Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
Does size really matter?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login | |
|
yourwhathurts69
Posts: 116
Joined: Sep. 16 2009
|
Does size really matter?
|
|
|
Not cejillas you sickos!! I'm mean for guitars. Does the variation in size and shape of a guitar body really make that much of a difference. Many guitar plans I've seen vary slightly, but most are almost identical. For example, when comparing two guitars, one may have an upper bout that is 1/8in bigger and a lower bout that is 1/8in smaller. The depth may vary slightly, too. Assuming internal volume of the guitar is about the same, do small variances really matter, or are other factors (ie wood, soundboard, bracing, etc...) far more important than a couple millimeters here and there (especially when considering that a guitar is made by hand, not machine). If you think the slight variances really are significant, what effect does changing the upper bout, lower bout, depth, etc...have on the sound of the guitar?
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 1 2010 13:10:05
|
|
keith
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sep. 29 2009
From: Back in Boston
|
RE: Does size really matter? (in reply to yourwhathurts69)
|
|
|
quote:
Imagine your entire life's work, you wouldn't want to dismiss it because of some contrary evidence you found on some occasion. So you start using data that you want to keep and ignorign other data. its not devious, its not bad its just what happens in research. as someone who spent time in grad school as well as my professional life involved in research i would take exception with the above statement. ignoring data that conflicts with a hypothesis is, in fact, devious and bad (wrong). in university research settings one could easily lose tenure if not their position because the above constitues fraud. in other settings it could lead to a host of problems--2 examples come to mind that being the anti-vaccine and pharmacological research. good science can deal with facts that somehow do not fit a given hypothesis. the hypothesis may in fact be a good one and somehow the data that does not fit does not mean either the hypothesis or data are bad, rather, it may mean there is something unique to the hypothesis and/or data that was heretofore unknown or unexplained and in the explanation the data could in fact fit the hypothesis. that is what good science is all about. true, a lot of researchers do "overlook or mislook" data but when they do they have journeyed down a road that is, in fact, bad. as to the statement that implies brune "fudges" his data, that i cannot address as i am not familiar with all of his work and do not have the expertise to adequately evaluate his methods and findings.
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jun. 7 2010 7:55:22
|
|
New Messages |
No New Messages |
Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
Locked w/ New Messages |
Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.0625 secs.
|