sam81
Sore Fingers
Posts: 3
|
Post by sam81 on Apr 21, 2015 18:49:28 GMT
As part of an ongoing study on the preferences of guitar players for different woods used for the back and side plates of guitars we’re conducting two online tests. The tests, designed by the hearing lab at Lancaster University, are available here: www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/online-tests/a description of each test is provided on the above webpage. Our main aim is to assess the impact that the wood used for the back and side plates has on the perceptual characteristics of the guitar sound. The tests are based on recordings made a professional player of 6 guitars identical in shape, and differing only in the wood used for the back and side plates (Brazilian Rosewood, Claro Walnut, Indian Rosewood, Mahogany, Maple, Sapele). If you are a guitar player living in the Lancaster (UK) area, you can also take part in our laboratory tests in which you can play the guitars yourself: www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/Cheers, Sam
|
|
|
Post by creamburmese on Apr 21, 2015 20:49:04 GMT
So I tried the online tests - with some Bose headphones, but I really think unless you are there in the room, you are only hearing part of the sound.... and nothing will capture the ease of playing and getting a good tone out of the guitar. Anyway for me, the good news: I was at least consistent in my preference for rosewood (whether Indian or Brazilian), and a general lack of preference for maple, which is what I thought I knew anyway. The bad: I was all over the shop with the other woods! And I just bought a walnut backed guitar - help! Part of the problem is that our perception is altered by what we heard before it, (it's well known in acoustic research - there's even a behavioral test designed around the ability of a quiet sound to modify the response to the loud sound that follows) so the order in which we hear the samples does affect how we perceive them. I've also come to believe that there are so many different factors that make up our preference for a given guitar that it's hard to quantify - for instance I really look for a clear sweet treble sound, the ability to maintain tone up the neck - but I imagine they would be hard things to capture in an analysis... Great experiment - I'm looking forward to seeing the results
|
|
|
Post by Mike Floorstand on Apr 21, 2015 23:11:39 GMT
I just finished the ABX test and pretty sure a monkey, trained to hit buttons at random, would have scored better than me...
I think this is a good sign though, as a trained monkey can also play better than me!
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 22, 2015 2:35:31 GMT
I gave the online test a go. For the first test, all the guitars came out pretty much the same for me in terms of final score even though I thought a couple sounded better to me than others. My ears aren't evidently good enough to have describe the differences that may lead to a preference. Overall I thought that they all sounded pretty warm, not so bright, quite round to my ears, lots of sustain. I tend to prefer greater clarity in guitars. Funnily enough, the second time through I scored all the guitars higher which suggests to me it was more about becoming familiar with the Fylde recorded tone!
The second test was also interesting in that I started out pretty poorly but improved as my ears adjusted to the subtle differences. I found it easier to do if i only listened to the clips for a few seconds rather than all the way through!
I guess this leaves me wondering whether I have any preferences at all or whether recordings mask differences that I may react more to in a live setting. I still like the looks of some woods over others and have a irrational and unbiased negative reaction to some wildly figured woods.
All the best with the study Sam.
Cheers, marcus
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 22, 2015 6:19:25 GMT
It was good to have the opportunity to try this on line test but I'm afraid that I will have to admit very rapid defeat! I could batter on and try and complete the test but I fear it'd bring as much value to the experiment as the monkey trained to hit buttons mentioned by Mike. While this may be partly down to inadequacies of headphones / computer sound qualities (no substitute for being in the room with the guitar), I've never felt I've been very good at analysing what specific sounds I like and identifying why I like them for a particular guitar and this test confirms that to me. To have any chance of ranking I would need to hear all of the test type 1's in rapid sequence, then all the test 2's, etc. By the time I've gone through 4 tests for a particular guitar and moved onto the next batch I can't remember exactly how the previous batch(es) sounded. I have found that comparing two guitars effectively often involved hearing them in varying orders - say with guitars A and B say hearing a particular playing pattern on A then B can prove of little value while hearing B then A can highlight significant difference. Don't know why! What I have experienced over the last year in trying out guitars has also made me change my view to one that says that there is no one particular wood combination that I like or dislike. Every time I have thought I had a rule I could rely on for this I've encountered a guitar that disproved the rule. Whether I like the sound depends on the individual guitars characteristics and what I apparently hear from it can be very different to the general shoehorning of types of woods into particular sound types. In particular I recall playing two Martins that were essentially the same body and neck woods and just two varieties of the same model - they had very different qualities to the sound and tone. I also recall playing for comparison purposes v potential purchases the same model in a shop as my then current go-to guitar and it sounded very different to mine. To be honest at my level of ability I feel that the most important things about an acoustic guitar is how it feels to play, how it responds to my playing, and how much it encourages me to be creative and want to play music on it. How the woods look is of minor interest as long as they look natural and I really have no interest in rarity value. The subtleties of shades of tone types are lower priority than the playing experience - just as well given my inability to suss them out! Good luck with the study Sam - fortunately there's lots of more skilled ears and more analytical minds out there than mine. Interested to see how the results turn out. Mark
|
|
|
Post by andyhowell on Apr 22, 2015 6:54:14 GMT
Just an observation. Real characteristics of wood seem to reveal themselves over time. For example, I have been playing my Wenge guitar for 6 months now and can appreciate its sound - still can't adequately describe it with words though!
|
|
|
Post by Trevor TAMCO on Apr 22, 2015 6:59:55 GMT
I would be interested to know more about the guitars. They may be of identical shape and I assume identical top woods (top woods make more difference to the tone than back and sides) but if they are by different makers then that will introduce more variation in tone than any other factor IMHO. This is due to many factors, bracing and thickness of woods to name a couple.
EDIT: Ooops I just read the other thread, please disregard the above.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Apr 22, 2015 8:10:44 GMT
Mark I think you've pretty much expressed something that I was thinking but failed to get down in my last post. The first test where you get to listen to 4 clips of a guitar before "scoring" ended up with most of the guitars sounding very similar to me. It was really hard to compare one to the other when I listened to the group of 4 clips from one guitar then a group of 4 clips from another guitar etc. The subtle differences I thought I heard may have just been my imagination (if I didn't know they were different guitars I would probably never have suspected that they were) and this was probably reflected in the "scores" that I gave each one which ended up averaging exactly the same (both the first time I listened through and the second time!). The second test was even more of an eye-opener in that it made me realise that when presented with a single soundclip for two separate guitars followed by a third soundclip of one of those guitars about 1/4 of the time I couldn't determine which guitar was being played again... that's a bit embarrassing I suppose! Or I could just blame it on the headphones!!! In the end I can enjoy pretty much any guitar if it plays easily and is comfortable. I still have a preference for clear and quite fundamental tone though (I think )
|
|
|
Post by creamburmese on Apr 23, 2015 13:35:57 GMT
I agree with Mark, that generalization regarding types of wood etc can indeed trip you up - I have a general preference for rosewood over mahogany (which did show up in the online test - phew) yet my most recent favorite guitars for sound have been an aged spruce/mahogany Lowden (though I just sold it because it was too big for me) and an all-mahogany smaller new Collings that I would have walked away with if funds had permitted. Another factor is how the woods age -many guitars seem to develop a fuller tone as they age, though OTOH there are some pretty thin-sounding older "classics". I wonder if those of you with more experience can assess a new guitar like young wine and determine whether it will age well...? And I do wonder if adirondack -requires- a break-in period to develop its potential - I've not had a lot of luck with it - I think when new it might require a more forceful attack than I have. That being said, Fedex thinks My N-used-GD might be today! walnut/adirondack - played easily and sounded darned good to me And it is VERY pretty (though that is 3rd on the list after playability and tone, for me it is still a factor. I wouldn't have said I cared until I owned an older guitar and found I didn't appreciate the old guitar smell, and the messy top bothered me more than a little. I guess if I had personally scraped off the finish it would have been different....
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 23, 2015 18:20:27 GMT
I agree with Mark, that generalization regarding types of wood etc can indeed trip you up - I have a general preference for rosewood over mahogany (which did show up in the online test - phew) yet my most recent favorite guitars for sound have been an aged spruce/mahogany Lowden (though I just sold it because it was too big for me) and an all-mahogany smaller new Collings that I would have walked away with if funds had permitted. Another factor is how the woods age -many guitars seem to develop a fuller tone as they age, though OTOH there are some pretty thin-sounding older "classics". I wonder if those of you with more experience can assess a new guitar like young wine and determine whether it will age well...? And I do wonder if adirondack -requires- a break-in period to develop its potential - I've not had a lot of luck with it - I think when new it might require a more forceful attack than I have. Good to see you saying what I often find myself thinking Julie - makes me feel more certain about my uncertainties! I have a general preference (with being a light touch player) for Cedar tops that goes back some way, along with my generally not liking the sound of any Sitka Spruce topped guitars much. So I end up getting, for my probably only expensive guitar ever, the Lowden with a Sitka Spruce top. Fortunately by the time I tried that guitar I'd mentally ripped up the "rules" that I'd tried to apply to what I liked or disliked in a guitar. Was the Lowden you tried an "F" or "O" size? I tried an "F" and it sounded great but was just too big for comfort - body depth in particular. Like you say - with a guitar that has woods that will develop tonewise I find it very hard to judge other than hoping for some sort of psychic power. Unfortunately I'm too long in the tooth to gather enough personal experience to judge what will transpire. I think all Spruce types are supposed to have the "opening out" trick, but I'll let those more knowledgeable confirm or otherwise. Adiirondack does seem to have a reputation for favouring a more aggressive style of attack on the strings. I can't help thinking sitting there and playing all those Fyldes could be a tad risky GAS wise! Mark
|
|
|
Post by creamburmese on Apr 24, 2015 18:29:39 GMT
Hi Mark The Lowden was an O I think - small Jumbo though I couldn't see what was small about it. i thought I'd wait until I stumbled across an S that I couldn't resist to replace it, then I stumbled across a Froggy I couldn't resist... it arrived yesterday and I'm in love (sorry husband you've been summarily pushed aside). It's a Bastogne Walnut adirondack spruce H12 - 2013 as new- literally. Same size as my classical with a very easy neck. It was evidently bought by a collector (I was told he had "about a dozen" Froggys - can you imagine?) who decided it wasn't special enough to grace his collection so he traded it in after buying it new and keeping it in its case for a couple of years. I was interested to see that Froggy puts on John Pierce strings - which feel to me to be somewhat higher tension than other "lights" I have used. In fact they actually feel stiffer than the mediums Elixir HD's I have on my 12 fret Taylor, which is odd. I think I shall be embarking on a string changing experiment soon - starting with Newtone Heritage strings - my hands are used to the more user-friendly feel of nylon strings so I will be trying some lower tension strings. I wish I was based in the UK because this definitely means my 2013 Brook Taw will have to be sold...
|
|
matt237
Strummer
Posts: 15
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"503a25"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: eed092
Mini-Profile Text Color: ffffff
|
Post by matt237 on Apr 27, 2015 18:27:13 GMT
Wow, I think I even failed the laws of probability on the last test. Erm, the kids were disturbing me...the TV was on loud....the dog ate my homework? (insert other suitable excuse)
Although I know it is very different when its the recording of, rather than the 'live' sound of a guitar, it does strengthen my personal view that there is a lot of 'cork sniffing' when it comes to the tonality of guitars, and the use of certain tone woods. Yes, there are improvements (subjective) and there are differences, but they can be subtle. We should always choose the instruments that, as a whole, suit us and grab us individually, rather than what others tell us we should like. Excellent study, really enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Floorstand on Apr 27, 2015 22:12:49 GMT
As part of an ongoing study on the preferences of guitar players for different woods used for the back and side plates of guitars we’re conducting two online tests. The tests, designed by the hearing lab at Lancaster University, are available here: www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/online-tests/a description of each test is provided on the above webpage. Our main aim is to assess the impact that the wood used for the back and side plates has on the perceptual characteristics of the guitar sound. The tests are based on recordings made a professional player of 6 guitars identical in shape, and differing only in the wood used for the back and side plates (Brazilian Rosewood, Claro Walnut, Indian Rosewood, Mahogany, Maple, Sapele). If you are a guitar player living in the Lancaster (UK) area, you can also take part in our laboratory tests in which you can play the guitars yourself: www.psych.lancs.ac.uk/hearing/the-guitar-experiment/Cheers, Sam Many thanks for the opportunity to take the tests. I only just finished the first test (not sure why, but I did the second test first, and only just got round to doing the first one).
Unfortunately it didn't feel very conclusive for me, for various reasons.
First, I didn't realise until after halfway through that you could click any point on the sliding scale, in order to give scores like 2.7 or 4.5. I gave everything an integer score.
Second, the questions ("how balanced is it", "how warm is it" etc.) all use generally positive attributes - does anyone like cold, unbalanced, dull guitars? (There are exceptions to this e.g. bright is preferable to dull, but a guitar can be too "bright"). Since I didn't dislike any of the sounds, I found I gave a score of either 3 or 4 to everything.
Third, I'm afraid my ears got bored in the middle of the test...stopped giving me useful information. Couldn't remember the criteria I'd used to judge warmth or loudness etc. on the previous sounds, so may have given inconsistent scores (I appreciate that the tests are supposed to compensate for this by playing the sounds again in a different order, but given my problem was the ears had given up trying to be discerning, that was probably too late).
I think possibly better data could be produced for those like myself with a short attention span, with a series of much shorter, simpler tests - just play two sounds, then ask which is more balanced, etc. If the same person consistently prefers A to B, that is probably a more reliable piece of data than if they gave A a score of 4, and some time later gave B a score of 3
Alternatively, if you could just send me the 6 guitars, I will be happy to provide a full report in a few months time
|
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 33,971
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Apr 27, 2015 23:49:52 GMT
I had a bash at these tests too.
In the first part of the first test I scored the Brazilian Rosewood second lowest, with Claro Walnut the lowest.
In the second part of the first test the BR came lowest, with all the others quite a lot higher, and all the same + or - 0.1.
In the second test I correctly identified which guitar was repeated in the third clip in approx 75% of the cases.
A bit of fun alright, but obviously with huge limitations as to how useful the accrued data will be.
The players test results will be more interesting I think. For the most part, we tend to seek instruments which sound good to us when we play them, not when we listen to them being played by others, (though the latter instance can sometimes be relevant to some degree). And a fair proportion of a guitar's "sound" from the players standpoint (or sitpoint!) comes from how the instrument feels to play - how hard/softly the strings need to be struck to get a particular response, is there a good degree of tonal /dynamic variation to be had etc. Not sure I'm expressing that well, but maybe you get my drift..?
Keith
|
|
|
Post by vikingblues on Apr 29, 2015 15:09:13 GMT
And a fair proportion of a guitar's "sound" from the players standpoint (or sitpoint!) comes from how the instrument feels to play - how hard/softly the strings need to be struck to get a particular response, is there a good degree of tonal /dynamic variation to be had etc. Not sure I'm expressing that well, but maybe you get my drift..? Keith Yes indeed - how a guitar responds to ones own playing style! If it does respond then it elicits a response back from us and this "feedback loop" results in a guitar that is going to be a frontrunner for taking home. There will be an element of that too regarding the tonal qualities of a guitar - if it's one that we like the basic tone it encourages us to play and extract more from the tonal palette. But I don't think subtle shades of tone from different woods are so much of a deal breaker. I'm relieved to see much better guitarists than me admitting to difficulties with these sort of tests. Mark
|
|