RobF -> RE: vertical string pull on the soundboard (torque) (Sep. 1 2020 7:14:54)
|
quote:
You could just look away... Why look away? I’ve got to say I’m really happy that Stephen has been posting more on the Foro recently, I’m also happy to see Morante has returned to post some more links to great music, too. At any rate, this discussion has moved so far past where it was when I initially started composing this that I’m not sure it’s even relevant any more, but maybe just some food for thought.... Is there really that much difference between what a maker who uses their senses does when building, as opposed to a maker who takes a more scientifically conventional approach? When an “intuitive” maker picks up a piece of wood, a top, for instance, and holds it between their fingers, gives it a flex, runs a fingertip across the wood and listens to the quality of sound, gives it a tap and listens to the tone, how rapidly it blooms and decays, senses if the wood feels cold or warm, hard or soft, light or heavy, damp or dry, smells the wood, pokes it with a fingernail, takes a fine shaving off it with a plane, and on and on, are they not doing this to obtain an understanding of the material and arrive at a sense of how to work it? They may not be entering the data into a ledger under the columns of moisture content, stiffness, density, runout, etc, but that is part of the information they’ve gathered, along with good measure of other useful intangibles, as well. They just haven’t quantified it as much as internalized it. I realize there are many makers who say they take exhaustive measurements and keep a record of the data as they would prefer not to rely on their senses, as their test apparatus and methods do not lie, while one’s senses may deceive. I’m not going to argue with that except to say I firmly believe every maker should follow the path that fulfills them. Otherwise, they’ll quit. I do take exception, however, when the implication is made that somehow the application of ‘science’ over ‘intuition’ makes for a better guitar. That’s a conceit, in my opinion, and it is so because a guitar is so much more than that. For example, what’s the point of the formula for natural frequency you gave if the maker doesn’t understand how to work a brace? Not just as a structural element meeting a target criterion but as a piece of material that has to be glued in a manner that not only imparts strength to the plate, but does not telegraph, stays attached, doesn’t crack, can withstand explosive impact and adverse climatic trauma, maintains structural coherency under stress over an extended period of time, as well as contribute in a positive manner to the musicality and beauty of the instrument? I think understanding the implications of the formula is very important, but perhaps it’s numerical application is not. Which I think also applies to the earlier discussion with Konstantin and Richard concerning the initial question of this thread. Of course the discussion was of value, it was also very interesting and conceptually beneficial. But the numbers were of less importance than the conclusions, in my opinion. I just caution against using mathematics as a weapon, rather than as a tool. That’s not gonna help anyone make a better guitar.
|
|
|
|