|
Post by davea on Mar 29, 2015 21:02:09 GMT
I'm sure someone else has already spotted and posted on this, but if not......... Sam Carcagno has had six Fyldes made for this fascinating experiment. The designs are identical, but they've been made of different woods. Sam still wants people to sign up to come and do blind audio tests to see how people describe the different sounds. He'll be away over Easter, but is keen to get more players involved after Easter. Some more info is available here: www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/guitar-laboratory-tests/The study consists of 4 sessions for a total duration of 4 hours and a half, but you can do only one or more of the sessions depending on your availability. They'll even pay you £10 per hour to do the experiments! What a terrible thought, being paid to play 6 new Fyldes!
|
|
Riverman
Artist / Performer
Posts: 7,348
Member is Online
|
Post by Riverman on Mar 29, 2015 21:23:50 GMT
Thanks for the reminder, I've been meaning to sign up to this since I read about it in the Fylde newsletter.
|
|
|
Post by davea on Mar 29, 2015 21:35:32 GMT
Here's a bit more info from a posting last September on the Fylde website. There are a couple of photos of the 6 guitars which are worth a look!
"Chris Plack is Professor of Audiology at Manchester University, and has organised the project in conjunction with for the Department of Psychology at Lancaster University.
“The experiment will attempt to determine how the type of wood used in the back and sides of a guitar affects the perceived sound quality and playability of the guitar. So does Brazilian Rosewood sound different to Sapele, and if so, in what ways does it sound different?
We are also investigating what words people use to describe guitar sound quality, and how these words relate to the woods used in construction. For example, does a particular wood make a guitar sound as if it has more "clarity" than other guitars.
The unique aspect of this experiment is that the guitars will be identical in shape and weight, and will be played in a darkened room, so that participants won't be able to determine the wood used in construction based on looks or feel. We hope!”
All six “Experimental Guitars” are now ready. They are all based on the Falstaff design, and as near identical in every way except for the timber used for the back and sides. It has taken nearly a year to build these, because we had to be careful to work on all six exactly in parallel and keep any variation as small as possible. The Soundboards are all Sitka Spruce selected to be as similar as possible, the necks are cut from the same plank of mahogany and every component has been carefully matched at each stage.
The backs are Brazilian Rosewood, Indian Rosewood, Claro Walnut, Sapele. Honduras Mahogany, and Maple
I have often noticed that people use different words to describe guitar sound, and that different makers describe timbers differently. This experiment should be very interesting, and you can take part!!! "
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 34,106
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Mar 29, 2015 22:14:01 GMT
Hi Dave - long time no see! Good to have you around again. Saw your recent F/B posting with the tunes - nice - obviously still plucking then! Yes, this fascinating project has been posted a while back, but no harm at in reposting as any recently joined members near Lancaster might well be especially interested! Keith
|
|
missclarktree
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,427
My main instrument is: It varies
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"1979e6"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 100605
Mini-Profile Text Color: 020a12
|
Post by missclarktree on Mar 30, 2015 17:09:52 GMT
I'm surprised it's variable back and sides. I thought it was the top that made the most difference - not that I know anything whatsoever about guitar construction or sounds.
|
|
mandovark
C.O.G.
Posts: 2,998
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Birds_eye_maple.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: ff003a
Mini-Profile Text Color: 05b724
|
Post by mandovark on Mar 30, 2015 17:23:43 GMT
I'm surprised it's variable back and sides. I thought it was the top that made the most difference - not that I know anything whatsoever about guitar construction or sounds. That's certainly what a lot of luthiers say, but I think the view of a lot of customers is probably different. There still seems to be fairly widespread view that (for example) a rosewood guitar sounds one way and a mahogany one sounds another way. I think what Fylde want to do is test whether players' ideas of the way different woods sound match up with what they think of the woods when they don't know which is which.
|
|
|
Post by earwighoney on Mar 31, 2015 10:15:03 GMT
I'd be intrigued to see what the results will be, I remember there was a test of a similar nature on the AGF concerning a blind test of Rosewoods, and surprisingly or unsurprisingly Brazilian RW didn't come top of the results.
I read a post by the esteemed American luthier/teacher Alan Carruth about his attempt to make two very similar guitars where he used the model/body size, soundboards from the same billet, back/sides from the same flitch etc and there were distinct differences between the two guitars.
|
|
Andy P
C.O.G.
Posts: 4,982
My main instrument is: Taylor 312ce, Guild D25, Deering 5 string banjo
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"8e2be1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 060607
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0b0b0c
|
Post by Andy P on Mar 31, 2015 10:35:47 GMT
I read a post by the esteemed American luthier/teacher Alan Carruth about his attempt to make two very similar guitars where he used the model/body size, soundboards from the same billet, back/sides from the same flitch etc and there were distinct differences between the two guitars. Just to clarify, did he attempt to make two identical guitars? And they sounded different? That might appear to render the results of the Fylde tests inconclusive.
|
|
|
Post by earwighoney on Mar 31, 2015 10:48:43 GMT
I read a post by the esteemed American luthier/teacher Alan Carruth about his attempt to make two very similar guitars where he used the model/body size, soundboards from the same billet, back/sides from the same flitch etc and there were distinct differences between the two guitars. Just to clarify, did he attempt to make two identical guitars? And they sounded different? That might appear to render the results of the Fylde tests inconclusive. Yes, two exact guitars. Same models, same bracing, wood, etc. Near enough identical pieces of wood as well; ie from the same billet when possible.
|
|
|
Post by Banadog on Mar 31, 2015 11:42:20 GMT
I wonder if the person playing the guitar is actually the best to give the feedback. There are so many variables, like playing style, anomalies in hearing, even preconceived ideas about sound(the different kinds of wood have been named). Opinions vary greatly, for example take elixir strings, often described as bright or dull, rich or thin, muffled or thin, brilliant or crap. A more viable test would maybe be a group of Hi-Fi enthusiasts listening blind to the same person play the same thing on each of the guitars. Interesting that the tests are in conjunction with the Department of Physchology..... maybe there is just one guitar?
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Mar 31, 2015 12:50:36 GMT
It doesn't really matter who is hearing the sound or how, and the guitars don't have to be absolutely identical as long as they share common characteristics, body shape scale and so forth to make blind testing possible.
It would be wonderful to finally put to bed that tiresome wine snob stuff about only liking the 'dry woody sound of mahogany' or the 'built in reverb of BRW' as though the species of back and side is the prime determinant of the overall sound and is an absolute, no matter who makes the guitar or how it is constructed.
Kym
|
|
Riverman
Artist / Performer
Posts: 7,348
Member is Online
|
Post by Riverman on Mar 31, 2015 16:16:33 GMT
If I do get to participate in the experiment at Lancaster, and I intend to if possible, I'll be glad to post an account of the experience here (being careful not to give too much away, in case others are going to take part too).
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Mar 31, 2015 18:44:07 GMT
Just to clarify, did he attempt to make two identical guitars? And they sounded different? That might appear to render the results of the Fylde tests inconclusive. Yes, two exact guitars. Same models, same bracing, wood, etc. Near enough identical pieces of wood as well; ie from the same billet when possible. I suspect that there is too much variety in any pieces of wood however carefully chosen to get that near to being identical - it's a naturally growing plant and will be far from uniform in structure, mass and stiffness. We're talking several pieces of wood in the build if we include the bracing which is supposed to have a big impact on sound - all interacting with each other. Can the quality of the fixing of all the wood parts together be exactly the same in all respects ... I can't imagine it to be so. Not to mention the effect of exactly how the neck is attached. I've certainly heard first hand just how much difference to sound an adjustment to a necks fixing can have on a guitar. I can't help thinking that any test of just a few guitars will be inconclusive. As would a test of many I expect. Especially when relying on the human ear. I'm sure we've all had the experience that on average certain types of wood have a general type of sound for a guitar, but that we have also been fairly frequently surprised when a particular guitar has sounded far removed from the sound we expected based on its specification. I would imagine the inherent sound from a type of wood would be like one of those bell distribution curves where the expected sound is the larger area mid/peak curve but there will be extremes of sound well away from that, but in lesser numbers. Which is why we have to test out a load of guitars in shops to get one we like the sound of or we have to use a builder that can use their skill and judgement to get the right sound for the guitar from whatever wood is used. Mark
|
|
|
Post by scripsit on Apr 1, 2015 7:13:46 GMT
I can't help thinking that any test of just a few guitars will be inconclusive. As would a test of many I expect. Especially when relying on the human ear. What it might do is expose the confirmation bias that seems to be present in the guitar playing community, that is, we hear what we expect to hear, because it's common knowledge. Or a particular material or process is more expensive than another. Or someone really good plays one just like that ... I'm convinced that there is a hierarchy of importance in how an acoustic guitar sounds (OK, so that's my bit of confirmation to overcome). At the top would be the player. Next the construction (or individual maker, if it's not a factory job), which brings in everything from size of box to bracing type, frets to body etc. Strings, gauge and brand next? Top wood somewhere in here, although I'd hate to distinguish, say, spruce from cedar on just a listen. Back and sides wood species and neck construction (carbon fibre inset or not) probably about equal, although I personally think the glued to body / bolted to body thing is a non-event if done properly. Nut, bridge pins and bridge of not plastic material, although I draw the line at fossil mammoth ivory and suspect the main thing to do with bridge pins is mass (either not enough or too much). There. That's my prejudice exposed. I'll cheerfully admit to liking back and sides which look nice and being seduced by particular aethestics. That probably influences what I hear, too. I've read comments by Colin, who posts his build on this forum, in which he dismisses Sitka, but I've got two guitars which I really like the sound of with Sitka tops. Dave White builds guitars with hardwood tops which sound interesting. So I don't know that even the luthiers here are really in agreement about some things. Kym Apologies about the crap quoting: I was defeated by the nested quotes.
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 1, 2015 18:25:30 GMT
Funny you should mention Sitka Kym. I'd tried quite a few guitars the last couple of years with Sitka Spruce tops and none did anything for me. I had started to think it was the Sitka Spruce that was the common factor in my lack of positive reaction. Then I tried the Lowden S32 - and the result was that the only high price acoustic I've ever had (or am likely to have) is a Sitka Spruce top and my theory is shown to be totally flawed. There were several ideas that I formulated when searching for a guitar about what I should want (wood, nut width, body shape, body depth, etc, etc) and I had to discard every one of them because there were always notable exceptions. As you say there are so many variables! I think you're quite right in the player being such a major factor (I know I can make any good guitar sound much lower quality than a good player will!), and the maker is certainly a massive influence. I'm glad I'm not too fussed about the look of a guitar beyond preferring natural wood finish and no bling - these exotic woods don;t half zap the price up. I have a feeling that logic would suggest that the more relaxed a guitars top (and back) is then the more the wood itself will have an influence on sound? Maybe? But Gawd knows if I'm right to think that - probably another theory to be discarded at some point! If I am right then with the majority of guitars (as I understand it) having pretty rigid backs I can see why the top should have much more influence on sound. I can certainly confirm that the backs of Lowden S guitars have much more influence on the resonance of the guitar (picked up by physical recording levels) than do my Tanglewoods and George Lowden states the back has deliberately been made more relaxed on the S. Maybe the Fyldes have more relaxed backs? I wish my own back was more relaxed!! Mark
|
|