Tone myths

[Zhangliqun]

Critters don't have to shell out 50 bucks to take a sip.

Irrelevant.

 

[Zhangliqun]

I'm trying to determine if normal, average listeners can hear the difference between an aluminum tailpiece and a standard one. If you do a blind listening test you can find this out.

There's no such thing as a "normal, average listener". Some have stood in front of the Wall of Death (stacks and stacks of Marshalls cranked) so that they've lost their hearing above about 5k, so if there is a difference above 5k, they won't hear it. Some people's ears are shaped slightly differently so that some freqs will be emphasized and others will be partially notched out.

You can keep on buyin' and tryin' till the cows come home or your money runs out. Just don't pretend that the scientific method doesn't exist or matter. :fc

It certainly exists, but for some things, sorry, but it doesn't matter, or at the very least is extremely impractical. Where are you going to find enough "average listeners" with identical hearing and get them to do the test for you? How will you know they're not lying? Do you intend to include a polygraph as part of the blind test?

Where will you find two guitars for the A/B test that have identical wood structure and age and identical pickups (no such thing), or that are at least close enough that they won't skew the results? (And how will you determine what "close enough" is?)

It just isn't practical for even a filthy rich rock star, never mind a rank-and-file player, to control for all those variables (and many more) to get the level of scientific analysis that you want -- something FAR more expensive than just buying the freaking tailpiece or pickup or whatever and trying it for yourself.

And you're trying to help us save money, right?

 

[thrill74]

http://www.imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1198/Mptv/1198/11782_0012.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Mr. T

 

[Stumbler]

I believe that a test using the same guitar could be set up without too much trouble that could produce recordings or audiographic analysis that could conclusively measure a difference, or provide sounds for human testing.

A jig to hold the guitar and a robotic actuating mechanism to "strum" the guitar is all that would be needed.

I was going to say the same thing. This is the simplest description I've heard so far and would be the "science" the original postere is looking for. Differences would be evident. But I won't do it since I don't want to and don't have the time or the equipment.

I bet you could take my 69 Custom and put the real heavy taipiece on it I had on it for years, do these measurements - you know waveform analysis without even listening, and then put my original light pot metal aluminum tailpiece on and you'd SEE a big difference in waveform or frequency info. Know why? Because I can really hear a big difference because there IS a big difference. I 've been playing it since 69 and I KNOW there is a difference because I can HEAR it. I've posted in other threads what I subjectively heard and tried to describe the tonal differences. They are there. I can hear them.

 

[rockabilly69]

Actually,


I have done a double blind test with tubes. I used 4 different brands of tubes in my tophat club royale. I did not tell the listeners what tubes I was using.
And every time this particular set of 12AX7's (amperex bugleboys), came out on top. Every one of my guitar playing buddies loved this tube.The other sets RCA, Sylvania, and the stock tubes (I don't remember what they were), were really to close to hear a noticable difference. If I recall the stockers, if anything were the best of those.

 

[JoeV]

Actually,


I have done a double blind test with tubes. I used 4 different brands of tubes in my tophat club royale. I did not tell the listeners what tubes I was using.
And every time this particular set of 12AX7's (amperex bugleboys), came out on top. Every one of my guitar playing buddies loved this tube.The other sets RCA, Sylvania, and the stock tubes (I don't remember what they were), were really to close to hear a noticable difference. If I recall the stockers, if anything were the best of those.

To be double-blind, you would also have to be in the dark about which tubes were being tested (just to be clear, not niggling)...but in the case of something like we're talking about here, I think a single-blind test (like you did) gives the kind of data that I find much more useful than simple "I tried it, it roks." opinions.

You've accomplished what I had tried to posit in my OP, which is removing some of the bias from the experiment.

BTW, this answers EXACTLY the original question I had, before this thread devolved into chaos. Thanks for sharing your results!

 

[jon9]

Thats the problem... the human brain has the capacity to accurately remember sonic qualities for about 5 seconds. 15 minutes and any MINUTE audible differences that may arise from a tailpiece swap are lost as far as our capabality to distinguish them. It doesn't matter if its been your main axe for YEARS, 5 seconds after you stop playing and that sound is just a vague memory. like it or not, thats science

Just wrong, and I don't care what science says. I bet I could pick out my wife or daughters voice or any friends of mine that I haven't talked to for a year. It's the detail and the little subtle nuances that you can distinguish that maybe you'll never forget. Same applies to music and guitars. Maybe I'm just amazing.:2cool

 

[purens9]

I am sorry, but it amazes that soooo many people cannot understand, or do not want to understand the simpleness of this thread's intention.

You can buy a tailpiece, put it on and listen, and be convinced there is more of a difference than there is. It might be a pleasing difference, and in at least one poster's experience, it was not (for that specific guitar).

IMO, the only way to settle this would be to have all factors within a tight tolerance except for the change in tailpiece. Record the waveform, and then analyze. I will bet there is a decent difference. And I would expect most would agree here. BUT...amongst ALL the factors that go into a guitar's tone, how much would this one piece play? Even then...factor in human hands, and there is enough reason to set aside ANY scientific findings as inconsequential. In the end, it is the player's perception of what enables them to express themselves the way they feel is closest to that glorious "tone in my head."

What the poster wants...I think...is to simply discover just HOW MUCH of these "tone myths" are psychological impact, rather than scientific.

Scientifically, yes, the tailpiece will make a difference. That is an obvious conclusion derived from (sort of) simple physics and chemistry. But, once again: amongst all the other variables, how heavily does it play out? THIS is what will vary form person to person, and will also vary (slightly, at the least) from guitar to guitar.

But that stil does not downplay someone's desire to discover that scientific portion of the formula IMO. For example, I am happy understanding the physics and chemistry of it, and can see where the tone would be reactive to a change such as this. Good? Bad? Personal taste, all the way.

What gets me the most is that this single "myth" has been the only one explored or debated in the entire thread. And the title of the thread asks for so much more IMO...and with 3 pages at my first read, I thought I would be in for a myth bustin treat! :biggrin:

All that aside, there have been some cool posts! Great forum...very cool!

 

[Zhangliqun]

What the poster "wants" is for everyone to assume all gear sounds alike until proven otherwise with some very expensive sound analysis instruments. I refuse.

The problem with a scientific test with ocilloscopes, etc., is that it may work TOO well. It may show differences that seem significant on paper but are actually subtle enough that the average player can't hear them. The buyer then convinces himself that he really does hear the difference that he can't actually hear and we're back where we started with this thread -- blowing money on gear and pretending we can hear something we don't actually hear.

But at least we have scientific proof that there's a difference this time. Too bad we can't hear it.

 

[WARREN SCHOPP]

i've been a guitar tech for a few years now & have been playing for over twenty years. i can hear the tone change if the tail piece has to be lifted off the guitar top due-to a colapsing of the bridge. it adds an air to the sound. also i can tell the differance in caps not the brand, but they all have there charactoristics & the uf thats a given (darker/brighter muddy). bone nuts make an unbelievable differance. it all depends on the persons ears & how sensitive they are. Neil Young can tell the differance when the building he his in is only
running at 119 volts instead of 120volts now thats an ear ( to bad he can't sing). but an expariment would be fun you might be suprised how good some peoples ears are. its all about the (coupling) the unisen of the woods used, neck, body, stings, tail pieces, nut & how they are all set up together. thats why each & every guitar has there own sound.

 

[drjimmy]

No expensive equipment is necessary except for a PC and the microphone supplied with it.

For those interested, here is a fascinating site with some great links:

http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/

In many ways, the electric guitar is much more complicated because of all the variables, including the amp. Obviously people can go overboard with this stuff while missing the main point of enjoying the music. But there are some people who want to be able to have more 'control' over their tone or to objectively assess the effect of a component, whether it is an A/B blinded comaprison or waveform analysis.

Joe Walsh and Brian May come to mind as two people who got great tone but were very familiar with the physics of their instruments.

 

[ElfinMagic]

I look at it this way, wether there is a tonal difference or not, it's all still a personal choice and preference. And really, the only thing that matters here is that we were all able to raise our post count without mailing anthrax to one other.

 

[JoeV]

I look at it this way, wether there is a tonal difference or not, it's all still a personal choice and preference. And really, the only thing that matters here is that we were all able to raise our post count without mailing anthrax to one other.

You're killing me.

:rofl

 

[Phased]

I think JoeV is looking for responses like those from rockabilly69 and Bradster. I'll add my story...

I set out to get a new pickup for my LP classic. The bridge was pretty rocking, but I wanted to test the waters. I had already replaced the pots/caps with the RS kit, this was merely a pickup swap. I decided on the SD custom custom pickup. I had my doubts as to how much of a difference there would be, so...

Before I put in the new pickup, I recorded myself riffing : I dimed the guitar knobs (easy to replicate settings), set my mkIV amp to a nice saturated heavy rock tone. (This is the tone I was most interested in). The amp has a direct out with speaker simulation. Left the amp settings alone...

Swap the pickup (the only change)... Turn on the amp and warm up... rocking tone! I'm loving it. I think it's smoother, probably because the new pickup isn't a ceramic magnet. Dime the knobs (as before), record the same riffing for a while. I figure variations in picking will average out.

Normalize the two files to equal RMS loudness, and compare. The differences were very little. I'd say the swap did make it a hair smoother. Nowhere close to what I perceived though. And with potential variations in pup height, polepiece adjustments.... Maybe I wouldn't have paid that amount if I had known it would be so similar.

Now that's not super scientific, but it's enough for me. I'm convinced that I can't accurately guage *small* tone changes unless they happen super fast (like the cap rotary switch). Especially when the tone is already good!! Which is probably the majority of cases at this forum.

 

[Phased]

JoeV, I can most definately relate to your thoughts on this.

Although we haven't done any tailpiece testing, my friend and I have had this same A/B blind test mentality, we call it "Pepsi Challenge" testing (recall the old 70's Pepsi commercials) and we use it to test gear we make, he's a guitar builder and I make amps and effects and am starting to wind/rewind pickups (look out Zang!...just kidding) the only thing that throws our tests off a little bit is that we use "test bed" gear like a guitar that has plug-in pickups from the back so they can be swapped quickly, and 5 position rotary switch for testing tone capacitors etc. we see the testbed thing as valid as the guitar is the same from test to test (so cancells out) and just the tested component is being changed.

The tests are still valid though, even though we can't determine which capacitor is best for a certain guitar/player/amp/sound, we certainly can validate that one can hear differences in capacitor types. Once we narrowed it down to the usual top suspects (Polypropylene Film & Foil) no one was able to regularly distinguish one brand from another in our testing.
(we save a lot of $ now not buying Hovelands)

We have solved a lot of these things in our own minds about what sounds best and what is just mojo BS.

We also do the thing as you mentioned where the tester (player) has to be tested more than 3 times, and, we have more than one tester/player testing at the same session, we found that even guesser's can guess right if only 1 or 2 tests are done, but ask someone to A/B something (blind) like 4 or 5 times and the actual pattern of choice emerges.

I forgot to add in my previous post... I would be interested as to what other tests/conclusions you guys came to...

Actually,


I have done a double blind test with tubes. I used 4 different brands of tubes in my tophat club royale. I did not tell the listeners what tubes I was using.
And every time this particular set of 12AX7's (amperex bugleboys), came out on top. Every one of my guitar playing buddies loved this tube.The other sets RCA, Sylvania, and the stock tubes (I don't remember what they were), were really to close to hear a noticable difference. If I recall the stockers, if anything were the best of those.

I did something a bit different... Recorded with a set of tubes... swap tubes and record with same settings... swap to a 3rd set and record... Listen back to get a feeling for the sonic differences of each set, at least with my gear.

 

[GlassSnuff]

What the poster "wants" is for everyone to assume all gear sounds alike until proven otherwise with some very expensive sound analysis instruments. I refuse.

The problem with a scientific test with ocilloscopes, etc., is that it may work TOO well. It may show differences that seem significant on paper but are actually subtle enough that the average player can't hear them. The buyer then convinces himself that he really does hear the difference that he can't actually hear and we're back where we started with this thread -- blowing money on gear and pretending we can hear something we don't actually hear.

But at least we have scientific proof that there's a difference this time. Too bad we can't hear it.

David, given your sig, I hope I can say, "Amen!", without offending you. :salude

I take great pride in being a member of the LPF. This site was founded to get way from bullshit arguments, and over the years, we've done a good job of scaring off the trolls. We're nicer than we used to be, and we could be nicer still, but I also lurk on The Gear Page, where they're very nice. They are bigger than we are (don't be fooled by the post count), but the signal to noise ratio is better here. So, to those who are posting in defense of JoeV himself: yes, he did insult us all by dismissing our content as "it's only an opinion". As it happens, and not by accident, most opinions expressed on the LPF are informed opinions. We also have our share of experts and bona fide authorities. While I came here years ago knowing a lot, I have learned a lot more, and I thank every one of you that has made this possible.

To those defending Science, I'm not sure what to say. The scientific method is a useful tool, no questions there. But like a guitar, it can make some horrible noises in the hands of the unskilled. A good question that needs an answer to discuss this intelligently is, "Over the years, have more myths or scientific truths been debunked?" The science of medicine gave us heroin, proclaiming it was better than morphine. Only Keith Richards knows for sure. Their next great accomplishment was the severe reduction of infant mortality, just a few years after Darwin published. Can you say "Dee dee dee"? The truth is, the lack of ethics in the scientific community is a serious problem. A lot of great minds, minds we need, are running away in fear.

And audio? Go on, read what the Godfather of audio, Sabine did. Tell me with a straight face he made meaningful measurements of reverb decay with pillows and a stop watch. The guys at Bell Labs did some great stuff, but that was 70 years ago, and we're still using their curves. Drop me an email and I'll be happy to babble on about the Thiele/Small Hoax. The credit really goes to Jim Novak, of Jensen. There was a guy in Canada about 20 years ago that got a uni to do some serious research, but it was dreadfully slow, and I think they ran out of funding. Truth is, sound doesn't kill anyone so it's not in line for military funding and it can't be swallowed, so even if it could heal, the medical community has no interest in providing grants for research. IF you want to be an expert on audio, you need to start with brain science. The some material physics and electronics would help. If you have the brains to handle that, and the desire, go for it - it's an open field. The smart guys are going where the money is.

Okay, enough feather-ruffling. Hope I didn't leave anyone out. :rofl

Back to brain science. Yes, we have a very short immediate memory for sound, but our long term memory is beyond the ability of instruments (yet another worthy thread, there). So, those who've owned their guitars for years can hear micro-differences others would miss. To restate my own opinion, it's the mojo that matters. If it makes you play better, it makes you play better, and that's worth a lot. The Goddess knows, that's why we all bought Les Pauls in the first place!

And Wilko, I said "we" just to include myself in the audiophile camp as that's where most of my research has been conducted, but truthfully, at least 80% of them are running on pride of possession. There's a great story about how a very respected magazine editor fooled all his golden-eared friends by pretending to change cables.

So, Joe, there you go. I've done enough blind and double blind tests in my life to have determined it's a very limited tool in audio. The results of a listening panel are moot - each has to test for himself, perception is a very personal thing. And given the real reasons we buy this stuff, it's really beside the point. The only truly viable test is to listen for several weeks, at the least (several months will yield better results), and then make a change and live with it again. Make notes as you do this, make recordings if you can, but in the end, it's your gut feel that matters. Go with.... (drum roll here, as this is what's better than reason....).... your intuition!

 

[GlassSnuff]

Now that's not super scientific, but it's enough for me. I'm convinced that I can't accurately guage *small* tone changes unless they happen super fast (like the cap rotary switch). Especially when the tone is already good!! Which is probably the majority of cases at this forum.

As I type rather slowly, this was posted after I started my last post. It's a fine example of several of my points. Phased, while there is a difference in tone between an A2 and a ceramic magnet, it can be compensated for by design. The real difference is in the dynamics, the response to pick attack, something you might have obscured with the Mesa's compression or by normalising the tracks. It's the sort of difference that grows on you. You might find after playing the CC for a while it will do things your old pickup can't. Or, maybe it will do less. Hence, my recommendation to live with the change for a while.

In any event, please don't be so hasty in dismissing your abilities to discern differences. It's an acquired skill, and the more you listen, the more you'll hear. Also, the more you'll realise how easily you can be fooled. :2cool

 

[GlassSnuff]

For those interested, here is a fascinating site with some great links:

http://www.nagyvaryviolins.com/

Now, that's some great stuff. Maybe there's hope after all. :salude

 

[ShamanBlues]

GlassSnuff, that´s the most interesting post I´ve read on the last two weeks...

 

[JoeV]

David, given your sig, I hope I can say, "Amen!", without offending you. :salude

I take great pride in being a member of the LPF. This site was founded to get way from bullshit arguments, and over the years, we've done a good job of scaring off the trolls. We're nicer than we used to be, and we could be nicer still, but I also lurk on The Gear Page, where they're very nice. They are bigger than we are (don't be fooled by the post count), but the signal to noise ratio is better here. So, to those who are posting in defense of JoeV himself: yes, he did insult us all by dismissing our content as "it's only an opinion". As it happens, and not by accident, most opinions expressed on the LPF are informed opinions. We also have our share of experts and bona fide authorities. While I came here years ago knowing a lot, I have learned a lot more, and I thank every one of you that has made this possible.

To those defending Science, I'm not sure what to say. The scientific method is a useful tool, no questions there. But like a guitar, it can make some horrible noises in the hands of the unskilled. A good question that needs an answer to discuss this intelligently is, "Over the years, have more myths or scientific truths been debunked?" The science of medicine gave us heroin, proclaiming it was better than morphine. Only Keith Richards knows for sure. Their next great accomplishment was the severe reduction of infant mortality, just a few years after Darwin published. Can you say "Dee dee dee"? The truth is, the lack of ethics in the scientific community is a serious problem. A lot of great minds, minds we need, are running away in fear.

And audio? Go on, read what the Godfather of audio, Sabine did. Tell me with a straight face he made meaningful measurements of reverb decay with pillows and a stop watch. The guys at Bell Labs did some great stuff, but that was 70 years ago, and we're still using their curves. Drop me an email and I'll be happy to babble on about the Thiele/Small Hoax. The credit really goes to Jim Novak, of Jensen. There was a guy in Canada about 20 years ago that got a uni to do some serious research, but it was dreadfully slow, and I think they ran out of funding. Truth is, sound doesn't kill anyone so it's not in line for military funding and it can't be swallowed, so even if it could heal, the medical community has no interest in providing grants for research. IF you want to be an expert on audio, you need to start with brain science. The some material physics and electronics would help. If you have the brains to handle that, and the desire, go for it - it's an open field. The smart guys are going where the money is.

Okay, enough feather-ruffling. Hope I didn't leave anyone out. :rofl

Back to brain science. Yes, we have a very short immediate memory for sound, but our long term memory is beyond the ability of instruments (yet another worthy thread, there). So, those who've owned their guitars for years can hear micro-differences others would miss. To restate my own opinion, it's the mojo that matters. If it makes you play better, it makes you play better, and that's worth a lot. The Goddess knows, that's why we all bought Les Pauls in the first place!

And Wilko, I said "we" just to include myself in the audiophile camp as that's where most of my research has been conducted, but truthfully, at least 80% of them are running on pride of possession. There's a great story about how a very respected magazine editor fooled all his golden-eared friends by pretending to change cables.

So, Joe, there you go. I've done enough blind and double blind tests in my life to have determined it's a very limited tool in audio. The results of a listening panel are moot - each has to test for himself, perception is a very personal thing. And given the real reasons we buy this stuff, it's really beside the point. The only truly viable test is to listen for several weeks, at the least (several months will yield better results), and then make a change and live with it again. Make notes as you do this, make recordings if you can, but in the end, it's your gut feel that matters. Go with.... (drum roll here, as this is what's better than reason....).... your intuition!

I did not insult anyone here by stating the fact that your opinion, no matter how well informed you may think it is, is just that, your opinion. You're welcome to it, of course. If you take it as an insult; well, what can I do?

As for direct insults, I've been called a troll, a moron, and have been mocked for simply asking if anyone has used objective testing to sort through what may or may not be true about the "myths" that live on in audio circles, on a scientific level. Geez. I'm glad I didn't bring up religion or politics!