Fragile Harmonics - Not so crazy after all? =D

[renshen1957]

Solid gold and silver flutes are perceived to be better sounding when players can see them, but in blind tests flutes of the same construction method (pearl concert series for example) cannot be consistently differentiated from the normal nickel silver alloy types that cost $1000 vs all gold at $20,000.

A very good example of psycho-acoustic-effect.

I would bet good money that there are many SS amps that would fool us in blind tests. Alot of the sound is they way it is played, so a good player will hear that the amp has too much attack, or not enough compression for their liking and adjust the way they are playing to suit.

My non-musician first wife could distinguish between tube and SS organs without any trouble. And these electronic organs weren't being pushed into distortion. She could tell if our son was playing SS or tube guitar amps even when clean from another room in the house.

I might go as far as saying that a good many SS amps which cost bigger bucks played clean and not past the limits of their headroom might pass or might be harder to distinguish from tube amps on certain type of music in some instances, but as soon as some dirt or preamp distortion comes into the equation, I would disagree.

Solid state amps distort differently from tube amps. Tube amps tend to compress the signal more before clipping the signal and the overtones have a different spectrum. SS amps go from clean to suddenly into distortion with mostly odd numbered harmonics which sound harsher to the ear.

Attempts to emulate tube distortion softer clipping aspects with circuitry hasn't been so successful.

However how many people (excluding us Beatle fanatics) were aware when SS amps were playing solos (not always by George) on the Beatles LPs (starting with Revolver)? Or even earlier, Nowhere man was played by both John and George on Fender Stratocasters rather than their regular instruments?

As to belief is a strong item in Psycho acoustic effects, I had one individual argue with me at length over who played the first solo on the Beatles Long Tall Sally cover, either live or recorded. He was convinced that it wasn't John on a Rickenbacker, in his ears he distinctly heard a Gretch! He still couldn't accept it when one video the camera man stayed on George (during the 1st solo) who was obviously playing the rhythm part for the lead break.

(And then again Cranberry Sauce became I buried Paul, at the end of Strawberry Fields.)

At the same time, a well designed amp just makes everything easier so it is really a case of, A) what does the player want to hear B) which amp helps him/her get there.

A well designed amp is like a well designed tool to a point. What the artist achieves tonally has to do with a number of factors, the most important one is how he plays.

Robben sounds like Robben whether he is playing through his Dumble (domestic concerts) or when he is playing through Fender Twins (most overseas concerts). Eddie Van H sounds like himself (even when playing an acoustic guitar) which sold alot of amps for Marshall and Peavey.

It's the old what sounds better riddle, $100 guitar through a $3000 dollar amp or $3000 guitar through a $100 amp? With all do respect, the former sounds better in most cases.

Some people need 20K all gold flutes. Some don't. But if they can play well, the rest of us won't care.

Some artists need the window dressing but would sound just as fine on Nickel Silver.

On the other hand I was invited to play a $30,000 harpsichord during an intermission at a small gathering by the owner who was performing duets with a Flute player (his instruments of choice were made of wood). He was a fine keyboard player, but I sort of embarrassed him unintentionally as my technique produced a far better tone than his from the instrument. After a few pieces there was quite a crowd starting to assemble. I politely thanked him and then diplomatically praised the quality of his instrument (which was very good) and asked him to demonstrate for the crowd the different stops.

I did sound much better on a more expensive instrument than my own less valuable one.

Best Regards

Steve

[renshen1957]

What does physcoacoustics say about synesthesia?

"Adventitious synesthesia" (from Chocolate Ice Cream laced with LSD in the Grateful Dead's dressing room) or the congenital forms of synesthesia?

Does it touch upon "group mind" experiences through music that thousands have reported at those concerts?

The Dead Heads who followed them from concert to concert and were affected by the music would fall into a branch of psychoacoustics.

I find their music a lot more fun too then shepherds tones anyday...which I am assuming there are entire chapters in these books devoted to??


Wow....way to derail this train all the way to the moon Shad....

"Trouble ahead, trouble behind....."

Best Regards

Steve

[renshen1957]

Interesting point on the processor power. The music industry has always been several generations behind in compute technology, floppy storage when hard disks were in all PCs, 64K memory when 1M was common, 100M disks when 20G was common. If the industry could keep up with technology we'd be much further today.

Also interesting about the gold/silver flute. Visual perception is more prevalent with guitars than any other instrument. You'd be hard pressed to tell what brand of sax Clarence Clemons plays but everyone knows Bruce plays an Esquire.

At a recent open mike night a sax player commented on how clean my sax sounded, until he saw it was a 70's Yamaha, then he said it sounded thin.

Interesting thread.

I think the most influential person in any company that produces stuff for the music industry must be the accountant. How else would you account for (as you observed) the lag in technology? Older tech is cheaper!

Good point as to your Yamaha Sax.

Best Regards,

Steve

[daydreamer]

Some artists need the window dressing but would sound just as fine on Nickel Silver.

On the other hand I was invited to play a $30,000 harpsichord during an intermission at a small gathering by the owner who was performing duets with a Flute player (his instruments of choice were made of wood). He was a fine keyboard player, but I sort of embarrassed him unintentionally as my technique produced a far better tone than his from the instrument. After a few pieces there was quite a crowd starting to assemble. I politely thanked him and then diplomatically praised the quality of his instrument (which was very good) and asked him to demonstrate for the crowd the different stops.

I did sound much better on a more expensive instrument than my own less valuable one.

That would be very cool to hear, the wood flutes definately have a unique sound for sure. And the harpsicord would be a sight to see, love them!! My father was a pipe organ player, those sort of sounds in large gothic spaces simply cannot be reproduced digitally or otherwise.

It's the perfect example of craftsmanship trumping all pretenders.

Andy

[Structo]

I thought it was "I'm very bored".

[Bob-I]

I think the most influential person in any company that produces stuff for the music industry must be the accountant. How else would you account for (as you observed) the lag in technology? Older tech is cheaper!

In addition I think it has to do with the companies core competencies. A high tech company has high tech computer engineers, an amp manufacture has audio engineers so they rely on other vendors to supply the technology. For example when Gibson put the ethernet port in a Les Paul they contacted Cisco. Cisco responded by sending an intern since the revenue they expected to get from the partnership was next to $0. As a result they failed.

[renshen1957]

In addition I think it has to do with the companies core competencies. A high tech company has high tech computer engineers, an amp manufacture has audio engineers so they rely on other vendors to supply the technology. For example when Gibson put the ethernet port in a Les Paul they contacted Cisco. Cisco responded by sending an intern since the revenue they expected to get from the partnership was next to $0. As a result they failed.

Part of the problem is having Harvard MBA's for Corporate owners (CEO Henry Juszkiewicz) and decision makers. Gibson MBA's are from outside the music . After Norlin, maybe anything would have been better (Same thing after CBS with Fender).

Cost cutting may have been a factor. Maybe Henry didn't want to pay Cisco sufficient bread to get a number one rate engineer.

On the other hand the ethernet port went into a Digital Guitar and the idea of a high priced Digital Guitar tanked.

I think the same thing can be said of the Robot Guitar.

Gibson didn't do a market survey to see if such a product was in use, who was using it, or to determine if it was vacuum waiting to be filled. Or if musicians that purchase Gibsons really wanted such a product.

It would have been smarter to have tried the concept in any of Gibson's other brand name instead of its Flagship label, such as Epiphone.

Of course that would have meant a lower MSRP and Henry Juszkiewicz just loves high ticket items and continue to raise prices afterwards. (Only exception was recently after losing a Anti-Trust price fixing investigation with the Feds.)

How many Gibson players who have the cash flow to purchase a USA built Guitar are using Digital (read computer) studios to record music? If I was a professional musician, I would go to a real (not virtual) studio and record live and have the engineers do the "magic."

Digital Studios, hard drive recording, computer software sound processing, bring to mind making a demo CD for a garage band, an individual project by a musician without a regular band, or producing Hip Hop/Rap CDs at home.

I am not bagging on Digital, however, I think many Guitarists jettisoned their rack system and went back to the Guitar/Chord/Amp (with a few stomp boxes) in a reaction to an overly processed sound associated rack systems.

Tarred with the same brush association. One can build a Dumble head as a rackmount amp, and the results are sonically the same as the circuit in the more conventional wooden box.

I had guessed Gibson had sort of learned their lesson, but I now I doubt it:

Firebird X (yes it has Robo-Tuners) a guitar with a built in preamp and digital effects.

"The heart of this high-performance beast is a high-performance multi-processor from Freescale. This is the same chip family used in ProTools systems, except this engine is the latest and greatest and overpowers older Pro Tools set-ups." "Gibson designers are guitar players with decades' worth of experience. We have studied this very real mojo "

Well the above confirms that someone other than Computer Engineers design their guitars:

To sell a Guitar with on board digital effects, Gibson has played to the consensus or prejudices of Guitar Players about Digital processing. In their ad campaign one finds "sterile digital math, latency, truncation errors, sterile digital mathematical formulas, artifacts, and non-mathematical nuance" listed as reasons they followed their design path.

To sell a digital device called Pure-Analog™

A new oxymoron " Pure-Analog™" (Remember the Pedal called Tube Screamer? Where was the Tube? )

The rest of the Banana Oil is in the PS.

During Henry's tenure component material quality continued a downhill slide (pot metal in the bridge/tailpiece, machine wound pick-ups in their Custom Guitars) which like Fender spawned an aftermarket of manufacturers that made replacement products after the quality days (prior to 1960). All during a time when the MSRP was periodically raised to increase sales.

(I can't count how many Guitarists purchased a Korean Epiphone LP, replaced the PUPs, pots, and the rest of the electronics, tuners, bridge/tailpiece, and the result both better quality and tonally better than the Gibby USA LP at a fraction of the price of admission for a USA LP).

I am glad that Gibson USA doesn't build tube amplifiers anymore and only releases Epiphone models.

Best Regards,

Steve

PS http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electri ... ngine.aspx

"PURE-ANALOG™ SECRET SAUCE — NOT A MODELING GUITAR

This guitar is pure analog, starting with the tuning. Unlike competitors, who use sterile digital math to "correct" pitch and achieve different tunings, we actually tune the strings to very accurate pitches. You get 100% analog with the added benefit of hearing the same pitch coming from the guitar acoustically, or through your amplifier.

This pure analog signal then goes directly into a studio quality preamp, which ensures maximum dynamic range. Since all this activity takes place in the guitar, we use shielded cables, metal enclosures, and other special manufacturing methods to virtually eliminate noise from either external sources, or internally generated distortion.

Our engineers' attention to detail results in the quietest, highest dynamic range guitar ever built.

We then use high performance ADC chips to convert the audio stream into the digital form on which our sound processor can act with virtually no latency. Inside our engine we maintain the signal stream with high internal precision. What this means is that every effect or operation has such a fantastically high bit depth and resolution that there are virtually no truncation errors or other artifacts, truly preserving the analog quality of the original signal. The signal starts as fantastic analog, and leaves as fantastic analog, using an exceptional DAC. Everything that happens in between is Gibson Pure-Analog™.

It is not enough to get the analog authenticity that all players lust for. A large part of the analog sound is the way analog equipment functions, which is very different from the implementation of sterile digital mathematical formulas. Like a drum machine compared to a live drummer, real life has enormous texture and non-mathematical nuance. Gibson designers are guitar players with decades' worth of experience. We have studied this very real mojo :?:and added it to every part of what our engine does. These many techniques allow us to achieve Pure-Analog™ that even the most discerning ears will agree is an analog sound. ":roll:

[talbany]

Here is an interview with Tom Scholtz explaining why he doesn't like digital formats.. Do some of you out there agree with him?



Scholz: Well, I'm spoiled rotten because I only hear two kinds of music:
live and all-analog. When I have to deal with digital because of CD
mastering, I don't like it that much. Even in 24-bit, I'm sorry; it's not as
good as analog.

How come? Digital sounds a lot different than the original source. Things
are further compromised when you decrease the resolution to 16 bits from 24
bits or higher. The combinations of only 16-bit resolution and only a
44.1-kHz sampling rate absolutely demolishes any part of the signal above
10k. If you put a 12k tone, which most people can hear, through a 16-bit,
44.1k sampling at digital conversion, you will be shocked at what that
waveform looks like coming out the other end. You can put a pure tone in,
and it comes out looking like some garbled, monstrous thing. If that came
off a cassette, you'd say, "See why cassettes sound terrible?" Take it a
step further to MP3s, where that 16-bit signal is further demolished. It's
already terrible, and compressed in unnatural ways.

And if you changed the frequency of that 12-kHz signal just a percentage
point, the signal that spits out will look entirely different. So every time
somebody hits an "s" or a cymbal, or plays a delicate violin or even a
raunchy distorted guitar with lots of high frequencies, the high-frequency
end of that spectrum is completely mangled into something different. That's
why people speak about strange sibilance, or things sticking out or not
sounding "right," when they listen to CDs. It isn't right. It's completely
different than the original recording.

That's the technical root of the problem. If I can get a little more
"earthy" here for a minute, music is an analog phenomenon. It results from
analog devices. Wood and metal vibrations force the air to send out
compression waves at the speed of sound to your eardrum - which is also very
analog, and which sends signals to your brain. The whole process is a
completely analog phenomenon. There are no numbers or bits involved with it
anywhere. The idea of trying to encode that into some kind of mathematical
thing and then reassemble it is a great idea, but it would have to be done
with a lot more care and without all the phasing issues..

The big thing to me still is that A/D conversion. I have never have had
anybody explain to me why they can't develop a technology to get rid of the
phasing and the distortion. It annoys me, and it's bizarre to me that
technical people put up with the alteration. If you look at the waveform, it
doesn't even look like the same thing. Maybe more so for me, because I used
to use the old analog oscilloscopes and I used to measure things like
headroom. You get an exact picture, and you could a copy from one track to
the next. You may get a tiny bit of rounding from slew-rate limitations, but
that waveform looks virtually identical to the first one. Your copy bounces
from track to track.

So, to sum up, digital is a risky place to go. When they eventually come up
with the world's first transporter that breaks you down into a set of
numbers and reassembles your matter someplace else - well, I'd be really
careful about that. [chuckles]

Tony

[BobW]

Here is an interview with Tom Scholtz explaining why he doesn't like digital formats.. Do some of you out there agree with him?



Scholz: Well, I'm spoiled rotten because I only hear two kinds of music:
live and all-analog. When I have to deal with digital because of CD
mastering, I don't like it that much. Even in 24-bit, I'm sorry; it's not as
good as analog.

How come? Digital sounds a lot different than the original source. Things
are further compromised when you decrease the resolution to 16 bits from 24
bits or higher. The combinations of only 16-bit resolution and only a
44.1-kHz sampling rate absolutely demolishes any part of the signal above
10k. If you put a 12k tone, which most people can hear, through a 16-bit,
44.1k sampling at digital conversion, you will be shocked at what that
waveform looks like coming out the other end. You can put a pure tone in,
and it comes out looking like some garbled, monstrous thing. If that came
off a cassette, you'd say, "See why cassettes sound terrible?" Take it a
step further to MP3s, where that 16-bit signal is further demolished. It's
already terrible, and compressed in unnatural ways.

And if you changed the frequency of that 12-kHz signal just a percentage
point, the signal that spits out will look entirely different. So every time
somebody hits an "s" or a cymbal, or plays a delicate violin or even a
raunchy distorted guitar with lots of high frequencies, the high-frequency
end of that spectrum is completely mangled into something different. That's
why people speak about strange sibilance, or things sticking out or not
sounding "right," when they listen to CDs. It isn't right. It's completely
different than the original recording.

That's the technical root of the problem. If I can get a little more
"earthy" here for a minute, music is an analog phenomenon. It results from
analog devices. Wood and metal vibrations force the air to send out
compression waves at the speed of sound to your eardrum - which is also very
analog, and which sends signals to your brain. The whole process is a
completely analog phenomenon. There are no numbers or bits involved with it
anywhere. The idea of trying to encode that into some kind of mathematical
thing and then reassemble it is a great idea, but it would have to be done
with a lot more care and without all the phasing issues..

The big thing to me still is that A/D conversion. I have never have had
anybody explain to me why they can't develop a technology to get rid of the
phasing and the distortion. It annoys me, and it's bizarre to me that
technical people put up with the alteration. If you look at the waveform, it
doesn't even look like the same thing. Maybe more so for me, because I used
to use the old analog oscilloscopes and I used to measure things like
headroom. You get an exact picture, and you could a copy from one track to
the next. You may get a tiny bit of rounding from slew-rate limitations, but
that waveform looks virtually identical to the first one. Your copy bounces
from track to track.

So, to sum up, digital is a risky place to go. When they eventually come up
with the world's first transporter that breaks you down into a set of
numbers and reassembles your matter someplace else - well, I'd be really
careful about that. [chuckles]

Tony

Thanks Tony! and I certainly agree w/ Tom. It's all about the Nyquist Criteria and the quality of the storage caps, that fill in the sampling gaps.

[Chris333]

I read an interview in TapeOp a while back where Walter Sear said Nyquist's math was wrong. Digital will sound OK when the bit depth and sample rates are high enough (and the clocks are stable enough). But we ain't there yet...

[BobW]

Nope, Nyquist's 'math' works just fine in digital and stocastic control systems where the bandwidth is much higher than audio.

[talbany]

I read an interview in TapeOp a while back where Walter Sear said Nyquist's math was wrong. Digital will sound OK when the bit depth and sample rates are high enough (and the clocks are stable enough). But we ain't there yet...

The argument that has been made for the longest time regarding sampling rates

Everybody has accepted
the dogma that a 44 kHz sampling rate should exactly reproduce a 22
kHz sine wave. The "sampling theorem" ( Shannon used Nyquist's approach when he proved the sampling theorem in 1948) says so, right? No, that's NOT
right. The Sampling Theorem says that's true ONLY when the correctly
phased sampling points are chosen. That is NEVER the case in audio
reproduction! At 10kHz and a 44 kHz sampling rate you get exactly
FOUR sample points on that waveform [that's TWO on each side of the
sinewave] and even worse they are shifting all over it in time due to
random phase shifts, that waveform becomes somewhat"demolished

And it gets worse. Now we add in the 16 bit resolution and run the
signal down to the bottom of the dynamic range down there it might not see 16 bits anymore, In fact, depending how hard you try to
push it down it could actually be...ready for this? ****! So there
you are with your "high end" audiophool gear trying to listen to the
tiny tickle of some windchimes and all you get is ?... Oddly enough an analog recording although it's noisy and limited and has other problems is not subject to the sampling theorem and it's phase sensitivity and gosh, those wind chimes are tinkling through!

Analog has it's own set of problems that have happily been overcome nicely with digital technology. A much higher sampling rate and much higher converter resolution than 44.1 kHz and
16 bits is needed to accurate reproduce the subtlety found in music.
And sticking to the original hosed standard is the height of inertia
at it's worst! Modern DVDs have enough space to store high quality
digital sound that any effort to screw with "playing time" or limiting
bandwidth or other ways of destroying reproduction is idiocy! And
then as the icing on the cake the signal can be squeezed down into MP3
to mash it even more.
I have not studied Digital formats for quite a while now so they may have overcome some of these issues perhaps someone can clarify if it has..

Tony

[Chris333]

I'm too deaf to ever hear the difference, but I've read about blind tests where subjects (recording engineers) were played tones with harmonics way out of the audible spectrum removed (like 56khz or so... going from memory ) and the same tones unaltered, and they could consistently tell them apart. I dunno what they were hearing, but the gist of it was that 20khz is way too low to double for sampling rate.

[Max]

What effect precisely do you mean by "psycho-acoustic effect"?

...
In this context and usage, the term "psycho-acoustic effect" has to do with the listener's preconceived bias towards a particular component or part etc in a non-blinded test and their reaction/perception to being colored as such.
...

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the clarification concerning the way you use the term "psychoacoustic-effect". I just wanted to avoid misunderstandings.

In regard to what you write about these "preconceptions" you are of course right IMO – at least in a general sense. Of course you can use the psychoacoustic measuring methods like those explained in this PDF file I’ve posted (Wow – already 5 downloads!) to learn more about the way and amount in which preconceptions influence the perception of sound. But AFAIK such a kind of research concerning the influences of preconceptions is an application of psychoacoustics (like the mp3 codec or surround sound systems etc.) but not what psychoacoustic research usually does as being the part of the science of psychophysics it is.

The usual field of psychoacoustic research is the same one as in all psychophysics. Psychoacoustics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics is the part of psychophysics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychophysics that deals with the perception of sound. And AFAIK in the usual psychoacoustic research preconceptions like those you are talking about aren’t the objects of general study but even one of the biasing problems psychoacoustic research has to deal with by choosing appropriate measuring methods to avoid the influence of such biasing problems on psychoacoustic measurements. How psychoacoustic measuring deals with bias problems like this is explained in the PDF I’ve posted (Introduction 1.3 "Sensitivity and Bias").

But IMO you are of course right, psychoacoustic measuring methods can be used with meaningful results to research the kind and amount of influence preconceptions, like those you talk about in your posts, have on the human perception of sound.

Here’s an example for an application of psychoacoustic methods by a major scale musical industry company:

http://www.engineeringandmusic.de/indiv ... Paper.html

@ ampdorc concerning Greatful Dead:

I am rather sure that guys like Ron Wickersham or Rick Turner read books instead of speculating what may to be found in their content. These two have IMO been as open-minded concerning building musical instruments as the Greateful Dead have been open-minded concerning music.

So just in case you should be interested in breathing some fresh air:

Here are two of the standard works of psychoacoustics:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qgsst2 ... &q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=eGcfn9 ... &q&f=false


Marketing blah:

It is well known in the marketing and advertising business that you have to give people at least some short technical catchphrases in a product flyer. Most consumer products are rather similar today in their practical performance in our every day lives and even their prices often are on a rather similar level.

But of course we even then have to decide which one of say three or four products we shall buy. So we all are rather happy about at least some technical catchphrases (point to point wiring, interleaved transformers, mouth blown tube envelops, NOS parts, etc. blah) because we obviously prefer to have at least some rationalizations for our buying decisions that AFAIK are influenced far more by our limbic system http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 8470838773# than perhaps most people – especially male people – would freely admit. As you may know the Playboy is of course bought just because of all these great interviews and razor reviews.

But of course no experienced marketing manager will be stupid enough to really explain in a product flyer in a scientific sense why precisely an interleaved transformer is of precisely what practical advantage when playing "Sultans of Swing". And after the same marketing blah has been repeated ten times in ten different guitar player magazines because some content is needed of course to fill the pages between the ads the herd and bandwagon etc. effects hopefully (from a marketing point of view) will care about the appropriate way of sound perception.

SS vs. tubes /digital vs. analog:

IMO it makes no sense at all to discuss the general technological differences and the general advantages and disadvantages of different technologies that can be used for the creation, production, and reproduction of music by pointing at some products that make use of one of these technologies as examples that shall prove that one technological approach is "better" than another one.

Why:

In a free market economy the reason for the production of goods isn’t providing people with useful stuff but providing owners and shareholders with a profit. So in a free market economy the technological quality of a guitar amp as an example is only of interest as far as it is helpful in whatever way to achieve a profit and not as end in itself. So IMO it makes no sense at all to judge the general capabilities, advantages and disadvantages of technologies by evaluating the specs of products that make use of one of these technologies.

However:

As long as I have some happy hour with my Playboy – sorry – interleaved transformer and can afford it, why should I feel unhappy that I am just another fashion victim? Most females I know are completely aware that they are of course fashion victims and don’t feel to seem too sorry about this for a second.

SS and digital technologies:

It may be hard to believe but SS and digital audio technologies today are used by 99.9 percent of all people who listen to recorded music and by nearly all musicians that don’t play an electric guitar or an acoustic instrument. And I seldom read or view reports in our media about mass-vomiting on our streets and in our concert halls and stadiums.

What sounds "good":

My grandma always had a smile in her face listening to Bing Crosby with her small and cheap 40ies radio.
Many girls went ecstatic when listening to George Harrison’s SS sounds.
Edison reportedly cried when he first listened to his first LQ recordings.
Many people obviously have lots of fun with the sound of computer games like Guitar Hero or Rock Band.
Many garage and high school bands seem to have lots of fun without using boutique amps.
Many famous and first class guitar players created and still create great music that is loved by many fans using SS and digital technologies.
Many people obviously have lots of fun listening to mp3 files thru low quality earphones.

So I personally have strong doubts that the different technologies used for the creation and reproduction of music and their perhaps different results in regard to the quality of "tone" have a big influence on the amount of fun and emotional involvement of musicians and listeners.

However II:

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause & reflect." (Mark Twain)

Cheers,

Max

[bluesfendermanblues]

The thread is growing more and more interesting........


Regarding psyko acoustics:

"..............whether it be blue plastic, orange drop, mustard or any other table condiment is there to merely to seal the cap and can only effect the tone if you are looking directly at them. Here in Nashville EVERYONE listens with their eyes."


Just had to post this.


Source: http://music-electronics-forum.com/t1268/