A question of curiosity

[stringthrough]

42

 

[hasbeen]

In the car audio world we say dampen. We treat the highly resonate metals in the vehicle with materials designed using mass , weight and density to tame the panel vibrations. Same for studios. I've heard "damp" used occasionally but it's usually dampen, at least in the areas I frequent.

Most use the word incorrectly. In a fire place, it's called a damper and you use it to damp the flames. Damp means to suppress, minimize etc.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I've already been too much of a nudge on this in this thread. If my wife so my postings, she'd smack me on the back of the head and say something like "this is why we often don't get invited over to parties".

 

[Slevage]

In the car audio world we say dampen. We treat the highly resonate metals in the vehicle with materials designed using mass , weight and density to tame the panel vibrations. Same for studios. I've heard "damp" used occasionally but it's usually dampen, at least in the areas I frequent.

Terminology is often misused.
Using an incorrect term over and over only leads to miseducation.

 

[hasbeen]

So why is it that the bridging between what I assume is the outer winding preferentially damps high frequencies?

Because it suppresses oscillations which give us overtones. The overtones "die" first vs. the fundamental. The fundamental creates more energy than the overtones so they remain longer.

Here's an experiment. Plug your bass into a tuner. Solo the neck pickup and watch how the tuner "warbles" as it tries to find the fundamental. Now, solo the bridge pickup and do the same. The tuner will settle more quickly. The string is stiffer over the bridge pickup and producing less overtones. There's more string excursion over the neck pickup which creates more overtones.

 

[hasbeen]

Terminology is often misused.
Using an incorrect term over and over only leads to miseducation.

100%. And after a lot of misuse, the word ends up in the dictionary.

 

[Drop1]

Most use the word incorrectly. In a fire place, it's called a damper and you use it to damp the flames. Damp means to suppress, minimize etc.

I'm not going to lose sleep over it. I've already been too much of a nudge on this in this thread. If my wife so my postings, she'd smack me on the back of the head and say something like "this is why we often don't get invited over to parties".

You are correct though. "Damp" and "damping" are the correct terms. I just don't hear them used very often.

 

[micguy]

So why is it that the bridging between what I assume is the outer winding preferentially damps high frequencies?

The fundamental (the lowest frequency note on the string) makes the string bend gently - one smooth, long curve between the nut and bridge (for the open string) - it's a half wavelength. The harmonic that's 3 octaves up (8 times the frequency) has 8 times the wavelengths in that length - 4 full wavelengths. To get to the same amplitude, the string is going up and down (or left and right) over and over - the string is twisted into a tighter curvature (8 times tighter) for the same amplitude. The bridging between windings damps the string's motion proportionally to how tight you bend it - the high frequencies are preferentially damped as a result.

If you're playing the open A string (about 55 Hz), the fundamental is 55 Hz. The attack of the note is more in the 2.5 kHz area (your ears resonate in that spectral area, which is why you hear a lot of detail there). That is about 45 times the fundamental frequency - the curvature and therefore damping scales by that ratio, so when you hear flats that don't have the snap of rounds - yep, that's it.

 

[hasbeen]

As a student of engineering, this is rather unintuitive. If stiffness correlates to tension in the string, then the equation for frequency of a simple string suggests that frequency rises as tension rises.

String vibration - Wikipedia

Similarly comparing strings to another mechanical vibrating system: speakers, a speaker's resonant frequency is strongly dependent on its moving mass and compliance (inverse of stiffness) (among other parameters) which generally speaking, as compliance increases (stiffness decreases), the resonant frequency lowers because the lack of stiffness allows for greater excursion of the speaker per oscillation = greater wavelength of frequency = lower frequency. I would imagine that intuitively, the same applies for strings that is, lower tension/stiffness means greater excursion means lower frequency. Looking at my low b string versus my open g string gives an ~affirmation of this.

Another point is that while the buildup of gunk adds to the mass of a string which I would assume dampens it, I don't believe that long-term playing cumulatively tightens the strings, quite the contrary. Again, comparing to speakers which have a break in period, the motion of the vibrating apparatus (string or cone) works to stretch it out which reduces stiffness/tension and lowers the resonant frequency.

While I am posing a disagreement, I invite you to elaborate on this as just doesn't make sense at first glance. I also invite some other technically minded people @fdeck @agedhorse @Passinwind .

Now there's a total possibility that I'm speaking out my a** and if someone has the definitive technical answer, please take the long route as I believe that benefits us all and it's a lot harder to argue with math.

It is worth noting that real bass strings do not exactly follow the simple string equation because that equation assumes that the strings are massless and even more, a bass string consists of an inner and outer winding which surely complicates it.

Stiffness and tension with strings are different "qualities".

Tension is a comprised of scale length, string mass and pitch to which the string is being tuned. Stiffness/flexibility can separately be affected by string construction. So, two strings of equal mass tuned to the same pitch, over the same scale length would have the same tension. If they are constructed differently, like if one had a smaller diameter core or one was hex and the other round, their stiffness would be different.

I had to work a lot on this when I was re-designing Fender and Trace Elliot strings.

 

[hasbeen]

The fundamental (the lowest frequency note on the string) makes the string bend gently - one smooth, long curve between the nut and bridge (for the open string) - it's a half wavelength. The harmonic that's 3 octaves up (8 times the frequency) has 8 times the wavelengths in that length - 4 full wavelengths. To get to the same amplitude, the string is going up and down (or left and right) over and over - the string is twisted into a tighter curvature (8 times tighter) for the same amplitude. The bridging between windings damps the string's motion proportionally to how tight you bend it - the high frequencies are preferentially damped as a result.

If you're playing the open A string (about 55 Hz), the fundamental is 55 Hz. The attack of the note is more in the 2.5 kHz area (your ears resonate in that spectral area, which is why you hear a lot of detail there). That is about 45 times the fundamental frequency - the curvature and therefore damping scales by that ratio, so when you hear flats that don't have the snap of rounds - yep, that's it.

Well said

 

[hasbeen]

You haven't experienced rounds on a good hard board - there is far more mwah available with rounds than there is with flats, especially in that scenario. People here talk about techniques to coax mwah out of a fretless - if you put rounds on an ebonol or ebonite board, you don't need to learn anything to get mwah out of it - you automatically get gobs of mwah.

I agree. The Zon fretless in my avatar gets tons of mwah with DR Sunbeams. Far more than with flats.

 

[YourGuitarist]

Stiffness and tension with strings are different "qualities".

Tension is a comprised of scale length, string mass and pitch to which the string is being tuned. Stiffness/flexibility can separately be affected by string construction. So, two strings of equal mass tuned to the same pitch, over the same scale length would have the same tension. If they are constructed differently, like if one had a smaller diameter core or one was hex and the other round, their stiffness would be different.

I had to work a lot on this when I was re-designing Fender and Trace Elliot strings.

Stiffness is a measure of an object's resistance to deformation. I agree that scale length, string mass and pitch are related but I don't believe that is the whole picture. I agree construction is one of the other ingredients.

A tighter string, that is one under greater tension, will exhibit greater resistance to deformation as can be seen by tugging different tuned strings and feeling for give. That is why I associated the two in my claim.

@micguy brings up wavelength in relation to harmonics which reminds me that the higher harmonics are super-imposed upon the lower ones (or vice versa too I guess) but I would not be surprised to see that the stiffness of a string is probably also nonlinearly related to its deformation (don't quote me on this but it's an interesting thought), that is a bent string is probably stiffer than a straight one. By that reasoning, the stiffness of the string as seen by the harmonics depends partly on the deflection produced by the larger harmonics beneath it.

 

[micguy]

Stiffness and tension with strings are different "qualities".

Tension is a comprised of scale length, string mass and pitch to which the string is being tuned. Stiffness/flexibility can separately be affected by string construction. So, two strings of equal mass tuned to the same pitch, over the same scale length would have the same tension. If they are constructed differently, like if one had a smaller diameter core or one was hex and the other round, their stiffness would be different.

This is, to a first order approximation, correct. The nitpicky detail that makes is a little less than 100% correct is that the strings resonance is determined by it's length, it's linear density (mass per unit length), and the restoring forces. Most of the restoring force is the tension, but some of it is the stiffness. A string with a bigger core, all else being equal, will need a bit less tension to be tuned to the same frequency - the additional stiffness from the bigger core supplies that difference. If you make a solid string (aka a bar - marimbas, xyhlophones, etc), it resonates at some frequency without tension added - the core has grown to where it no longer needs tension to supply any restoring force.

 

[Liam Wald]

Just a biology teacher here, but my guess would be that the little depressions between each wind produce an overtone different than the broad flat prt of the wind resulting in the zingy boing. Think of how a spring doorstop makes that springy boing noise as opposed to a flat piece of metal that makes more of a bw bw bw ah when you add tension and release it.

This is my best onomatopoeia.

"Zingy Boing" is really the kind of scientific explanation that I would expect from a biology teacher.
It is like the unmistakable sound found in the animal kingdom immediately before procreation.

 

[jdjk7]

Note: More on damp vs dampen. If you "dampen" something, you're making it wet. If you "damp" something, you are "reducing" something, like a vibration.

Other way around. "damp" as an adjective shares etymology with the German word "Dampf", which means "steam" or "fog", which ultimately comes from Proto-Germanic. "dampen" as a verb comes from the Middle English word "dampnen", which means "to stifle" or "to extinguish", which ultimately comes from French "damper" and then Latin "damnere", both of the latter meaning "to condemn" or "to damn"-- which also survives in English as the word "damn".

But, at the end of the day, they are very similar-sounding words, and for English speakers there is overlap in the meaning between these two words-- people associate being wet with being stifled. Or, in the sense of a fire, making it damp does dampen it. So, trying to make a distinction may be more trouble than it's worth.

 

[hasbeen]

Stiffness is a measure of an object's resistance to deformation. I agree that scale length, string mass and pitch are related but I don't believe that is the whole picture. I agree construction is one of the other ingredients.

A tighter string, that is one under greater tension, will exhibit greater resistance to deformation as can be seen by tugging different tuned strings and feeling for give. That is why I associated the two in my claim."

Candidly, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. "All else being equal" is very important in these discussions. One can take two strings of the same mass, tune them to the same pitch, over the same scale length and have them feel very differently based on their construction. I think that addresses what you're saying.

 

[charliethomas]

100%. And after a lot of misuse, the word ends up in the dictionary.

You seem to be responding to everyone except me on this topic, and that's fine, you have no obligation to respond to everyone, but I find it curious.

What you're describing is exactly how language change works in every language that's ever existed in all of history. That's what I've been trying to get across. It's why we don't speak the same language the writer of Beowulf spoke, or the same as Chaucer, or Shakespeare. If a majority of people use a word a certain way, who are you to say they're "misusing" it? Dictionaries only aim to describe how language is used - at the end of the day, words are all arbitrary, and the goal of communication is to understand each other.

Again, jargon in technical contexts is important for clarification of the terms being used, but you can't extend the jargon into regular, everyday speech. Jargon is also specific within a certain field - the same word in biology may be used completely differently in a chemistry context. Neither one is using it incorrectly unless they're trying to apply the meaning from one field into the other one.

I minored in linguistics, and what you're saying is an extremely common misconception about the scientific study of language by those who don't study it.

But I'm not going to dictate how you use language. Just trying to share how people who study language approach these situations for the edification of others

 

[groooooove]

We TalkBass dweebs are a tiny fraction of bass players overall. The average player goes to their local GC or shop, or Amazon, and buys whatever the person behind the counter suggests. So, basically, the vast majority aren't nerdy enough to care.

it really is a venn diagram...

musician on one side, collectors / enthusiasts on the other, and some in the middle.

i know some (literal) world class musicians who leave the room if you talk about gear. We all know thousands of people who want to discuss gear and cant play.

there certainly are some in the middle, but not a huge percentage.

 

[hasbeen]

You seem to be responding to everyone except me on this topic, and that's fine, you have no obligation to respond to everyone, but I find it curious.

What you're describing is exactly how language change works in every language that's ever existed in all of history. That's what I've been trying to get across. It's why we don't speak the same language the writer of Beowulf spoke, or the same as Chaucer, or Shakespeare. If a majority of people use a word a certain way, who are you to say they're "misusing" it? Dictionaries only aim to describe how language is used - at the end of the day, words are all arbitrary, and the goal of communication is to understand each other.

Again, jargon in technical contexts is important for clarification of the terms being used, but you can't extend the jargon into regular, everyday speech. Jargon is also specific within a certain field - the same word in biology may be used completely differently in a chemistry context. Neither one is using it incorrectly unless they're trying to apply the meaning from one field into the other one.

I minored in linguistics, and what you're saying is an extremely common misconception about the scientific study of language by those who don't study it.

But I'm not going to dictate how you use language. Just trying to share how people who study language approach these situations for the edification of others

Please....my apologies. I'm trying (emphasis on trying) to keep from going way off topic, of which I'm guilty already. Yes, language has stylistic qualities and word usage that comes and goes. Having said that, a cat is still called a cat. We haven't pivoted to calling it a dog or chicken. You and I agree.

I'm now going to try to go back to not commenting on language usage further. My fault.....I'm the one that brought it up.

 

[HaphAsSard]

"dampen" as a verb comes from the Middle English word "dampnen", which means "to stifle" or "to extinguish", which ultimately comes from French "damper" and then Latin "damnere", both of the latter meaning "to condemn" or "to damn"-- which also survives in English as the word "damn".

Any reference(s) you can share for this derivation?
[To be specific: I wouldn't be at all surprised that there be recorded "p" -inserted variants of Middle English "damnen" < Old French "damner" (from Latin "damnāre", long ā); quite a bit more so, however, at the claim that "dampen" too (as opposed to just "damn") directly derives from them.]
All sources I've checked agree that "damp" and "dampen" are etymologically related.

 

[charliethomas]

Please....my apologies. I'm trying (emphasis on trying) to keep from going way off topic, of which I'm guilty already. Yes, language has stylistic qualities and word usage that comes and goes. Having said that, a cat is still called a cat. We haven't pivoted to calling it a dog or chicken. You and I agree.

I'm now going to try to go back to not commenting on language usage further. My fault.....I'm the one that brought it up.

No worries! It's just a pet peeve of mine, probably similar to your pet peeve about damp vs dampen! Can't resist a conversation about linguistics. I'll bow out too... Back to the topic at hand!