The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is a '59 Les Paul really any better than a modern one?
Old 23rd August 2019
  #331
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofspain View Post
No argument here either. But I do think you need to make your statements clearer - or go back and re-read the relevent posts - before attempting to quote from memory
I don't believe I did quote from memory. And I think you are the one who needs to clarify.

And I think maybe you ARE looking for argument. I was just trying to clarify for you.

Quote:
Ok, so in what way do you think the guitar is an additive instrument?
First of all, you should probably make clear what YOU are defining as "an additive instrument". But, assuming you mean what I think you mean by "the guitar is an additive instrument":

Didn't you say you thought it was? And then Paul Reed Smith wrote something that made you unsure, or made you consider things differently or something?

Anyhow, you wrote,

Quote:
"the sound box on any acoustic instrument, for example, definitely adds rather than subtracts".
I think you may be somewhat unsure of your position as to how guitars work, and I was trying to help you with that.

I guess I can try to explain or elaborate on what I think is kind of obvious. The guitar interacts with the strings. It doesn't just suck [subtract] energy from the vibrating strings, right? The body / neck of the guitar, activated by the vibration of the string[s] also influences the vibration of the strings, it creates changes in the vibration strings. I haven't read the Paul Reed Smith interview you referenced, so I don't know what he actually said or meant, or if he appears right or wrong to me. You may be misinterpreting Paul Reed Smith's position, I don't know.

Quote:
I did not say that. I said the sound box of a guitar 'adds loudness', in response to Johns post earlier. As a joke, I might add.
The way you wrote it makes it seem like you don't understand. You imply a linear volume increase rather than what actually happens. And what you said came across here as a little "push-back" rather than as a joke. But with a smiley-face. : )

Quote:
The linear part you added yourself.
In an attempt to clarify your wording.

Quote:
What goes on in the sound box of a guitar is a decidedly non-linear process, which is a big part of what makes it such a joy to listen to.
Strum a chord on a guitar, and you propagate soundwaves at a variety of frequencies - not just the fundamental note, but myriad harmonic overtones too.
Some of these might have a wavelength of only a few hundred Hz, some will be many thousands. All of these waves are crashing around in that small wooden enclosure, reinforcing and cancelling each other, in real time, untill the energy is expended. As I said, a decidedly non-linear process.
Fortunately for us, a good many of these soundwaves escape the confines of the box and reach our ears. Fortunate that is, if the guitarist is any good

That's an over-simplification, of course, but hopefully illustrative.

KoS.


"Hopefully illustrative"??? In a sense, you seem to be acting as though you should explain something to me that I actually just told you about. I'm an audio engineer. I understand how it works. I'm sure I have more to learn, but ................ anyhow.

Are you a guitar repairman, tech, musician? Respectfully [and with acknowledgment that I could be wrong about this], I think you are trying to come to an understanding, or a greater understanding, of how guitars work, but purporting to instruct to avoid appearing unsure about it.


Best,


audioforce
Old 23rd August 2019
  #332
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Did they throw a guitar quality timber at him at the end? I recon a good piece of Honduras Mahogany :-)
Well, no. They applauded wildly.

Dewey Cox is, after all, "The Hardest Walking Man In Show Business".



Best,


audioforce [it all adds up]
Old 23rd August 2019
  #333
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555 View Post
^^^^ Complete rubbish! Ain't no "work hardening" happening with solid body guitars! And it isn't a "proven process".
Of course given my history I am quite aware the concept is controversial. This is because it is extremely difficult to setup a double blind test for reliable scientific analysis not to mention the base problem of defining "improvement". Despite the paucity of scientific data there is profound agreement among luthiers that the phenomenon exists.

It is indeed controversial but that does not equal "rubbish". Work Hardening IS a proven process. What is not proven objectively is musical instrument "work hardening" for the reasons given above. Perhaps you are privy to a double blind scientific test of which I'm unaware. If so, citation please.
Old 23rd August 2019
  #334
Old 23rd August 2019
  #335
work hardening is a metalworking process though, not woodworking, I think the term work hardening is a poor use of language for what you intend it to mean.
Old 23rd August 2019
  #336
Gear Addict
 
kingofspain's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post

Are you a guitar repairman, tech, musician? Respectfully [and with acknowledgment that I could be wrong about this], I think you are trying to come to an understanding, or a greater understanding, of how guitars work, but purporting to instruct to avoid appearing unsure about it.


Best,


audioforce
I'm a professional luthier, and have been for the best part of two decades. Learned my trade from one of the best in the world, and have run my own business building and repairing guitars since 2011.
Semi-retired now, but still make a guitar or two a year, largely for my own pleasure.

So, maybe I know a thing or two about how a guitar works...

One things for sure: I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating it with you.

KoS.
5
Share
Old 23rd August 2019
  #337
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofspain View Post
Ok, so in what way do you think the guitar is an additive instrument?
This concept has always intrigued me, and a few simple thought experiments and discussions with my mentors have forged my way of thinking on this, and influenced how I build. I apprenticed for years with a master, Milan Opacich, who built instruments for Allan Woody and worked closely with Bozo for years, and this POV was endorsed by both Milan and Bozo.

-An acoustic guitar is "additive." The top and box are designed to sympathize with the string vibrations. The more effectively you build the box to evenly sympathize and resonate with the energy that the plucked strings are generating, the louder and more evenly balanced sounding it will be it. You do this by creating a thin top that responds quickly to vibrations, but has some control density so that it doesn't wildly vibrate at one frequency and ignore another. You also hand shave the bracing as thin as possible, so as not to add unnecessary mass to the top, while providing adequate stiffness to combat warp. But we directly hear the wood top. It is the "speaker cone" of the acoustic.
Back and sides actually behave in a more subtractive capacity, as they shape the sound of the guitar by "equalizing" the string vibrations that activate the top vibrations. They are too dense and thick to effectively resonate and add volume.

-The SB electric is subtractive, because we hear the pickups, not the wood. We hear wood's minor influences, not wood itself. Mostly, subtractive effects are what we hear, because when the wood resonates with string vibration, it diminishes string energy, which is all the pickups hear.
A very dense SB guitar that is unaffected by the little vibrations of the string should have the most sustain, because there is no subtraction (this was the 70's theory of heavy bodies and brass bridges). But zero subtraction and max sustain is not always best for sound. The 335 sounds like it does because the body is resonating and subtracting/diminishing select frequencies from string energy. The PU's hear this result, and it sounds like a 335. A totally hollow electric subtracts even more, and the result is hollow electric.
3
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #338
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pencilextremist View Post
work hardening is a metalworking process though, not woodworking, I think the term work hardening is a poor use of language for what you intend it to mean.
While work hardening as a specific process was first noticed and developed within metalworking, at least that was known to be written down anywhere, it applies in almost every area. The term is even used in computing but more often called "burning in". It is a balance state between the forces of entropy, wearing out, and "breaking or burning in". It does apply to systems of wood... in varying degrees of course depending on use case, but in repetitive stress and release cycles it most certainly does exist.
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #339
Lives for gear
 

WT actual F is he trying to call what?

Is this like relicing? If so, then I’m against it generally on principle. : )
Old 24th August 2019
  #340
Lives for gear
 

Now I have heard of people saying that vibrations from playing will affect guitars over time. However this of course could go horribly wrong depending on what has been played.
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #341
Look up Yamaha’s “ARE” treatment they give to both acoustic and electric guitars...
Old 24th August 2019
  #342
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitecat View Post
Look up Yamaha’s “ARE” treatment they give to both acoustic and electric guitars...
This is interesting. Thanks.

I saw something saying it is akin to "torrefaction", which has apparently been around for awhile, too.

Do you think its a good way to go, or just let the instrument vibe itself over time? Do you think it hurts the wood to accelerate / treat it like that? Do you think it brings any actual improvement, or just difference?


Best always,

audioforce
Old 24th August 2019
  #343
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingofspain View Post
I'm a professional luthier, and have been for the best part of two decades. Learned my trade from one of the best in the world, and have run my own business building and repairing guitars since 2011.
Semi-retired now, but still make a guitar or two a year, largely for my own pleasure.

So, maybe I know a thing or two about how a guitar works...
So you say. : )

Quote:
One things for sure: I'm not going to waste any more of my time debating it with you.

KoS.
O.K. Thanks. Carry on, then.
Old 24th August 2019
  #344
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by kennybro View Post
This concept has always intrigued me, and a few simple thought experiments and discussions with my mentors have forged my way of thinking on this, and influenced how I build. I apprenticed for years with a master, Milan Opacich, who built instruments for Allan Woody and worked closely with Bozo for years, and this POV was endorsed by both Milan and Bozo.

-An acoustic guitar is "additive." The top and box are designed to sympathize with the string vibrations. The more effectively you build the box to evenly sympathize and resonate with the energy that the plucked strings are generating, the louder and more evenly balanced sounding it will be it. You do this by creating a thin top that responds quickly to vibrations, but has some control density so that it doesn't wildly vibrate at one frequency and ignore another. You also hand shave the bracing as thin as possible, so as not to add unnecessary mass to the top, while providing adequate stiffness to combat warp. But we directly hear the wood top. It is the "speaker cone" of the acoustic.
Back and sides actually behave in a more subtractive capacity, as they shape the sound of the guitar by "equalizing" the string vibrations that activate the top vibrations. They are too dense and thick to effectively resonate and add volume.

-The SB electric is subtractive, because we hear the pickups, not the wood. We hear wood's minor influences, not wood itself. Mostly, subtractive effects are what we hear, because when the wood resonates with string vibration, it diminishes string energy, which is all the pickups hear.
A very dense SB guitar that is unaffected by the little vibrations of the string should have the most sustain, because there is no subtraction (this was the 70's theory of heavy bodies and brass bridges). But zero subtraction and max sustain is not always best for sound. The 335 sounds like it does because the body is resonating and subtracting/diminishing select frequencies from string energy. The PU's hear this result, and it sounds like a 335. A totally hollow electric subtracts even more, and the result is hollow electric.

Without speaking to the rest of the post at this point, I am wondering if you meant to say that a totally hollow electric "subtracts even more" than a 335 and the result is "hollow electric"? [Last sentence, bold added]

I also wonder if you have considered that wood resonating with string vibration does not necessarily diminish vibration? Have you considered that it may enhance / encourage it?

Also, there is a line of thought that says the lighter bodies sustain more, right?


Best,

audioforce
Old 24th August 2019
  #345
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitecat View Post
Look up Yamaha’s “ARE” treatment they give to both acoustic and electric guitars...
Just to be clear, the Yamaha treatment is a baking process, similar to the torrefaction process other manufacturers use to prematurely age the wood.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the nonsensical view that vibration changes the wood characteristics. And FWIW, there is no concept of "work hardening" with wood. (I am certainly hopeful that this conversation doesn't degenerate into the "guitars open up after playing them" nonsense)
Old 24th August 2019
  #346
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
While work hardening as a specific process was first noticed and developed within metalworking, at least that was known to be written down anywhere, it applies in almost every area. The term is even used in computing but more often called "burning in". It is a balance state between the forces of entropy, wearing out, and "breaking or burning in". It does apply to systems of wood... in varying degrees of course depending on use case, but in repetitive stress and release cycles it most certainly does exist.
No it doesn't. First of all, you apparently don't understand the concept of work hardening as it applies to metalworking, so for you to extrapolate that over to "vibration causes wood to work harden" is totally off base. Work hardening in metal occurs when you cut, bend, deform metal, and when you get close to the limit of strength of that metal, it causes changes in the structure of the metal in the regions that have experience the extreme stress. Wood doesn't react in the same way. When you reach near the limit of strength, it tends to weaken in that region, and repeated excursions tend to cause fracturing at that region. Furthermore, if you think that the slight vibrations caused by strings vibrating on an instrument can cause changes in wood, then you need to rethink your power of deductive reasoning.

You have a mis-conception about burning in relative to electronics too. (In that application, it was used for two main reasons, to cull out infantile failures, and to stabilize components on devices that needed calibration, like test instruments)

The only thing you prove by your statements is the fact that the human mind is easily fooled. (humans are incredibly intelligent beasts, but easily duped) You can easily determine which of these types of concepts are utter bullsh!t when you look at the claimed result. If the claimed result is always "better" , than it is not true. It must hold that these transformational sorts of things must sometimes cause unintended results that are detrimental to the subjective view.

The process of aging DOES affect wood. When it is sealed in a live tree, very little changes occur in the granular structure, but when it is exposed to air after cutting, water, oils, and other compounds evaporate, and oxidation changes the structure of the surface. I have worked with wood for 45+ years, rough carpentry, cabinetry, finish carpentry, using both newly cut and aged/recycled lumber. I can readily attest there is a huge difference between fresh and aged wood when working with it. (And I am missing half my right index finger due to saw kickback while trying to cut an aged piece of cherry, which becomes very hard and brittle over time)

However, consider this. An acoustic instrument like a guitar or violin has thin wood that is totally exposed to air over a large part of the construction (on the inside). So the effects of air exposure can and do change the character of the wood, and since the wood is thin, it can penetrate deeper into the body of the wood. But this thread is about a specific solid body guitar. Most of the surface is coated with finish, minimizing the effect of air aging. And the wood is thicker, minimizing the depth of changes to the structure. And the resonant effects of the wood are only a fraction of the overall tonal characteristics of the instrument compared to an acoustic instrument.
3
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #347
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
Without speaking to the rest of the post at this point, I am wondering if you meant to say that a totally hollow electric "subtracts even more" than a 335 and the result is "hollow electric"? [Last sentence, bold added]
A 335 has a center post in the body; essentially just hollow body wings. A total hollow guitar vibrates more energetically, and therefore "steals" more of the strings energy. This is really easy to hear. Plug in a heavy Les Paul, and an ES175. Pluck a string on each one and listen for the amount of sustain (providing the 175 does not go into electrical feedback loop). Viola!

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
I also wonder if you have considered that wood resonating with string vibration does not necessarily diminish vibration? Have you considered that it may enhance / encourage it?
Not possible. There is a finite amount of energy in a vibrating string. If the body vibrates, it is using, i.e. "stealing" some of that available energy. There is no feedback loop between body and string enhancing vibration, because there is no additional energy feeding the loop. Energy goes into the wood and dissipates as heat and movement. It is then gone... lost.
The pickup cannot hear the vibrating wood, so that is lost energy from the PU POV. It can only hear the wood's effect on the vibrating string.

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
Also, there is a line of thought that says the lighter bodies sustain more, right?
Generally, that POV would be ill-informed. But this depends on how much the wood vibrates with the string resonance. If a light piece of wood is not at all affected by the vibrating string, it uses none of the strings available energy, and therefore the string is free to vibrate as long as possible with the amount of energy provided by the initial pluck. Stiffness of the entire guitar system, neck and body, comes into play. You could have a very light metal guitar that is extremely strong, and it would have great sustain. Or carbon fiber. Very stiff; very light; does not respond to string vibrations.
1
Share
Old 24th August 2019
  #348
Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
While work hardening as a specific process was first noticed and developed within metalworking, at least that was known to be written down anywhere, it applies in almost every area. The term is even used in computing but more often called "burning in". It is a balance state between the forces of entropy, wearing out, and "breaking or burning in". It does apply to systems of wood... in varying degrees of course depending on use case, but in repetitive stress and release cycles it most certainly does exist.
I think you are merging two things and trying to say they are both work hardening, wood expaning and contracting or getting lighter over time is more likely due to humidity, and how much of what you think you're hearing is psychological and how much of it fact?
Old 25th August 2019
  #349
Lives for gear
 
Yuri Kogan's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by audioforce View Post
Well, no. They applauded wildly.

Dewey Cox is, after all, "The Hardest Walking Man In Show Business".



Best,


audioforce [it all adds up]
Applauded so much that someone threw a chair or some timber just before the end (see vid). I presume it was a tone-wood donation
Old 25th August 2019
  #350
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by pencilextremist View Post
I think you are merging two things and trying to say they are both work hardening, wood expaning and contracting or getting lighter over time is more likely due to humidity, and how much of what you think you're hearing is psychological and how much of it fact?
Like a lot of terminology, especially ones discovered in ancient times, they stem from an anthropomorphic view. It is exactly why gladiators struck post for hours on end and martial arts masters banged their fists into boards and rocks because it was known that even organic materials get tougher and in very specific ways when repeatedly used in specific ways. Of course, this also applies to singers who can increase their range or the depth of vibrato by training which is a form of "work hardening".

It is certainly known that there is always a subjective side to tone evaluation but that does not at all seem to be the complete picture. Thank yous to Whitecat for mentioning Yamaha's ARE process but here is an interesting and objective test. The results still depend on your sound system and your ears but check this out, preferably with good headphones ....



There are also demos of such Yamaha guitars and they do sound really good to me. Aside from that having built quite a few guitars from wood, old and new, and having owned some fairly spectacular vintage solid body guitars, my subjective experience is that there is a difference. It does matter even if that difference is just one of many whose sum total add up to the overall sound of any instrument.

Since it is all but impossible to get exact duplication of a natural material there is no way for a real double blind test so we are simply never going to get a scientific answer. That does not mean it is not a consideration nor an interesting topic. It is also worthy of note that the vast percentage of Luthiers do agree it is a factor.
1
Share
Old 25th August 2019
  #351
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kogan View Post
Applauded so much that someone threw a chair or some timber just before the end (see vid). I presume it was a tone-wood donation
Oh, I see what you're talking about. It looks to me like something fell from the ceiling [comedy, right].

It was probably something that just fell apart because it had gotten too "work hardened" to stay together.



Best,

audioforce
Old 25th August 2019
  #352
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post

Just listen to the "reverberation of the wood"?

Well, I think the lighting change helps, too. : )
1
Share
Old 25th August 2019
  #353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555 View Post
Just to be clear, the Yamaha treatment is a baking process, similar to the torrefaction process other manufacturers use to prematurely age the wood.

Has absolutely nothing to do with the nonsensical view that vibration changes the wood characteristics. And FWIW, there is no concept of "work hardening" with wood. (I am certainly hopeful that this conversation doesn't degenerate into the "guitars open up after playing them" nonsense)
Fair enough, for some reason I thought I read there was more to it than just the torrefaction somewhere, that they actually “previbrate” the tops. Might have been someone full of it on a forum somewhere.
Old 25th August 2019
  #354
Lives for gear
 

Interesting interview re: torrefaction

https://reverb.com/news/are-torrefie...eois-weighs-in

interesting excerpt:

"Mostly though, there’s a market preference for vintage. So boutique builders are building in that direction. That’s just where the market is right now.

You see hipsters playing B-25 Gibsons and Style 17 Martins, the still affordable vintage guitars that haven’t been snatched up by collectors. So this [torrefied wood] fits right in.

If you were building in a real contemporary style, looking to take acoustic guitars in an entirely different direction, you might legitimately decide torrefied wood was inferior. But for now, we lionize the response of vintage guitars, their look and their characteristics. Expect to see more and more torrefied tops in the near future."
Old 25th August 2019
  #355
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
Like a lot of terminology, especially ones discovered in ancient times, they stem from an anthropomorphic view. It is exactly why gladiators struck post for hours on end and martial arts masters banged their fists into boards and rocks because it was known that even organic materials get tougher and in very specific ways when repeatedly used in specific ways. Of course, this also applies to singers who can increase their range or the depth of vibrato by training which is a form of "work hardening".

It is certainly known that there is always a subjective side to tone evaluation but that does not at all seem to be the complete picture. Thank yous to Whitecat for mentioning Yamaha's ARE process but here is an interesting and objective test. The results still depend on your sound system and your ears but check this out, preferably with good headphones ....



There are also demos of such Yamaha guitars and they do sound really good to me. Aside from that having built quite a few guitars from wood, old and new, and having owned some fairly spectacular vintage solid body guitars, my subjective experience is that there is a difference. It does matter even if that difference is just one of many whose sum total add up to the overall sound of any instrument.

Since it is all but impossible to get exact duplication of a natural material there is no way for a real double blind test so we are simply never going to get a scientific answer. That does not mean it is not a consideration nor an interesting topic. It is also worthy of note that the vast percentage of Luthiers do agree it is a factor.
I am not quite sure what you tried to accomplish with this post. Your first rambling paragraph talks about "work hardening". Then you segue into the Yamaha ARE process. For some strange reason you are not yet grasping the fact that there is nothing in the ARE process that has anything to do with your concept of "work hardening" that you keep beating like a dead horse.



I realize that some people have issues with learning new things and letting go of misconceptions, so let me try to clear this up for you, with more clarity and detail.

Key points:

- There is no such thing as "work hardening" with wood. And even if there was such a thing, the miniscule vibrations from a guitar string could never, ever invoke a "work hardening" in any material, because by definition, work hardening comes from stressing a material just before it's ultimate breaking point. So stop it, let it go, there ain't such a thing.

- In reading the Yamaha patent for the ARE process, there is only one factor that is different from traditional torrefaction. With torrefaction, the wood is baked at a temperature above its flash point in the absence of oxygen so it cannot burn, using usually steam or a gas replacement, like nitrogen. It is basically the same process as making charcoal, but for a much shorter time. The Yamaha process is the same process, but uses steam at a very high pressure. That's it. While traditional torrefaction results in wood that can be used pretty much immediately, the Yamaha process requires a follow-on kiln bake to remove moisture.

With either process, you end up with a material different from the wood that went into the process. The video you posted shows that the panel sounded different when bonked, before and after. Well no duh! Of course it wood! (punny, eh?) The wood properties have changed due to the baking process. However, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CONCEPT OF "WORK HARDENING". So please let it go.
Attached Thumbnails
Is a '59 Les Paul really any better than a modern one?-tenor.gif  
1
Share
Old 25th August 2019
  #356
It's certainly a creative use of the term 'work hardening' at times I wonder if enorbet2 is a troll
Old 25th August 2019
  #357
I have a custom built solid birdseye maple 12 string Telecaster I made back in 1979. It's rather heavy and sparkles like no Ricky ever could. I've counted over 200 rings in the body, that's old for maple.
Old 25th August 2019
  #358
Lives for gear
 
enorbet2's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555 View Post
I am not quite sure what you tried to accomplish with this post. Your first rambling paragraph talks about "work hardening". Then you segue into the Yamaha ARE process. For some strange reason you are not yet grasping the fact that there is nothing in the ARE process that has anything to do with your concept of "work hardening" that you keep beating like a dead horse.
So you actually didn't understand the connection that people grasping that training changes one's body (modern science has extended that to seeing bone growth in MMA fighter's hands so it's isn't subjective conjecture or mere speculation) to extending that to other systems whether organic or not? The point of ARE is that energy changes molecular structure and that does include physical vibration and in this specific case Luthiers know it.

BTW one post and two follow-ups specifically responses to comments constitutes beating a dead horse to you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555 View Post
I realize that some people have issues with learning new things and letting go of misconceptions, so let me try to clear this up for you, with more clarity and detail.
Detailed clarity is meaningless without context. Details and clarity are commonly used in Straw Man argument. That doesn't make them valid. Are you a Luthier? an Engineer? What experience do you actually have in this area, and more importantly what makes you assume you live on Mt Olympus?.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555 View Post
Key points:

- There is no such thing as "work hardening" with wood. And even if there was such a thing, the miniscule vibrations from a guitar string could never, ever invoke a "work hardening" in any material, because by definition, work hardening comes from stressing a material just before it's ultimate breaking point. So stop it, let it go, there ain't such a thing.
So you imagine work hardening doesn't take place from a hammer repeatedly striking an anvil since neither is at the breaking point? Fascinating. BTW have you ever bent wood by any method? Do you understand that acoustic guitars sound very different if the sides are bent under stress and held in place by glue rather than relaxed with steam bending and only then glued in place? Do you further grasp that over time the force bent sides will ultimately relax? Wood is dynamic, even moreso than metal so get off your high horse. The air seems thin up there.
Old 25th August 2019
  #359
Lives for gear
 

Being someone who has recorded 59s the answer is yes. No comparison though there are many other year guitars that are amazing. You don't have to have a 59 standard to get holy grail sounds but when you play or record one ya know what's up.
Old 25th August 2019
  #360
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
So you actually didn't understand the connection that people grasping that training changes one's body (modern science has extended that to seeing bone growth in MMA fighter's hands so it's isn't subjective conjecture or mere speculation) to extending that to other systems whether organic or not? The point of ARE is that energy changes molecular structure and that does include physical vibration and in this specific case Luthiers know it.
I can tell by this paragraph that you do not have an advanced degree, and have never studied logic or philosophy, therefore you do not know how a deductive or inductive reasoning debate works. (good thing you probably never debate a concept like religion as you would fail...)

Let me cut to the chase; you have made several assertive claims = true for the combined 2 deductive and 1 inductive cases:

- Work hardening exists in wood
- Furthermore, the slight vibrations of strings cause work hardening.
- The work hardening over time makes a vintage instrument sound better.

Since you have made the assertion that these bullsh!t claims = true, logic debate rules dictate that the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence to support your assertions. My background or expertise is irrelevant; only until you provide the evidence, does my expertise come into play. So far you have only used a couple of the 10 logical fallacies to support your assertions, which are not acceptable in debate. There is no evidence to support your claims, you are currently losing this debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post

BTW one post and two follow-ups specifically responses to comments constitutes beating a dead horse to you?
Yes; saying something totally outlandish and untrue more than once constitutes beating a dead horse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post

Detailed clarity is meaningless without context. Details and clarity are commonly used in Straw Man argument. That doesn't make them valid. Are you a Luthier? an Engineer? What experience do you actually have in this area, and more importantly what makes you assume you live on Mt Olympus?.
I am an engineer with an advanced degree, also have an advanced business degree. But I have been working with wood my entire life, my father had a tree nursery for a number of years that I helped maintain and manage, and I owned and managed several hundred acres of new-growth trees that were selectively logged for furniture-grade wood. But to my point earlier, this background is irrelevant for debate, as you have not provided any evidence for your claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enorbet2 View Post
So you imagine work hardening doesn't take place from a hammer repeatedly striking an anvil since neither is at the breaking point? Fascinating. BTW have you ever bent wood by any method? Do you understand that acoustic guitars sound very different if the sides are bent under stress and held in place by glue rather than relaxed with steam bending and only then glued in place? Do you further grasp that over time the force bent sides will ultimately relax? Wood is dynamic, even moreso than metal so get off your high horse. The air seems thin up there.
This paragraph shows you really, absolutely don't understand the concept of work hardening. The hammer on anvil example absolutely is a case of work hardening, because the point when the hammer strikes the anvil stresses both the face of the hammer and the surface of the anvil to the point of deformation. Good thing you are not an engineer!

I have bent lots of wood. Your examples do not mean anything relative to your assertion of "work hardening" For both the steamed and non-steamed case, the "after-bent" state of wood composition does not appreciably change, i.e. it isn't any more or less harder or appreciably changed by the bending operation.

The above stuff is irrelevant anyways, even if some "work hardening" did occur, because of your laughable position that string vibration will cause anything close to the extreme stress of bending wood. It doesn't, and you haven't offered any evidence to the contrary.
1
Share
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump