#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Since it seems that any knowledge or experience contrary to that is irrelevant to your beliefs, I’ll refrain from further comment on your posts. Happy building. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
The problem is your approach, I love science and technology, I hate jargon. You never can agree with anything I post. Let me ask you this: Do you think a flat soundboard would tend to sound bassy, responsive to fingerpicking and more prone to being lifted from string pressure? Also do you think an arched soundboard would tend to sound bright, less responsive unless strummed hard and less prone to being lifted from string pressure?
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Jargon is language that is used as a shorthand to refer to specific things amongst members of a group familiar with those things. Jargon can sometimes be used to purposely exclude those who are not members of that group. By contrast, science uses terminology that is explicitly defined to describe key concepts that form the basis for understanding and discussing science. Sometimes, that terminology is used by laypersons who are unfamiliar with the precise definitions or use the terminology to refer to something else. A simple example is the word "stress". In colloquial speech, one might say, "I've had a really tough week and I feel stressed." Someone well-versed in science might say, "That beam is highly stressed." Same word, different meanings. When the term "stressed" is used in the context of a beam, it has a very specific, explicitly-defined meaning and isn't open to interpretation. Ditto for the term "bending stiffness". Quote:
Quote:
There are many, many variables involved in making a guitar, not the least of which is variation in the physical mechanical properties of the materials we use: wood. The "stiffness" (Young's modulus) changes from one piece of bracing material to the next, as it does from one guitar top to the next. The density - mass/unit volume - of the material changes from one piece to the next. The damping properties change from one piece of wood to the next. (The response of any mechanical system, including an acoustic guitar, is a function of the mass, stiffness and damping of that system.) So, when one attempts to isolate only the one variable of flat vs. arched top, one can't: other variables are also changing, muddying the waters of cause and effect. Then there are issues of "strummed hard". As Alan alluded to earlier, how does one ensure that the "hardness" of strumming used to compare the flat top to the arched top. And so on, with more variables to control. If, for example, you play one "harder" than the other, consciously or subconsciously, or simply due to variations in muscular control, what does that do to one's conclusions of what influence flat vs. arched has on the response? Anyone who wants to can, at any time, say, "I think this sounds better/louder/more balanced/(insert variable)." That isn't proof of anything. It's a subjective opinion. Anyone can express an opinion. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion or expressing one. An opinion is something very different from an objective "fact". To substantially support something as being accepted as "a fact" or "true", science provides a specific methodology. That's what science is, a methodology, a way to approach the world and its phenomenon. Something isn't true because one wants it to be, at least not from a scientific perspective. One can believe whatever one wants. By its very nature, belief doesn't require objective evidence to support it. That precludes statements such as yours, "I appreciate science and Wiki pages but I believe that my assertion is correct." Belief is the antithesis of science. (Belief is not the same as having a hypothesis.) When you begin to use terminology that is explicitly defined in science, it implies an adherence to some semblance of scientific method. That method precludes something being true simply because one believes it to be true. There is a difference between saying that, "pre-stressing a guitar top increases its stiffness", versus saying, "I think I get a sound I like better if I arch a guitar top." The first is presenting a cause and effect statement of purported fact, while the second is stating a subjective opinion or belief. One is an apple, the other an orange: one can't explain an apple using an orange and vice versa. To be clear, there are many facets of life that are driven by belief - unsubstantiated opinion or faith. There is nothing wrong with that. The issue arises when people confuse belief with scientific "fact". Science can't prove a belief anymore than belief can prove science. They are parallel entities. I'll conclude with three quotations that encapsulate all of the above. "An art is a science with too many variables." P.N. Adams, a fluid mechanics professor I once had "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.” Friedrich Nietzsche Last edited by charles Tauber; 01-27-2021 at 02:01 PM. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." Albert Einstein |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I am not sure what happened to that one, My shop maintains proper humidity, but if it happens again I will try to jack it up before gluing to the sides. Do you mean your braces are radiused and you glue them to the top with a flat board?
Last edited by Victory Pete; 01-27-2021 at 04:00 PM. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
No. I glue the braces against a matching radiused surface. But when gluing the top to the sides, I use the flat plywood.
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Are your braces radiused? So you put the plywood on the top and then clamp?
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I gave up page 1
__________________
Cole Clark Fat Lady Gretsch Electromatic Martin CEO7 Maton Messiah Taylor 814CE |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
At least it’s all been civil! A rarity these days.
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Taylor 114e, Little Martin LX-1, Cordoba 20TM-CE Tenor Uke, Oscar Schmidt OU2 Soprano My (old) tunes |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Neck Set Angle
I am doing another neck set soon. I took the strings off of my last build and took measurements. The height above the bridge is right where I had set it 3 months ago: .055". The action and other neck set parameters are perfect on this guitar so I am going for the same thing on my current build. The bridge I am using is Madagascar Rosewood and is a little bit higher so I am trying to compensate for that to get the same measurements as the previous guitar. I am not sure why most people here do not put as much or any distance above the bridge. It seems this would result in a very low saddle without the magic 1/2" string clearance to the soundboard. I was told Martin uses a measurement of .094" which seems like it would mean you would have very low action. I suppose a factor here is how high the bridge is to begin with. I can shave down the new bridge or have less saddle and break angle. The measurement from soundboard to straightedge is .425" if I figure for the finish as I glue neck and bridge before finishing.
Last edited by Victory Pete; 03-27-2021 at 05:01 PM. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Neck Set Angle Gauge
So I have what I have wanted for a while now. Regardless of the bridge I want to use, I have a way of getting the neck angle the same every time, This is assuming I have a top that has the same radius to it.
|