• 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.

myth-busting: Resonance is not synonymous with Vibration

#261
Constructive interference wouldn't make the string louder than when you first plucked it.

You pluck the string and it vibrates at a frequency that matches in phase the neck vibrating would probably produce an effect similar to the situation where the neck doesn't resonate, meaning a good note with long sustain.
 
#263
Killed_by_Death said:
Some people are willing to learn, others just want to argue that their 'opinion' is correct, that's where the semantics 'debate' starts, but it never ends, until someone just walks away, figuratively.
Click to expand...

You have yet to admit that you are wrong in respect of one accepted definition of the word. You have repeatedly doubled-down on the 'phsyics' definition and have basically stated that it is the *only* meaning of the word.

It's kind of like the word 'decimate'. It is accepted that it means to destroy. Only an idiot would argue that the only meaning of the word is 'to kill one of every ten'. Language evolves. Many of the words we use today don't mean what they originally were understood to mean. The point of language is to communicate effectively. If person A says to person B, "This bass resonates loudly unplugged and has a very full, pleasing tone", I almost guarantee that even an engineer would understand what person A means.

And it's very possible the colloquial definition predates the engineering definition (as it ultimately derives from a Latin word for echo). Did that ever occur to anyone here?

Oxford puts the standard (non-engineering) definition first:

Link Removed

Link Removed
This thread reminds me of the Rational Wiki entry on 'Engineers and Woo' - specifically, 'Most individual engineers are as sensible and reasonable as anyone, but engineers as a group have a noted tendency to pontificate on things well outside their area of expertise, to the point of actual fallacy.'

Engineers and woo - RationalWiki
 
Last edited:
#267
Killed_by_Death said:
Did you argue that a solid-body electric bass amplifies its signal through acoustic resonance?, yes you basically did.
That's exactly what everyone is doing who disagrees with the premise.
Click to expand...

No, I'm arguing that if a person describes the sound of his unplugged bass as being 'resonant' he is using a correct - and probably the original - definition of the word.

Per your original post: "This (electric) instrument resonates well!"

If the person is referring to the sound it makes, then he is correct.

I hate to indulge in argumentum ad dictionarium, but since you are disputing the literal meaning of a word, it's fair for us to use the OED, as it is the authority on the English language. It defines 'resonate' as:

1. Produce or be filled with a deep, full, reverberating sound.

‘the sound of the siren resonated across the harbour’

Link Removed

That is the first - therefore, preferred - definition. It's also the one that most closely reflects the word's history/origin. In fact, it is very likely the original definition in English. The definition you are using - and the one that you are insisting is the ONLY definition - most likely came later. In any event, it is a technical definition.

I don't doubt you know what you're talking about when it comes to physics - you might well be an expert and I defer to that. That's not my area. But similarly, maybe you should at least acknowledge that you *might* not be an expert when it comes to the English language. If you were, you'd realise you were wrong. In fact, you don't need to be an expert on the English language to realise you are wrong.
 
Last edited:
#269
I'd say. After reading up on this. Dear spots appear when the wood absorbs the given frequency. You wouldn't hear it then either. So when a bass muffs out almost everything. Aka doesn't sounds good acoustic? It wouldn't sing for you. As those subtle overtones that make it ding would be gone first.
 
#270
Killed_by_Death said:
My original assertion is that when Johnny No-Physics sits down & strums his instrument & declares: Eureka, this thing Resonations so well!
JNP doesn't understand that he is incorrect, unless he means it has dead-spots.
The original meaning of the word was meant acoustically, & we're past that already. Any further comment from either of us is superfluous.
Click to expand...

The original meaning of the word referred to sound produced. When I strum my electric guitar unplugged and I hear a great tone, I might say it is resonant. That's not incorrect by the meaning of the word in regular English.
 
#275
BBQisgood said:
energy absorbed By the neck/body part of our imaginary bass saps energy from the vibrating string, and this happens because of resonance. Totally cool and correct in my mind anyhow.
Click to expand...
Welcome back fellow sane-person, have you analyzed the 'evidence' yet?
I looked it over & surmise that it's just agreeing with my original premise.

This thread is like a dumpster-fire at this point, you know it's on fire & stinks, but you have to look in once in awhile & see what's burning.
 
#276
sometimes Resonance isn't good, mmkay?
69022_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=2&_nc_sid=0debeb&_nc_ohc=fjynjsEe9_8AX_eZtK1&_nc_ht=scontent.fric1-2.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Asdfgh-
#279
Polkatronixx said:
No, I'm arguing that if a person describes the sound of his unplugged bass as being 'resonant' he is using a correct - and probably the original - definition of the word.

Per your original post: "This (electric) instrument resonates well!"

If the person is referring to the sound it makes, then he is correct.

I hate to indulge in argumentum ad dictionarium, but since you are disputing the literal meaning of a word, it's fair for us to use the OED, as it is the authority on the English language. It defines 'resonate' as:

1. Produce or be filled with a deep, full, reverberating sound.

‘the sound of the siren resonated across the harbour’

Link Removed

That is the first - therefore, preferred - definition. It's also the one that most closely reflects the word's history/origin. In fact, it is very likely the original definition in English. The definition you are using - and the one that you are insisting is the ONLY definition - most likely came later. In any event, it is a technical definition.

I don't doubt you know what you're talking about when it comes to physics - you might well be an expert and I defer to that. That's not my area. But similarly, maybe you should at least acknowledge that you *might* not be an expert when it comes to the English language. If you were, you'd realise you were wrong. In fact, you don't need to be an expert on the English language to realise you are wrong.
Click to expand...

That meaning means to use the resonance of harbour. It naturally implies 'causes resonance in something' to me by being a signal source. Or maybe my physics degree beats my English O level :).
 
#280
Killed_by_Death said:
It's the twisted incorrect meaning that gets thrown around these days, which is why I started the thread.

note to self: in 2021, just let people be wrong all the time...
Click to expand...

But... Someone will be wrong on the Internet.

But my wife would agree with you and that it would be better I tweaked my basses to avoid overly resonant peaks (dead spots) and practicing than debating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Killed_by_Death

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back