OT (long): The debate over laminates vs. solid woods got me to thinking...

[DonK]

I'm a person who generally is skeptical of the so-called "conventional wisdom", mostly because over my lifetime I've seen so many instances where it's ulitmately been proven wrong when subjected to objective analysis. I'm not talking about just guitars; I'm speaking of many disciplines and areas of life.

 

Going back well before me (I'm old, but not that old!), people like Gallileo obviously felt the same way. Imagine Gallileo participating in an astronomy message board, trying to argue that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead of otherwise. Can you imagine the responses he would have gotten. "Just ain't so"; "you're an idiot for thinking that"; and, "it's well known that the earth is the center of the universe." His critics would likely have provided little to back up their statements; they would simply have dismissively parroted what they'd heard or been taught.

 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), most laboratory-based objective analysis and scientfic testing is reserved for subjects with a closer connection to life and death. So, people like guitar players are left to sort these things out without the benefit of science. In any event, I want to share one of my favorite stories about how difficult is to pry people from a belief in conventional wisdom. It's about baseball, not guitars. I was an avid baseball player through the end of my high school days. I was a pitcher, and pretty much a student of the game and the art of pitching.

 

About 10 or 15 years ago, Omni Magazine (a sort of high-brow science magazine) took up the issue of whether there are such things as a "rising fastball" and a curveball that breaks "like a ball falling off a table", two of the hallowed cliches of baseball. They raised these questions because the assertions contained in both pitch descriptions defy the laws of gravity, motion and aerodynamics. So, they decided to create an objective test. Here's what they did.

 

They constructed a sort of pitching laboratory in a warehouse. They blocked all outside light so the warehouse would be light-tight. Next, they set up a simulated mound using a plywood ramp, and a home plate. What they then did was pretty ingenious. Long lengths of string were hung at intervals from the ceiling to the floor in two rows to create a sort of imaginary hallway or tunnel. That is, to the left of the mound hung one row of strings, and to the right hung another. The rows extended on either side all the way to home plate. So, if you walked from the mound to home plate, there would be a string on your left and another on your right every couple of feet. Next, they tied ping-pong balls at consistent intervals on each string. They planned to conduct an experiment by having a major league pitcher throw to a catcher with very low light in the warehouse except for a strobe. Each pitch would be filmed from different angles by stationary cameras. The ping-pong balls were to serve as coordinates, so that the precise position of the ball at any point along its trajectory from the mound to home plate could be determined. The info would then be fed into a computer to create graphics of the actual trajactory. Finally, they enlisted the help of Scott McGregor, then a successful pitcher with the Baltimore Orioles and known for his wicked curve ball, and Ray Miller, the Orioles pitching coach (to act as the catcher).

 

They had McGregor throw a bunch of fastballs and curveballs, developed the film, and fed the coordinate info for each pitch into a computer. What they found was fascinating.

 

Each curveball curved to the plate in a gentle downward arc; however, gravity caused the arc to be slightly more downward as the ball approached the plate and lost velocity. From the side view, the curve was so gentle that it hardly seemed it would be a challenge to hitter. However, the head-on view simulated by the computer was exactly as described by batters: the ball appeared as if it were falling off a table. It other words, it was a dramatic optical illusion.

 

The fastballs showed a steady downward trajectory to the plate - no rising - and the frontal view didn't show any "rising" effect either. Ultimately, the experimenters theorized that the "rising fastball" effect was the result of the ball dropping in response to gravity more gradually than a hitter inherently expected it to, due to a small amount of aerodynamic lift exerted on the ball as a result of its backward-spinning motion and the raised seams.

 

When they showed the results to a dozen well-known major league hitters, all dismissed the experiment's results. To a man, they basically said, "we know what we see, and therefore that's the way it really is."

 

And my point (I knew you'd ask)? Simply that we're mostly products of what we've read, heard, been told, want to believe, and so on. How many of us have conducted first-hand scientifically controlled tests of laminates versus solid wood in guitar building? How many of us have even read of such testing (if any has ever been done)? And even when our conclusions are based on experience (like the major league hitters), we don't know to what extent what we're seeing or hearing is affected by sensory illusions.

 

Lots of people give reasoned points of view on this board, while a few simply make assertions with nothing to back them up. The latter phenomenon is true of lots of discussions here and everywhere. I'd just like to emphasize that most of are offering opinions, not facts, and most of make that clear. Still, there are those who don't, the ones who essentially assert, "it's true because I say it is", without even the courtesy of offering that minimal explicit support for their position.

 

Hope everyone had a good weekend.

[d03nut]

Some OFF-T's are in fact ON-T's. I like........

[Sweb]

Great analogy for the argument. And, very good explanation for, and illustration of the baseball experiment. I pictured it as you painted it.

I used to be very put off by people who, for lack of any supportive argument or fact, would dismiss another person's point with inane statements like "That's not what I heard", the implication being they traveled in the company of experts on the topic in debate. That would exceed my torque limits. Now, I walk away a little saddened by such closed-mindedness but have also realized people are who they have been molded to be. Free thinkers are usually held in suspect by the masses.

Where acoustic guitars are concerned, I have developed my preferences using two requirements. One is sound and the other playability. I will admit that if I found a guitar that came close to satisfying them both but was painted in some (usually poorly applied) burst I'd be hesitant. Even I have certain secondary criteria that's vanity-related and I hate burst. But, solid wood has a certain wholesomeness appeal over a manufactured sandwiched composite. Same holds true of hand-wrought over CNC machine produced. Scratch-built used to be a hand made specimen from the maker's own hand-drawn and lofted drawings or blueprints. Now days, one buys a set of plans and, in many instances, a prefabricated kit or bill of materials, and the finished item is considered "completely hand-made from scratch". Things change and change the human perceptions in attendance.

As people learn more and more to do less and less in a society of high-production cheaply made goods, they are romanced by things produced as they were originally made in the "old days". And, I think that plays a legitimate part when making a decision to purchase an acoustic guitar. If not for that, your point would be inarguably valid.

[Cldplytkmn]

excellent post Don... i only take exception to one part of it...

i SWEAR i've seen some fastballs rise... haha... actually, i've never heard someone claim a pitch rose unless it was a high pitch... i've never heard "yeah it was at my knees and then rose up to waist height"... its always "it started in the zone and just kept getting higher and higher" this is easily understood since almost NO ONE maintains the same eye-height through the course of a swing...

ok so about those guitars...

[knockwood]

Great post. I think the whole question of empricism vs. stooge-ism vs. science would be on-topic on just about any subject.

Of course, I cannot prove that.

I've been guilty of some mindless believing myself. I suspect we all have, at one point or another. In my normal state, though, I too have an instinctive tendency to question conventional wisdom.

This morning I found this quote from John Berger's Ways of Seeing, which I hadn't read since my freshman year of college... It seems kind of eerily fitting:

"Publicity is, in essence, nostalgic. It has to sell the past to the future. It cannot itself supply the standards of its own claims. And so all its references to quality are bound to be retrospective and traditional. It would lack both confidence and credibility if it used a strictly contemporary language."

[MyM.O.]

Originally posted by knockwood "Publicity is, in essence, nostalgic. It has to sell the past to the future. It cannot itself supply the standards of its own claims. And so all its references to quality are bound to be retrospective and traditional. It would lack both confidence and credibility if it used a strictly contemporary language."

Interesting .

[Queequeg]

fascinating, DonK. I had read a condensed version of that experiment many years ago, along about the time it was done, not so clearly explained as yours.
So applicable here on this forum, as well as for organized religion, politics and lots of stuff we're not allowed to discuss here. Thanks.
We may throw a "baseball" occasionally when we read "facts" being bandied about here now.
A big caution sign goes up for me when I read or here somebody preface their statement with "bottom line..." as if what they are about to impart is above reproach.
so little of what we see here, or any where else can actually withstand this type of scrutiny.
good posting, DonK.

[Old_Joe_Clark]

as far as science is concerned.....
and FWIW.....

when I was learning the basics of how to model guitar tops with a mathematical analysis, I first learned how to put wood characteristics in as though the wood was the same in all directions. But then I learned how to model the direction of grain by using wood properties that are different in the two directions along the top. Of course, I got different results when I ran the analysis. I would think that if I were modeling laminates, I would go back to the case where properties are the same in both directions.

So...I know this says nothing about good or bad. But - in keeping with the topic - I do know that solid vs laminate produce different results.

[d03nut]

Been doin' some "research" for this "solid vs. laminate" threads that have been popping up lately on the AG.

Have you read the reviews for the YFG340? Holy crap! What gives?

While I don't give too much weight to the review section on the other side of the HC, I can't completely ignore the "overall direction" of the reviews for a given model either.

So I'll be on the lookout for the 340, that's for sure........

Sorry about the lack of "science" in my thread but I think it's still ON-T......

[t60 fan]

For the pitching experiment, there are some real-world variables that do come into play that didn't exist in the controlled environment the garage provided - most notably air movement. Though I too was a pitcher, my fastball did not "rise" (not enough horsepower I suspect:( ) But participating in paintball I have definitely seen a pronounced rise to some shots. And it is an unpredictable occurance, unless a "flatline" barrel is employed (this is a curved barrel that deliberately induces a backspin to add range to the flight of the paintball by resisting gravity a little longer. If you turn a flatline equipped gun sideways and fire it, the "curve" is more pronounced and can be employed to "shoot around" obstacles.)

[Frets99]

I knew that! Doesn't everybody? That's just the way it is... yep yep yep.... Can't argue with that...nope nope nope.....


... SOmebody pass me a guitar?!

[Frets99]

Great post Don!

[TXTooMuch]

Outstanding post

[t60 fan]

Originally posted by Frets99 I knew that! Doesn't everybody? That's just the way it is... yep yep yep.... Can't argue with that...nope nope nope..... ... SOmebody pass me a guitar?!

Isn't this the Aerodynamic Forum? Ooops.

[JasmineTea]

Another angle would be tradition. I'm a sucker for some aspects of tradition. I like guitars that look like the old ones, but I don't care for things like V-necks and diamond volutes. I would go so far as to dismiss a quality instrument simply because it looks wrong to me. At the same time I have no interest in owning a vintage Martin.

[Kap'n]

Originally posted by t60 fan But participating in paintball I have definitely seen a pronounced rise to some shots.

 

 

That's because the barrel is angled slightly upwards so that when gravity drops the bullet/ball it will be on target at the sighted-in distance. Hence the words "ballistics" and "trajectory."

[t60 fan]

Originally posted by Kap'n That's because the barrel is angled slightly upwards so that when gravity drops the bullet/ball it will be on target at the sighted-in distance. Hence the words "ballistics" and "trajectory."

 

 

Thanks for the insights, but I'm very well acquainted with the geometries involved in firearm sightlines vs bore line, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm referring to an upward curve to the trajectory, not a straight (actually gradual downward curve) trajectory pointing upward relative to the sightline. You see, paintball typically does not involve utilizing sights, more of a "spray and pray" techique.

 

 

Ahem...accoustic guitar...

[Sweb]

Originally posted by knockwood "Publicity is, in essence, nostalgic. It has to sell the past to the future. It cannot itself supply the standards of its own claims. And so all its references to quality are bound to be retrospective and traditional. It would lack both confidence and credibility if it used a strictly contemporary language."

 

 

"Non-laminates used throughout."

 

Yea, just doesn't quite grab the ear the way "solid wood" does. I guess contemporary language usage wouldn't work. We looking at a new communication protocol? Marketably Correct?

[Scodiddly]

Great post!

 

This whole question of what we expect, what we perceive, and what ends up as our explanation is a fascinating one. I'm pretty good at hearing what I can hear, versus hearing what I hope to hear or what I expect to hear. Which seems like a great thing, but most of the time it's kind of embarrassing. Because if I can't hear a difference, I have to admit that whatever subtle quality is being touted is something that I can't hear. On the other hand I find that I do tend to hear things other people miss, often enough that I have more confidence in my "I dunno, maybe" than in other peoples' "definitely, the one with the better specs sounds better".

 

Which of course means that I'm usually a skeptic. But on the other hand when I'm in a guitar store I'll find a huge number of guitars that I don't especially like, and a very small number of ones that I do like. What does that mean? Well, it means that there's a vast variety of guitars because there's a vast variety of preferences. I'm just a bit better than most at going for what I like versus what I'm supposed to like.

[Sweb]

Originally posted by Scodiddly Great post! Which of course means that I'm usually a skeptic. But on the other hand when I'm in a guitar store I'll find a huge number of guitars that I don't especially like, and a very small number of ones that I do like. What does that mean? Well, it means that there's a vast variety of guitars because there's a vast variety of preferences. I'm just a bit better than most at going for what I like versus what I'm supposed to like.

[smokiee]

after all a guitar is just a means to an end.

we NEED a guitar (or any instruments) to create music but most of us WANT a guitar for its cosmetic, build materials, size, brands etc...

need car, want Ferarri
need clothes, want Armani
need wife, want Jessica Alba (yes I want)

maybe one day all guitars will be made by robots and they all sound the same! take that!

[Scodiddly]

Maybe we should all start going to the guitar store with a blindfold. Sit down on a stool, put on the blindfold, and have a friend bring you various guitars to try out. Another friend writes down your comments. Nobody tells you anything about any of the guitars. Eventually you do a second pass of the ones you liked the first time. When you feel you you have a winner, take off your blindfold.

[Cldplytkmn]

Originally posted by smokiee maybe one day all guitars will be made by robots and they all sound the same! take that!

 

 

at which point i take up the xylophone...

[t60 fan]

Originally posted by Scodiddly Maybe we should all start going to the guitar store with a blindfold. Sit down on a stool, put on the blindfold, and have a friend bring you various guitars to try out. Another friend writes down your comments. Nobody tells you anything about any of the guitars. Eventually you do a second pass of the ones you liked the first time. When you feel you you have a winner, take off your blindfold.

Yeah, but what if you had to pick a wife that way?

[knockwood]

Originally posted by Cldplytkmn at which point i take up the xylophone...

A xylophone is just a guitar built by robots... at the Takamine factory...