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.
|
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
 RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Ramon Amira)
|
|
|
quote:
f we accept what you say above about Jose Ramirez' 1As, then a logical conclusion would be that that model is after all not "scientifically" constructed. Consequently by default it was constructed, perhaps subconsciously, by instinct and intuition.
I believe that Ramirez' ideas were not especially scientific, but his method of testing them was to build, or cause to be built, guitars that he evaluated with the highest critical sense, and to have them evaluated by the greatest players of the day, including Segovia. Thus he arrived at a very successful design.
Here's an example of what I would consider his non-scientific ideas. Segovia repeatedly brought up the problem of "wolf notes". There is no perfect certainty precisely what Segovia meant by the term, but we may interpret it in light of the 'cello. There a wolf note is one that speaks very loudly at first, with a harsh tone, then dies away rapidly.
This description is consistent with an uncontrolled resonance of the top which happens to coincide in frequency with the pitch of a certain note. I believe that most luthiers who look for a physical model of the instrument agree.
Ramirez, on the other hand, in the "de cámara" model, proposed the internal rim affixed to the sides halfway between the back and the top as a cure, or at least a palliative for the wolf tones.
http://www.guitarrasramirez.com/guitarrasDeProfesional.html
(scroll down a bit)
This means he thought the wolf tones arose from the motion of the air in the box. Few if any luthiers, engineers or physicists would agree.
At the time I dealt with Ramirez over a period of a few years I never commented on his enthusiastic explanations of the "de cámara" design, though I thought they were nonsense from the point of view of physics.
The "de cámara¨ design does have an effect on the sound. But it doesn`t cure the wolf notes.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 16 2010 2:17:53
 |
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14801
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
quote:
Ramirez, on the other hand, in the "de cámara" model, proposed the internal rim affixed to the sides halfway between the back and the top as a cure, or at least a palliative for the wolf tones.
http://www.guitarrasramirez.com/guitarrasDeProfesional.html
(scroll down a bit)
This means he thought the wolf tones arose from the motion of the air in the box. Few if any luthiers, engineers or physicists would agree.
Did you guys read Ramirez's book????
The irony is, he states himself that the way he FINALLY "solved" the problem of these crazy wolf notes, was to literally study the physics involved with sound waves moving in 3D space. In other words, he HIMSELF seemed to think he was using science specifically for this problem. Now I dont know to what extent he actually studied and used physics, but he at least claims it. He also states many times that guitar building is engineering and scientific, NOT an art. At least for him. The implication that is if you know how to do it, you can just follow his engineering plan and make his guitar. He makes fun of the japanese guys that sawed his guitar in half to try to build a copy, not because they are not artists, but they did not learn the reasoning behind his engineering ideas, and were just copying the design as it LOOKS.
About wolf notes, I have never heard such a thing on an acoustic guitar in my entire life. Well, I guess when you are miked up loud you notice weak or strong notes out of the ordinary. But technique or changing the strings or humidity seems to fix all weird "weak" notes for me.
Ricardo
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 17 2010 16:21:41
|
|
Richard Jernigan
Posts: 3430
Joined: Jan. 20 2004
From: Austin, Texas USA
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
The irony is, he states himself that the way he FINALLY "solved" the problem of these crazy wolf notes, was to literally study the physics involved with sound waves moving in 3D space. In other words, he HIMSELF seemed to think he was using science specifically for this problem. Now I dont know to what extent he actually studied and used physics, but he at least claims it.
Belatedly, it occurs to me to explain the chief reason I doubted Ramirez' claims.
There is no formula which describes the motion of sound waves inside a guitar, even if you picture it as a rigid box. There are equations to be solved, but their solutions don't come out in a nice form where you can look up the answer the way you find the values for sines or cosines in your trigonometry book. To solve the equations you must use a computer. In my opinion, to understand what is going on, the results would have to be displayed graphically, not as pages full of numbers.
The problem of analyzing sound waves inside a rigid guitar shaped box is complex enough, but when you add in the coupling of the motion of the top, which is designed and built to move, the complexity is far more than doubled.
During the 1960s and 1970s, when Ramirez felt he was applying physics to the guitar, it would have required a large mainframe, or even a supercomputer to carry out the calculations.
At the time NASTRAN, the generalized structural analysis program developed by NASA was coming into use. I see myself as a NASTRAN amateur, but professionals worked under my supervision. I am, and was at the time, familiar with the requirements and limitations of such computer codes. Ramirez was not.
In my conversations with Ramirez, and in his book, Ramirez never displayed any actual familiarity with these problems, nor how to solve them, nor any knowledge of people who might have been able to solve them. He may have read some physics books, or talked to physicists, but as far as I know he never solved any physics problem germane to the guitar.
At the time, the company I worked for was considering buying Kaman Science Corporation. I worked for one of the founders of my company. Through him I met Charles H. Kaman.
http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/kaman.html
Besides being an inventor, corporate founder and helicopter expert, Kaman was an enthusiastic classical guitarist. He spoke of analyzing the guitar and building one from controlled engineering materials, not variable and whimsical wood. The result was the original Ovation guitar. Kaman told me he was severely disappointed in the Ovation, but it was a moderate commercial success. Eventually Kaman went to wooden tops for the higher end of the Ovation line.
Kaman was someone who clearly understood the application of physics to the guitar, and the severe limitations of that approach. From my acquaintance with him, and from reading his book, Ramirez was not.
RNJ
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 19 2010 14:14:37
|
|
Ron.M
Posts: 7051
Joined: Jul. 7 2003
From: Scotland
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
Well, even when I read this in "The Flamenco Guitar" I bought in Madrid 40 years ago I thought it was **** hype, (even though I was young and non-cynical, but I had a good knowledge of Physics and what could and could not be done at the time.)
You can't just read a couple of old Physics books, or even 20 or 100 and then go on to build a great guitar.
That's crap.
If Ramirez thought that taking a Physics degree at Madrid Uni in the '50s was going to give him some great insights into guitar building, he must have been very naive.
It's interesting that after all his experiments, he ended up confirming his father's (or grandfather's) design was just about right.
What a ****-spin cop out!
Even at that time, I felt it was **** advertising hype, much in the same vein as the foreign guitarists "who have studied with the most knowledgeable Gypsies in Spain" put in their program notes and bios.
You just try the guitar....If it's good, it's good..if it's not, it's not..
That's it... No more.
No need for any futher qualifications, endorsements and hype IMO.
Build a good guitar and they will come. 
Eso es.
cheers,
Ron
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 19 2010 19:38:11
|
|
Ramon Amira
Posts: 1025
Joined: Oct. 14 2009
From: New York City
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
There is pretty widespread agreement within the world of flamenco guitar that – however he made it - Jose Ramirez' 1A from that era was an outstanding guitar. Now it seems there are only three explanations for how he came to make this outstanding model.
#1) He somehow actually did apply valid scientific principles that really worked, and thus made this fine guitar. But according to Richard Jernigan that could not be the case, because if RJ is correct he was not well enough versed in those principles, and furthermore did not have access to today's technology - computers, testing equipment, etc. Therefore the conclusion would be that explanation #1 could not account for how he made this fine guitar.
#2) He applied what he mistakenly thought were viable scientific principles, but were in fact not viable at all. In other words, he took a mish-mosh of various pseudo-scientific ideas and based his construction on smoke and mirrors. Since this could not have worked, the conclusion would be that explanation #2 also could not account for how he made this fine guitar.
#3) Since neither explanation number 1 or 2 can account for the construction of his great 1A, we are by default left to conclude that in the end – whether consciously or subconsciously – he actually constructed the guitars using – instinct, intuition, and experience.
Ramon
_____________________________
Classical and flamenco guitars from Spain Ramon Amira Guitars
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 19 2010 23:53:53
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9351
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: Myth's and Science (in reply to Richard Jernigan)
|
|
|
A few thoughts:
I've seen and worked on /restored several nice Ramirez flamenco guitars from the mid 1950's to the early 70's. I think many of them sound quite good and are better than other guitars that were "factory" made. I find them quite collectable and that as models for how a flamenco guitar should look, they are sharp. The heel cap is usually that tall elegant drawn up piece integral to the back and Ramirez's builders always make a nice heel. Just my opinion. I've always looked to them as well drawn elegant guitars, best of the mass made guitars in my book.
Daniel Friedrich was the better of the analytical guitar makers who first began testing guitar components systematically. By contrast I have not read Ramirez's book because what excerpts I gleaned when I scanned it briefly indicate there's not much there there. Friedrich on the other hand established a series of tests related to practical things like measuring and recording top and brace deflection under certain loads. He worked concurrently with an acoustic engineer to measure his results. His methodology was sound and he went after the problem in a tangible way as opposed to Ramirez who was off trying to solve something esoteric like wolf tones. I think Ramirez was bored.
I also follow Friedrich as an example of a guitar maker who has integrity. He said he strives to make the best guitars he can, but he was honest enough to say that even though he puts materials and himself through a stringent set of high standards, he misses the mark sometimes. He said in an interview even good guitar makers make duds and that he was no exception. He said he sells them to collectors who don't play. He said something like every 20th guitar was a cut above the rest, meaning the difference between a great guitar and a sublime guitar sound wise and he did not know why.
There are a lot of guitar makers now, but really only a few real masters and I think Friedrich is one of them. The reason is because he does not hype himself or make up ridiculous proprietary names for his specialties in bracing or other structural features. He just builds the guitar and he's honest. By contrast, although I do very much like the Ramirez flamenco guitars and on rare occasion a Conde, I think there's a lot of hype and false market mystery built around those two houses.
(an aside- If I were collecting I would collect the late 1950's Ramirez guitars as Jose rode his team to make an elegant guitar. As for Conde's they are more like Rhinos than Impalas, whatever that means. Of course Gerundino's and Fleta's are sort of brutal too and I like those.)
I think Friedrich was one of the masters who got the scientific game going in guitar building. Others came later and did add some important information to the mix. The twelve hole bridge which is seeing more common use came from right here in the San Francisco area from John Gilbert. He came up with that a long time ago and it's just now being accepted as common. No one builder has cornered the market on contributing to the engineering / scientific development of the guitar, but many have contributed and those concepts get assimilated in the common language of building by merit of the test of time.
And there is still no substitute for intuition guided by practice everyday. It's art because guitarmakers, no matter how technical, have some small voice inside them that says, add a little more here, take a little more there. And science can't touch that.
*I shall dismount my soapbox now*.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Jul. 21 2010 3:44:55
|
|
 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 |
7.800293E-02 secs.
|
Printable Version
