And there is DEFINITELY a difference in drivers they start out "stiff" and need to be worked-in, if let to dry only they just get dry, not flexible. Of course we're talking about paper and not wood - but the principle is pretty similar.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
Calling out BS?
- Thread starter Means2nEnd
- Start date
It would be nice if a little more "science" could be applied to our knowledge of wood and instruments rather than simply experience and trial and error. Of course, it would have to be done with book-matched pieces of wood to ensure they are as identical as possible and of course with a number of pieces to ensure that it wasn't just that piece of wood.
Of course, the problem them becomes operationalizing "better tone" once the wood is finished - it's not impossible, certain frequencies and harmonics combinations are well accepted as being generally pleasing to the human ear, but it's not easy. The pieces of wood would have to also be preassembled into some sort of instrument like setup - ie a string a bridge and a nut & tuner before the beginning of the "break-in" period and identical strings installed at the time of testing to ensure maximum consistency.
Hey, maybe I just found my doctoral thesis!
Everybody comes up with these magical gadgets, but not many seems to be able to demonstrate or measure actual benefits.
But whose buying?
Well, lots of people, it seems.
Even if you manage to set up a fairly controlled experiment... even book-matched pieces are not identical – and to top it off, no two people are identical (not even "identical" twins), and taste varies from person to person, so whether the wood sounds good, or not, is subjective.
Well, lots of people, it seems.
Even if you manage to set up a fairly controlled experiment... even book-matched pieces are not identical – and to top it off, no two people are identical (not even "identical" twins), and taste varies from person to person, so whether the wood sounds good, or not, is subjective.
Color me sceptical, to say the least. I believe this is a case of people hearing what they want to hear; if you believe in the process you'll hear an improvement, if you don't then you'll hear no change. Either way any actual change will be too small to matter in the bigger picture of strings, pickups, electronics, amps, speakers, live sound, playing technique, room acoustics, humidity, temperature etc.
The only significant improvement from this process is made to the bank balance of the guy offering this service.
I find this argument to be tiresome. Since you cannot trust your physical senses, what do you trust? Internet reviews? Seriously? Me? I think this contraption is silly on it's face. You? You seem to think that because placebo CAN happen, that it must explain EVERYTHING. I do not deny that people fall victim to placebo effect. But I think it's downright stupid to apply that analysis to everything you don't agree with.
I just make sure everything is set up to my liking and play. This kind of parlor game just gets in the way of playing, which, besides the 'hokey-pokey', is what it's all about.
If I don't like the bass, I move it along. No muss, no fuss.
If I don't like the bass, I move it along. No muss, no fuss.
when those instruments are like 6 or even 7 figures? damn right they will! there are a couple of famous double-blind studies where the majority of master violinists actually preferred top-quality new instruments over the hallowed stradivari they were compared with.
anyway, +1 to zoob's mention of the shaker table, it's a real thing that can do stuff like move the resonant dead spots around on instruments; players have used it to do things like put an annoying dead spot between two notes so it's not so much of an issue.
Whoa there Nelly, assumptions and generalizations galore ...
I would trust actual measurements and double blind tests, not subjective listening tests.
My own ears deceive me, they tire quickly, they change over short periods of time daily when listening to effects setting, mixing tracks etc. Your own senses can not be trusted, sometimes a sound appears to have changed five minutes later even though no knobs or sliders have been moved. And, "hearing what you want to hear" is a very real effect, as shown by myself and others while being in the honeymoon stage after buying new toys.
The very fact these aging processes are so debated is proof in itself - if the effect of artificially aging or improving the tonal qualities of wood had been clear and very noticeable then there would be agreement and no room for debate, right?
No, I don't think it's silly, actually as a machine it's kind of cool. I'm sure it does something, just not very much.
If you actually read what I wrote instead of inventing your own theories about what I seem to think then you'd see I do not say the process does nothing, only that the effect is likely insignificant. Of course I don't think placebo always explains everything.
I would trust actual measurements and double blind tests, not subjective listening tests.
My own ears deceive me, they tire quickly, they change over short periods of time daily when listening to effects setting, mixing tracks etc. Your own senses can not be trusted, sometimes a sound appears to have changed five minutes later even though no knobs or sliders have been moved. And, "hearing what you want to hear" is a very real effect, as shown by myself and others while being in the honeymoon stage after buying new toys.
The very fact these aging processes are so debated is proof in itself - if the effect of artificially aging or improving the tonal qualities of wood had been clear and very noticeable then there would be agreement and no room for debate, right?
No, I don't think it's silly, actually as a machine it's kind of cool. I'm sure it does something, just not very much.
If you actually read what I wrote instead of inventing your own theories about what I seem to think then you'd see I do not say the process does nothing, only that the effect is likely insignificant. Of course I don't think placebo always explains everything.
Well, as I don't do that then we may finally have a statement of yours that we can agree on.
Last edited:
Guys guys guys, we are looking at a beautiful new process that I personally desire! It probably would work awesome...
At breaking in shoes! Like for real this guy needs to sell this process to bootmakers all over the world
At breaking in shoes! Like for real this guy needs to sell this process to bootmakers all over the world
I understand why people are attracted to double blind tests, but I have to call bogus on them, when applied to audio issues. For all their "scientific" trappings, IMHO they introduce more of the very noise they hope to eliminate.
Listening is, by definition, a subjective and sensual experience. Normally, we use our ears to listen to things. It's no big deal, and we do it without thinking. It's when we try to consiously try to listen for things, for differences, that we deceive ourselves. A DBT places someone in precisely that situation where they are not listening in a normal fashion. That DBT has yet to provide anything other than "you can't trust your own ears" only speaks to the faults in the "science" that supports it. Don't get me wrong. I am all for the scientific approach and scientific study. I just think this is junk science, when applied to audio. Now, perhaps there is a way to do this, but I have not seen it yet.
Listening is, by definition, a subjective and sensual experience. Normally, we use our ears to listen to things. It's no big deal, and we do it without thinking. It's when we try to consiously try to listen for things, for differences, that we deceive ourselves. A DBT places someone in precisely that situation where they are not listening in a normal fashion. That DBT has yet to provide anything other than "you can't trust your own ears" only speaks to the faults in the "science" that supports it. Don't get me wrong. I am all for the scientific approach and scientific study. I just think this is junk science, when applied to audio. Now, perhaps there is a way to do this, but I have not seen it yet.
Whoa there Nelly, assumptions and generalizations galore ...
I would trust actual measurements and double blind tests, not subjective listening tests.
My own ears deceive me, they tire quickly, they change over short periods of time daily when listening to effects setting, mixing tracks etc. Your own senses can not be trusted, sometimes a sound appears to have changed five minutes later even though no knobs or sliders have been moved. And, "hearing what you want to hear" is a very real effect, as shown by myself and others while being in the honeymoon stage after buying new toys.
The very fact these aging processes are so debated is proof in itself - if the effect of artificially aging or improving the tonal qualities of wood had been clear and very noticeable then there would be agreement and no room for debate, right?
No, I don't think it's silly, actually as a machine it's kind of cool. I'm sure it does something, just not very much.
If you actually read what I wrote instead of inventing your own theories about what I seem to think then you'd see I do not say the process does nothing, only that the effect is likely insignificant. Of course I don't think placebo always explains everything.
Well, as I don't do that then we may finally have a statement of yours that we can agree on.
Even if there is a "deception" of some sort on our perception, it's applied evenly. That's the point of double blind test. It's constant, so how could you say there is a bias, when you don't even know what you're being biased against? Just because you don't see the results you'd like to see doesn't make it junk science.
I don't think you'd have to identify what was accepted as "generally pleasing to the human ear," or even introduce a musical instrument into the test. You would just have to figure out a way to measure the frequency response of the vibrations/damping of a particular piece of wood. You take the measurements, put the wood through whatever Yamaha AIR process you want, and then you measure again. You would also have to figure out how to control any other variables, such as moisture in the wood, environmental conditions, etc.
The improvement in tone could be real, but I don't consider this a valid example. Nobody's hearing "memory" is so precise that they can realistically compare nuances of a sound they just heard to a sound they heard several days ago.
In all seriousness, this could be a very marketable step-up in the relicing process - beer, vibrations, smoke, and regular beatings.
Last edited:
You folks are certainly entitled to your opinions, and it should come as no surprise that yours are as valuable to me as mine is to you. When it comes to science, "psychoaccoustics" is in it's infancy. Does that mean I am opposed to it? Not by any means. I'm just not going to accept it as a fully developed understanding. If you subjected 100 people to DBT, I'm certain that the vast majority could reliably differentiate between a trumpet and a bassoon. The difference between a P and a J bass? A Strat and a Les Paul? The results would lead you to believe that there's no tangible difference between them. That's a problem, because there obviously are significant differences that the tests just can't determine. Your ears cannot fool you. They simply do not have that ability. However, your brain can easily decieve you. And in DBT it's your brain that's front and center, which is why I said this sort of testing introduces the very problem they are trying to eliminate.
You make some sense. However, if you can't tell which is a P and which is a J, shouldn't you at least be able to differentiate between the two types? If you had 10 P's and 10 J's and they really do sound different, shouldn't you be able to tell they are a bass of type A or type B with some reliability, even if you couldn't tell if A was a P or a J?
In the violin DBT, shouldn't you be able to decide "I like the sound of that one" and "I don't like this one?" If anything, I would think the playing of the instrument would bias what you hear more than the fact that you heard it during a DBT.
This is precisely where the psycho enters into the equation. Your mood one day might favor one violin, while the opposite might be true the next. Add to that, the results of many test subjects who will have different preferences of their own. I am by no means opposed to scientific method. And I understand that DBT might be the closest means that have been achieved to date. But that does not automatically make it 'good'. A nice round rock might be the closest thing you have to a wheel, but that does not mean it's a good wheel.
Some thoughts:
You would prefer the superstitions of people with limited experiences and subjected to advertising and marketing and folklore and brand loyalty etc.?
I humbly suggest you're foregone conclusion on the hypothetical test is incorrect.
Seems kind of a contradiction in terms here. If "there obviously are significant differences" that the test can't determine, then your test is flawed. I think you are making huge assumptions about what kind of tests could be designed and performed.
Again, I think this is a problem with your assumption about how the test is done.
"you can't trust your own ears" may be a perfectly valid conclusion. No real 'fault' in that science.
I would love to see many well-designed double blind tests in audio products in general, i.e. instruments, amps, effects, recording tech, speakers, rooms, etc. I have an engineering background and I try to read as much as I can, but so far, I have seen very very little in the way of rigorous scientific inquiry. I think there are primarily two reasons for this:
1. Doing good tests is expensive. You need quality equipment, consistent environments, you need qualified people to design the tests, different (double-blind) qualified people to run the tests, a significant number of more different qualified people subjected to the tests, etc.
2. Confusion is really in the financial best interest of the manufacturers (the only ones who might have money to run these studies). Fender has a bajillion different models of P bass, J bass, Strat and Tele. Why would they possibly want to take the chance that scientific testing could prove one better than others? Or that several are completely indistinguishable? A larger more fragmented market means more sales. I don't mean to pick on Fender, this applies to just about everything audio.
