POWER TO THE PEBBLE!
....damn... I've found my new shtick.
Right in my wheelhouse
Kevin, you should obviously start inlaying Tone Stones.
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.
Kevin, you should obviously start inlaying Tone Stones.
In an effort to stay ...''on topic"
We must consider the new debate topic of "Tone Metal"
...and the relative weights thereof...
Aluminium Vs Brass? ...nay, I proclaim GOLD as the supreme tonemetal needed!
I would even go so far as to pose the query...
"What's the best ToneWeightMetal....for Metal?"
I would say anything in the Heavy metal category would work
For that vintage tone, one would need Unobtainium..
Rôckhewer
Commercial User
- Feb 28, 2015
- 2,922
- 9,029
- Disclosures
- Owner/Builder- RockHewer Custom Guitars LLC
I know...right?
But, I'd need to enhance the back-story a bit.
Like:
..."They were mined by an Aboriginal Pygmy Shaman... from the Sacred Mountain of the Wazoo Tribe!"....
Yeah...that's it.
When they changed the weights, what they heard was the call of the bulldust bird crying softly outside, "bullcrap! bullcrap!"
What're the best weights to use for metal? For "metal", use steel. For "heavy metal", use depleted uranium.
Hah!!
On their home page -
In other words,"we'll send you bag of sand for three hundred bucks".
What's kind of, um, odd about the weights in the Stenback video is that they're attached to the cavity cover, and the cavity cover is a snap-in. I'd think that if you were going to attempt to affect the tone via mass of the instrument you'd at least attach the weights securely to the body.
Tone Stones, for that B****y tone you've been looking for.I know...right?
But, I'd need to enhance the back-story a bit.
Like:
..."They were mined by an Aboriginal Pygmy Shaman... from the Sacred Mountain of the Wazoo Tribe!"....
Yeah...that's it.
That's a big question for me too, I feel like you'd really need the mass to be solidly attached to work optimally. Super weird that he's not making a mechanical connection between the body and the cavity cover. Presumably he could also be screwing that weight into the body rather than attaching it to the cover, it's the same amount of space consumed.
Physics dictates that changing the mass properties of the body changes the resonance properties. But if or how much you could hear such a change, I really doubt. This would undoubtedly fail a double-blind test.
- John
- John
Yeah, I was going to point that out too. It's fun to go off ridiculing all the Audio Miracles out there, but what Stenbeck is doing does have a real basis in science. Adding mass at the outer ends of the frame does change the overall resonance of the frame. Which can change the sound on the strings. But, adding a small amount of mass isn't a very efficient way to change how the frame reacts to the movement of the strings. Adding an ounce or two to a 7 pound frame is fine tuning. More useful for adjusting balance and small shifts of dead spots, than really changing the sound.
True but the arrangement doesn't change the mass of the instrument per se, it only changes the mass of the control cavity cover which isn't an acoustically functional component.
Here's another one I just thought of; magnetically attached control cavity covers of different materials and weights...and colors...for tone specific applications. Now I gotta go file a patent.
Last edited:
So what you're saying is, in this case they're practising mostly irrelevant hoodoo.
BTW, it sort of stuns me at people are still doing this sort of rubbish when Ned Steinberger stopped in the 70s. He used it on the spector to get better balance (with the added bonus of extra shoulder strain). As most of you know, I see no reason to build extra weight into anything, instruments, speaker cabs, cars, etc. However, if you wanted to do that, finding a way to move the weight around to better take advantage of this theory would be helpful, rather than just adding it. Additionally, and I'm probably harping on here, I dispute that adding ANY weight to a fender style solid body is going to make any measurable difference to the tone. This is because the body does nothing for the tone beyond holding the neck still and creating a solid beam for the tension of the strings. If you wanted to test whether the theory flew at all, the starting point would be to dynabolt the body to a concrete floor, thereby getting the weight of the earth into the equation instead of a few piddly bits of brass.
So what you're saying is, in this case they're practising mostly irrelevant hoodoo.
BTW, it sort of stuns me at people are still doing this sort of rubbish when Ned Steinberger stopped in the 70s. He used it on the spector to get better balance (with the added bonus of extra shoulder strain). As most of you know, I see no reason to build extra weight into anything, instruments, speaker cabs, cars, etc. However, if you wanted to do that, finding a way to move the weight around to better take advantage of this theory would be helpful, rather than just adding it. Additionally, and I'm probably harping on here, I dispute that adding ANY weight to a fender style solid body is going to make any measurable difference to the tone. This is because the body does nothing for the tone beyond holding the neck still and creating a solid beam for the tension of the strings. If you wanted to test whether the theory flew at all, the starting point would be to dynabolt the body to a concrete floor, thereby getting the weight of the earth into the equation instead of a few piddly bits of brass.
So, ummm... you're advocating tone planets?
And, since it's required, what IS the best tone planet for metal?
So, ummm... you're advocating tone planets?
Yes! You've caught me out. Now which was the heaviest planet?
Yes! You've caught me out. Now which was the heaviest planet?
Isnt it the most gaseous?
