The scientific proof of opening up

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by SongwriterFan

And then there's the entire "how can you really remember what a guitar sounded like x weeks ago in the first place?" to consider.

Understanding that this is AGF and thus, such actual observations of "reality" are likely to be unpopular with some . Just as long held myths are often taken to heart, and reinforced with irrelevant anecdotal experience.

Human memory of past events has been scientifically proven to highly inaccurate and subject to vast array of subjective variations.

Then there is the habitually ignored fact, that the laws of physics dictates it is impossible accurately compare the sound of two different guitars in two physical spaces, at two different times, from two different performances .

But on the other hand and what keeps the entire "open up with time" discussion and debate "alive an well" . Is perhaps the misinterpretation of the reality that wood a living material , is in fact subject to physical change over time. On that the science is clear , however the relevant questions are, how much change ? is that change actually sufficient to be audible ? , and last but not least , is that change actually any kind of '"improvement", or is it simply "different" , and subjectively perceived to be " Better"

The reality is of course that without having recorded the guitar when new and then periodically over time . With some type of mechanical plucking device to eliminate the inherent difference in human performance factor . And with the exact recording and monitoring chain, in the the exact same physical space.
Without all those criteria be inplace any assessment is totally subjective speculation .

[devellis]

Originally Posted by AndrewG

our memory for tone is wildly inaccurate and involves a lot of psycho-acoustics, subconsciously hearing what we want to hear.

Just for the record, psychoacoustics is a pretty rigorous area of inquiry focusing on the physics and neurology of the auditory system and how stimuli are perceived. Much of the work in the field is highly quantitative. Although I've quoted Andrew's post, I'm not specifically commenting on his usage but the more general case. I often see the term used to refer to something like a "mental error" or "mind trick" that distorts our perceptions. While that might occupy some remote corner of psychoacoustics, it's not by any means an accurate description of the field.

Here are three links that may give people a better idea of what psychoacoustics is. The first is a Music 101 video explaining some psychoacoustic principles:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/music...sychoacoustics

The second link is to a page that has a sample of medical topics related to psychoacoustics. These are summaries of chapters on various psychoacoustical topics related to clinical issues. The last one is directly relevant to music.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...sychoacoustics


The third is a link to a PDF describing how psychoacoustical models are applied to sound masking and audio watermarking (i.e., implanting an inaudible "marker" in an audio file). It gets more technical but gives a better idea of the kinds of specific approaches taken to psychoacoustics.

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/...357-p176789642

I hope these give people more of a flavor for what psychoacoustics is.

[HHP]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

Speaking to an engineer I would say that substances have memory as any engineer knows. The guitar wood has memory that impacts the sound. So a guitar is seen to "open up" after being played more. Closing up when not being played much. That sort of thing.

Might ask that engineer if a certain level of energy is required to effect that change and if the energy available from simply playing would be enough to alter the wood.

[N+1]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Without all those criteria be inplace any assessment is totally subjective speculation .

Thing is though, I don't buy a guitar to conduct objective experiments on it. I buy it because it provides me with a certain kind of subjective experience. That subjective experience is a complex, changing one, and it isn't something to be proved or disproved scientifically. It's something to be experienced and relished.

The second thing I'd draw attention to is the fact that we humans frequently project ourselves and our feelings onto the outside world. We might talk about 'the cruel sea', for instance, when the sea isn't - can't be - cruel. We embroider our feelings onto it. Guitars are no exception: we feel they're alive; they feel more or less responsive; when we play them they seem to become extensions of ourselves. Even if the science were to tell me I'm mistaken about the objective accuracy of the statement 'this guitar is opening up', it nevertheless remains an accurate description of what I'm experiencing.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by N+1

Thing is though, I don't buy a guitar to conduct objective experiments on it. I buy it because it provides me with a certain kind of subjective experience. That subjective experience is a complex, changing one, and it isn't something to be proved or disproved scientifically. It's something to be experienced and relished.

The second thing I'd draw attention to is the fact that we humans frequently project ourselves and our feelings onto the outside world. We might talk about 'the cruel sea', for instance, when the sea isn't - can't be - cruel. We embroider our feelings onto it. Guitars are no exception: we feel they're alive; they feel more or less responsive; when we play them they seem to become extensions of ourselves. Even if the science were to tell me I'm mistaken about the objective accuracy of the statement 'this guitar is opening up', it nevertheless remains an accurate description of what I'm experiencing.

I quite agree "the thing is though" the OP was about "scientific proof", which is what my post is addressing . And "scientific proof " is absolutely "something to be proved or disproved scientifically" AND definitely is not something to be based on, or subject to, subjective experience and personal projections of reality. And without the science, still relegates such assessment of "opening up" to being "totally subjective speculation"

[guitar george]

I think it can be scientifically proven that most living things get better in the short term and worse over the long term. Humans, animals, plants and all other living matter improve with age up to the point where they start to deteriorate and eventually return to the earth. How long can dead wood, in the shape of a guitar, improve (open up), before it starts to disintegrate?

[jpmist]

Where's the proof the sound is different enough to be heard by the human ear? And why don't pianos, acoustic instruments with spruce soundboards, get discussed in "opening up" terms? Or cellos?

This retired engineer wants to hear all about it.
__________________

Ok, I actually did read three pages of response and didn't see any like I'm about to say so . . .

As an engineer would you accept that a thicker string sounds different than a thinner one? Then let me make an analogy to a guitar top.

It's a pretty undisputed fact that a spruce top with a glass finish will be perfectly mirror flat when it leaves the factory and 5 years later show washboard type dips in the finish as the softer groove of the grain shrinks in more than the harder parts. The top is now measurably thinner so it will sound different.

Different enough for your ear? I dunno how good your hearing is or how "educated" for lack of a better word. My hearing sucks, tons of treble and bass loss on both sides.

But, I'll never forget the day it dawned on me that my first Taylor 412 was resonating amazingly when I hit random notes on the fretboard. The notes would just keep ringing out so beautifully. That to me was when my ear finally "got it" on the fact that my guitar had opened up after 5 or 6 years of ownership. That was 20 years ago and now I notice that resonance more readily now in the guitars I now have. My poor ears can even tell the difference between a hog top and a spruce top for what that's worth.

As far as pianos, cellos, violins, etc. I would argue that the soundboard on a piano is significantly thicker in proportion to a guitar top such that any shinkage in a piano soundboard would be far less significant in altering it's tone.

There you have it, nothing more needs to be said on the subject

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by guitar george

I think it can be scientifically proven that most living things get better in the short term and worse over the long term. Humans, animals, plants and all other living matter improve with age up to the point where they start to deteriorate and eventually return to the earth. How long can dead wood, in the shape of a guitar, improve (open up), before it starts to disintegrate?

No actually it can't scientifically....."better" is not a scientific term. Science proves things change, better or worse, are subjective interpretations of the results of that change .

[varve]

Originally Posted by devellis

Just for the record, psychoacoustics is a pretty rigorous area of inquiry focusing on the physics and neurology of the auditory system and how stimuli are perceived. Much of the work in the field is highly quantitative. Although I've quoted Andrew's post, I'm not specifically commenting on his usage but the more general case. I often see the term used to refer to something like a "mental error" or "mind trick" that distorts our perceptions. While that might occupy some remote corner of psychoacoustics, it's not by any means an accurate description of the field.

Here are three links that may give people a better idea of what psychoacoustics is. The first is a Music 101 video explaining some psychoacoustic principles:

https://www.coursera.org/learn/music...sychoacoustics

The second link is to a page that has a sample of medical topics related to psychoacoustics. These are summaries of chapters on various psychoacoustical topics related to clinical issues. The last one is directly relevant to music.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...sychoacoustics


The third is a link to a PDF describing how psychoacoustical models are applied to sound masking and audio watermarking (i.e., implanting an inaudible "marker" in an audio file). It gets more technical but gives a better idea of the kinds of specific approaches taken to psychoacoustics.

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/...357-p176789642

I hope these give people more of a flavor for what psychoacoustics is.

The last article in particular is excellent, Mr. Devellis, thank you for providing these. I am an otologic surgeon in my day job, and thus somewhat steeped in acoustics . Psychoacoustics is like any other learned realm- there is a broad diversity of expert opinion. That said, this is a particularly cogent intro, IMHO. The role of masking and critical bandwidth is particularly relevant to issues such as headroom ( auditory roughness) and the warm/ bright continuum that appears on these forums from time to time. Thanks for shedding some light

[guitar george]

Originally Posted by KevWind

No actually it can't scientifically....."better" is not a scientific term. Science proves things change, better or worse, are subjective interpretations of the results of that change .

Is there a better word for better?

[Rbutton]

Watch the James Taylor guitar vault video. He clearly thinks guitars do not improve with age- actually he thinks the opposite. This of course goes contrary to popular belief but I have to consider his views since he has played far more guitars, for far longer and far better than me.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by KevWind

And "scientific proof " is absolutely "something to be proved or disproved scientifically" AND definitely is not something to be based on, or subject to, subjective experience and personal projections of reality. And without the science, still relegates such assessment of "opening up" to being "totally subjective speculation"

Interesting to see the different forms the discussion of this topic has taken over the years. I retired from research in auditory neuroscience, but can't think of anything new to add except to support the notion that measuring a guitar's sound, and relating those measures to human perception is frustratingly difficult.

Perhaps something worth considering is the concept of "scientific proof", and whether the interpretation of raw data is itself subjective. It is, after all, a human endeavour entered into with some degree of preconception. I.e., show a spectogram of guitar output to several different experienced observers, and ask them to pick out the most salient features of the spectogram that relate to our auditory perception. Likely to get several different answers.

Might also consider what science can validate. Could be used to validate that, yes indeed, guitar tone changes over the years. Or to validate the fact that humans have fluctuations in auditory perception in the short term, and faulty acoustic memory in the longer term, which might support the idea that the preconceptions we bring to the table can overwhelm detection of what might be minor changes in guitar tone.

Anyway -- it's not always clear where subjectivity stops and objectivity begins.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by guitar george

Is there a better word for better?

Well that question has haunted mankind since it was invented

But IMO no "Better" is perfect to describe a personal believe in a change as being positive . Again not science, but completely valid for subjective personal perception.

[kayakman]

Yousa, what a thread, I am worn out after reading it..........

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by zmf

Interesting to see the different forms the discussion of this topic has taken over the years. I retired from research in auditory neuroscience, but can't think of anything new to add except to support the notion that measuring a guitar's sound, and relating those measures to human perception is frustratingly difficult.

Perhaps something worth considering is the concept of "scientific proof", and whether the interpretation of raw data is itself subjective. It is, after all, a human endeavour entered into with some degree of preconception. I.e., show a spectogram of guitar output to several different experienced observers, and ask them to pick out the most salient features of the spectogram that relate to our auditory perception. Likely to get several different answers.

Might also consider what science can validate. Could be used to validate that, yes indeed, guitar tone changes over the years. Or to validate the fact that humans have fluctuations in auditory perception in the short term, and faulty acoustic memory in the longer term, which might support the idea that the preconceptions we bring to the table can overwhelm detection of what might be minor changes in guitar tone.

Anyway -- it's not always clear where subjectivity stops and objectivity begins.

Completely agree and why I would offer it is arguably not scientifically possible to measure if a change over time actually results in anything other than change . Because as you say any measurable results would then be subject to "interpretation" at least until somebody invents a "bettermeter"

The other thing that often gets lost in these "opening up" discussions is sometimes peoples "critical listening skills " can ( with specific intentional practice) improve over time . So that they are able to detect more over all, and or more subtle distinctions in tone and harmonics or sonics.
Put simply-- maybe the persons listening ability has changed more than the guitar itself.