Graphite vs. Titanium neck reinforcement

[Gilmourisgod]

Bridge designers have to worry about resonant frequency... a lot..., Everybody has seen that old movie of the bridge flapping around like a wet noodle. That was steel and concrete, which are a lot more homogenous than wood. You might be able to predict that a particular bass "should" have a deadspot in a particular location, but I'm guessing that would just be a bell curve, with a certain % meeting the prediction, and a lot outside that range. I only have one bass with no dead spots I can hear (and if I can't hear them, they don't exist in any practical way), and that's my Steinberger, with a cast graphite/carbon fiber neck. If deadspots can be considered a real "problem", Ned Steinberger solved it 35 years ago, which just goes to show you that technological progress isn't linear, sometimes we do re-invent the wheel...repeatedly.

 

[foothilla]

That was my point earlier. A local guitar player posted a review of his latest acquisition & used the term "very resonant", which had me shaking my head.
Almost everyone confounds vibration & resonance.

If you want to enter a semantics discussion, perhaps you should first revisit the definition of "resonant". The majority of respected instrument makers (Fender, for instance) use "resonance" as a desired trait in tone woods. It seems that you are the one that is confused by the definition.

res·o·nant
/ˈrezənənt/
adjective
adjective: resonant

1. 1.
   (of sound) deep, clear, and continuing to sound or ring.
   "a full-throated and resonant guffaw"
   
   2. (of a room, musical instrument, or hollow body) tending to reinforce or prolong sounds, especially by synchronous vibration.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

resonant frequency

This is the key term, all those manufacturers are using the term "resonant" incorrectly, but so did C.L. Fender when he called a vibrato bridge a "tremolo".

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Resonance is not a desirable property in a bass neck.

I think it would be in a fretless.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

That was my point earlier. A local guitar player posted a review of his latest acquisition & used the term "very resonant", which had me shaking my head.
Almost everyone confounds vibration & resonance.

It wasn't quite as bad as the guy who posted his Ibanez Talman & when asked if it had active pickups, he responded that it does
The Ibanez Mikro in the room with me has the same Dynamix pickups & the bass has no battery, it is 100% passive!

All sound is vibration. "Resonance" is a term that describes how long it stays vibrating at the same rate. Or, "frequency" or, "pitch" those are measurements of the speed of a vibration.

 

[ctmullins]

Dang English is tricksy enough, without this whole “language is fluid and ever-evolving” nonsense. No wonder there are so many arguments on TB!!

 

[foothilla]

This is the key term, all those manufacturers are using the term "resonant" incorrectly, but so did C.L. Fender when he called a vibrato bridge a "tremolo".

It's you that uses the term incorrectly. Go back and read the (in context) definition that was posted for you.

Seems kind of silly to say "all those manufacturers are using the term incorrectly". Those manufacturers are well respected, and using the term exactly as it's been defined by Websters and Dictionary.com.

 

[ctmullins]

It's you that uses the term incorrectly. Go back and read the (in context) definition that was posted for you.

Seems kind of silly to say "all those manufacturers are using the term incorrectly". Those manufacturers are well respected, and using the term exactly as it's been defined by Websters and Dictionary.com.

Sorry, no.

The word has (at least) two meanings:

1. The Physics context, in which it means "abnormally large response at a certain frequency within a structure"
2. The popular context, in which it means "lively and melodious"

There are also additional meanings within an Electrical Circuit context and a Chemistry context, neither of which are relevant here.

As I said a moment ago, having different meanings for the same word results in a lot of (needless) debate.....

Definition of resonance | Dictionary.com

 

[foothilla]

Sorry, no.

The word has (at least) two meanings:

1. The Physics context, in which it means "abnormally large response at a certain frequency within a structure"
2. The popular context, in which it means "lively and melodious"

There are also additional meanings within an Electrical Circuit context and a Chemistry context, neither of which are relevant here.

As I said a moment ago, having different meanings for the same word results in a lot of (needless) debate.....

Definition of resonance | Dictionary.com

The first posted definition has the context "of sound" - which is the context of our conversation.

The second posted definition has the context "of musical instruments" - which also perfectly fits into the context of this conversation.

Don't try to re-write the Webster's Dictionary, bro,.....it's just silly.

 

[Killed_by_Death]

It's silly to argue about violins in a thread about bass guitars:



this is why I started the thread, but it's inconclusive:

I know I've made up my mind, but I'd rather not argue about it anymore.

 

[foothilla]

It's silly to argue about violins in a thread about bass guitars:

I gave you a Webster's dictionary definition that literally gave the specific context "of musical instruments".

...but you keep telling yourself: "Fender, Gibson, Alembic, Martin...those idiots don't know what resonance means! I know more than the American pioneers of instrument making!".

 

[Killed_by_Death]

I'm surprised almost 20% actually believe it makes no difference!

“language is fluid and ever-evolving”

That's the largest part of the problem IMHO.
Webster notices that people use words incorrectly & when it goes on long enough they actually change the dictionary to reflect that.
Jealous is a big one of those. Everyone uses jealous when they actually mean envy.

coil-tapping is one that bugs me as well, when the manufacturer is actually coil-splitting

No wonder there are so many arguments on TB!!

Often it's about the attitude of the person who started the argument, they'd argue that the sky wasn't blue on a clear day as long as it continued the argument.
Bringing up violins in a subject about bass guitars should have been a clear indicator of what was to come, LMAO!

 

[deff]

I gave you a Webster's dictionary definition that literally gave the specific context "of musical instruments".

...but you keep telling yourself: "Fender, Gibson, Alembic, Martin...those idiots don't know what resonance means! I know more than the American pioneers of instrument making!".

Interestingly enough I can a technical conversation regarding acoustic microscopy and 3D X-Ray Computed Tomography the other day, and I can tell you that despite being "pioneers" who may know their business very well, they don't necessarily have all of the right answers to technical questions or the level of understanding that you might expect.

BTW, there are technical terms, and "terms of industry". What you are referring to within the musical instrument industry is a "term of industry". There is a science behind it, but little to no actual measurement of any of these tings is done within the halls of instrument building. Without getting into all of the specific regarding solid objects and frequency dampening characteristics I can tell you that I was told that despite the fact that there are instruments that can measure this sort of thing, most manufacturers as it was told to me, rely on "the expertise of craftsmen with decades of experience". Sure, all that it great, but really just an easy way of saying, they listen and humans are most often imperfect diagnostic instruments.

Acoustic resonance - Wikipedia

 

[Killed_by_Death]

What you are referring to within the musical instrument industry is a "term of industry". There is a science behind it, but little to no actual measurement

That doesn't surprise me, even a little

 

[deff]

That doesn't surprise me, even a little

When I was just brought it up making small talk and enjoying our discussion, they actually acted insulted and spit the line out a little snippy. Also, unsurprising, while we don't sell the instrumentation they were looking for (we're a lab, not a manufacturer), I basically sent the guy a ton or research and a reasonable write up on the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment they were looking for. It was fairly comprehensive. This was done gratis as I mentioned, we test, we don't make equipment. I didn't even get a response or thank you or anything. Nada.

 

[foothilla]

Webster notices that people use words incorrectly & when it goes on long enough they actually change the dictionary to reflect that.

Often it's about the attitude of the person who started the argument, they'd argue that the sky wasn't blue on a clear day as long as it continued the argument.

Come on, dude,....now the Webster's dictionary is wrong as well? The manufacturers are wrong,...the dictionary is wrong,.....but you are right?

And be honest with yourself, you started the semantics debate, when you made it as though only a clueless twit would use "resonance" as a desired trait.

Even when you're shown a literal, in context definition of a word, you dispute it.

 

[foothilla]

BTW, there are technical terms, and "terms of industry". What you are referring to within the musical instrument industry is a "term of industry". There is a science behind it, but little to no actual measurement of any of these tings is done within the halls of instrument building. Without getting into all of the specific regarding solid objects and frequency dampening characteristics I can tell you that I was told that despite the fact that there are instruments that can measure this sort of thing, most manufacturers as it was told to me, rely on "the expertise of craftsmen with decades of experience". Sure, all that it great, but really just an easy way of saying, they listen and humans are most often imperfect diagnostic instruments.

Why would you ignore a Webster's dictionary definition, but then reference Wikipedia?

This is a bass player forum, and the context was dealing with resonance as a desired trait in an instrument. If ever there was an appropriate place to use "industry terms", it would be here. This isn't an acoustic microscopy forum. This isn't a physics forum.

Then, beyond that, there is the literal definition. Both Websters and Dictionary.com have a definition, in the context of both sound, and musical instruments (which was the context of this conversation).

res·o·nant
/ˈrezənənt/
adjective
adjective: resonant

1. 1.
   (of sound) deep, clear, and continuing to sound or ring.
   "a full-throated and resonant guffaw"
   
   2. (of a room, musical instrument, or hollow body) tending to reinforce or prolong sounds, especially by synchronous vibration.

 

[deff]

Why would you ignore a Webster's dictionary definition, but then reference Wikipedia?

This is a bass player forum, and the context was dealing with resonance as a desired trait in an instrument. If ever there was an appropriate place to use "industry terms", it would be here. This isn't an acoustic microscopy forum. This isn't a physics forum.

Then, beyond that, there is the literal definition. Both Websters and Dictionary.com have a definition, in the context of both sound, and musical instruments (which was the context of this conversation).

res·o·nant
/ˈrezənənt/
adjective
adjective: resonant

1. 1.
   (of sound) deep, clear, and continuing to sound or ring.
   "a full-throated and resonant guffaw"
   
   2. (of a room, musical instrument, or hollow body) tending to reinforce or prolong sounds, especially by synchronous vibration.

Because Webster only provides word definitions not technical terms? Did you even read the wiki? You are the one arguing for arguments sake now.

 

[foothilla]

Because Webster only provides word definitions not technical terms? Did you even read the wiki? You are the one arguing for arguments sake now.

There is no sense in taking the argument out of context. This all started because the "killed by death" guy repeatedly made comments where he insinuated that people are dullards for using "resonance" as a positive attribute for an instrument. All respected instrument makers do so, and so does Webster's dictionary, and dictionary.com.

Look at how CF Martin's website describes Brazilian Rosewood, and it's pesky resonance:

 

[deff]

There is no sense in taking the argument out of context. This all started because the "killed by death" guy repeatedly made comments where he insinuated that people are dullards for using "resonance" as a positive attribute for an instrument. All respected instrument makers do so, and so does Webster's dictionary, and dictionary.com.

Look at how CF Martin's website describes Brazilian Rosewood, and it's pesky resonance:

View attachment 3905923

Yes, and I referred you to the page with a more than decent explanation of acoustic resonance, which you chose to ignore. I simply said that instrument makers use the tern in a nebulous esoteric fashion as a marketing or industry term, when describing something. There is an actual definition and while it is something like what instrument makers use, it is more technical and fleshed out.