|
|
Post by vikingblues on Dec 17, 2014 7:32:04 GMT
One thing that I did notice is that both guitars sounded warmer and more rounded than the few Taylors I've had a chance to audition in shops. I had this idea in my head that Taylors were a bit shrill and bright but neither of these sounded that way to me. Perhaps it's just my hearing going...... What I've noticed is that Taylor guitars in general sound way better for tonal quality when Tony Polecastro plays them than when I do. I'd like to think it's because his playing style suits them better but I have suspicions it may be mainly down to skill and quality of playing.  Though there is the issue of how the sound is for him when he is playing. Maybe the Taylors are better at projecting a more balanced tone towards the audience but have a shriller and brighter sound for the ears of the player? Mark |
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by davewhite on Dec 17, 2014 13:28:26 GMT
Some of you may have heard my views on the physics of acoustic guitars and that it has more to do with Quantum physics than it does with Newtonian or Einsteinian physics. Well at last here's a TV programme that links Quantum Mechanics and guitars - last night's "The Secrets of Quantum Mechanics" by physicist Jim Al-Khalili. Watch from 14minutes onwards: "The Secrets of Quantum Mechanics"It seems that the elements in different molecules vibrate and our sense of smell involves our noses "listening" to these vibrations as well as detecting the physical shape of the molecules. This goes right back to my comments earlier in this thread on the smell of Brazilian Rosewood. It's not just the physical properties of the woods but also the Quantum vibrations of the elements that make them up that are at play. I've jokingly said in the past that these sorts of guitar woods comparison tests need a blind test with someone like "Blind Blake" playing them. This isn't so silly - taking away sight involves the other senses in relating to the guitars as musical instruments. Even more interesting would be to get someone like Dame Evelyn Glennie to do a comparison who senses and relates to sound via vibrations and other senses.This video of her is well worth the half an hour watch: |
|
ocarolan
Global Moderator
CURMUDGEONLY OLD GIT (leader - to join, just ask!)
Posts: 35,723 
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"c0cfe1"}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 182a3f
Mini-Profile Text Color: 733a1c
|
Post by ocarolan on Dec 17, 2014 13:47:05 GMT
Well done digging the Evelyn Glennie one out again Dave - one of my very favourite vids!
Well worth a look if you haven't seen it, and worth another look if you have.
Keith
|
|
leoroberts
C.O.G. 
Posts: 26,144
My main instrument is: probably needing new strings
|
Post by leoroberts on Dec 17, 2014 15:38:47 GMT
"Interpretation? INTERPRETATION? Just play what's on the friggin' sheet, Glennie, or go away and don't come back"
Andrés Segovia, 1997
|
|
Martin
Administrator
Posts: 11,994
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"http://mandocello.org/lytebox/images/adirondack.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0a530b
Mini-Profile Text Color: 4f3517
|
Post by Martin on Dec 18, 2014 8:06:46 GMT
Fair enough, Dave, but answer me this: what does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?  |
|
brianr2
C.O.G.
Posts: 3,189
My main instrument is: Fylde Goodfellow
|
Post by brianr2 on Dec 18, 2014 9:27:45 GMT
Both the source and solution for this conundrum lie in the fact that beauty is in the ear of the beholder.
What we hear from a guitar is a mixture of the physical (raw materials, design, manufacture, set up, ergonomics, strings, acoustics, quality of playing, environment) and the psychological (preconceptions and predisposition about the instrument, response to the environs and any audience, general state of mind etc). There are so many variables at play, many of which change unpredictably over time.
It would be possible to run a formal statistical trial, controlling as much variation as possible either directly (as good builders do) or through randomisation across sufficient numbers of samples. Even then we are left with the reality that many characteristics of "sound" are not objectively measurable or even describable in a commonly-understood language. Moreover, whatever the conclusion it would remain a product of the people and circumstances of the time.
Thus while any individual can choose one instrument over another on the basis of personal preference, this is a function of time and place and, in any event, may well not be same for someone else.
The upside of this is that there can be no such thing as the "perfect" guitar, meaning that we all need to keep trying as many different instruments as possible and recognise the fundamental truth that one can never be enough!
Brian
|
|
davewhite
Luthier / Guitar Maker
Luthier
Aemulor et ambitiosior
Posts: 3,548
|
Post by davewhite on Dec 18, 2014 9:41:42 GMT
Fair enough, Dave, but answer me this: what does the red spectrum tell us about quasars? "RIMMER: My answer: In answering the question, “What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?” – write bigger – there are various words that need to be defined. What is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars? [He pauses and looks puzzled.] What the hell is a quasar?" |
|
leoroberts
C.O.G.
Posts: 26,144
My main instrument is: probably needing new strings
|
Post by leoroberts on Dec 18, 2014 10:28:48 GMT
What we hear from a guitar is a mixture of the physical (raw materials, design, manufacture, set up, ergonomics, strings, acoustics, quality of playing, environment) and the psychological (preconceptions and predisposition about the instrument, response to the environs and any audience, general state of mind etc). There are so many variables at play, many of which change unpredictably over time. It would be possible to run a formal statistical trial, controlling as much variation as possible either directly (as good builders do) or through randomisation across sufficient numbers of samples. Even then we are left with the reality that many characteristics of "sound" are not objectively measurable or even describable in a commonly-understood language. Moreover, whatever the conclusion it would remain a product of the people and circumstances of the time. Thus while any individual can choose one instrument over another on the basis of personal preference, this is a function of time and place and, in any event, may well not be same for someone else. eh, what? Whoooshhh....
"The upside of this is that there can be no such thing as the "perfect" guitar, meaning that we all need to keep trying as many different instruments as possible and recognise the fundamental truth that one can never be enough!"wholeheartedly agree  (I'm a newbie on this 'ere forum and haven't worked out how to do multiple quotes  ) |
|
)
Jo whoever he is.
