Strad wood and scienceif you are a lousy violin ma

[markishandsome]

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7484975.stm) claiming that early violins used top wood with less differentiation between annular rings. Luthierie books i've read usually recommend the opposite. My favorite quote from the story:

"if you are a lousy violin maker and use the best wood, you will still end up with a very bad violin"

Things that I don't like about the article:
The claim that modern builders have "thoroughly failed to replicate their quality"
The suggestion that this sort of wood is no longer available anywhere in the world.

Any thoughts?

[PT66]

The climate when the tree is cut has nothing to do with the wood. It is the climate of the 80 to 100 years before it was cut that counts.

[Tom Smart]

What PT66 said, plus, if you want a tree that grew in colder conditions, just go higher on the mountain and look in the more shaded spots on the northerly aspects. There are trees growing in all kinds of micro-climates at any time, no matter if the overall climate varies by a degree or two.

In spite of all the scientific mumbo-jumbo, like "vibrational efficacy," all I see here is proof that seven modern violins were made with different wood selection than five Strads. Big deal.

Oh, and then there are a few other completely undeveloped hypotheses thrown in for good measure. But no acknowledgement of the fact that maybe, just maybe, Stradivari was an exceptional craftsman and innovator who created a superior model that's still copied today simply because it works better than the models of his predecessors.

[sunburst]

I haven't read the article yet, but I've heard about it on the radio from the BBC.

Once again someone has "discovered the secret" of Stradivari!
In the past it's been the varnish, chemical treatment of the wood, floating the logs down the river, etc. etc., this time it's the wood itself and they say it's because the trees were different then! Give me a break!
And once again, the media have declared the obvious superiority of Stradivari violins over anything else old or new.
Excuse me, but... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sleepy.gif

[Geoff B]

"or it could be that over the course of three hundred years the violins just gets better in tone," he explained." I would think this plays a larger role than the fanatics give credit for. Although, Strad was being copied a lot not too long after his death, so it can't all be just the age....

I'm with John here, to relegate the fate of the modern violin based on 7 unnamed examples is quite unfair. I think I've figured out the secret though, here we go: the even density of the strad top wood (note top wood only) comes from a combination of magical voodoo tree selection, floating down a particular river with a particular chemistry in a particular time in earth's history, being exposed to particular mold or fungi, which all interacts with another magical voodoo ground coat. And the last, undeniably hilarious fact is that "But if you are a lousy violin maker and use the best wood, you will still end up with a very bad violin."

[first string]

Well at least the scientist and the article acknowledged (albeit only at the very end) that the difference in sound may not be attributable to this supposedly different/unique wood. I've always suspected that Strads sound the way they do because Stradivari was an excellent craftsman, and because the instruments are hundreds of years old. I know that the effects of age have been extensively debated on this forum, but I am firmly in the camp that most instruments get better with time and playing. I also believe that there a plenty of people working today that have reached or surpassed Stradivari's level of craftsmanship, but that only time will tell who they are, and that their work will likely never catch the Strads in terms of price. Like it or not there can only be one original, and that name will always attract the big players/collectors and the big dollars, not to mention all kinds of mythic mumbo jumbo. Look at Loar.

I think if you are really worried about making history as opposed to just being an excellent luthier, you probably need to originate a new design. And that design needs to become a new standard.

[jackc]

Hey, I ~am~ a bad violin maker, and I've used some nice wood. And my violins are OK. Each one a little better than the one before. Certainly a better in terms of sound, if not always always in appearance or workmanshio, than 90% of the German and French factory fiddles that I see in any given period of time.

As John says, all of these "secrets" are a lot of hooey that make for good press (sometimes). That latest "scientific" theory of the Maunder Minimum--the idea that low temperatures for a period in the Italian Alps lead to spruce with very tight growth rings and therefore better wood in Stradivari's violins-- only shows that the theorist knows a lot more about climate than he does about what makes for good tonewood and good violins.

My theory is this:

After making some 100 violins (how many of us have made 100 mandolins?), which would have been about the time he left the Amati shop, Stradivari, as a supremely talented craftsman who was dedicated to doing the best work he could, and with customers (Royalty and wealthy merchant class) who allowed him to afford to work carefully, was able to figure most of it out. He chose good wood, was skillful with tools, used the standard varnish of the era with his own preferences, was aesthetically astute, and then went on to produce another 1,000 violins, violas, and cellos.

Then a great, standard setting violinist (Viotti), played one of his violins to such acclaim that everyone decided that they had to play a Strad (sound like recent F-5 mandolin history?). At that time, most violinists played Stainers and violins of that model.

The fact that Strads and other 18th century Cremonese violins are now 300 years old and many have been played continuously by the best players can't be discounted either. Even so, you don't hear a whole lot about Strads that were made on the Amati model. His golden period was, and the most valuable fiddles are, from 1710-1730, long after Amati.

We all love the Gibsons of the teens, but Loars are the gold standard and today's mandolins all aspire to that level. I think we'd all agree that some modern makers have reached that level. I've played Loars that didn't sound or play very well. There are Strad violins in that category too, although not many.

I think we are living in a golden era of luthiery of all kinds, from factory guitars to violins to hand made mandolins. Of course, we won't know how good they are for another 110 years or so, and then who cares. We all be playing harps by then...

[F5GRun]

Being a scientist for a living I do agree that trees are growing "differntly" than they were 300 Hundred years ago. The composition of the air they breathe is differnt and thus would casue them to grow in a differnt way.(of course soil and climate and everything else has an effect on them too) How different? probably not that much, but I dont think we could tell because I dont think there has been any extensive research on this topic to compare trees of today from trees back then..yet. In the case of the Strads I think it comes down to Antone was a heck of a violin maker, used very fine materials, and had a reputation to go along with it. They are said to be the best by the general population of the world, 99% of them dont play violin and just see the rarity of a strad. I had a friend that had a strad in her family and she favored her 100,000$ UD made violin over the strad(she was really good...really good).

As for the trees
Although this idea is completly unrealistic and probably finacialy impossible.
Wouldnt it be great to have a greenhouse to grow trees in. I could just see it...a huge 200 foot tall building with differnt climates set up to grow differnt trees. You would be able to control all parameters of their growth so in this corner you could have Rosewood, in that corner Koa, in the middle a field of maple, A section of spruce, etc etc. Total pipe dreams of course but could you imagine?http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Spruce]

"The claim that modern builders have "thoroughly failed to replicate their quality"
The suggestion that this sort of wood is no longer available anywhere in the world.

Any thoughts?"

Yeah...
"Nonsense" to both "claims"....

[Hans]

Don't build violins...

[Eugene]

Sounds to me like yet another log of hype for the Strad-hype fire. The even-density-thanks-to-slow-growth and little-ice-age conceptual nuggets have been circulating for years, even if the popular press has drummed up a little more hype for those ideas because some guy recently stumbeld upon a way to measure it differently.

[Eugene]

...But no acknowledgement of the fact that maybe, just maybe, Stradivari was an exceptional craftsman...
Not to mention that many of his instruments have been lovingly cared for, maintained, and allowed to age in good health for over 300 years!

[Spruce]

"Not to mention that many of his instruments have been lovingly cared for, maintained, and allowed to age in good health for over 300 years!"

Mando content: It's difficult to work on an F5--re-graduate, re-shape bars, etc. etc.--whereas a violin is designed to be taken apart and futzed with...

So-ooo, these things have really been dialed in (or ruined) over the past 300 years...

[Eugene]

Indeed, and unmodified bowed instruments from the Strad shop range from obscenely rare to nonexistent, depending upon whose hype you buy into and how much futzing one considers to be modification. Those who play Strad violins as he built them--short neck, low action, gut strings, etc.--are relatively rare and simply didn't exist a few decades ago. Those who do now have had them re-modified/restored.

[markishandsome]

Looks like everyone agrees that this article is wrong-headed in it's pronouncements. But what about the wood? Has anyone here worked with enough even and uneven grained wood to compare the two?

[Tom Smart]

OK, I just looked at the original study published in PLoS ONE. It's linked from the other thread discussing this topic, if anyone is interested in seeing it.

There is not a single mention of the "Maunder Minimum" or "Little Ice Age" in the published study! Where the Sam Hill does the BBC get off introducing this concept into the discussion, when the scientists conducting the study never mention it at all? In fact, what they do discuss in their published results is exactly what I said in my previous post: that trees grow in all sorts of microclimates and exhibit all sorts of densities, both then and now. Also, they never suggest that the wood available in the 17th and 18th centuries was in any way fundamentally different from what's available to today's builders.

What's interesting about this stuff is the question of why this "Secret of Stradivari" thing has so much power over the popular imagination. It comes up constantly, usually cycling through a different "secret" every couple of years. Why don't I ever see any articles breathlessly announcing that scientists have figured out the "Secret of Tourte"?

[Pete Martin]

Remember, not ALL Strads are great violins. I have been fortunate enough to play a few. One was a very average old violin. Now One was so amazing, I couldn't put it down ("how can I afford this...")

[Stephen Perry]

One used to be able to get wood that grew in the 16th C. Measure it, make some fiddles, compare.

[Dave Cohen]

A classic case of science journalists distorting scientific publications for what they (the journalists) think will make a good story. Otoh, The microclimate stuff came up a few years ago and was not taken seriously by the musical acoustics community. It often happens that scientists in other disciplines get interested in musical acoustics and start doing their own research before fully absorbing the musical acoustics literature. When they attempt to publish before being fully aquainted with existing results and formalism, they may embarass themselves. Kinda like lay people making pronouncements bashing science on the basis of one statement or even one paper without having any familiarity with what has been done and what is known.

Scientists who are careful don't claim to 'prove' anything with their data. We can verify, corroborate, and disprove, but proof lies entirely in the domains of mathematics and logic.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Spruce]

"One used to be able to get wood that grew in the 16th C. Measure it, make some fiddles, compare. "

One still can....

[Stephen Perry]

See, there you go. By the time I get around to using all my tops it will have been 300 years!

[Hans]

By the time I get around to using all my tops I'LL be 300 years old! http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Eugene]

Scientists who are careful don't claim to 'prove' anything with their data. We can verify, corroborate, and disprove, but proof lies entirely in the domains of mathematics and logic.
...and courts of law (of sorts). An excellent point and one I profess on my own science-based day job with regularity, Dr. Dave. Whenever I hear something like "How can one put any faith in science? Science is disproven all the time." I cringe. That's the point, that's what science is supposed to do, that is the strength of the scientific method: the ability to self-correct. When some hypotheses are disproven, what is left is evidence in support of their alternates, not proof.

[Tom Smart]

The microclimate stuff came up a few years ago and was not taken seriously by the musical acoustics community.
Dave, did you mean to say the "Maunder Minimum" stuff came up a few years ago and was not taken seriously by the musical acoustics community?

I don't think there's anything controversial about the concept of microclimates. It just means a tree (or anything else) will grow differently in one spot (e.g., hot, sunny, wet) as opposed to another (e.g., cold, shady, dry). In other words, logs are different for a variety of reasons, including the spot where they grew.

This "study" has the feel of "Hey, we've got this cool equipment for imaging peoples' lungs...what else can we shoot with it?" "Well, I've always been intrigued by violins; maybe we can solve the Secret of Strad!" "That's it! Call the press!"

I have nothing but respect for responsible science and responsible journalism. The latter, in particular, seems to be in very short supply these days. Combine a meaningless study, a lazy reporter, and a topic that an uncritical public can't seem to get enough of for whatever reason, and watch out.

By the way, I thought they solved the Secret of Strad in that movie a few years ago: You just mix your wife's blood into the varnish.

[Dave Cohen]

Tom, I was just speaking generally, and being a bit sloppy. I'll pass along an interesting anecdote. I think that it was either Fabio Ragghianti or Todd Taggart, at the 2004 GAL convention, who was responsible for this. Anyway, whoever it was related that in 17th & 18th century Europe, after trees were cut and stripped of their branches, the logs were sent down an ice flume to be milled. Some of the logs "sang" as they went down the flume. The "singers" were milled appropriately and sent to instrument makers, and the ones that didn't "sing" were milled for making houses, furniture, etc.

I think that it was Spruce who said here that about 1% of all trees cut are adequate for making instruments. Even in the forests of centuries past, there had to be some selection by instrument makers and by those who cut timber for them. So even then, there were better billets and worser billets, and selection must have played a significant part in the quality of billets sent to instrument makers.

[reb0964]

Everyone has thier idea of how he made it,,,though I honestly think no matter how they try to figure it out, it will never be done. I read this stuff and wonder why they just keep bogging the articles with it.. I have heard so many ways to build instruments and I am just learning and probably no where the luthier most of you are on here,,but I have been playing guitar and mandolin over 30 years and have heard the same hype since I picked an instrument up. If it is the tree and the grain in it,,I have seen guitars with wide grain and so close of grain in tops you cant see the strands and both sound as good as the other,,,I really just think 3oo years has a lot to do with the sound and resonance,,no matter what you do,,you will never be able to buy wood today and make it sound as its 300 yrs old anyway,,,Knowing the fine construction of a strad violin and he was an exceptional maker,,,whos's to say he wasnt like one of us,,,just building them and learning as he went along,,,He definately didnt have luthiers all over town or messengers to run notes back and forth to share idea's and designs on how to build the things much less all the strobe tuners and such to tap tune the tops,,,the abilty to work inside a controlled enviroment to keep the wood at a steady moisture reading...If you really think about it,,,He had no where near the technology to do what we can do today much less light to go along with it....I think there is just too much study to try to figure all that out and luthiers now a days should just learn to make the best they can through experience and the trying of different idea's,,,,,besides..Once you finish your instrument,,,sit it in front of a stereo speaker for 6 months,,,I am sure it will age and vibrate to get that sound of strad,,thats the secret why his did sound so good after he made his,,,honestly!! LOL

[markishandsome]

He definately didnt have luthiers all over town or messengers to run notes back and forth to share idea's and designs on how to build the things

There were at least a dozen violin makers (many of whose names you'd recognize) working within a couple blocks of each other in Cremona during Strad's time.

[reb0964]

Thats cool,,,i did not know that!!!!!! thanks,,,,though still no central air!!!! Lol

[Chadmills]

It's a hoot the way people keep coming up with a new "secret"!

Where does it leave Stradivari's cleverness that (as mentioned above) his violins only got to the top of tree after major changes by other people, reset necks, new bass bars etc!

I'd generally back the view that there's actually no secret, he was a very good maker, and his violins have been set up by the best luthiers and played by the best players for a lot of years.

There was an interesting article in "The Strad" magazine a few years back, pointing out that despite the generally accepted view of Stradivari as a lone craftsman, there's a significant period when he was producing loads of instruments, and we have no record of what several other Cremonese makers were doing at that time, even though they later went on to become important in their own right.... (Of course this view is heresy in some circles.)
Tom

[burcher]

I think there are several emergent 'truths' here that are important to remember.

1) wood DID grow differently pre-industrial revolution, for many different reasons.
2) these differences were widespread and the microclimates would be distributed about the same as they are now. We're not talking about microclimates, really, b/c these would be rare. SO, we're talking about the 'typical' or 'average' wood available. Think about all the wood that is milled. Nowadays maybe we're more selective than we were back then so what strad et al. were dealing with was the readily available stuff, right? SOooooooooo. more evidence (not proof as someone mentioned) that the average tree that would make it to someones hands to build an instrument was different pre-industry. I don't think this issue can really be argued against successfully.

I think that's all the paper is saying - you're looking for too much in it. Science never claimed to be that, it's just organized in a 'fancy' kind of way.

IMO it's a matter of probability. The probability was higher 'back in the day' that one would be able to easily procure wood that had grown 'more evenly', that is, each preceding year (and growth ring, width of grain) would be more similar to those that follow whereas today the 'grains' vary in size from growth year to growth year.


Incidentally, I was just looking at a stump here in town of a big old oak that was nearly 200 years old when cut - this gives a nice record of early 1800s, through the civil war and industrial revolution and you can actually see (after adjusting the ring width for age/size of tree as it changes normally through life) crazy variation in ring width during 'periods' that I wonder might agree with cultural changes in the same era.......... To deny that possibility is just silly


cb

[Michael Gowell]

Interesting topic. Let's keep the discussion civil.

[Spruce]

"Nowadays maybe we're more selective than we were back then..."

Exactly the opposite....

Show me one lousy Strad--or any violin from the classic Cremonese period--that displays runout...
Just one.
I'd love to see it....

Whereas runout is commonly seen in instruments of all stripes these days--from factory Taylors to $25K handmade F5s, to high end fiddles....

Those guys were totally anal about their wood selection, and you can see it from across a crowded room....

"The probability was higher 'back in the day' that one would be able to easily procure wood that had grown 'more evenly', that is, each preceding year (and growth ring, width of grain) would be more similar to those that follow whereas today the 'grains' vary in size from growth year to growth year."

Nonsense...
It's no problem at all these days to find wood that has even grain spacing...
Or gradually widening grain spacing. #Or wide grain spacing. #Or tight grain spacing.
In fact, it's no problem at all to find wood with whatever graining characteristics you may so desire....

"Incidentally, I was just looking at a stump here in town of a big old oak that was nearly 200 years old when cut - this gives a nice record of early 1800s, through the civil war and industrial revolution and you can actually see (after adjusting the ring width for age/size of tree as it changes normally through life) crazy variation in ring width during 'periods' that I wonder might agree with cultural changes in the same era.......... #To deny that possibility is just silly"

So-ooo, I guess it's "silly" to make the observation that just about any street tree's growth patterns reflect more about how well they were watered by their owners, and not climatic conditions....?
Cities are tree farms, and not some natural habitat where trees grow where they choose to grow at the rate they choose to grow....

" I don't think this issue can really be argued against successfully. #"

Oh, never mind.... # #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[markishandsome]

t's no problem at all these days to find wood that has even grain spacing...
Or gradually widening grain spacing. Or wide grain spacing. Or tight grain spacing.
In fact, it's no problem at all to find wood with whatever graining characteristics you may so desire....

The article said the Strad wood was more uniform with less differentiation between late and early wood. I didn't see anything about grain spacing. Is uniform density wood easily available? Do you need a fancy medical scanner to find out?

[sunburst]

All they found out was that 5 (was it five?) Strads had top wood with more even density that 8 (was it eight?) new violins. Any conclusion other that that is "jumped to".
Even if it can be shown that wood generally had more even density in Strad's day, they've shown no causal relationship between that and superior sound. In fact, no one has any concrete data showing that Stradavari violins do sound superior to modern ones.
So, the article assumes Strads sound better. The guys doing the test found different density characteristics in the small sample of Strads they tested and the small (even smaller percentage-wise) sample of modern violins. Then the article goes on to assume that the density difference is the reason for the superior sound - that they only assumed was there in the first place.

I would have to assume that wood with similarly even density could be found today, I don't know if there would be other ways to test it other than the scanner they used. I would further assume that wood of similar density to the Strad wood, used in a new violin would sound about the same as any other wood used in a new violin. There's nothing in the article to make me assume otherwise.

[Spruce]

"I didn't see anything about grain spacing. #Is uniform density wood easily available?"

Every single tree is a individual, and has characteristics that are theorectically unique to that tree...
That's why all this talk--trying to generalize about trees and how they serve their function as tonewood--is absurd in my book...

Go into a clearcut sometime and look at the stumps. #These trees all grew under very similar conditions, and yet you'll find wide grained trees, tight grained trees, twisted trees, straight trees, trees with defined graining, trees with ill-defined graining, trees with bearclaw, trees without bearclaw--all growing within 100 yards of one another....
Go figure...

So, "yes", somewhere in that clearcut a straight-splitting tree with uniform density did indeed probably grow...

"Do you need a fancy medical scanner to find out?"

Some people do.... # http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I use my fingernail....

[sunburst]

Bruce, you ain't left no fingernail marks on no Stradavaris have ya?

[Dennis Russell]

I read every post with interest, I am not a expert, but I have been told by those who are that the remaining Strad's are in glass chambers where the air wont touch them thus preserving the instrument and also the tone quality isnt as good as years ago. Most of us were not around a half century ago to compare, I surley was but too young to know the diff. about the better wood that was around 300 years ago, and mabey not here in this century, we can blame it on global warming, and our former Vice Prez, Al gore.................Dennis in Az

[Spruce]

"Bruce, you ain't left no fingernail marks on no Stradavaris have ya? "

As a matter of fact I have... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
You don't need to really dig in. Just kind of test the waters...

[Joel Spaulding]

I read every post with interest, I am not a expert, but I have been told by those who are that the remaining Strad's are in glass chambers where the air wont touch them thus preserving the instrument and also the tone quality isnt as good as years ago. Most of us were not around #a half century ago to compare, I surley was but too young to know the diff. about the better wood that was around 300 years ago, and mabey not here in this century, we can blame it on global warming, and our former Vice Prez, Al gore.................Dennis in Az
Itzhak Perlman must have to be very careful when carrying that glass case and Soil Stradivarius #to Carnegie hall and the like ! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I also , am no expert (on anything, actually) but many Strads are being played - right now - by someone. Some may be under glass in climate controlled conditions - but not all and certainly not all the time.

[burcher]

hey spruce,

show me the 'street' and the 'city' that influenced wood growing in 1800 in the americas.

cb

[burcher]

aaaaaaaaaaand

tell me you would have the same capability, or exposure, to wood in 1800 as you do today. It would've been hard to get on the internet to contact people somewhere else much less travel there or have wood ups'ed to you.


Again, technology has also changed our ability to procure. That coupled with the idea (which I believe) that ON AVERAGE wood is growing differently right now than it did 'back then'. Nonsense, I guess.

Also, small sample sizes are normal in non-benchtop studies. Look at global warming - how do you replicate the earth? You don't. You go through a thorough study design that allows you to take SAMPLES and INFER causality. Even scientists will argue that 5 and 8 are small sample sizes, but what is the alternative, oh, I know - don't do it.

Both sides here are being defensive. I'm defending science you're defending luthiery. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

I'm not denying strad et al. were 'good with their hands' but you can't compare apples to oranges without getting sticky.

cb

[Spencer]

I don't know much about wood grains and such, but while reading some of these posts, I remembered that archaeologists here use tree ring patterns to date objects. They use the variation in ring patterns as a kind of fingerprint to identify objects with respect to both time and location. For example, a viking ship excavated here in Denmark has been found to come from Dublin, with wood cut around 1040 AD. So to me it seems that just because wood is old/grew a long time ago, it doesn't necessarily has even grain. I'll let you experts figure out what that means, if anything.

Spencer

[Spruce]

hey spruce,

show me the 'street' and the 'city' that influenced wood growing in 1800 in the americas. #

cb
Uhhh, any town that existed in the 1800s that cleared ground and planted trees, and then watered them (or not) would qualify...

So-ooo, I guess the whole Eastern part of the country??

[Spruce]

"That coupled with the idea (which I believe) that ON AVERAGE wood is growing differently right now than it did 'back then'. #Nonsense, I guess."

I took apart a tree a couple months ago that--after removing the outer 6" of wood for fiddles--revealed the exact same wood that one would have encountered if they had cut the tree down in the early 1600's...

So-ooo, "yes" is the answer....

[sunburst]

The silly argument that trees and wood are inferior today than they were "in the old days" gets tossed around among guitar players too. Some claim that Martin had access to better wood in the 30s than we can get now and that's why the 30s Martins sound better than any new guitar will ever sound.
I have some red spruce that was cut in 1989. It's easy to count the rings and find the wood that grew in the 30s, it's a band of wood about 5/8" wide, about 5 inches under the bark. If I build a guitar with that wood, the decade of the thirties goes right about through the middle of each half of the top. All the wood on one side of that band of wood is the same wood as Martin had in the 30s. How much different can the wood be on the other side of that band?
That's the same thing Bruce is saying, though the years are a little different. A lot of people don't seem to realize how old trees are and how long it takes to grow instrument quality spruce. It is possible to cut a tree today and harvest wood that was in that tree when Stradivari was building violins. How much different can the rest of the wood in that tree be?

[GVD]

Well since burcher is a relative noob around these parts I reckon he just doesn't know Spruce and the cred he brings to these kind of discussions.

If you'll allow me to paraphrase Jim Croce I'll let you in on something I've learned on this board over the years:

You don't tug on Superman's cape
You don't spit into the wind
You don't pull the mask off that old Lone Ranger
And you don't argue tonewoods with Spruce

GVD

P.S. Unless you've got about 30 or 40 years of recording experience it's probably not a good idea to argue mics with the cat either!!! #http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[burcher]

i see how it is

[Spruce]

i see how it is
Yep...

If one makes blanket statements like
"I don't think this issue can really be argued against successfully" or "to deny that possibility is just silly", then your stuff is gonna get scrutinized....

You know, just like everywhere else.... http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[testore]

Bruce is the most fully knowledgeable guy on so many topics than ANYONE I've ever known. I've never argued with the guy. Unless we're talking about wiffle ball strike zones!

[Eugene]

Bruce is the most fully knowledgeable guy on so many topics than ANYONE I've ever known.
Oops: "most", "anyone"!? Watch blanket statements like that or Bruce will rightfully bring your stuff under intense scrutiny. [Insert slyly winking emoticon of your choosing here.]

[man dough nollij]

Generally speaking, most generalizations are almost totally wrong about 99.9% of the time. http://www.mandolincafe.net/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[Eugene]

Frankly, I see the point burcher is trying to make, and there is substantial difference between pointing out the occurrence of individual instances of anything at all and considering populations via sampling and parametric statistics. As evidence that climate does exhibit some general influence on tree growth, consider dendrochronology/dendroclimatology, which does require a fair amount of judgment call by the practicing dendrochronologist, but is generally accepted as generally useful. Personally, I suspect there are enough microclimate variations spanning the whole of the earth at any known historic time that you can usually find substantial swaths of turf with similar climatic influence to any other known historic time and place. I do think there is a difference in the availability of quality timber between now and then, but I suspect that's more a difference in the size of the demand and the quantity of harvest; with so many people taking the good stuff, there isn't necessarily as much of it to go around as there once was. Old, slow growth under dense forest cover just isn't available like it used to be.

[testore]

But I'm sure I'm the only one here who has ever played Wiffle ball with Bruce.

[Eugene]

I might pay to see that!

[testore]

You notice how Bruce has disappeared? He can't hit my splitter and I can't hit his knuckle ball. I'll be honest.