• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Double Bass Anyone used a ToneRite before

#23
Matthew Tucker said:
The graph itself doesn't strain my credibility too much. It is clearly only an indicative graph and is only there to illustrate what the text claims.

The "sound quality" measure is clearly (to me, at least) a subjective thing and is stated so under the graph.
Click to expand...

Well Matt, you and others may not be aware that there are actually ways to gather reliable data regarding subjective preferences about "quality" and the like. Constructing a graph like this based on "customer reviews" is misleading to say the least. The translation from those reviews to the numerical quantities was completely arbitrary. In other words, the numbers are absolutely meaningless. That's what strains credibility.

Matthew Tucker said:
All the graph claims is:

- If you don't use the product, regular playing will only result in a very slow tonal improvement of the instrument.

- If you use it once for a week, the improvement is perceived to be large initially then the improvement appears to become gradually less over time.

- If you use it regularly the effect noticed after a week is maintained and may even improve slightly over time.

I grant you, there is little science demonstrated. But we all know that instrument making doesn't always conform neatly to scientific principles. And I don't have any proof the customer reviews are real, either.
Click to expand...

See, that's just it. That's not "all the graph claims." If they simply made the statements you made, I'd have little quibble about, although we still wouldn't know if the claims were true. The problem is that they went from those subjective statements to numerical quantities.

Matthew Tucker said:
But since no-one here, including me, has any experience with the product, or even, it seems, the principle of de-damping, it seems odd to condemn it out of hand as snake-oil. No?
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is why I was careful to not dismiss the device and allow that it may, in fact, have some beneficial effect. I just don't know.
 
#24
Yes the numbers are meaningless, but no claim was made that they were anything other than that. If the "sound quality" scale were 1 to 5, or 0 to 20,000 or 100-800, the graph would look exactly the same. And the time scale is indicative as well - no-one really thinks, surely, that after 8 weeks the effect suddenly stops?? I don't have a problem with the graph at all.

But I'm interested to know how you'd go about gathering reliable data on - in other words, measuring - a subjective thing like sound quality. Care to share?
 
#25
arnoldschnitzer said:
I have one of these. I'm not sure it does anything. I think the amplitude of the signal is too weak to really cause significant vibrating in a bass. It's impossible for me to objectively test the thing, but I'm going to keep trying it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think that unless it makes the top ring at at least a reasonable mezzo forte (I doubt that little box does) I can't imagine it having much effect. How about arranging with the local school orchestra teacher to assign bowing your open strings as detention? It's always the bass kids who get into the most trouble (well, leaving off low brass and percussion I suppose...), so there should always be candidates available.
 
#26
Matthew Tucker said:
Yes the numbers are meaningless, but no claim was made that they were anything other than that. If the "sound quality" scale were 1 to 5, or 0 to 20,000 or 100-800, the graph would look exactly the same. And the time scale is indicative as well - no-one really thinks, surely, that after 8 weeks the effect suddenly stops?? I don't have a problem with the graph at all.

But I'm interested to know how you'd go about gathering reliable data on - in other words, measuring - a subjective thing like sound quality. Care to share?
Click to expand...

Well, your accurate statement captures the problem for me. They could have scaled those numbers any way they wanted. They are making an interval scale (or worse, a ratio scale) where only ordinal judgments are available. That's a no-no. For me, it's not simply a matter of being overly detailed and overly critical. There's no cause to assign numbers and you and I agree that the numbers are meaningless. So, IMO, they shouldn't be used because, by using them, they are trying to convince folks that they have a precision that they don't at all.

I left out the explanation about "preference" data in my first post because I thought it just might be too much but, as long as you asked! :)

Perceptual scaling has a very long history. Although it may seem that one can't quantify such things, it really can be done. I'll just mention a couple of methods. One is to have observers simply assign numbers to their percepts. This has been done in order to scale loudness, brightness, and a host of other percepts. The reliability of people in these situations is astonishing. If you Google terms like "Stevens scaling" "magnitude estimation," "psychophysical scaling" "prothetic and metathetic dimensions" you'll quickly enter (descend? :)) into that world. Another technique is to use "similarity judgments" where observers rate the similarity between pairs of randomly presented stimuli (e.g., sounds). One can then pull out the dimensions along which they are being judged. It's pretty involved and surprisingly precise stuff.

I apologize for the long explanation that might be inappropriate here. It's against this background that I object to meaningless graphs such as the one we're discussing.

Cheers.
 
#27
Ah you mean like, sounds better, sounds quite a lot better, sounds a lot better, sounds heaps better, sounds the best?

Well I think today I agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree, don't know, strongly don't know.

My experience with surveys like these is not as extensive as yours, but there are problems with analysing the results returned too.

I think that although assigning numbers to degrees of perception of sensation or opinion are very popular techniques for analysing, for example, customer satisfaction (which this is) and might provide a quick way to assessing what a group of respondents thinks as an average group view, revealing a general trend, I think that the methods are too susceptible to individual judgement bias and differences in perception (What's "good" for you?) to be really useful in proving anything or really "digging in" and isolating useful facts.

So in my view, even if the numbers were based on a magnitude estimation system - which they may be - they would STILL really be no more meaningful than the scale presented.
 
#28
Matthew Tucker said:
Ah you mean like, sounds better, sounds quite a lot better, sounds a lot better, sounds heaps better, sounds the best?

Well I think today I agree, slightly disagree, disagree, strongly disagree, don't know, strongly don't know.

My experience with surveys like these is not as extensive as yours, but there are problems with analysing the results returned too.

I think that although assigning numbers to degrees of perception of sensation or opinion are very popular techniques for analysing, for example, customer satisfaction (which this is) and might provide a quick way to assessing what a group of respondents thinks as an average group view, revealing a general trend, I think that the methods are too susceptible to individual judgement bias and differences in perception (What's "good" for you?) to be really useful in proving anything or really "digging in" and isolating useful facts.

So in my view, even if the numbers were based on a magnitude estimation system - which they may be - they would STILL really be no more meaningful than the scale presented.
Click to expand...

Well, I suggest you dig into the science and history of such techniques before dismissing them. They are not surveys. They are not at all what you think and not at all how you characterize them. Your largely uninformed intuition about the usefulness, precision, and meaningfulness of the quantities produced by modern, state-of-the-art scaling and measurement techniques is incorrect. It's not something you can just "armchair." It's quite an evolved science with a very long history.
 
#29
I'm not dismissing your field, so please don't feel offended by my challenges, but I am trying to understand it at the level most "commoners" would come across it. Google hasn't helped me much here, as I don't have time to wade through the lengthy treatises that your suggested searches throw up at me. So I'm trying to relate it to instances I have come across that appear to be the sort of thing you are talking about. Heck, so I missed the mark. You're the expert, so if you can handle my own ignorance, suppositions and questioning, and you feel generous enough keep educating me please.

Do you think it is really within the grasp of a small company like Tonerite to become experts at psychophysical scaling and prothetic and metathetic dimensioning just to be able to put a graphic on their website to illustrate the indicative changes perceived that they claim?
 
#30
Matthew Tucker said:
I'm not dismissing your field, so please don't feel offended by my challenges, but I am trying to understand it at the level most "commoners" would come across it. Google hasn't helped me much here, as I don't have time to wade through the lengthy treatises that your suggested searches throw up at me. So I'm trying to relate it to instances I have come across that appear to be the sort of thing you are talking about. Heck, so I missed the mark. You're the expert, so if you can handle my own ignorance, suppositions and questioning, and you feel generous enough keep educating me please.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not really the primary area I work in so I'm not offended by any dismissal. Actually, as a field, I find it boring! :) My reaction was to your statement that you thought the methods would be too subject to bias and differences and that the methods would yield numbers no more useful than what the folks at Tonerite put up in their graph. I was surprised that you would come to that conclusion. I think it would be wise to switch this to PM and I will try to explain more. This is something that often happens on internet boards. It would be impractical and probably inappropriate for me to launch into detail here. I am more than happy to chat more on the private side and I thank you for being open-minded enough to let me explain. Please give me a bit and I'll get something to you.

Matthew Tucker said:
Do you think it is really within the grasp of a small company like Tonerite to become experts at psychophysical scaling and prothetic and metathetic dimensioning just to be able to put a graphic on their website to illustrate the indicative changes perceived that they claim?
Click to expand...

Of course not. You are quite correct that it would be unreasonable to think that Tonerite would engage in all that. I would have been happy if they just said what their customers reported and not turned it into what are phony numbers. In fact, your characterization of what they were trying to get across would have served them well. Really, that's all I was reacting to-- that they invented basically out of whole cloth the quantification.
 
#32
Um, seems like a similar vibration creating device could be procured out of a magzine ad and descretely delivered in a package with a plain brown wrapper for a lot less money. They might even have a model called "The Luther." I suspect a little duct tape and a couple D cells and your good to go. Just remember to un-tape from your bass before a gig...
 
#36
I'm skeptical, but I remember years a go that Rick Turner and I think Steve Rabe did a series of experiments like this. They build some kind of honking big woofer to vibrate guitars. They claimed it produced significant improvement. They had a company called "timbre tech" if I remember right.

I think half an hour of bowing would accomplish the same thing

Playing does effect the way the wood vibrates, I think. I have a jazz guitar, an old guild artist award, that was owned by a pretty heavy smoker. I'd sit down with the guitar and notice nothing, but after 20 minutes playing the thing it would start to smell like smoke. Really! It still does it a little, but not as much--it's been in a smoke free house for close to ten years now. My assumption is the guitar loosens up from playing

Here's the link on the turner thing

Invalid Link Removed
 
#37
PB+J said:
I have a jazz guitar, an old guild artist award, that was owned by a pretty heavy smoker. I'd sit down with the guitar and notice nothing, but after 20 minutes playing the thing it would start to smell like smoke. Really! It still does it a little, but not as much--it's been in a smoke free house for close to ten years now. My assumption is the guitar loosens up from playing
Click to expand...
That's very fascinating... Perhaps we over-rely on sight and hearing when attempting to evaluated this issue? It never occurred to me there might be an olfactory component...

cdp
 
#39
I've never done this with a bass, but I did this with my most recent guitar acquisition. I have recordings of drones on mycomputer in a playlist ( i use them for tuning excercises, etc,), and what I did was hook up a set of headphones and put them on the guitar, one speaker on the back, one on the front, drones cranked. I wasn't expecting much, but after about 2 six hour sessions ( Two shifts at work while I wasn't home so I couldn't hear it :) ) I did indeed notice an audible difference, to my pleasant surprise.

Keep in mind that this was a fairly new solid body instrument, having only spent perhaps a few months on the music store walls. I can imagine the same effect occurring with a bass, though you'd need quite the large set of headphones :)

regards,

eerbrev
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back