Tone rite

[Bertram Henze]

vibration ( movement of the wood)and age is good on instruments, very little debate on that....no matter what kind of movement.

Isn't that a Bluto Blutarski quote?

[DHopkins]

When I get my trailer hitch installed, I'll be dragging my Sobell around behind my Honda Element for a few hundred miles...that should "open it up" sufficiently...

C'mon, now. First, you'd probably have to do it on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Second, they probably don't make a trailer hitch for the Honda Element.

[Cheryl Watson]

Simply put, I have two and they work for me.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

I suggest everybody seriously interested in this subject read the book by Prof. G. A. Reumont. (The link I used to have doesn't seem to work anymore, sorry; I'll have to look it up again.)

[DHopkins]

I suggest everybody seriously interested in this subject read the book by Prof. G. A. Reumont. (The link I used to have doesn't seem to work anymore, sorry; I'll have to look it up again.)

The book you suggested is out of print.

[David Lewis]

My view is if it works for you, it works. If you were considering giving your mandolin the treatment, I wouldn't argue against it, as it doesn't seem to hurt the instrument. The subconcious is powerful, and it may be that there is no real difference. (I'm not stating that as fact - just as hypothesis). If there is no difference, but you perceive one, then there's a vital difference. (I know this is a logical fallacy. Tone is a logical rabbit hole of objectivity wrapped in subjectivity pretending to be science). If it works, it works.

[Paul Kotapish]

Purely anecdotal response: I've tried the ToneRite on a guitar and a mandolin, and my perception was that it improved volume and sustain, particularly on the guitar. But since perception is pretty much the only thing I have to go on, I'd say they work for me.

This reminds me a bit of an ongoing squabble I had with a sound engineer years ago. When I'd complain that the sound seemed harsh and thin, he'd show me board and the equalizers and point out that the EQ was flat, so it was "accurate." I'd argue that I didn't want it to sound accurate, I wanted it to sound good. We never got too far resolving that one.

[foldedpath]

Purely anecdotal response: I've tried the ToneRite on a guitar and a mandolin, and my perception was that it improved volume and sustain, particularly on the guitar. But since perception is pretty much the only thing I have to go on, I'd say they work for me.

This reminds me a bit of an ongoing squabble I had with a sound engineer years ago. When I'd complain that the sound seemed harsh and thin, he'd show me board and the equalizers and point out that the EQ was flat, so it was "accurate." I'd argue that I didn't want it to sound accurate, I wanted it to sound good. We never got too far resolving that one.

I get the PA story because I've been there too, and a PA is subject to all sorts of non-linear effects from gear and room acoustics that make "good sound" a moving target. But subjective experience only goes so far,

I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been in a band where someone tuned up according to some arcane theory about tuning forks, cross-fret unison notes, and "how it sounds in-tune to me." And then you put a digital tuner on their instrument and it's clearly out of tune, at least for anyone else aiming for 12TET tuning.

The human ear can be fooled very easily, especially when it wants to be fooled to satisfy confirmation bias. Our brains are not perfect tape recorders that can remember what something sounds like even a few minutes or hours ago. Memory is fragile, and subject to bias. Which is why claims like this need to be supported by actual, repeatable evidence.

[Hendrik Ahrend]

In case this has not been pointed out, FYI:https://www.researchgate.net/publica...act_or_Fiction

[sblock]

Here we go again. Interested parties should download and read this article, which appeared in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of musical acoustics.

[DHopkins]

Here we go again. Interested parties should download and read this article, which appeared in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of musical acoustics.

All that technical crap notwithstanding, there's nothing in there that says, "Gee, I think that sounds better," a quality that only the human ear can detect. The math is objective. The sound is subjective.

[Stephen Perry]

Vibration treatment was rather faint in amplitude. I can easily hear the wakeup from extreme vibration (WalMart mega vibrator). This does fade, perhaps all the way, but I suspect not on very new instruments. Regardless, have to look at studies. Impulse from their vibrator produced 100 times less amplitude than strumming (whatever that amplitude is measuring) whereas WalMart vibrator was continuous monster chop!

[Kevin Stueve]

.... A tight new mando developed great amplitude control and full power clarity in under a week, as itwas tight and stuffy when tuned up after transport.

Amplitude control and power clarity? is that before or after you adjusted the flux capacitor?

[foldedpath]

Amplitude control and power clarity? is that before or after you adjusted the flux capacitor?

You need the flux capacitor for power, but the heavy lifting is done with the Infinite Improbability Drive. You reach every conceivable point in every conceivable universe simultaneously, including the one where a mandolin "sounds better" than one you have in your hands.

Just remember that... "Side effects of using the Infinite Improbability Drive include temporary (and sometimes permanent,) changes to environment and morphological structure, hallucinations, and the calling into being of large marine mammals."

[Bertram Henze]

the heavy lifting is done with the Infinite Improbability Drive.

Now we're talking sense. Another factor could come in with the bistromathic drive, using the fact that the numbers of strings, players or pints of Guinnes are undetermined in Irish pubs...

[David Lewis]

Now we're talking sense. Another factor could come in with the bistromathic drive, using the fact that the numbers of strings, players or pints of Guinnes are undetermined in Irish pubs...

The trick with the bistromatic is to make sure you confirm all the bookings - otherwise the wrong number turning up will be wrong. And that number needs to be wrong or the drive will never be right.

[sblock]

All that technical crap notwithstanding, there's nothing in there that says, "Gee, I think that sounds better," a quality that only the human ear can detect. The math is objective. The sound is subjective.

Huh? Did you actually bother to read the article before issuing your objection? In addition to measuring the acoustic spectra before and after ToneRite treatment (what you dismissed as "technical crap"), these authors also sought the subjective opinion of

"9 accomplished guitar players, with an average of 24 years of playing experience. Included in this group were advanced amateur, semi-professional and professional guitarists, guitar salespersons, guitar technicians, contributors to popular guitar literature, and players that evaluated guitars as part of their professional duties. The players were asked to evaluate each guitar on five metrics: volume, sustain, warmth, brightness and clarity on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 corresponding to the highest value. These are somewhat subjective terms, reflecting the difficulty in describing and quantifying the concept of guitar tone, but reflective of the qualities that aging and opening up are purported to change in guitars." (I'm quoting directly from page 3 of the report; I'm guessing that you didn't get that far!)

So, it should be clear to you that the authors of this study performed BOTH an objective AND a subjective evaluation of the guitars, before and after ToneRite treatment. When you wrote "there is nothing (sic) in there that says 'Gee, I think that sounds better'," you were factually inaccurate. In music and in life, the truth matters. Of course, I have no idea whether you were simply ignorant of the facts or were deliberately misrepresenting them. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though, and simply recommend that you read the full article.

[allenhopkins]

I'll stick to the Sheewash Drive. I've always had a thing for Goth and the Leewit.

[Kevin Stueve]

I'll stick to the Sheewash Drive. I've always had a thing for Goth and the Leewit.

I can't believe, I haven't encountered this Story line before, especially given the authors that have written novels in it.

[DHopkins]

sblock, I understand the gist of the article. Please understand the last part of mine: "The sound is subjective." That's why, to me, your Gibson mandolin may sound better than mine even though one was produced right after the other. On the other hand, someone listening to the same two instruments may have differing opinions and nobody is wrong.

I think what it boils down to is, if you think it works, it works.

[sblock]

sblock, I understand the gist of the article. Please understand the last part of mine: "The sound is subjective." That's why, to me, your Gibson mandolin may sound better than mine even though one was produced right after the other. On the other hand, someone listening to the same two instruments may have differing opinions and nobody is wrong.

I think what it boils down to is, if you think it works, it works.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess, as a scientist, I cannot bring myself to agree with a comment along the lines of "if you think it works, it works." Of course, if you happen to define "working" to mean increasing your personal level of satisfaction, then this statement becomes true. But in that case, it's a complete tautology, and the conclusion follows directly from your definition! You have not succeeded in doing anything but making a circular definition. And of course, we all concede that musical taste -- like all matters of taste! -- is something subjective.

I would argue that there exist better and lesser musical instruments, and that there is some general subjective sense, among the community of mandolin players, about what actually constitutes a better or a worse sound. This is on average, of course: certainly, you will find plenty of examples of individuals whose personal tastes differ from average. That said, we all know that there are certain luthiers whose instruments routinely fetch high prices, precisely because these makers seem to have captured in their products more of what most mandolinists currently agree is a "better" sound, subjectively speaking.

All of which leads me to assert that some mandolins "work" better than others, and that there really exists a collective sense of subjective value in musical instruments, independent of any given listener. Of course, that collective sense may change slowly over time, so the sonic qualities that we value most highly today might not be valued so highly at some future date. But none of that contradicts the fact that there are perceived to be better and worse mandolins in the community.

Therefore, it is NOT really a matter of whether the ToneRite makes you, the owner, somehow believe that your treated instrument sounds subjectively better. You may be right about that; you may be wrong. What really matters is whether the instrument sounds subjectively better to other mandolin players, on average (players who don't know if it's been treated), and whether any supposed improvements in the sound can therefore be chalked up specifically to the ToneRite treatment, or merely to a placebo effect. Unfortunately, your own opinion is more-or-less meaningless when it comes to answering the question about whether a ToneRite "works." I hope that you can understand why that is.

This is not a question you can possibly address by reducing everything to a simplistic "if you think it works, it works" conclusion. Because that is NOT how things really work! There do, in fact, exist better instruments and worse instruments. The question before us is whether the ToneRite can make a worse instrument sound better. It's not whether we can fool ourselves -- which of course we can!! All-too easily, in fact.

[DHopkins]

This is not a question you can possibly address by reducing everything to a simplistic "if you think it works, it works" conclusion. Because that is NOT how things really work! [/I]

From an empirical point of view, I'm not sure that's not true. If the instrument doesn't sound right to me and I make adjustments (using the ToneRite or whatever) and then I think it sounds the way I want it to sound, then it worked, whether the improvement is a figment of my imagination or an actual improvement. To me it worked because, as that wise man said earlier, it subjective.

[sblock]

From an empirical point of view, I'm not sure that's not true. If the instrument doesn't sound right to me and I make adjustments (using the ToneRite or whatever) and then I think it sounds the way I want it to sound, then it worked, whether the improvement is a figment of my imagination or an actual improvement. To me it worked because, as that wise man said earlier, it subjective.

Yes, because -- as I explained earlier -- you're just engaging in a tautology! You simply define "working" as meaning some kind of improvement that you, yourself, perceive. And because you perceive an improvement, you declare that it "works." But that kind of circular logic is completely meaningless (that is, a logical fallacy). It follows from the way you set things up.

"Working" also has a different meaning: one defined outside of your personal experience. To give you an example: when a mechanic repairs my broken car so that it now runs, I say that the repair "worked." It worked not only because I think that it does, but also because objective and subjective data outside of my personal experience attest to it! The car now moves (objective), and my friends can experience the pleasure of my driving them to festivals again (subjective).

If you want to claim that a ToneRite "works" in the true sense of this word, then you'd need to supply objective or subjective data outside a set of personal experiences. Simply believing that something works does not make it actually work! You would need to show, for example, that mandolin listeners could consistently tell that there was a subjective improvement without knowing whether a given instrument had been treated or not.

In a phrase, self-delusion can produce personal satisfaction, but it does not equate to proof of success.

[DHopkins]

I'm quitting. This is going nowhere. If I ever visit Redwood City, we'll pick it up again.

[Stephen Perry]

sblock is quite on point here.

I built a tone right type thingie, but stronger. It may well have done something, but not so strong that I could tell. A little imbalanced electric motor.

What did work wonderfully was that WalMart megavibrator. On the other hand, it would sometimes open seams on fiddles! I mainly used it to warm up fiddles prior to testers coming, get that first few minutes to the wakeup done early. This was really intense vibration, through mouse pads. Usually on the bridge. Vibrating the daylights out of the back didn't seem to do much at all!

Even with obvious effectiveness, the approach was simply too annoying and didn't buy all that much, and only for a bit.

I suspect there's a threshold below which changes either don't occur or can't be detected. And it's by no means night and day!