Got some ebony bridge pins for my Alvarez

[Michael Martin]

Inlays and fancy pins and crap might make a guitar more desirable...I just don't kid myself that they improve tone. Like Bob Taylor said...it's cosmetic.

 

Ah but you neglect the love factor. My Hummingbird is gorgeous--some would say "blingy", what with her aged-cherry sunburst, engraved pickguard, and block inlays--and because I love her I play her with a passion that I could not bring to bear on a plain-jane guitar. There's a powerful romantic connection there that goes back many years.

 

It's like making love. Different stuff happens, and the quality of the experience varies considerably, depending on who it is you're making love with.

[mistersully]

opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

 

 

my wife has two... and i'm one of 'em

[guitarcapo]

Yep...A lot of this stuff is psychological to be sure.

I keep trying to convince my wife that a $3000 2.5K moissenite ring looks and for all practical purposes functions the same as a $25,000 2.5K diamond ring.

Beats diamond in refractive index, light dispersion, luster and toughness (ease of cleaving)
The only factor that diamond has a slight edge over moissenite is hardness (ability to be scratched)
It beats emerald, ruby and saphire... but diamond maintains a slight edge on the Moh's scale.
It's actually rarer than diamonds because all of it is entirely man-made. There are no natural sources that have been artificially manipulated by worldwide monopoly cartels like DeBeers. It's also politically correct because there are no slave sources with their arms hacked off via machetes etc...a la Africa.

Since it is man made, flawless examples without inclusions are possible to achieve at reasonable prices. As a matter of fact it's the easiest way for a jewler to tell if it's moissenite...if it's big and flawless he gets suspicious.

She isn't buying ANY of that argument. It's got to be a diamond. Accept no substitutions etc...

Diamonds are more expensive...they HAVE to be better, right? (Sound familiar?)

http://www.howstuffworks.com/moissanite.htm

[Samilyn]

Hey Michael, False start there buddy.

That's not a false start, m'dear...merely a head start.

Cheers, MM. Gulp.....ahh....beurk!!....(excuse moi)

beurk = girlie BELCH. After all, a lady must not be crude and sound like a foghorn, eh?

[Samilyn]

Beurk!

 

 

You burp like a girl. :poke:

[Samilyn]

Ah but you neglect the love factor. My Hummingbird is gorgeous--some would say "blingy", what with her aged-cherry sunburst, engraved pickguard, and block inlays--and because I love her I play her with a passion that I could not bring to bear on a plain-jane guitar. There's a powerful romantic connection there that goes back many years. It's like making love. Different stuff happens, and the quality of the experience varies considerably, depending on who it is you're making love with.

 

 

Right you are, m'dear. Some people just can't figure it out, can they?

[guitarcapo]

It's like making love. Different stuff happens, and the quality of the experience varies considerably, depending on who it is you're making love with.

Definitely. I definitely have found that paying a whole lot of money doesn't always translate into getting the best results in THAT department either.

[RogueGnome]

 

It's all Greek to me.

 

have you two been properly introduced?

[Michael Martin]

Diamonds are more expensive...they HAVE to be better, right? (Sound familiar?)

 

Yes, that does sound familiar--but I think that's a different fallacy--the idea that price alone indicates relative goodness. I think that diamonds have an allure, or a glamour maybe, that's rooted in the idea that they are ancient and naturally-occurring as well as rare. I used to have a 1.9 carat diamond, and sometimes I would just hold it and stare at it, marveling at the idea that it was formed deep underground millions of years ago under unimaginable heat and pressure. Of course that's true of plain old igneous rocks, but they ain't so pretty.

 

So I'm with your wife on this one. Wearing the fake diamond would be like making love with a perfect android woman, as opposed to making love with a profoundly captivating/gorgeous/imperfect naturally-occurring woman. The android has no soul.

[boxorox]

Hey, Dark. I put ebonies in my fake-28, and I thought it was subtley improved. Sorry they didn't work for you. Some time in the future you might try rosewood or brass. I'd do it myself, but I was happy with the result, the appearance, and have no wish t cange now. But what do I know? I am wrong and a liar and, (going for the hat trick) an asshat. Where do I pick up my prize?

[BitterPills]

Seems to me the topic is not swimming pools or sugar cubes.

Not easy to get good straight ahead info on a guitar forum, unfortunately.

It remains, and will always remain, that some people can hear better than others. And apparently some can hear through their pc monitor all the way across the country.

[Samilyn]

Yes, that does sound familiar--but I think that's a different fallacy--the idea that price alone indicates relative goodness. I think that diamonds have an allure, or a glamour maybe, that's rooted in the idea that they are ancient and naturally-occurring as well as rare. I used to have a 1.9 carat diamond, and sometimes I would just hold it and stare at it, marveling at the idea that it was formed deep underground millions of years ago under unimaginable heat and pressure. Of course that's true of plain old igneous rocks, but they ain't so pretty. So I'm with your wife on this one. Wearing the fake diamond would be like making love with a perfect android woman, as opposed to making love with a profoundly captivating/gorgeous/imperfect naturally-occurring woman. The android has no soul.

 

 

Well said, m'dear.

 

It is the rare man who understands that a woman's soul is priceless.

[totamus]

have you two been properly introduced?

 

I'm comin for ya Krash :love:

[Samilyn]

I'm comin for ya Krash :love:

 

OUCH!! I just blew hot coffee through my nose.

 

Tot......anybody ever tell ya that you're one sick puppy? :poke:

[daklander]

People like bling. I do admit that ebony pins LOOK better than plastic. Wood binding LOOKS better than plastic binding. It's definitely not all about tone when someone buys a guitar. You seem to be operating under the fallacy that people will all prefer a stainless steel quartz watch over a gold mechanical Swiss Rolex because the whole thing is about keeping accurate time. The marketplace proves you to be foolish in your single mindedness about why people buy what they buy. Inlays and fancy pins and crap might make a guitar more desirable...I just don't kid myself that they improve tone. Like Bob Taylor said...it's cosmetic. BTW I never said cheap tuners were a good idea. I don't know where you got that idea from. Tuners that operate well are really a good investment. Also I never said that the saddle has no effect on tone. An ivory saddle does have a better sound than a plastic one. The vibrations do pass through the saddle so it effects tone a bit.

 

 

The point I was trying to make vis a vis the cheap tuners is simply the mass and subsequent potential loss of tone due to loss of mass. It had nothing to do with tune ability or looks.

 

As to the rest of my post, it's my opinion that anyone who is so vociferous in their beliefs would not compromise those beliefs for any reason. It seems your position/belief is adamant unless or until the extra money is involved to provide the "bling" a customer may want. IMHO if you are that strong in your belief that position should be explained to the customer and if they still wanted "bling", send them to an associate who doesn't share your convictions and accept a referral fee.

That sir, is being honest with your customer and above all, your self.

[daklander]

my wife has two... and i'm one of 'em

[daklander]

.... Where do I pick up my prize?

 

 

It's right over there by the ass rings.

[daklander]

MY EYES! MY EYES!

[guitarcapo]

The point I was trying to make vis a vis the cheap tuners is simply the mass and subsequent potential loss of tone due to loss of mass. It had nothing to do with tune ability or looks. As to the rest of my post, it's my opinion that anyone who is so vociferous in their beliefs would not compromise those beliefs for any reason. It seems your position/belief is adamant unless or until the extra money is involved to provide the "bling" a customer may want. IMHO if you are that strong in your belief that position should be explained to the customer and if they still wanted "bling", send them to an associate who doesn't share your convictions and accept a referral fee. That sir, is being honest with your customer and above all, your self.

 

 

You make no sense. I tell you that stuff like bridge pins don't make a difference in sound. You ask why not use cheaper ones. I say that people like the wood ones because they look better. You say that I should refuse to provide what the customer wants because that it's all about sound and not looks... and that's some sort of hardcore position of mine that I never took. You also seem to have me advocating cheap tuners for some reason.

Basically you're making yourself look like an idiot attributing opinions to me that I never had.

 

BTW if you want to add mass to the headstock, just clip a capo up there. That might have a slight difference in sound (I never said adding mass to the headstock didn't, the discussion was about bridge pins and you veered off into other stuff again ...) Clipping a capo to the headstock is faster and easier to see results compared to swapping out tuners for adding mass and probably will make a bigger difference in weight there. Cheap tuners don't hold a tuning well and that's why you swap them out...not for sound.

[guitarcapo]

Well said, m'dear. It is the rare man who understands that a woman's soul is priceless.

Holy {censored}...that's the most convincing argument for diamonds I ever heard. My wife is right after all. I'll max out my credit card tomorrow!

[guitarcapo]

Yes, that does sound familiar--but I think that's a different fallacy--the idea that price alone indicates relative goodness. I think that diamonds have an allure, or a glamour maybe, that's rooted in the idea that they are ancient and naturally-occurring as well as rare. I used to have a 1.9 carat diamond, and sometimes I would just hold it and stare at it, marveling at the idea that it was formed deep underground millions of years ago under unimaginable heat and pressure. Of course that's true of plain old igneous rocks, but they ain't so pretty. So I'm with your wife on this one. Wearing the fake diamond would be like making love with a perfect android woman, as opposed to making love with a profoundly captivating/gorgeous/imperfect naturally-occurring woman. The android has no soul.

 

 

O.k. I get it. The rock that caused African slaves to get their arms chopped off and is artificially inflated in price by an international cartel with a monopoly has more soul than the rock made in a labratory. Makes sense to me.

[totamus]

You make no sense. I tell you that stuff like bridge pins don't make a difference in sound. You ask why not use cheaper ones. I say that people like the wood ones because they look better. You say that I should refuse to provide what the customer wants because that it's all about sound and not looks... and that's some sort of hardcore position of mine that I never took. You also seem to have me advocating cheap tuners for some reason. Basically you're making yourself look like an idiot attributing opinions to me that I never had. BTW if you want to add mass to the headstock, just clip a capo up there. That might have a slight difference in sound (I never said adding mass to the headstock didn't, the discussion was about bridge pins and you veered off into other stuff again ...) Clipping a capo to the headstock is faster and easier to see results compared to swapping out tuners for adding mass and probably will make a bigger difference in weight there. Cheap tuners don't hold a tuning well and that's why you swap them out...not for sound.

 

 

We are very fortunate to have a luthier of your knowledge in the forum. The issues that have been the subject of debate and consternation among both players and luthiers are now explained, and we are indeed fortunate to have this bestowed upon us. Without your input people might actually believe their own ears rather than be blessed with the knowledge that ears trick us and they can't be trusted.

 

When I used to do failure analysis for NASA, I learned that when empirical results do not match the predicted results, there are only two possibilities:

1) the factors used to calculate the expected results are flawed, or

2) the test methodology used to gather the empirical results are flawed.

 

Either possibility is valid, and both have to be investigated vigorously.

 

The O-rings on the booster rocket failed, killing the Challenger astronauts, partially because close minded people did not want accept results that they didn't want to be true.

 

If anyone is making themselves look like an idiot, it would be the one who steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that there is a sea of empirical data which suggests that your analysis is flawed.

 

Imagine a pseudo intellectual who claimed that any two types of wood which are of the same physical dimensions and density sound the same. Never mind that there are thousands who select Brazilian rosewood as superior for sound. Imagine this same pseudo intellectual telling those who can plainly hear the difference that they imagine it, that their ears trick them. He is certain of this because only density and geometry affect sound. They are equal, therefore they sound the same Q.E.D.

 

The actual fact would be that the analysis is flawed and that there are many factors other than simple density and geometry affecting sound. That is to say, the pseudo intellectual is making himself look pretty damn stupid by refusing to acknowledge the empirical data and that it is possible that his ears are the ones being tricked. He does not expect to hear a difference and so does not.

 

So rather than expand his knowledge by attempting to discover where these differences could come from [that is, was it 1), or 2), above] he simply continues to ignore that which doesn't gel with his preconceived notions, in classic Ostrich fashion.

 

So go ahead and keep explaining how others are making themselves look like idiots. It's really entertaining.

 

I think the wrong luthier left us.

[Michael Martin]

BTW if you want to add mass to the headstock, just clip a capo up there.

 

Clipped to the headstock, my pink Kyser imparts a sweeter, more sensuous tone to the high end than my black Kyser, which produces a much darker tone overall. I clamp on the gold Kyser when I want a bit of sparkle.

[Michael Martin]

O.k. I get it. The rock that caused African slaves to get their arms chopped off and is artificially inflated in price by an international cartel with a monopoly has more soul than the rock made in a labratory. Makes sense to me.

 

Yes. Now, those circumstances you mention might be a good reason to not buy a diamond in today's market, but it would have no effect on adoring the innocent gem itself, which was created millions of years before cartels and arm-chopping, or for that matter, human beings.

[Krash]

I'm comin for ya Krash :love:

Uh oh