D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
Have you all done your homework yet? There will be a test paper later in the week...
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.
myth-busting: Resonance is not synonymous with Vibration
- Thread starter Killed_by_Death
- Start date
Have you all done your homework yet? There will be a test paper later in the week...
This one & your latest one are more of the same, corroboration of my side of the discussion:
"the string may excite a neck resonance with the result that the string vibration is additionally damped"
IF you're going to cite references that agree with me, I'm fine with that, but quit arguing in the opposing.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
So I'm confused, I thought you said the destructive and constructive interference only applied to acoustic instruments? You even put the word "acoustic" in upper case. But why so angry, grasshopper? The arbitrary change in a date digit tonight will bring you prosperity and happiness.
You realize all the "dumpster fire" arguing has to deal with poorly chosen words? It gets compounded by doubling down on what often is mostly true and then picking and choosing when to apply certain things.
I think @Killed_by_Death is trying to say that just because you can feel or hear vibration in the neck when you play, that should not be described as resonant. A very resonant neck by the definition you are choosing would cause a lot of string dampening and lead to to more potential for dead spots.
Others are just pointing out the English error in this, where resonant has multiple meanings. Some of which mean exactly what the example you describe in the original post. The argument is akin to complaining about people using the word theory to mean a hypothesis in colloquial terms.
Others are pointing out that resonance alone doesn't account for dead spots. I think that is mostly what @ficelles is trying to say. Basically, resonance is not just sucking energy out of the system all of the time. That happens when you put a sponge under the strings. The sponge isn't resonating. It absorbs energy from the strings and quickens decay. When resonance causes decay, it is from destructive interference meaning the vibration in the neck and the string are cancelling each other. But they could be aligned so they reinforce each other. Maybe he/she could clarify if that's not what is meant.
Personally, I find this argument exhausting because resonance and resonant have so many definitions, and it is clear what someone means when they say a bass is resonant as described in the original post.
I think @Killed_by_Death is trying to say that just because you can feel or hear vibration in the neck when you play, that should not be described as resonant. A very resonant neck by the definition you are choosing would cause a lot of string dampening and lead to to more potential for dead spots.
Others are just pointing out the English error in this, where resonant has multiple meanings. Some of which mean exactly what the example you describe in the original post. The argument is akin to complaining about people using the word theory to mean a hypothesis in colloquial terms.
Others are pointing out that resonance alone doesn't account for dead spots. I think that is mostly what @ficelles is trying to say. Basically, resonance is not just sucking energy out of the system all of the time. That happens when you put a sponge under the strings. The sponge isn't resonating. It absorbs energy from the strings and quickens decay. When resonance causes decay, it is from destructive interference meaning the vibration in the neck and the string are cancelling each other. But they could be aligned so they reinforce each other. Maybe he/she could clarify if that's not what is meant.
Personally, I find this argument exhausting because resonance and resonant have so many definitions, and it is clear what someone means when they say a bass is resonant as described in the original post.
Ficelles is wrong. Resonance is exactly what causes dead spots. You only notice it, though, when the system is excited by a signal at the resonant frequency. Short of showing footage of bridges falling apart it's hard to think of a more obvious example of resonance than a dead spot.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
Ficelles is not wrong, because that is not what Ficelles said. Ficelles plainly and clearly said, so plainly and clearly that even you people should be able to understand, that resonance is exactly what causes interference in solid body instruments. And Ficelles even posted a link to a lengthy, detailed, rigorous academic study proving the point. Idiots
Last edited:
There is resonance and there is antiresonance…
A pluck on a string has a wide harmonic content capable of exciting all the parts of the electric bass and their respective frequency responses spectrums. These parts have several vibration modes, each mode with its own frequency. The parts are connected so the vibration is transmitted from the string to the neck and body, but the neck and body also transmit their vibrations to the string. That is why maple wood material with a high frequency resonance results in a brighter tone instrument.
A pluck on a string has a wide harmonic content capable of exciting all the parts of the electric bass and their respective frequency responses spectrums. These parts have several vibration modes, each mode with its own frequency. The parts are connected so the vibration is transmitted from the string to the neck and body, but the neck and body also transmit their vibrations to the string. That is why maple wood material with a high frequency resonance results in a brighter tone instrument.
Ficelles is not wrong, because that is not what Ficelles said. Ficelles plainly and clearly said, so plainly and clearly that even you people should be able to understand, that resonance is exactly what causes interference in solid body instruments. And Ficelles even posted a link to a lengthy, detailed, rigorous academic study proving the point. Idiots
Then I modify my comment to "if Ficelles had said that Ficelles would have been wrong"! But, obviously not actually wrong.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
"I've only been wrong once, and that's when I thought I had made a mistake but it turned out I hadn't."
I read the paper you posted and will do so again. I understand the use of conductance as a proxy, but I'd like to have seen verification that conductance really does work as a proxy for resonance. If it is and I got a 'shaker', I could map the frequency response for a bass and then spend six months working out the optimal way to display the data
.A dead spot results from plucking the string pressed at a given fret. The fundamental frequency of the string vibration is an antiresonance frequency of the complete coupled system, including the neck, the pressed string and the body.
We can see the analogy at the following animation where the coupled pendula on the left represents the plucked pressed string and the coupled pendula on the right represents the body/ neck. At that fundamental frequency the string (left pendula) doesn't move because it's the antiresonant frequency.
We can see the analogy at the following animation where the coupled pendula on the left represents the plucked pressed string and the coupled pendula on the right represents the body/ neck. At that fundamental frequency the string (left pendula) doesn't move because it's the antiresonant frequency.
The argument stems from the OP using one and only one definition and ignoring all others.
D
Deleted member 165050
Guest
According to that paper it's more a function of decay time than of making it louder. The decay on a constructive interference (live spot) frequency is much longer than a frequency where there is no interference, and with both those scenarios the decay is much longer than with a destructive interference (dead spot) frequency.
I've found that the very best place I can go to learn about physics is the Basses forum on TalkBass.
What I learned from studying Acoustical Physics at a University (from one of the very few experts on the planet at the Physics of musical instruments) and what is presented here sometimes use the same words. Still, I'm pretty sure if I did my studying here and then took the tests I did in college, I'd have gotten miserable grades.
This is the interweb. Keyboard commandos spouting opinions as if they are truth. Scientists unwilling and not brave enough to entertain new theories. Posters who state an opinion while true for them they state as everyone else’s experience.
It was said about the web that someone is pontificating with great authority while they are actually in their parent’s basement with their pants around their ankles.
Actually sitting across from someone cuts through all this.
Years ago on TB this poster said his rig cut through in the mix. Stupid me. I thought the mix was drums and two guitars all the way to B3, horn section, vocalist, backup singers etc. Turned out he was playing in his basement with his preteen daughter on trumpet and his teen son on drums.
Yet there are many here with experience and wisdom to know what they know and don’t.
@ficelles Thank you for such an informative paper and lively conversation. I have read it and learned a whole lot.
Your paper you provided does not support your assertions and actually argues against your points.
A few things: The paper you supplied does not support your assertion about constructive and destructive interference. In fact, the words "constructive" and "destructive" don't even appear in the paper. The word "interference" does not either.
The paper does not agree with your definition of a live spot. You say:
The paper says:
A live spot, as defined by the regular decay of all partials dominated by internal damping, is found at the 10th fret; cf
The paper does not agree with your definition of a dead spot. You say:
The paper that you posted says:
Obviously, there is a close correlation between dead spots and the conductance. Where a dead spot occurs the conductance proves as high for the first partial
and
A dead spot occurs as soon as support damping dominates, which is selective with respect to location and frequency
The paper specifically says it's not talking about anything having to do with constructive/destructive interference. The closest it comes is talking about inharmonicity and out-of-phase vibrations in the string which I mentioned to you previouly:
Quote: The inharmonicity, which may originate from damping, is not considered in this report. The main scope is to analyse the decay of the vibrations. (note that by vibrations he means those in the string interacting by resonance of the neck and body of the bass)
Thank you!
Your paper you provided does not support your assertions and actually argues against your points.
A few things: The paper you supplied does not support your assertion about constructive and destructive interference. In fact, the words "constructive" and "destructive" don't even appear in the paper. The word "interference" does not either.
The paper does not agree with your definition of a live spot. You say:
The paper says:
A live spot, as defined by the regular decay of all partials dominated by internal damping, is found at the 10th fret; cf
The paper does not agree with your definition of a dead spot. You say:
I am just going to say you are incorrect. Destructive interference occurs within solid body bass guitars as has been proven by multiple formal studies and that interference is transmitted to the amplified sound. That is why basses have dead spots, and there is a specific vibration analysis paper I've posted
The paper that you posted says:
Obviously, there is a close correlation between dead spots and the conductance. Where a dead spot occurs the conductance proves as high for the first partial
and
A dead spot occurs as soon as support damping dominates, which is selective with respect to location and frequency
The paper specifically says it's not talking about anything having to do with constructive/destructive interference. The closest it comes is talking about inharmonicity and out-of-phase vibrations in the string which I mentioned to you previouly:
Quote: The inharmonicity, which may originate from damping, is not considered in this report. The main scope is to analyse the decay of the vibrations. (note that by vibrations he means those in the string interacting by resonance of the neck and body of the bass)
Thank you!
Last edited:
