: | Steve Kinnaird [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
But can a Kasha-braced airplane fly? Steve |
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Here's a good one I keep see popping up here and again... "Factory guitars are built too light" For What? Using as a Jack stand under the old Chevy? Here's another really good one.... The Top, back, and sides wood species primarily determines the sound (Instead of the build style/objectives of the Luthier) Thanks John |
|
| Author: | Frank Cousins [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Todd Stock wrote: Loads of wacky stuff gets passed along as lore or wisdom, but luthiery is art and craft - not science. Craft has never had a tradition of challenging these sorts of assertions. As a scientist  (of sorts) I would like to challenge that statement (in a friendly way naturally  ) so why? Because the evolution of a 'craft' is in my opinion following established scientific principles of discovery. The only difference is in many cases guitar makers are performing science/experiments without knowing it ! Think about it, if you use plans, its because it has become an established 'theory' that the solution is a pretty good compromise between tone and structural integrity that has been shown to work more often than not over time. Whether it be the experimentation with bracing patterns, of the ideal thickness or tonewood combinations, the craft that is handed down in the 'art' is based on experience - but this experience is in effect the result of testing various hypotheses (woods/bracing etc) and using what the maker/customer believes to be the best and then continuing down that road... same as science - you test hypotheses and when the probablity of you being wrong is reduced to a very low percentage you in effect have a theory. The 'art' is really two fold, the skill in creating something really quite beautiful, and the subjective nature of tone. As in Science, the 'BEST' possible solution/explanation or the ultimate one has probably not yet been discovered (who knows) but what we have now is pretty good, and there are various solutions of achieving the same thing, which is why we have different makers doing things differently, and thats the wonderful thing about it, we are in effect mostly all scientists, often experimenting to find that Holy Grail of tone... Many folk especially those with what they consider a very 'artistic bent', have often criticised scientists for trying to take the romance out of life, but I think the reality is that science helps us achieve potentially even greater 'art' - be it through trial and error/experimentation and sometimes as in science simple luck! It takes nothing away from the 'art' to acknowledge the part science plays in achieving it - just ask Leo da V!
|
|
| Author: | Dave White [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
bluescreek wrote: It is difficult to separate fact from fiction on not just this site but most sites. Just because you see it on the net , doesn't make it true. You mean I can't believe everything I read on Wikipedia ? Frank Cousins wrote: . . . same as science - you test hypotheses and when the probablity of you being wrong is reduced to a very low percentage you in effect have a theory. The thing I find most interesting about scientific theories is that when one of them is 99.999999% good at explaining it's usually the 0.000001% discrepancy that leads to a totally different and tangential explanation/theory. That's the case with Newton's Laws of Gravity which, joy of joy, takes us down the path of "strings and 'branes'" and into the quantum leap - although the Theory of Everything isn't here yet. The same could well be the same in stringed instrument making - 99.999999% sure . . . but 
|
|
| Author: | bluescreek [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 6:45 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Nice statement Frank and very true. Doing this for a living I can tell you that most of the opinions that I formed in my early days have long been tossed to the way side. Being of a tooling background there are some mechanical facts that I carried with me into building. The one at UMGF about the wood resins was pretty amusing. I agree with Todd Stock's statement to the degree that a builder will over time evolve to a technique through natural selection , much like evolution theory. We all do our thing a little differently than the other guy. After all as we learned and polished our building styles we found a process that worked for us. In most cases , it is the basics that we all share and have in common. Gluing techniques , are most likely the most important part of building. If you don't get that right you are in trouble. Theories on the end result of what we have accomplished is often based more on opinion than fact . It is so difficult to be scientific unless you keep records and building logs , but the variable of the material is where experience comes in more than luck. For me it was being able to put numbers to what I was doing. What is the stress at the bridge , and the relationship of my deflection test numbers. What bracing will compliment or detract from the top , and this is just theory . It is experience , and the learning curve of doing things wrong that will gravitate you to learn to do things right for your building style. It takes more than 5 builds to get you into the real study. Having built as many guitars is I have , I think I have learned a few things. I am now making a living at this and it was not an easy process. Just remember this one piece of advice that I think it will help you as it did me. " you don't know , what you don't know , until you know it" ! Until then we will surely disagree at times , and this is a good thing . Never raise your voice but improve your argument and as a very good builder I know says , " building a guitar looks hard , but it is harder than it looks". Keep the strings on the out side and lets have fun. We all can learn from each other. |
|
| Author: | Frank Cousins [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Todd and John Nice stuff, must admit quite like these sort of rambling discussions on the more 'philosphical' side of the 'craft'. Todd its interesting that you mention the 'art/technology' line...its often led to interesting debate between friends of mine. I guess part of it is that defining what is art and where this crosses the line is so darn difficult. I guess it might be easier to see it as a continuum between pure creative instinct at one end of the spectrum and pure rigourous analysis of data on the other? I guess though as experience is gained it becomes 'instinctive' to know or 'feel' what is right - but is experience not really the result of learning, which is in effect a scientific process? I think as with many arts and crafts, perhaps one of the reasons for differences of opinion between 'artists' and 'scientists' is that artists maybe tend to think that science is out to spoil the mystery - that maybe if every tiny detail of an art such as building guitars can be explained scientifically, this removal of the mystery will somehow devalue the art? I dont think it would, because even if we one day got to the point where there was a scientific formula for each tone - that would indeed give everyone the specifications and subtle adjustments necessary to emulate a specific tone, it would still need to be built, crafted and created. The charm and beauty of handmade instruments is about so much more than the data and figures - and so i dont think anyone really needs to worry! ![[:Y:]](./images/smilies/smiley20.gif "Thumbs Up") ... not for a few hundred more years at least!
|
|
| Author: | truckjohn [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
I see 2 things going on here.... The 1st is that it is hard to "Unlearn" things that are wrong The 2nd is that many systems are far too complicated to really wrap our brains around... so we need mental models to "Simplify the World" so we can understand how things work... They don't need to be Right in a mathematical proof sort of way... they just need to be good enough... For example... Say your Mental Model is that the Guitar Top is the only thing that really matters... When building, you spend all your time "Optimizing" the Soundboard, top bracing, and bridge then basically just assemble the rest of the structure out of "Standard" components (Back, sides, neck, etc...) Then once it is Assembled, you "Fine tune" the sound by making adjustments to only the top, bridge, and top bracing... You will end up with a pretty good sounding instrument even though you may leave a little on the table.. (because you don't touch the back bracing, the soundhole, and whatever else..) Even though we know that scientifically this may be incorrect or incomplete... does that make your mental model Invalid.... No... because your mental model works good enough to produce successful instruments. Thanks John |
|
| Author: | John Platko [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
Quote: "Factory guitars are built too light" That's a new one for me, I always heard they were built too heavy. I must be out of the loop! Quote: For me it was being able to put numbers to what I was doing. That captures when in becomes science, at least for me. Of course, it's also important for other people to get the same numbers that you do. But who puts numbers on the sound of their guitars, or any guitars for that matter? |
|
| Author: | Rick Davis [ Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Guitar mumbo-jumbo |
All builders have a model of the guitar in their heads. It may be simplistic or rich and complex, but all of us have some fuzzy concept about the guitar's functioning. Without that overall framework, all of our choices about woods, bracing, tap tone, whatever, would be purely random or magical. I'm reminded of a very good builder who claimed to "feel the aura" of the wood as he selected brace material. Obviously a nut case but the trick is to realize that ALL of us are wrong! (He was just more wrong.) None of us has a model that will withstand rigorous scientific scrutiny: they are either too simplified or simply wrong-headed. So the journey becomes one of increasing understanding in whatever mode works for you. It may be research following accepted scientific methods or it may be a loose, intuitive approach. But if one can remain open to new ideas while being critical of both one's own and others' work (and highly skeptical about anyone who claims to have The Answer), the instruments should improve along with one's understanding. |
|
| Page 1 of 3 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|