Victory Pete Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 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? No way, the test was done on a guitar with typical materials and construction. My findings remain. It seems now you are just trying to discredit this for the sake of arguing. Until you provide some evidence or a test of your own, you really have no valid argument here. Prove me incorrect and post some evidence or don't post at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 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 if 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. Cool , some evidence and personal experiences! Different guitars of the same model will have different string height, saddle height, and even bridge heights. The neck set and the way the top bows up determines these. Every guitar will ultimately be a little different. What you describe is exactly what I would expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 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. Nope, same bridge plate under the D12-28's hood. Oh wait you mean the Birds hood, Oh okay, I think any differences with the maple bridge plates would be neglible. I think his findings also remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 No way, the test was done on a guitar with typical materials and construction. My findings remain. It seems now you are just trying to discredit this for the sake of arguing. Until you provide some evidence or a test of your own, you really have no valid argument here. Prove me incorrect and post some evidence or don't post at all. Bullying is uncool. I can see why the other forum told you to take a hike for a week. I have no need to conduct an experiment because (again) a guitar either sounds good or it doesn't -- and I get to decide (for me) what "good" is. You have solved no mystery and you have ignored my very basic question: Will anything you have "proven" change the way guitars are built? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 13, 2016 Author Share Posted November 13, 2016 Bullying is uncool. I can see why the other forum told you to take a hike for a week. I have no need to conduct an experiment because (again) a guitar either sounds good or it doesn't -- and I get to decide (for me) what "good" is. You have solved no mystery and you have ignored my very basic question: Will anything you have "proven" change the way guitars are built? Bullying? I am neither a bully here nor at AGF. So again as you have stated these facts do not interest you, fine, so then there is need for you to continue here. How can I answer your question? Do you think I have a crystal ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fortyearspickn Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Nope, same bridge plate under the D12-28's hood. Oh wait you mean the Birds hood, Oh okay, I think any differences with the maple bridge plates would be neglible. I think his findings also remain. Whoa! Em7 reports that the bridges on two H'Birds he owns which were built within a month of each other - are different in height by 2mm. And you 'think any difference with the bridge plates would be negligible' .....(in terms of understanding the difference in 'sound' he reports). You accept a variation on the actual bridge, but refuse to believe that a similar or greater variation could exist on the bridge plate? Like I said before "I'm outta here." But this time, I mean it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Bullying? I am neither a bully here nor at AGF. So again as you have stated these facts do not interest you, fine, so then there is need for you to continue here. How can I answer your question? Do you think I have a crystal ball? When you write something like "Prove me incorrect and post some evidence or don't post at all," you're telling me to butt out. You're saying that unless I reply in some form you recognize as "valid," that I have no business replying. Since I have as much of a "right" to post here as anyone, your comment amounts to bullying. I'm a big boy and can take it -- I've dealt with bullies before -- but it may be time for some introspection on your part. You're not Nikola Tesla here (or Antonio Torres) and some very knowledgeable and sincere people have raised serious questions about your experiment, methodology, conclusions and impact. A wise person doesn't just dismiss all that. Since you don't respect anyone else here, then I guess their concerns are easy for you to dismiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 Whoa! Em7 reports that the bridges on two H'Birds he owns which were built within a month of each other - are different in height by 2mm. And you 'think any difference with the bridge plates would be negligible' .....(in terms of understanding the difference in 'sound' he reports). You accept a variation on the actual bridge, but refuse to believe that a similar or greater variation could exist on the bridge plate? Like I said before "I'm outta here." But this time, I mean it. Bridge plates should not vary in their size or construction, but neck sets and how a top will bow up certainly can change, and they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 When you write something like "Prove me incorrect and post some evidence or don't post at all," you're telling me to butt out. You're saying that unless I reply in some form you recognize as "valid," that I have no business replying. Since I have as much of a "right" to post here as anyone, your comment amounts to bullying. I'm a big boy and can take it -- I've dealt with bullies before -- but it may be time for some introspection on your part. You're not Nikola Tesla here (or Antonio Torres) and some very knowledgeable and sincere people have raised serious questions about your experiment, methodology, conclusions and impact. A wise person doesn't just dismiss all that. Since you don't respect anyone else here, then I guess their concerns are easy for you to dismiss. My findings remain. I am going to keep the D12-28 set up with the test strings on it for an extended period of time. I will repeat the tests regularly. As yet no one has produced any proof or test that contradicts my findings. It just seems there have been unsubstantiated opinions disagreeing with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 As yet no one has produced any proof or test that contradicts my findings. It just seems there have been unsubstantiated opinions disagreeing with me. OK, how's this? I picked up a nice Tacoma-built Guild F412. The saddle was quite low, so the break angle was not optimal. The guitar was not at its full sonic potential. Adding height to the saddle would obviously make for higher action, so that's not an option. Rather than a neck re-set, my luthier said he could cut ramps into the bridge pin holes, thus increasing the break angle, recovering most of the sonic potential. That's what he did. The guitar then sounded louder. This would seem to falsify your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 OK, how's this? I picked up a nice Tacoma-built Guild F412. The saddle was quite low, so the break angle was not optimal. The guitar was not at its full sonic potential. Adding height to the saddle would obviously make for higher action, so that's not an option. Rather than a neck re-set, my luthier said he could cut ramps into the bridge pin holes, thus increasing the break angle, recovering most of the sonic potential. That's what he did. The guitar then sounded louder. This would seem to falsify your claim. Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buc McMaster Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Pete why is it you cannot accept that yours is an "unsubstantiated opinion"? Your methods are far short of controlled and scientific.......that much you quasi-admit. Your plucking of the string is not accurately repeatable; the use of a dB meter for measuring sound volume in an uncontrolled environment cannot be considered definitive; your experiment does not isolate the targeted parameter from other factors that may or may not effect said targeted parameter. While I compliment you on your passion for the subject, your blind adherence to questionable methods producing factual results is ridiculous. Gentlemen, it is obvious Pete has blinders on here, unable to grasp what we are trying to convey. Seems he has fallen under his own spell on this, much like the old truism: say anything long enough and loud enough and it becomes truth, despite evidence to the contrary. It is also obvious that no matter what others may say, Pete intends to have the last word on this. Probably a good idea for admin to lock this topic.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victory Pete Posted November 14, 2016 Author Share Posted November 14, 2016 OK, how's this? I picked up a nice Tacoma-built Guild F412. The saddle was quite low, so the break angle was not optimal. The guitar was not at its full sonic potential. Adding height to the saddle would obviously make for higher action, so that's not an option. Rather than a neck re-set, my luthier said he could cut ramps into the bridge pin holes, thus increasing the break angle, recovering most of the sonic potential. That's what he did. The guitar then sounded louder. This would seem to falsify your claim. Why don't you go to AGF and tell them that. I used to believe break angle changed volume to, and they harassed me for it over there. That is why I did the experiment and I am convinced that break angle does not change volume, but will change the sound, it is very desirable to have a high break angle, I think we all know that, except them at AGF, they say break angle does nothing but hold down the saddle. Ironically after being banned there for a week, a made a couple posts on my own thread. They closed it. The irony is over there they say string height affects volume and break angle does nothing, seems to be the contrary what some are saying here. I am so glad I have done and will continue to do my tests as I am quite confident in myself and my results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerohead Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 1478721834[/url]' post='1811290']I love it when you talk like that bro. We should hang with the 'coostic guys more often, share some science and stuff. Until they yell at us. Then we can slink back to the lounge and be tolerated. rct That's too funny! What's even funnier is my original post, that you replied to, started out as a serious question! Bahahahaa! I wish Hogeye would have commented. I hope we didn't lose him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aerohead Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 1478963544[/url]' post='1811855']Sisyphus - sort of sounds like it should be a Rock and Roll band. And, here's another log to throw on the fire: http://www.banjohang.../archive/134859 Sisyphus to me sounds like something I contracted in the 80's and took penicillin to beat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mojorule Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 Sisyphus to me sounds like something I contracted in the 80's and took penicillin to beat! I'm sure that's just a myth. Or the effect of being stoned. The truth is that the Glimmer Twins tried to book him as a replacement for Mick Taylor in the 1970s. Still. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.