Break Over Angle Experiment

[Victory Pete]

Throw in individual differences between guitars (tonewoods, bracing, bridge pin material, size of the bridge plate, saddle material, string type, etc.) and it is even more inconclusive.

 

I have 2 Identical strings on the same guitar with the same tonewoods, bracing, bridge pin material, size of the bridge plate, saddle material, and string type. One has a high break angle and one has a low break angle. They both have same volume but the higher saddle has more of a tighter, trebly, picking attack. Case closed, unless you have some tests you have done yourself.

[Victory Pete]

No rain here, just facts and non assumptions. In my test I have shown that a steeper breaker angle for the same string height does not increase volume. It is posted elsewhere that string height above the guitar top is what changes volume, I participated in those threads and without getting any clear answers nor evidence decided to do this experiment, I have been banned from my own thread there until tomorrow. How would increasing the string height without changing the break angle prove that break angle may change the volume? I believe my test clearly "demonstrates" that it does not.

 

http://forum.gibson.com/index.php?/topic/133477-saddle-height-and-break-over-angle/page__view__findpost__p__1810693

 

"How would increasing the string height without changing the break angle prove that break angle may change the volume?"

 

Anyone have an answer to this question?

 

 

 

This test here proves break angle does not change volume

 

[Buc McMaster]

Trying to keep the picking force the same is a bit of a challenge, but I have been taking an average of many readings of the DB meter.......

 

You asked: "How would increasing the string height without changing the break angle prove that break angle may change the volume?" If such an experiment was done, with unquestionable methods and accuracy, and did in fact result in a measurable volume increase, it would prove that a string height increase does, in fact, increase volume. If your break angle experiment, again done with unquestionable methods and accuracy, did in fact result in no volume increase, it would in fact prove what you are theorizing, that break angle has nothing to do with volume, only "feel". Two experiments such as these together would make your theory a fact: string height above the top alone is responsible for increased volume and break angle plays no role. And this may well be true, Pete, but until you admit your testing methods are not sufficiently controlled you will never understand why I and others are questioning your conclusions. It is that simple.

 

You might be right, but Trying to keep the picking force the same is a bit of a challenge does not smack of a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment would have a repeatable, machine generated plucking of the string, eliminating any variable there. A controlled experiment would use an oscilloscope to very, very accurately measure the amplitude of the signal generated, something your handheld dB meter cannot do. It is your insistence that your theory is fact that sticks in the craw.......you have a theory but have proven nothing. Your methods are not accurate enough to claim fact.

[BigKahune]

... I have been banned from my own thread there {AGF} ...

 

At this point, possibly the most significant fact in all of this. . .

 

 

.

[Victory Pete]

You asked: "How would increasing the string height without changing the break angle prove that break angle may change the volume?" If such an experiment was done, with unquestionable methods and accuracy, and did in fact result in a measurable volume increase, it would prove that a string height increase does, in fact, increase volume. If your break angle experiment, again done with unquestionable methods and accuracy, did in fact result in no volume increase, it would in fact prove what you are theorizing, that break angle has nothing to do with volume, only "feel". Two experiments such as these together would make your theory a fact: string height above the top alone is responsible for increased volume and break angle plays no role. And this may well be true, Pete, but until you admit your testing methods are not sufficiently controlled you will never understand why I and others are questioning your conclusions. It is that simple.

 

You might be right, but Trying to keep the picking force the same is a bit of a challenge does not smack of a controlled experiment. A controlled experiment would have a repeatable, machine generated plucking of the string, eliminating any variable there. A controlled experiment would use an oscilloscope to very, very accurately measure the amplitude of the signal generated, something your handheld dB meter cannot do. It is your insistence that your theory is fact that sticks in the craw.......you have a theory but have proven nothing. Your methods are not accurate enough to claim fact.

 

Added string height with or without break angle change will increase volume. My tests proved this. Refer to the threads at AGF if you dare, you might not last long there. I have done so many random picking attacks and strumming with as much control as I can, which is pretty consistent, and the results remain the same. As for test equipment I have quite an array of gear, from vintage HP scopes and meters to 90's era Tektronix Navy commissioned scopes. VTVMs, DVMs, you name it I may have it. My 1966 Hickok 6000A is my pride and joy. I don't think there is any need for any further testing as I am quite confident in my repeated results.

[Victory Pete]

At this point, possibly the most significant fact in all of this. . .

 

 

.

 

Oh really, how so? Did you go follow that thread?

[BigKahune]

.

Since you asked, yes. I followed that thread by Gitnoob in 2012 and thought it was wanky then. It got revived in 2014. Then you revived it in 2016 on page 3 - http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241638

 

You got questioned for the same reasons you're getting questioned here. From the AGF thread -

 

End finitum...please for all that is good...no one continue posting on this thread.

 

Pete, you may very well be the most exasperating fellow i have ever read.

And I have never in my life had to use the word exasperating before!

 

This is a perfect example of knowing when to stop people.

 

Ok, I think 17 pages is enough, especially when it has descended into bickering.

 

Plug pulled by Mod. VP sent to woodshed.

 

 

.

[Cougar]

Here is the low break over angle

 

 

Here is the high break over angle

 

 

 

Would you agree the high break angle transfers more force into the saddle?

[Buc McMaster]

I don't think there is any need for any further testing as I am quite confident in my repeated results.

 

Okay Pete, remain happy and content in your confidence, but do you not think it a bit odd that your methods and conclusions have not inspired confidence in anyone else here?

 

I have beat my head upon this rock far too long........and a rock it most certainly is.

[flatbaroque]

haha..what a thread!

I'm conducting an experiment on "having the last word"

 

My current conclusion is it won't be me.

[capmaster]

My conclusion is that either breaking angles on 12-string flattop guitars are probably compromised. :unsure:

[Victory Pete]

.

Since you asked, yes. I followed that thread by Gitnoob in 2012 and thought it was wanky then. It got revived in 2014. Then you revived it in 2016 on page 3 - http://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241638

 

You got questioned for the same reasons you're getting questioned here. From the AGF thread -

 

 

 

 

 

Plug pulled by Mod. VP sent to woodshed.

 

 

.

 

I was asking for proof of their claim that break angle does not increase volume. They said it was string height only. I wanted proof, no one gave me any, so I did my own experiment. If you want something done right you do it yourself. What is funny is they say break angle does not effect the sound whatsoever. So I seem to get it from all different angles. (pun intended) Nice try though. Some of you should try to put as much effort into actually doing some tests and experiments as you do trying to discredit me.

[Victory Pete]

Would you agree the high break angle transfers more force into the saddle?

 

Absolutely, that had been my argument over at AGF. But apparently you can only force the saddle down into the bridge just so much for adequate sound transfer. The string being forced down on the saddle does in fact make a difference. The pick attack is changed, which is audible and can be felt with your fingers.

[Victory Pete]

Okay Pete, remain happy and content in your confidence, but do you not think it a bit odd that your methods and conclusions have not inspired confidence in anyone else here?

 

I have beat my head upon this rock far too long........and a rock it most certainly is.

 

Oh no, I am not surprised at all, it seems to be a common occurrence with certain types of people on the internet. I have seen this exact thing before on many different forums. It is almost as if the same exact person may be following me around.

[dhanners623]

I go back and re-read some of Pete's comments and I am reminded of Steve Earle's line about Bill Monroe: "I wish I was as sure about anything as he is about everything."

 

When Pete builds a few guitars (and builds some device that plucks the strings with consistent, repeatable pressure) he can test his theory. Until then, I'm thinking that break angle increases the strings' downward pressure on the bridge, and that pressure -- along with other factors -- probably has a greater impact on tone and volume than string heighth. And string heighth above what, exactly? Above the bridge? Above the soundhole? Above the fretboard? And then the question becomes, "So what?" Is Pete suggesting we should sacrifice playability for increased volume? I think most of us would consider playability a greater ideal than volume. What good is volume if the guitar is hard to play?

 

Again, a guitar either sounds good or it doesn't, and "good" is subjective. There are many variables that impact that, and Pete seems fixated on one of them that is rather far down the list. A guitar is the sum of its parts and construction, and to try and isolate just one of those factors at the exclusion of others seems a fool's errand.

[blindboygrunt]

I'm starting to see why Pete got banned

 

It's going to happen here too no doubt

 

 

You can't start getting stroppy if your experiment isn't watertight and people start questions your findings

 

No one here asked or commissioned you to do this , you did it and came wandering in shouting eureka only to be told close but no cigar

 

Your hard work and effort is sliding into an 'is' 'isnt' 'is' 'isnt'

 

Come back when there is no reasonable doubt maybe ?

[dhanners623]

...Some of you should try to put as much effort into actually doing some tests and experiments as you do trying to discredit me.

 

My effort (and yours) is better directed towards actually playing the guitar. Post some soundclips or videos and wow us with your playing. Show us how your experiment has resulted in a guitar that sounds superior.

 

I think of all the great old blues or country artists who played lousy dime-store guitars and made great music that has endured, and then I think of your fixation on this subject. Even the time I spent reading this thread and replying would have been better spent pulling out the guitar and playing.

[Victory Pete]

I go back and re-read some of Pete's comments and I am reminded of Steve Earle's line about Bill Monroe: "I wish I was as sure of anything as he is of everything."

 

When Pete builds a few guitars (and builds some device that plucks the strings with consistent, repeatable pressure) he can test his theory. Until then, I'm thinking that break angle increases the strings' downward pressure on the bridge, and that pressure -- along with other factors -- probably has a greater impact on tone and volume than string heighth. And string heighth above what, exactly? Above the bridge? Above the soundhole? Above the fretboard? And then the question becomes, "So what?" Is Pete suggesting we should sacrifice playability for increased volume? I think most of us would consider playability a greater ideal than volume. What good is volume if the guitar is hard to play?

 

Again, a guitar either sounds good or it doesn't, and "good" is subjective. There are many variables that impact that, and Pete seems fixated on one of them that is rather far down the list. A guitar is the sum of its parts and construction, and to try and isolate just one of those factors at the exclusion of others seems a fool's errand.

 

Read this again:

 

http://www.esomogyi.com/principles.html

 

I was convinced that downward pressure was responsible for volume also, it isn't. I confirmed what others had been saying at AGF. Ironically the folks at AGF argue that break angle doesn't affect anything, my tests confirm that it does, it effects string picking attack. It is the leverage of the increased height of the strings off the guitars top that increases volume. I am not suggesting anybody sacrifice anything, I am just stating facts that will help people like me, who are curious about what makes guitars sound and play the way they do. If you are not interested in this, by all means, play your guitar.

[Victory Pete]

I'm starting to see why Pete got banned

 

It's going to happen here too no doubt

 

 

You can't start getting stroppy if your experiment isn't watertight and people start questions your findings

 

No one here asked or commissioned you to do this , you did it and came wandering in shouting eureka only to be told close but no cigar

 

Your hard work and effort is sliding into an 'is' 'isnt' 'is' 'isnt'

 

Come back when there is no reasonable doubt maybe ?

 

I got banned for a week, because they do not want to hear anything "contrary" to what they consider is the only "truth". I had only started my thread for a few hours before this happened. Considering the reputation they have over there as pretentious "cork sniffers" I am not surprised. Go over there and post your "arguments" as to why string height does not increase volume and see how long you last. Even after I finally agreed with them that that was the case, they still fought me on the break angle effect I proved in my tests.

[Victory Pete]

 

 

When Pete builds a few guitars.

 

 

http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/victoryguitarshop/slideshow/HV-28

[dhanners623]

http://s1108.photobucket.com/user/victoryguitarshop/slideshow/HV-28

 

That's great. They look like fine instruments. I'm sure they sound swell.

 

But here's the thing I keep coming back to: Guitars are VERY individual. (Especially Gibsons, which go from "individual" to "idiosyncratic"....) So your experiment, such as it was, may produce one set of results on one guitar and produce negligible effects -- or even the opposite effect -- on another guitar. Throw in other variables such as humidity or temperature and I'm just not sure the experiment tells us anything useful.

 

If you do, indeed, build guitars, why not test your contention on two identical guitars?

[Victory Pete]

That's great. They look like fine instruments. I'm sure they sound swell.

 

But here's the thing I keep coming back to: Guitars are VERY individual. (Especially Gibsons, which go from "individual" to "idiosyncratic"....) So your experiment, such as it was, may produce one set of results on one guitar and produce negligible effects -- or even the opposite effect -- on another guitar. Throw in other variables such as humidity or temperature and I'm just not sure the experiment tells us anything useful.

 

If you do, indeed, build guitars, why not test your contention on two identical guitars?

 

Didn't you just say "Guitars are VERY individual"? How am I then supposed to compare two identical guitars. Doing my test on the same guitar, the D12-28 is as close to identical as you are going to get. Okay this is just getting ridiculous now.

 

PS, It is funny you say "Guitars are VERY individual. (Especially Gibsons, which go from "individual" to "idiosyncratic"....". This whole experiment was inspired by my purchase of 3 new Gibsons, and guess what, they have the most varied break angles of any guitars I have owned.

[dhanners623]

I'll try to put this as plainly as I can. Guitars are so individualistic that your experiment (again, such as it is) applies only to the guitar you conducted it on, on the day you conducted it. As such, it really doesn't do anything for me, and your continued insistence that you have, at long last, "proven" something is off-putting.

 

Will your "discovery" alter the way you (or anybody else) builds guitars?

[E-minor7]

 

Doing my test on the same guitar, the D12-28 is as close to identical as you are going to get.

 

 

Second that - so far, so good.

 

A comment regarding string height over the top :

I still have TV Birds from my grand A/B/C/D/E test and both guitars a highly treasured.

What I never told is that the pair, which were born within the same month in the spring of 2012, have different bridge height !?! - that can't be common.

Same shape of course, but the April-ex go 2 millimeters higher than the May. So does the string height over the top between the bridge and the sound-hole.

And yes, , , it's absolutely heard in volume. The Birds are different in other ways too. The quieter May is looser and sweeter than the stronger April.

Became aware of the height difference pretty late after getting the second (April), but naturally heard the volume factor from square 1 - just never connected them before this thread ⬆

 

, , , perhaps it should be added that saddles have different heights - but the b-angles are close to identical.

[fortyearspickn]

And then we would need to investigate differences under the hood, IE. the two bridge plates. Alice never encountered a Rabbit Hole like the ones we have here.