|
Post by blueshome on Oct 28, 2021 13:02:01 GMT
I agree about the triplate, I too plat a nickel silver Fine Resophonic. I can see your point about variability with Nationals but can’t see the point of using a Mule as they are not constructed like a National and have a completely different sound.
|
|
sceyral
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by sceyral on Oct 28, 2021 13:11:26 GMT
to blueshome : tell me about the main construction differences between Mule gtrs and Nationals (or Fine Res gtrs) : I'v never seen any of them, in any shop in France...On YT you get only a rough idea, as most of the videos are made with medium (if not poor) quality mikes.
|
|
|
Post by lacerta on Oct 28, 2021 16:26:49 GMT
I agree about the triplate, I too plat a nickel silver Fine Resophonic. I can see your point about variability with Nationals but can’t see the point of using a Mule as they are not constructed like a National and have a completely different sound. I think Sceyral means that the mule tricone and single cone bodies have the same construction i.e. round cover plate and f-holes. Therefore you can determine what the difference is in the cone arrangements whilst eliminating the effects of different body construction. Interestingly, when I played a mule tricone it had a much more 'single cone' sound than any other tricone I've played. So the differences in body styles, open upper bought, grills on the cover plate etc, may account for a significant proportion of the difference in sound we hear between single and tricones.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 28, 2021 16:51:00 GMT
I'm sorry but you cannot use any type of science to analyse or understand the sound of a musical instrument. It is completely ridiculous and pointless to even try.
Making a musical instrument is all about the human touch and interaction with the materials and no amount of trying to configure that on a computer or a piece of paper is going to help you get closer. The great makers throughout history did not and do not use maths and computers, they used and use their hearts, hands and ears.
So when a cone was analysed it was registering in some way that it has similar characteristics to the human voice. So what! This tells us nothing we didn't already know from listening to a melody being played on a resophonic guitar. When a stringed instrument, especially a guitar is played with a slide it can impersonate and sound like the human voice. Of course it can, that's the whole point!
Put away your text books and computers, stop analysing something that cannot be looked at in that way and PLAY MUSIC!
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by purpleorange on Oct 29, 2021 0:34:57 GMT
'WHY do resophonic guitars sound so good?'
Sound good compared to what?
What sounds good is very subjective.
Resonators are louder than most acoustic guitars, that doesn't mean they sound better.
I play bit of harmonica and have heard lots if people say harmonica sounds closer to the human voice than any other instrument, people also say the same thing about the cello.
|
|
sceyral
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by sceyral on Oct 29, 2021 5:44:25 GMT
to purpleorange: a) You're right! My title is largely unscientific: it's not a matter of "good" or "bad". Moreover, the title first word should not be "why" but "how". A rigourous formulation should be "HOW resophonic guitars sound so different from acoustic ones?". The main goal was : "what does the cone bring, to make these guitars sound so differently from a Martin or Gibson Gt ?" b) You said : "Resos are louder"; yes, but the volume gain is not the same for the full audible frequency spectrum; so, one of my questions was : where is the gain? Btw, I partly disagree with M.Messer, when he says that "science has nothing to do in musical instruments understanding": like any human artwork, historical makers, working by trial and error, must have built zillions of terrible instruments, before success. Science will never replace a good luthier's expertise, but drastically saves time, preventing him from making stupid errors, or exploring dead end streets. When CF Martin designed X bracing, he made tons of changes, before finding the "ultimate" version!Had he known Kasha's and Kaman's researches, it could have made him save much time...
|
|
|
Post by mckinleybe1 on Oct 30, 2021 1:24:45 GMT
I'm sorry but you cannot use any type of science to analyse or understand the sound of a musical instrument. It is completely ridiculous and pointless to even try. Making a musical instrument is all about the human touch and interaction with the materials and no amount of trying to configure that on a computer or a piece of paper is going to help you get closer. The great makers throughout history did not and do not use maths and computers, they used and use their hearts, hands and ears. So when a cone was analysed it was registering in some way that it has similar characteristics to the human voice. So what! This tells us nothing we didn't already know from listening to a melody being played on a resophonic guitar. When a stringed instrument, especially a guitar is played with a slide it can impersonate and sound like the human voice. Of course it can, that's the whole point! Put away your text books and computers, stop analysing something that cannot be looked at in that way and PLAY MUSIC! Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by mckinleybe1 on Oct 30, 2021 1:29:53 GMT
I agree with everything Michael said above. However, I have really enjoyed this topic and all the comments. I enjoy all the different takes on this.
As soon as I finish this pint…I’ll sit down with my 1930 Triolian and be thankful that at my age I have this guitar and can enjoy every single sound I can still hear. How fortunate.
Cheers!
|
|
sceyral
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by sceyral on Oct 30, 2021 12:35:28 GMT
As an attempt of oecumenique synthesis, and calm making, could I say say that lutherie could be an art using (some) scientific methods, just like medicine is an art using scientific tools ? Old doctors were alone with their knowledge, without much outside help: many diagnoses were bets; today, their young colleagues don't want anymore to practice alone in rural zones. Shaped with hospital high technology, many of them are reluctant (if not afraid?) to diagnose anything, without a bunch of blood and biology tests, petscans and MRI images...
Could we imagine that luthiers could lean a little bit more toward science (keeping their artistic feeling) and MDs work a little bit in contrary motion ? After all, no one says that Taylor guitars are awful, dull and poor sounding, and anyone, at Taylor's, says there's is no artistry in cutting a neck, just procedures, CNC and technology...
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Oct 30, 2021 16:07:52 GMT
I have no time for guitars that are made with CNC equipment. I have never played a Taylor guitar that turned me on in any way. To me they are beautifully made and completely unmusical.
I do not believe that CF Martin or John Dopyera would have been better off with the help of science and computers, they did just fine and their creations are the work of geniuses. It was the trials and errors that took them on the journey that led to their incredible creations. Shortcutting that journey would have had a negative affect on their work.
Oh and while I'm on this thread.... please can we stop spreading the myth that George Beauchamp had anything to do with inventing any type of National guitar. John Dopyera invented the single cone National guitar in 1928. George was a businessman and John was the inventor. Anyone that believes otherwise is allowing the mythology created by George to cloud their vision.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Oct 30, 2021 16:42:08 GMT
The vast majority of Teles and Strats (and so on) have been produced using CNC manufacturing for decades and they seem to be quite popular and I'm willing to bet that applies to Gibsons of most sorts too nowadays, but I do take the general point made. Indeed Hartley Peavey was at the vanguard and whilst an acquired taste to some the "T" series inatruments are really great guitars. Overall it should be down to what speaks to the buyer at the point of purchase, and the methods of production shouldn't really be the overriding criteria.
Resophonic guitars can sound good but so can many other genres of guitar. When I acquired my MMB I barely touched any other guitar for a couple of years because it was so torally beguiling, but then other guitars caught my attention once more. I note that my resonator is the only one in this house that is tolerated to live in the sitting room ...
e&oe ...
|
|
sceyral
Serious MM Forum Member
Posts: 24
|
Post by sceyral on Oct 31, 2021 6:56:08 GMT
to Michael Messer : "I have no time for guitars that are made with CNC equipment. I have never played a Taylor guitar that turned me on in any way. To me they are beautifully made and completely unmusical."
As I completely agree with your statement about 6-strings Taylors (any model, including the ultra expensive 900 series !), I won't say the same for their 12 strings models : I'm the very long (and happy) owner of a 555-12 model, very easy to play (not that common for a 12 strings !) and "ringin' like a bell", like (or better than) any Guild or Martin...
|
|
|
Post by Stevie on Oct 31, 2021 9:15:22 GMT
I experienced that with Taylor too. I found a Taylor Baby to be a totally uninspiring guitar and my then main squeeze (a Yamaha LS400vt) was a complete dream by comparison. A friend has a Taylor 12 and it prompted me to hunt down a Guild F512. Apart from the deeper resonance coming from the Guild ("It feels like a grand piano on your lap" is how I saw it expressed on the Lets Talk Guild forum) the Taylor runs rings around my Tacoma built Guild. That was apparent because the Guild is great if you just want to brush over some cowboy chords while the Taylor's intonation was very acceptable for a 12 string, and there isn't a lot you can do about it when you have octave courses. Obviously Bob Taylor and his gang are the brains behind the CNC. Any prospective guitar needs to speak to you, but I don't think I'd be queueing up for a Taylor. Play nice and sound nice but lacking in any individuality.
e&oe ...
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on Oct 31, 2021 17:35:09 GMT
to Michael Messer : "I have no time for guitars that are made with CNC equipment. I have never played a Taylor guitar that turned me on in any way. To me they are beautifully made and completely unmusical." As I completely agree with your statement about 6-strings Taylors (any model, including the ultra expensive 900 series !), I won't say the same for their 12 strings models : I'm the very long (and happy) owner of a 555-12 model, very easy to play (not that common for a 12 strings !) and "ringin' like a bell", like (or better than) any Guild or Martin... We are going off thread a bit, but I would like to say I am very happy with the sound of my baby Taylor. Pete
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Nov 1, 2021 11:30:09 GMT
The vast majority of Teles and Strats (and so on) have been produced using CNC manufacturing for decades and they seem to be quite popular and I'm willing to bet that applies to Gibsons of most sorts too nowadays, but I do take the general point made. Indeed Hartley Peavey was at the vanguard and whilst an acquired taste to some the "T" series inatruments are really great guitars. Overall it should be down to what speaks to the buyer at the point of purchase, and the methods of production shouldn't really be the overriding criteria. Resophonic guitars can sound good but so can many other genres of guitar. When I acquired my MMB I barely touched any other guitar for a couple of years because it was so torally beguiling, but then other guitars caught my attention once more. I note that my resonator is the only one in this house that is tolerated to live in the sitting room ... e&oe ...The issue here is acoustic instruments. Strats and Telescopes were designed to be mass produced. Most large makers use CNC, they may hand finish necks on their up market instruments but, in general not. Probably why you have to go through a stack of modern Gibsons before you find a good one. Taylor guitars are, in my opinion, a waste of great wood, all designed and made to sound the same and have a noticeable absence of bass. The only good one I’ve ever heard was a Baby. They were originally designed for West Coast studio work where they would be plugged in. Another feature was a neck that would appeal to electric players. I don’t discount the use of science, but the most important factor is the ears and eyes of the luthier and he/she making the best use of the materials to hand.
|
|