blindboygrunt Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 So , rather than energy dissipating off the end of the headstock , the device stops it and the energy is transferred to the strings and body ? Making the guitar louder ? Really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 So , rather than energy dissipating off the end of the headstock , the device stops it and the energy is transferred to the strings and body ? Making the guitar louder ? Really ? It reduces wasted energy, so it does increase sustain and volume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 It reduces wasted energy, so it does increase sustain and volume. So then , surely there must be a point at which adding mass to the headstock that will start to reverse the results ? Am struggling to figure this one out. That all the testing of the worlds guitar builders is outdone by a 'gadget' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 This thread is my Wunderwall! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 They're £37 !! 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 On 8/29 you wrote: I've returned the Standard (SJ200) and purchased a Western Classic...... " It seems Gibson is very selfishly stubborn. I will give them one last chance with this baby." After modifications to the saddle and pick guard, you've decided to sell it for MSRP. And purchase an SJ200." And this is because you don't like 'the break angle" . There's actually a man more brilliant than Aspen Pitman, who invented a device to make the guitar louder with more sustain - to the point anyone and everyone can here it. Les Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 On 8/29 you wrote: I've returned the Standard (SJ200) and purchased a Western Classic...... " It seems Gibson is very selfishly stubborn. I will give them one last chance with this baby." After modifications to the saddle and pick guard, you've decided to sell it for MSRP. And purchase an SJ200." And this is because you don't like 'the break angle" . There's actually a man more brilliant than Aspen Pitman, who invented a device to make the guitar louder with more sustain - to the point anyone and everyone can here it. Les Paul. What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 So then , surely there must be a point at which adding mass to the headstock that will start to reverse the results ? Am struggling to figure this one out. That all the testing of the worlds guitar builders is outdone by a 'gadget' No, I think if you added more mass to the head stock the guitar would get even louder. It seems your "struggling" may be your problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 This thread is my Wunderwall! Thanks for sharing this usefully information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 No, I think if you added more mass to the head stock the guitar would get even louder. It seems your "struggling" may be your problem. My ''struggling'' Pete , I'm only trying to understand a new concept which you kindly brought to my attention. The fender fat finger , it's a weight right ? Don't appreciate the condescension Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 You are welcome man! And thank you for a thread that has me earnestly thinking about so many important things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlejohnny Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Hey guys, I noticed, that anytime I post, the thread instantly dies. and I really dig this emoticon > Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 What is your point? Thank you for asking. My point is that this 5 month running thread (and others you're posted) seem more focused on your struggles in the minutiae of finding an elusive, 'perfect to your ears' guitar than playing any of the great Gibsons you are / were fortunate enough to own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 Thank you for asking. My point is that this 5 month running thread (and others you're posted) seem more focused on your struggles in the minutiae of finding an elusive, 'perfect to your ears' guitar than playing any of the great Gibsons you are / were fortunate enough to own. I was "fortunate" to shell out a very large sum of money to play all these guitars, so naturally I want to be pleased. So if you have anything positive to contribute in that regard please feel free to post, otherwise please do not bother posting, I do not need you approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 My ''struggling'' Pete , I'm only trying to understand a new concept which you kindly brought to my attention. The fender fat finger , it's a weight right ? Don't appreciate the condescension Sorry, but it seems to me you are just like some others who seem to have other intentions. I hope you do finally comprehend what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Hey guys, I noticed, that anytime I post, the thread instantly dies. and I really dig this emoticon > Youbrokeyourcurse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted December 6, 2016 Share Posted December 6, 2016 Pete. Here your sentence is at least ambiguous enough to imply that your experience with the lampshade was analogous with use of the Fatfinger: the lampshade added mass which dampened the movement of the headstock, transferring more energy to the soundboard and generating more volume and sustain. It is possible that your sentence means that touching the lampshade transferred energy to that item, wasting energy, but according to your theory, that would have sapped the volume of your guitar in this case. You, however, definitely state that touching the lampshade increased volume. So on balance, I think that the first reading - i.e. lampshade = extra mass = dampened headstock movement = more energy to soundboard = more volume is the more viable. Aspen Pitman is a smart man. He invented it because he thought it made a difference. It does make a difference. It is just basic physics. All headstocks vibrate, I discovered that decades ago when my unplugged electric's headstock happened to touch a lampshade, it got really loud. This motion is wasted energy as the headstock vibrates back and forth. If you add mass this dampens that movement and more string energy gets transferred to the soundboard. I can hear it working, more volume and sustain every time. Here, however, you indicate that the headstock was transferring energy to the lamp shade. In that case, according to your own hypothesis, your guitar should have lost volume when it touched the lampshade. This statement is not consistent with the more viable reading of your first statement. Of course the headstock is vibrating and transferring that energy to the lamp shade. Of course! It is wasted energy. The FatFinger dampens this wasted energy and keeps more of it in the string to be transfered to the saddle, bridge and soundboard. The FatFinger works as described. Here again, you reaffirm that adding more mass increases volume. Although you do not assert an infinite continuum for this correlation, you do effectively imply that it is goes on indefinitely, because you do not place a limit on it. No, I think if you added more mass to the head stock the guitar would get even louder. It seems your "struggling" may be your problem. I think that BBG's problem is that according to that principle, sticking your guitar headstock against a lampshade ought to increase the volume. Moreover, if the lampshade is attached to a lamp, then the increase in volume ought to be greater because more mass is involved. If the lamp is placed on the ground, then the mass of your entire floor ought to be in play, again increasing volume. Assuming that your floor is built on the ground, then the mass of the entire earth ought to affect the volume of your guitar. Or to rephrase BBG's point, at some point, the soundboard of the guitar might in fact become the additional mass attached to a new primary soundboard in the form of all the other material which has been put in contact with your headstock. I don't think that BBG is being dense here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 Pete. Here your sentence is at least ambiguous enough to imply that your experience with the lampshade was analogous with use of the Fatfinger: the lampshade added mass which dampened the movement of the headstock, transferring more energy to the soundboard and generating more volume and sustain. It is possible that your sentence means that touching the lampshade transferred energy to that item, wasting energy, but according to your theory, that would have sapped the volume of your guitar in this case. You, however, definitely state that touching the lampshade increased volume. So on balance, I think that the first reading - i.e. lampshade = extra mass = dampened headstock movement = more energy to soundboard = more volume is the more viable. Here, however, you indicate that the headstock was transferring energy to the lamp shade. In that case, according to your own hypothesis, your guitar should have lost volume when it touched the lampshade. This statement is not consistent with the more viable reading of your first statement. Here again, you reaffirm that adding more mass increases volume. Although you do not assert an infinite continuum for this correlation, you do effectively imply that it is goes on indefinitely, because you do not place a limit on it. I think that BBG's problem is that according to that principle, sticking your guitar headstock against a lampshade ought to increase the volume. Moreover, if the lampshade is attached to a lamp, then the increase in volume ought to be greater because more mass is involved. If the lamp is placed on the ground, then the mass of your entire floor ought to be in play, again increasing volume. Assuming that your floor is built on the ground, then the mass of the entire earth ought to affect the volume of your guitar. Or to rephrase BBG's point, at some point, the soundboard of the guitar might in fact become the additional mass attached to a new primary soundboard in the form of all the other material which has been put in contact with your headstock. I don't think that BBG is being dense here. No, I did not say that the lampshade added mass, what it is doing is transferring the headstocks energy into sound waves. It is showing that the headstock does vibrate. So if you add mass like the FatFinger it will dampen and reduce this wasting energy keeping more energy in the string that will be transferred through he saddle and bridge to the soundboard. You seem to be confused with all of your assumptions and pretentious comments about what you think I may have "indicated" I have "indicated" nothing, I have been making clear, concise and logical statements about a rather simple effect. So like others, your attempt at trying to defame and ridicule me has "failed". I am quite used to this by now, it happens all over the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 6, 2016 Author Share Posted December 6, 2016 http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/134202-trolls/page__p__1816200__fromsearch__1&do=findComment&comment=1816200 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 I bought a brand new one from E.M. Shorts for $2999.00. You have posted this in 2 of my threads, can you please reply to my requests? I would like to see you show some proof of this claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorrisrownSal Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 FYI - Here is Gibson's spec page on the Western Classic, with a suggested price of $3,999: http://www.gibson.co...Prewar-200.aspx You bought the Mystic Rosewood Edition I am guessing... http://www.gibson.co...c-Rosewood.aspx Routinely online folks (Wildwood and EM Shorts for example) discount substantially off these numbers. Heck Russo's in NJ comes substantially off these numbers. So, I believe Rob likely thought of the first model, and likely did pay 25% less than that figure. If Rob were buying your guitar new from EM Shorts, my guess is the price he might pay would be about $4500 new. I think that should clear up the misconception. You are asking full MSRP of $5,999 for your used guitar. Did you pay $4500? $4800? Thereabouts? Nick and Rob note that this is a friendly forum of friends generally, and that the regular posters here don't buy a new guitar for X and try to sell it for X + 20-25% to the family. I think that is their point... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 FYI - Here is Gibson's spec page on the Western Classic, with a suggested price of $3,999: http://www.gibson.co...Prewar-200.aspx You bought the Mystic Rosewood Edition I am guessing... http://www.gibson.co...c-Rosewood.aspx Routinely online folks (Wildwood and EM Shorts for example) discount substantially off these numbers. Heck Russo's in NJ comes substantially off these numbers. So, I believe Rob likely thought of the first model, and likely did pay 25% less than that figure. If Rob were buying your guitar new from EM Shorts, my guess is the price he might pay would be about $4500 new. I think that should clear up the misconception. You are asking full MSRP of $5,999 for your used guitar. Did you pay $4500? $4800? Thereabouts? Nick and Rob note that this is a friendly forum of friends generally, and that the regular posters here don't buy a new guitar for X and try to sell it for X + 20-25% to the family. I think that is there point... You seem to be answering a question for someone else who made a certain claim. I do not need your explanation nor approval to sell my guitar. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about circumstances you are not involved with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 You seem very angry Pete For dear sake we're only taking about guitars not world famine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted December 7, 2016 Author Share Posted December 7, 2016 You seem very angry Pete For dear sake we're only taking about guitars not world famine Nope, not angry, quite happy and excited about buying new guitars. I find certain attitudes here quite condescending, preachy, pompous, pretentious and insulting. The same kind of thing that people here accuse AGF of, very interesting behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blindboygrunt Posted December 7, 2016 Share Posted December 7, 2016 You're coming across that way yourself Pete. Hate to be the one to break it to you. I've no dog in the fight. I just hate it when forums fall into rows over misunderstandings. Sal is a perfect gentleman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.