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: black diamond saddles
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
petermc61
Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 27 2014
|
 RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha
Peter there are two types of gizmos.
Ones which solve previously identified problems and those which do not.
In the former case value can be estimated given a rational assessment of the depreciation caused by the failure of the original.
In the latter value is simply a function of the percieved desirabiltiy of the gizmo itself. This is personal. I do not watch QVC nor do I have spinning rims. Similarly I find no value in your 'argument' depending as it does on an expensive leap of faith to solve a non problem.
Your attempt at rebuttal,above, clearly proved my point. This is increasingly the standard around here. Which brings me to my next point, we are not short of fools so your presence, like your product, is surplus to requirements.
D.
Guitarbuddha
I will respond both to the substance and the tone of your comments.
First, to the substance. I really don't know why you have miscontrued my posts to date. My only suggestion - and one that I will repeat here - is that it might be helpful if those that deride the product actually got some first hand experience before making any asserstions about it efficacy or otherwise. I see that as a perfectly reasonable statement. I still fail to understand why it appears to have generated such an emotional response. Further, I fail to see how anything I have said has 'proved' any of your points.
Might I also suggest that the problem being looked at here can be redefined? You seem to talk of 'gizmos' only having a place in solving a 'previously identified problem'. If you then assert that there is no problem, then by definition there is no need for the gizmo (in this case, the BD saddle). The alternative way to approch this whole issue is to try one of these saddles to see whether that sheds any light onto the fact that a problem, 'previously unknown' may well exist. The difference in this respect between you and I is that I have done that experiment to inform a view. To the contrary, you have informed your 'no problem' view through your existing view on the matter.
I would also like to clarify the product I am talking about is not 'mine' so I don't why you would imply as much. It is a product of Obligato, I am simply a satisfied user.
On the matter of the tone of your comments, they are plainly offensive. I trust you are not so disrespectful to all new members, but after 3 posts being called a fool and being told you rather I left the site does little for your reputation.
Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 2:03:25
 |
|
petermc61
Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 27 2014
|
|
RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to estebanana)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
PeterMC61,
I'm a member of the Decamp classical forum too and I'm not convinced.
Ok so if you want to send me a few $100.00 saddles I'll try them, but so far it just sounds like the usual guitar world voodoo technical BS.
There's nothing wrong with being a skeptic, it does to not make me guilty of anything except not being taken for a fool. If this saddle material is so great, time will tell. In the mean time how do I know someone did not just buy a supply of sheet stock of this material and cut saddles from it? And is charging a hefty price for an item that costs little to make and getting away with it while it is a novelty?
I'll wait and see if the stuff works and then I'll wait longer for more than one company to offer it at a competitive price. In fact I'll wait until a company in China makes it and sells it on eBay for a 10th of the price. And you can bet that will happen.
If this stuff is so cool how come the bigger supply houses and guitar companies don't promote it? Fender, Martin, Breedlove etc, are they raving over it? Is Stewmac offering it? When the reliable industry standard supply houses offer it as a material I'll check it out. It means that it has been vetted though a process of customer approval as a good product.
If this company really wants to sell saddles they should not challenge luthiers making the common sense argument for not wasting money on $100.00 saddles and pony up
some samples and respect.
Stephen
I am not sure why you would think I would send you saddles. They are not mine to supply.
As I understand the essence of your arguments, they are twofold. Firstly, I understand you think (if they are indeed shown in the fullness of time to make a difference) it is wiser to wait until the saddles are available in large quantity and a cheap price before adopting them on your instruments. Fair enough, that is a classic 'follower' strategy. I happen to be a classic 'early adopter'. Each to their own!
The other point seems to be that if they were any good the major companies (which tend to high volume production) would be adopting them. This assumes that these suppliers really care about the ultimate quality of the product they put out rather than the margins they make and the market share they have. I would have thought it fairly well known these companies make to a price and the possible benefit to the useer in better performance may be a secondary matter.
I would have thought that it would be keen, passionate guitar makers who would be the first adopters of these sort of advances. Instead, what I see is an independent maker telling his potential purchasers that he is not even willing to try something, with an open mind, that might be useful to them for the guitars they buy. I really do struggle to understand that I am sorry to say.
Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 2:18:56
|
|
keith
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sep. 29 2009
From: Back in Boston
|
|
RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
interesting can of worms i have opened up. since the obbligato dude has piped in maybe he could answer some questions/observations.
1. the price of the saddle as of this writing is $99. it is my understanding this price includes making the saddle and shaping the saddle to fit a customer's guitar and once completed it is good to go. is this correct?
2. if the above is correct, is it also correct that the reason why the shaping is done at the company is because this a material that requires some speciality tools and/or skills?
3. if special tools or skills are required are these tools and/or skills accessible to individuals "out in the field", that is, by luthiers or individuals with basic skills? could someone who has shaped bone saddles in the past easily learn to shape pyrolytic saddles?
4. if individuals such as luthiers or guitar "do-it-yourself" types can easliy do their own saddles using pyrolytic blanks will blank saddles be available in the future? if so, what parameters would exist in making and selling blanks?
i appreciate how folks would be wary of investing $99 into something new and, to a degree, unproven, and i myself fell into that group when i first heard of this material. after thinking about the material and drawing analogies to other new and improved things such as when fuel injection first came about and challenged carburetors, it seems to me maybe high-tech materials might provide an advantage. however, with any new and improved item, the proof is the pudding. i guess time will tell.
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 12:17:20
|
|
estebanana
Posts: 9352
Joined: Oct. 16 2009
|
|
RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
Steve,
The way it was presented originally is that it was a material that was proprietary and had to be shaped by the people who make it. That does not work for me. Later it was revealed that it can be shaped by the installer. Ok
I said I'm waiting to see it others try it and over time if it pans out to be a good material. I objected to being called un-progressive because I gave some common sense reasons why paying $100.00 dollars for a saddle that is new on the market does not to sit well with me.
The other reason I choose to wait is to see if another company comes out with the same material, like more than one company makes carbon fiber, perhaps someone else will make similar saddle material and the price will be more competitive.
There's nothing wrong with my skepticism, I just said I'm waiting to see what happens. My last post to Peter, lets talk in two years. That means I'm watching. Why should the burden of proof be on me to spend $100.00 bucks to prove that someone has a new product they want to sell me?
Sonically I'm skeptical because I think the results so far look subjective. For example another analogy closer to the subject than the band analogy would be saddle break angle.
Several years ago the idea cropped up that more saddle break angle increased the performance of the guitar. People started talking about break angle high degrees and where the returns of high degee diminish in energy returns.
Eventually Alan Carruth, among others, did some blind testing with players and various guitars with high & low break angle, the result was that they could not tell the difference. The Left Brain Luthery group got ahold of the idea of break angle and bounced it around, there are mechanical engineers in the group, and eventually came up with some calcs like much past eleven degrees and you're not getting much return with high break angles.
I consulted with a couple of those fellows as I do on technical things I don't understand mathmatically and I ask as best I can ho it works and most importantly what the final numbers are to use in practical guitar making. So I keep myself informed on technical reality by waiting for the engineers and "guitar scientists" like Carruth to do some empirical testing. Then I ask how does this work?
That is why I wait and why I see no need to rush out and embrace every new thing on the market. Eventually whether it is a building technique, like the break angle issue, or a new product it gets tested out by makers who have better mechanical engineering minds than mine. And if I study their results and reasoning I usually come out smarter in the end.
I'm just watching, I've changed my mind before and even recanted on human beings I thought I did not like. Turns out they were more fun than I thought. Just as Rufus.
Post script:
Also reminds me of the time there was an argument on the Foro over whether finishing the inside of the guitar made it play better because it reduced air friction inside the box. Some people insisted that it did. Richard Jernigan, a Foro regular and "rocket scientist" in real life actually did the calculations. He came up with a number for the friction and drag of air in the box that as so insanely low he pronounced it would not make any difference in sound that would even be measurable. Like ridiculously low, practically nonexistent.
So what I learned from that was that people will argue for just about anything in guitar making and create a false body of knowledge surrounding it until an engineer does the calcs and says well that problem in reality does not actually exist.
For $100.00 a saddle I'd like to see some empirical evidence and tests run by disinterested luthiers who have the sound equipment. The $100.00 buck staying my wallet until I hear more evidence about what it actually does. See it's MY money.
_____________________________
https://www.stephenfaulkguitars.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 14:34:03
|
|
guthriej
Posts: 20
Joined: Mar. 27 2014
|
|
RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
OK,
I have not read everything but enough to explain most of what is being asked.
First I do not blame anyone like Estebnana for wanting proof, and he is right
about it is our burden to prove what We have claimed. Also everyone knows in
the past attempts to replace bone focused on a cheap low skill molded plastic.
If you build 50,000 a year you have to have that to compete with China.
We have decided to try the other approach of making a much better saddle.
and We discovered this all by mistake so We did not at first set out to
find saddles much better that what exist. We were testing for durability,
strings braking etc.
The tone shift on all of the stringed instruments tested so far is something You
will not believe until You experience it either as the picks or the saddles. The
material is so little known, and so different form what most people have ever
worked with Tech's ,and Lutheirs will have to be schooled in it. Much like if I
was asking for them to ship me the cut wood, and tools to make My own guitar.
They could not cover than it an email either, it might be funny though to see the
mess I make. It is not like learning to be luthier but is is not like just shipping
blanks, and parts without ever teaching them how to work with it, and more important
what it can do.
Also I do not dislike bone. It has served Luthiers well for centuries, and if the instrument is built right
it can sound amazing too. Even the very well biased (adjusted) instruments to bone or Ivory, can still
be improved by a lot. If You went back in time an tried to explain jets, and sports cars to people that
worked with stables they would think You have been drinking too much or something else.
If an instrument is very well built to the saddle material, and is not a weak instrument it
is almost impossible to beat the saddle material that was used with any other solid saddle I know
of even the BD. Taylor, and Tim Tell at Martin have done this with Tusq some too. If You take
the Martin X series to get it the best as We could We had to use hybrids, bone was OK acoustically
and, horrible plugged in. Most classics are weak by design compared to steel string dreadnoughts.
Plus they have small saddles mass wise, and mass is critical with bone because it is not a very good
conductor. Not a bad one but now a good one either. So I think most of the nylons can use either
the solids, and I know the hybrids will work on all too.
There are also many, many different types of saddles We can make mostly because this material
only has to have a sliver between the strings, and saddle base to transfer more energy that a full
bone saddle. That means You can use any shape, or size (larger for more punch or volume on a dead
sounding string). If You want more sustain, or less You can use a base that does that, and or larger inserts.
Much, much more too already tested. So yes luthiers are going to have total control on making the saddles,
well because they will have too. Plus they are luthiers, and tech's, and are already good at this just not
yet able to work with this technology until We show it to them.
We are still a small start up I wish We could gear up fast for a manufacture to mass produce all of the blanks ,
and other parts. Plus with the Economics of scale over time cost will go down much like VCR's, and microwaves
did.
Right now We need to focus on figuring all of this out for example a classical guitar might just want a Mesquite hybrid.
Were a Flamenco might be best with a White proprietary treble, and a Cedar or Brazilian Koa ( not Koa) bass side. Inserts
also give very good string tone separation, and would be much less muddy that any bone saddle could ever be etc.
So luthiers can get blanks ready to drop in or as coated (over size all over) or as lapped to a thickness or finished with intonation,
They can get blank bases, or at any state of assembly they want, or just the inserts. Please make them Yourself because
I am very lazy. last but not least when Jon calculated the cost He factored in enough so anyone ordering in quantity would not have
to pay $99.99 each even now. A solid saddle right now cost as much to make as coated as what a bone saddle cost installed.
so It has to be much better. Luthiers need not fear We will never let this material bully anyone, and everyone will get treated the same.
It is going to require everyone that wants these new options to help, and anyone can that wants to.
I learn more from want people don't like than what they do like. So please point out anything You want or want changed too.
We should have the builders do the first testing so we can cut to the chase. Peter, and the others on other forums are
telling you the truth, and it is for real this time, and is for everyone that wants it.
Much, much more later.
Jim
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 14:56:17
|
|
petermc61
Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 27 2014
|
|
RE: black diamond saddles (in reply to guitarbuddha)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: guitarbuddha
It is generally better to tests a hypothesis with experiment.
Proposing hypotheses after expensive experimentation is frowned upon by those with scientific training. Principally because it invites a pathalogical desire to justify the expense.
I suspect that you know this which is why I find your suggestions an offensive attempt to manipulate those without training in science. Since that is your sole reason to be here I have treated you accordingly.
In your last post you made clear your intention to act as agent.
Let me be more specific , you made your intention clearer.
D.
Dear guitarbuddha
Firstly, I know not of you, but I happen to have a degree in science so please do not lecture me on principles of science.
Secondly, you do not know me or my motivations, so do not presume to. There is nothing in any of my posts that could lead a reasonable, rational person to your conclusion.
Thirdly, I have set out a number of times my principle line of argument. I will do it again as succinctly as possible here for the slower learners amongst us. I am merely asserting that an opinion on a product is better made after some experience with a product rather than basing an opinion on pre-existing biases. Pretty simple position really.
Fourthly, noting I have made this very clear before in previous posts, I have no personal or professional relationship with Jim Guthrie or Oligatio, no pecuniary interest in the company or the product. I am what market researchers simply call a 'satisfied customer'. I fail to see why the real life experiences of a satisfied customer should bring forth such attacks on my intelligence, my motives and conspiracy theories about me acting as an agent for Obligato. The fact these conclsuions are drawn without any basis says more of those drawing the conclusions than it does about me.
Regards
Peter
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Mar. 28 2014 20:17:25
|
|
 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 |
0.125 secs.
|
Printable Version
