[quote=Old Guy;1794586]I will play an Adamas next visit to the guitar shop, will post an opinion then.Originally Posted by SD-50
True.
I hope that statement didn't come across too cranky...I have no issue with somebody saying "I like the sound..."
It's when fake scientific reasons come in that I have an issue.
Many places in Europe, claims like that are prohibited. If you can't prove it you can't print it...
But we're a little more cowboy here...
Your neighbors called. They like your music.
Re: New wood for violin
[quote=Old Guy;1794586]I will play an Adamas next visit to the guitar shop, will post an opinion then.
[quote=SD-50;1795302]I'd be interested in your reaction.
It's a different beast. Some people are really put off by the tech. But it's a very good studio acoustic.
I am not sure it's what I would be sitting around my living room with...my favorite beater is an old 1980's Yamaha...I have switched to other guitars and gone back to it about 5 times.
Your neighbors called. They like your music.
FWIW, human bone density on average is analogous to fiber (insulation) board if I did the conversion correctly. I didn't bother to research skin density since it's more about sensory perception per unit area and IMO our total body density is more important overall which is that of hardboard with the mean between the two being on the low (soft) end of real wood and its plywood constructions. Since MDF falls in the upper density range of real wood and closer to our average body density, I guess one could use this to both prove/disprove its 'superiority' for using it to make audio reproducers out of it depending on the desired BW.
From experience, I concluded that it's technically superior only with a system F10 > ~ ~400 Hz, though many have disputed it and personally don't like how they 'sound' until it's above ~5 kHz where it can absorb the excessive sibilance found in most recordings, so no matter what I 'preach' as the 'ideal' audio reproduction 'goal' I too prefer a very minor amount of euphonic 'coloration' through my peak hearing BW.
Of much more importance of course is how we process what our auditory and tactile systems sense which we've barely scratched the surface of understanding AFAIK. The basic physics is fairly well understood though and support all of your 'rantings' (and FWIW, mine on this broad subject).
Mass marketing panders to our desire for all things 'rich' though, i.e. 'sweets', high fat content foods, over-saturated colors, so combined with the fact that a microphone can't accurately capture all of the original signal and that we all perceive sound the same, yet not so much, there's a lot of latitude as to what sounds the most accurate (acceptable?) to the average person (acoustic perception mean), though if buying trends are any indication we need look no further than B0$3 products to get a very good idea. Sadly, IME this appears to be true even though most folks cite their 'user friendly' size/positioning flexibility as the prime reason.
GM
Loud is Beautiful if it's Clean! As always though, the usual disclaimers apply to this post's contents.
Your perspectives are always an interesting read, GM.
I don't really have any issue so much with what anybody likes...I like redheads for instance, to some men that makes me a masochist.
And even if somebody says they use Bose because it's convenient, it's something I wouldn't do, but it takes all kinds.
Where I would draw the line is if someone made posts about Bose being technically superior and more accurate...then I would have an issue.
To me, Bose sounds like FM radio...compressed and over-processed. But a heckuva lot of people are happy listening to that. fortunately most don't claim it to be the ultimate sound source.
And really I don't consider physics the be all and end all. Physics is very impersonal and listening isn't.
I just don't like completely fake science, that doesn't even try to be accurate. Much of what is spouted about speakers is romanticized pseudo science.
Your neighbors called. They like your music.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks