I don't know anything about your allegations against this person, and even if true they are irrelevant to what we're talking about. You said nothing that refutes him.
Okay. The problem I have with your argument is you don't support anything, but just want refutation of your opinion. You have not presented any evidence at all. Even theoretical physics (this is far from that), has to be supported by experimental physics. Otherwise, we would all be learning string theory instead of quantum mechanics. So I will summarize the video. I tried to break up the video into key portions.
I will share my actual thoughts and not critiques after the last set of breaks (====...).
================================
Will opens and starts introducing the topic saying that the physics is not debatable. "To disagree with this is to disagree with math..." He is proving everything with "the math behind it" requiring me to watch a 55 minute video in its entirety before I disagree with it. Physics is always debatable. That is how science works.
================================
At 2:28, he promises to go over 7 equations written on the board behind him. I will do it much more quickly for you.
The first isn't so much an equation since it is lacking half the equation: V/lambda*f = 1. Or more sensibly written: V = lambda * f. This states that the speed of a wave is equal to the wavelength times the frequency of the wave.
The second equation is V = sqrt(T/mu). This says that the velocity of a wave in a string, for example, is dependent on the tension (T) of the string and the amount of mass (mu) the string has per length. A more massive string lowers the velocity. A tighter string increases the velocity.
Third equation mu = m/L. This just defines mu as mass per length.
Fourth equation lambda = 2*L. This states that the fundamental wavelength is twice the length of the vibrating string in a guitar-like instrument. There are also first harmonics which are wavelengths = L, second harmonics which are wavelengths = 2/3*L, fourth harmonics = 2/4*L, etc. In full, the equation should have been written lambda = 2*L/n. The solution proposed at the beginning is for one node or the fundamental note.
The fifth equation is the same equation as number two solved for T: T=V^2*mu.
The sixth equation is f = v/lambda which is the first equation solved for f.
The seventh equation takes the sixth equation and substitutes the complete equation for the fourth equation in place of lambda. Definitively proving that the fundamental note produced is determined by the length of the string, the mass of the string, and the tension of the string.
I believe this could have all been written as one equation. But I get that he is trying to break it down in simple terms.
================================
Through the first 20 minutes, he explains what a wave is, and what the basic terms are.
================================
At 27:45 he makes a false claim that the harmonics "do not affect the frequency at all." He is ignoring that when you play an A, for example, other nonfundamental waves are also formed. On an open A, the loudest of these are an E and a C#. He goes onto say that the body removes some of the string energy to dampen the sound resulting in lower sustain. He ignores that the body has a fundamental series of notes. If you tap on your guitar body or neck, you can hear the fundamental notes. In this entire section, he is confusing the fundamental note with the tone of the instrument. The tone is the fundamental note plus all of the nonfundamental notes minus all of the dampened notes from the rest of the guitar.
================================
At 35:00 he starts making some claims about the string material and the tone. It is an example of why his arguments don't hold weight for the effects of the body wood. He insinuates that stainless steel strings are brighter because you alter tension when compared to nickel strings. Steel strings are brighter because they different fundamental notes. From his explanation, a nickel string would be producing an A at 110hz. A stainless steel string would be producing an A at 110hz. They would just be the same. Using the equations above:
sqrt(T/mu) = lambda * f
f = lambda/sqrt(T/mu)
lambda is the same in both cases since it is twice the scale length. The materials are different with different density and mass per length. So the tension is modified until both strings make an A note. This scientifically and mathematically proves that an A on any string will sound the same as long as it can be picked up by the magnetic pickup. You just can't argue with it. Except this is an over simplified explanation that produces an incorrect result.
================================
Around 35:30, he starts spouting off some false information about metal alloys and covalent bonds. It sounds smart, but a covalent bond is what occurs between nonmetals like Oxygen and Carbon when they share electrons. Metals are joined by metallic bonds with a "sea of vallence electrons." It is really not pertinent, except to discredit the scientific rigor of this video.
================================
Around 48:00, he makes his claim that it is impossible because he says so. He ignores that his equations are the same for an acoustic guitar as an electric guitar but claims that there is no way for the solid body guitar to change the sound without any real mathematical or physics evidence for this claim.
================================
At 50:00, he makes a dumb claim that sound cannot cancel out. He doesn't really understand how a wave works here. The wave he is talking about is a transverse or standing wave, but he is treating the wave as if it moves like a longitudinal wave. The waves just have to be identical except out of phase, and they will cancel. Here is an example with sound from YouTube explaining active noise cancellation.
================================
Sound test will finally occur at 54 minutes. This is also not really scientific. They all sound a little different. The test is only single blinded. This is in effect what empiric evidence looks like. You listen to the track and judge for yourself. He doesn't blind the listener, player, and scientist. No count of right or wrong answers is given. No statistical analysis is performed. The test is not repeated multiple times.
========MY THOUGHTS===============
The problem with this entire video: if this argument was the entire case, an acoustic guitar would also produce sound independent of the woods it was built out of. The string vibrates at a note. The body of the guitar would vibrate at that same note and get amplified with the same note. You pluck an E on a guitar no matter what it is made out of, it will produce an E. Acoustic guitars will amplify the sound through the construction of the body. The electric guitar amplifies the note through magnetic pickups and an amplifier. But no matter what, the note played would be the same E. Except that isn't really true. If this was the case, my guitars would all sound the same when I play the same note regardless of string type, pickup type, body wood, plucking technique, etc. I know this is untrue from experience.
A wave has harmonics that also play through the vibrating string as he stated. These are what give the sound tone. So you pluck an E and you will also have that note colored by the natural harmonics B and G# among others. Even though you are playing a single note, if you look at a spectrogram, you will see other frequencies besides the fundamental note. We all agree on this (even Will). In an infinitely rigid system, this would be the pretty much all that produces sound.
A guitar is, however, a coupled system. The string and guitar are joined together. Both vibrate together. An open E string tends to want to vibrate at a given frequency. If you hit the guitar, it will vibrate as a result, and you can hear it. If you hit the string, the guitar vibrates. The coupled system means some of the vibrations will be dampened or amplified depending on the composition of the guitar.
A perfect example of this coupling causing a noticeable dampening is the dead note. This occurs when you play a note on the guitar at a fret where a high conductance for that note is. Basically, the guitar is able to absorb energy at that note, leading to rapid decay of the note.
Invalid Link Removedis an article showing how this is affected by the fretboard material in an electric guitar model (ebony versus rosewood).
Other examples that I have experienced that prove that more than the string in between the nut and the saddles matters:
1) If you tap your guitar while plugged in, you will hear the vibrating body translated into sound as the strings start vibrating.
2) I have an Ibanez that needs the strings by the tuners dampened, or I hear them vibrate in the amplifier. They rattle. That rattling translates into vibrations in the strings over the pickups leading to sounds. So if my guitar body is also vibrating, then it would also change the sound slightly.
3) I had a poorly setup bass where the strings vibrated before the fretted note. You could hear it in the amplifier even though it was on the other side of the fretted note. This is because it vibrated the neck of the guitar enough to vibrate the string.
In all three of these examples, the sound happens because the body/neck/headstock is vibrating. None of this means that tone wood sounds better or that cardboard sounds awful. It just means that the vibrating body the bridge and nut are attached to will change the sound in some way.
The problem with Will's explanation really comes down to an incomplete understanding of the physics. The guitar is a coupled system with more complex equations because of the interaction between the body of the guitar and the string. Someone shared an article with these types of equations in them previously. These equations are much more complicated. I understand why he avoided them. All he demonstrates after nearly an hour is that the fundamental note (like when I use my metronome to play an A for me to tune to) can be determined by the length of the string, mass per length of the string, and the tension of the string.
His equations are all exactly the same for an acoustic guitar. In order to use math and equations to demonstrate that the body and neck wood did not matter, he would take the coupled vibrating string system equations and show that only the string matters for the vibration. This is not true.
Thank you to anyone that read all of this junk.
