"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:27:17 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing
of the things mentioned in my second paragraph above is
based on differences heard based on changes made to the
instruments when it wasn't possible to know about the
changes.)

Eh?

Jenn apparently thinks that the changes in SQ that come from modifying the
working parts of musical instruments are fully comparable to say, adding one
more strand of wire to a speaker cable composed of finely stranded wilre.

"Richard Clark" wrote in message

On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 17:23:32 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

Over the years, the most useful FFT software I've had,
is the (fairly simple) FFT analyzer in Audition/CEP.
It's big plus is the ability to use the Audition/CEP
audio editor to select portions of real-world waveforms,
and to use the wave generation and modification features
to create waves for use in analysis and testing.

I am sure this is an useful tool, but without windowing
the data, any semblance to reasonable analysis is a house
built on sand.

So you think that the FFT analysis tool in CEP doesn't do windowing?????

I note in your provided link to work you
have done that you use Blackman exclusively. This is at
least a good first pass to achieving an analysis, but any
variety of work is going to be more demanding (the
Blackman window has its limitations), otherwise it is
like looking through glasses smeared with Vaseline.

So you think that Spectra doesn't provide options for windowing and/or that
I have no idea what effect they have on actual results????

In article ,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

Jenn
The neck wood affects the sound energy as it goes from the nut vibrate
the guitar and so does the truss rod.

True; I was thinking of the neck shape. The question is, of course, can
one hear the difference between different neck woods on the same
instrument body.

Tuners can influence the sound
because their weight can dampen vibrations.

But can one hear the difference between different tuners? I seriously
doubt it.

An interesting thing is to
hold a tuner lightly ( or the headstock) when
you pluck a string and feel the vibrations.

But can you hear the tone quality change as you hold the tuners? I
can't detect that difference on any of my instruments.

A good analysis should be able to detect loose bracing and you should
also be able to see the effects of scalloped bracing.

Indeed.

I shotgunned this query because I didn't know where I would find the
most help. If responders can suggest a group I could limit it and not
waste time of those who aren't interested.
I've also made unconnected posts to other groups, but have less interest
and reponse so far.
I didn't post to any guitar groups because most there are musicians that
don't need this kind of crutch and have an ear that's been trained for
many years. I want to see if I can catch up by being able to see.
In addition it should be helpful in voice training which I also need
because I'm trying but with less success to sing.

If you go to rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic, you'll find several
outstanding luthiers there who may be able to offer help. And though I
don't hang out there, rec.music.makers.builders might also include
similar folks.

Good luck, Hank!


73
Hank WD5JFR

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article ,
"Henry Kolesnik" wrote:

Amy, Bob, Richard
Thanks for your response and interest. I'm retired used to be an
engineer
before management laid waste to that. I've started taking weekly
guitar
lessons over a year ago and slowly getting a bit better. It's a
hell
of a challenge at 66. I want
to buy a better guitar and all guitars don't sound the same, even the
same model. One shouldn't expect them to because they're all made
from
different cuts of wood and assembled by human hands. What amazed me
is
that the materials used for the nut, neck, saddle and bridge as well
as
the mfg and age of the strings have a noticeable effect on the sound.
The bridge pins, angle of the strings out of the bridge pin holes and
tuners also have effects.
In the last year I found at least four guitars that I really liked, 3
used ones and a new one all over a $1000.00 but I passed because I'm
not
that impulsive or flush with cash. A good player can make just about
any guitar sound good, or a hell of a lot better than me.
I'm into ham radio also and last year at hamfest I traded for an HP
3582A spectrum analyzer but the learning curve is a bit steep for me.
So unless I can find an experienced user or devote much more time to
it
I'm going to have to trade it.
Last week I won an HP 3561A on ePay but it has a problem that I hope
I
can fix. In the meantime I thought it might make sense to scope out
sound cards and related software. I know a lot of hams use sound
cards
for various & different applications and it's about time I took a
wack
at one and what better way than trying to figure out what it is that
makes one guitar sound so much better than another. Or if changing
the
nut, saddle or bridge pins really improves the sound or is it just
wishful thinking.

What a neat project!

I can tell you, based on years of experience with changing out the
parts
that you mentioned (nut, saddle, bridge, pins, ESPECIALLY break angle)
that these things DO make a difference in the sound. I have NOT heard
a
difference with changes of neck or tuners (certainly these things
affect
the intonation of the instrument, but I've never known then to change
the quality of sound).

However, the choice of wood, body shape, and top bracing are far more
relevant. You might want to check with Martin, Taylor, Larrivee, et
al
to see if they have any scientific info that can help you. They
aren't
in the business of pushing pins, tuners, etc.

Good luck and please post what you find out!

(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing of the things
mentioned in my second paragraph above is based on differences heard
based on changes made to the instruments when it wasn't possible to
know
about the changes.)

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:58:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:27:17 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing
of the things mentioned in my second paragraph above is
based on differences heard based on changes made to the
instruments when it wasn't possible to know about the
changes.)

Eh?

Jenn apparently thinks that the changes in SQ that come from modifying the
working parts of musical instruments are fully comparable to say, adding one
more strand of wire to a speaker cable composed of finely stranded wilre.

I don't know what Jenn said, but I do know that you don't know either.

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:58:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:27:17 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing
of the things mentioned in my second paragraph above is
based on differences heard based on changes made to the
instruments when it wasn't possible to know about the
changes.)

Eh?

Jenn apparently thinks that the changes in SQ that come from modifying the
working parts of musical instruments are fully comparable to say, adding one
more strand of wire to a speaker cable composed of finely stranded wilre.

I don't know what Jenn said, but I do know that you don't know either.

Crap, another post from the same morning before breakfast! blush

What I meant is that the differences that I heard after changes in the
instruments were heard without me knowing that changes had been made.
Thus, there was no "listener bias", a favorite topic around here at
various times.

Whatever Arny is blathering about, I have no idea.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:01:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So you think that the FFT analysis tool in CEP doesn't do windowing?????

With about as much panache as a Yugo in the Indy 500. Hardly a reason
to throw $350 into the wind.

So you think that Spectra doesn't provide options for windowing and/or that
I have no idea what effect they have on actual results????

The designer of Spectra is a local Ham - I know his capabilities, I
don't know yours. All I have to go on is the pedestrian choice of
Blackman windowing that demonstrates nothing in the way of "ideas on
the effect on actual results." As I offered, it is an ordinarily
suitable choice if you have no demanding requirements.

Hi Hank,

There are a world of free analyzers, one quick search found 16:
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=fft&s...o.x=11&Go.y=10

Get your feet wet before throwing the green at bloatware designs that
invest their resources in advertising. If you find nothing in this
first list, I can certainly 26 find more.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

"Richard Clark" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:01:08 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

So you think that the FFT analysis tool in CEP doesn't
do windowing?????

With about as much panache as a Yugo in the Indy 500.
Hardly a reason to throw $350 into the wind.

So you think that Spectra doesn't provide options for
windowing and/or that I have no idea what effect they
have on actual results????

The designer of Spectra is a local Ham - I know his
capabilities, I don't know yours. All I have to go on is
the pedestrian choice of Blackman windowing that
demonstrates nothing in the way of "ideas on the effect
on actual results." As I offered, it is an ordinarily
suitable choice if you have no demanding requirements.

I got it now, I'm dealing with a FFT snob, not someone who just sees them as
a tool to get a job done.

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:58:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:27:17 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing
of the things mentioned in my second paragraph above is
based on differences heard based on changes made to the
instruments when it wasn't possible to know about the
changes.)

Eh?

Jenn apparently thinks that the changes in SQ that come
from modifying the working parts of musical instruments
are fully comparable to say, adding one more strand of
wire to a speaker cable composed of finely stranded
wilre.

I don't know what Jenn said, but I do know that you don't
know either.

Paul, you keep missing the meaning of words that I wrote - this time the
word you missed is "apparently".

"Jenn" wrote in
message

In article ,
(paul packer) wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:58:34 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"paul packer" wrote in message

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:27:17 GMT, Jenn
wrote:


(Since this is RAO, I should point out that my hearing
of the things mentioned in my second paragraph above
is based on differences heard based on changes made
to the instruments when it wasn't possible to know
about the changes.)

Eh?

Jenn apparently thinks that the changes in SQ that come
from modifying the working parts of musical instruments
are fully comparable to say, adding one more strand of
wire to a speaker cable composed of finely stranded
wilre.

I don't know what Jenn said, but I do know that you
don't know either.

Crap, another post from the same morning before
breakfast! blush

What I meant is that the differences that I heard after
changes in the instruments were heard without me knowing
that changes had been made. Thus, there was no "listener
bias", a favorite topic around here at various times.

OK, since I'm dealing with a member of a lesser species, I'll spell it out:

As a rule, changes in the mechanics of musical instruments have relatively
gross effects, compared to the sort of things that many high end audiophiles
fret about.

Whatever Arny is blathering about, I have no idea.

Yup, much of what I write is over the heads of members lesser species.

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 23:02:18 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

The designer of Spectra is a local Ham - I know his
capabilities, I don't know yours. All I have to go on is
the pedestrian choice of Blackman windowing that
demonstrates nothing in the way of "ideas on the effect
on actual results." As I offered, it is an ordinarily
suitable choice if you have no demanding requirements.

I got it now, I'm dealing with a FFT snob, not someone who just sees them as
a tool to get a job done.

Connoisseur is more appropriate, and as for getting the job done, I
did that on contract to HP for one of their many FFT audio analyzers
22 years ago. I've written 200,000 lines of fourier code for many
products that get jobs done.

I also have the seminal work by Blackman and Tukey that predates the
math of the Fourier transform: "The Measurement of Power Spectra."
An extract bears repeating:
"'... we were able to discover in the general wave
record a very weak low-frequency peak which would
surely have escaped our attention without spectral
analysis. This peak, it turns out, is almost certainly
due to a swell from the Indian Ocean, 10,000 miles
distant. Physical dimensions a 1mm high and
a kilometer long.'"

The Hann or Hamm windowing functions are preferable as even Blackman
would admit and even these two are hardly exemplars of outstanding
performance. My designs exhibited a noise floor of -200dB
(statistical noise from the transcendentals' math). A poor Blackman
window would throw away 120dB of that to offer only -80dB. -80dB is
certainly impressive to mundane applications, but most would agree
that very little more effort was needed to gain 12 more orders of
magnitude in performance.

Hi Hank,

If you've waded through my prior list of freely available Fourier
analyzers, more can be found at:
http://sourceforge.net/search/?type_...soft&words=fft
Not all are applications however.

However, you should probably try to get a copy of HP's Application
Note 243-1 "Dynamic Signal Analyzer Applications." Of particular note
for your studies into the nuances of investigating construction
materials in Guitars (I did it with Violins), you should study the
Fourier math relating to "Coherence" suited for a dual channel
analyzer.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC