Tonerite questions

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck -- you seem to be acknowledging that your structural treatments cost something on the order of $300/instrument ($10/year times 30 years). In other words, you're willing to pay $300/instrument to make structural changes. That may be due to a problem with the instrument (e.g., a bridge lifting up) not covered by the warranty (you say you bought your GE used), but some of it seems to be due to a desire to make the instrument sound better.

Ed,

I never stop learning. When I bought the GE I was under the impression that Martin had finally decided to return to its roots and build them as they did in the thirties. Unfortunately, I discovered that again Martin was better at its marketing speech than being factual about what it was producing. The GE is not constructed like those of the "golden era". They got better with the Authentic D-18 but had to compensate the price for potential warrantee work.

I was not at all disappointed with the GE, but when the bridge lifted, I was motivated and so was John to do get as close as possible on an existing instrument.

As for your suggestion that "these subjective opinions are introduced by those that have something to gain," that clearly is not true for me, or Big Joe, or any of a number of others who have posted on this Board. I would agree that Teri's original (and subsequent) post(s) are, as she acknowledges, affected in part by the fact that she is selling the Tonerite. But I'm not; I'm a user, not a vendor. Big Joe has indicated that he's not likely to sell Tonerites any time soon; he too is a user, not a vendor.

I was not referring to you. Joe Vest said he had a relationship with those that make or distribute the product. His evaluation was not even close to evidence or a scientific yet their is a definite suggestion that something positive occurred and now he suggests that evidence exists. That's his prerogative to suggest, but I would not purchase the product based on his evaluations.

You say: "when a novice buys a new Martin D-18 and they are expecting it to sound like a pre war Martin the heard somewhere they become discouraged." But anybody who expects a new D-18 (which sells for, say, $2,000) to "sound like a pre war Martin" (that goes for, say, $15,000) is deluding him/herself. There's a reason why the GEs and Authentics sell for a significant price premium over the "basic" models.

The Authentic price reflects the potential cost of warrantee. This is directly from the owner, Mr. Martin. The GE reflects the use of materials and constructs, i.e. no "wings" and higher grade materials. However, I think you miss the point. A novice would not know what you and I know making their understanding not delusional, but more perhaps naive.

know that several people have offered to loan you a Tonerite so that you can do an evaluation on YOUR instruments. Obviously, you're not willing to do so. Asking people to loan you BOTH an instrument and a Tonerite seems to me to be asking for a bit much. And I have no idea what kind of "objective empirical evaluation" that you're proposing to make that differs from the (admittedly subjective) assessments that many others (such as Big Joe and I) have made.

If the offer is extended again, I will accept the offer. I have access to a 1970 D-35 that is rings like a brick. If the Tone Rite can improve the tone, I will gladly eat some crow for dinner.

[EdSherry]

Chuck -- Martin offers a warantee on ALL of its instruments to the original owner against "defects," so I'm a bit hard-pressed to understand why you believe that the price differential between a GE (or Authentic) and a "basic" D-18 is due to "compensat[ing] the price for potential warrantee work."

You also say that Big Joe's "evaluation was not even close to evidence or a scientific [sic] yet their is a definite suggestion that something positive occurred and now he suggests that evidence exists."

The "evidence" that Big Joe provided was his (admittedly subjective) evaluation of how a Tonerite treatment changed the tone/timbre/volume of the instruments he tested.

You may choose not to believe that evidence, and that's your prerogative, but to suggest that it's "not even close to evidence" strikes me as imposing a VERY high standard for what you are willing to accept as "evidence."

If you were an eyewitness [or earwitness] to something, your testimony about what you saw [heard] would constitute "evidence" in any court. A judge or jury may choose not to believe you, or to credit some other testimony instead, but that doesn't make your statements about what you saw/heard not "evidence."

You say you "would not purchase the [Tonerite] product based on his [Big Joe's] evaluations." That's clearly your prerogative. But that's not a basis for saying that there is no effect, or that it is "counterintuitive" that there could be an effect, or that there isn't "evidence" of an effect, or any of a number of the other statements you have previously made.

In an earlier post, you indicated that if you had a Tonerite, you would "attempt to make an objective empirical evaluation." You're now proposing to do that with a 1970s D-35. If all you're proposing to do is to treat the instrument and (subjectively) assess its tone/timbre/volume, that's at least a step forward.

But in what way would any test that you performed be more "objective" than the one performed by Big Joe (or me, or others)? In what way would any test that you performed be "scientific" if (as you seem to contend) Big Joe's testing was not?

[Rick Turner]

Chuck, that's a pretty damning statement you're making about Joe Vest. As a luthier, I find myself insulted for his sake by your dismissal of his thoughtful and very thorough empirical testing of the device on several instruments.

So now you want scientific evidence? Tell us just what kind of scientific test you'd propose, and perhaps someone here can set that up. Of course it would have to be truly scientific, which means that the instrument could not be played by human hands. What do you have in mind? Or was that just a catty remark to disparage Joe?

Joe's tests are pretty much what anybody reasonable would accept as evidence. Perhaps he even went farther.

Do you evaluate the instruments you choose by ear or science? How do you know that the "improvements" you've paid for actually work? Do you scientifically test your luthier's work?

This whole thing boils down to subjectivity, and some of us are better at that than others, and I think you'd find that among luthiers and players, there actually is a lot of agreement on what instruments sound good, and which sound even better. The science is way behind in this field, though there are some who are on the path.

I'll ask my friend Al Carruth about testing a ToneRite "scientifically". Al is a really fine guitar builder, traditionally trained, and yet he's also at the very forefront of "scientific" understanding of tone. Look him up. I've got a guitar ToneRite that I'll gladly send him. He could do before and after Chladni testing of a top to see what happens.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck -- Martin offers a warantee on ALL of its instruments to the original owner against "defects," so I'm a bit hard-pressed to understand why you believe that the price differential between a GE (or Authentic) and a "basic" D-18 is due to "compensat[ing] the price for potential warrantee work."

Ed,

This should explain, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7UtKDmtDu0 but if it does not, the Authentic lacks an adjustible truss rod and a "popsicle" brace.

You also say that Big Joe's "evaluation was not even close to evidence or a scientific [sic] yet their is a definite suggestion that something positive occurred and now he suggests that evidence exists." The "evidence" that Big Joe provided was his (admittedly subjective) evaluation of how a Tonerite treatment changed the tone/timbre/volume of the instruments he tested. You may choose not to believe that "evidence," and that's your prerogative, but to suggest that it's not "evidence" strikes me as imposing a VERY high standard for what is "evidence."

I may not choose to believe what Joe thinks he heard, but I am not ignoring evidence. There is nothing about his evaluations that can be considered anything other than opinion. If Joe had taken the time to document the changes with recordings we might not be having this discussion.

To use your court room analogy, a person is not convicted on the basis of what someone thought they heard or saw. It would be simple to tear his testimony apart based on a number of factors. There would have to be a recording or some other verifiable basis for proving something positive occurred as a result of using the device in question.

There is also the assumption that something positive occurred with Joe's evaluations. A set of measurable criteria would first need to be established prior to making recordings so that if something did change we would all agree that it fit the definition of positive.

[EdSherry]

Chuck: thanks for the link to Chris Martin's video. I hadn't been aware of that info. But I suspect that the bulk of the price differential is driven not so much by the cost of warranty work (though Chris clearly acknowledges that is some of it), so much as it is by the greater amount of effort and the higher-quality materials that goes into making a GE/Authentic relative to a "basic" D-18. [Also, Chris' comments apply to the Authentic, not the GE.]

You assert that "a person is not convicted on the basis of what someone thought they heard or saw." Oh, really? People are convicted all the time based on eyewitness testimony. Sometimes that testimony turns out to be mistaken. All people can do is report what they "thought they heard or saw."

The rules of evidence do not require that there be "a recording or some other verifiable basis" before testimony is accepted or relied on. An eyewitness is not a "recording" and eyewitness testimony is not "verifiable" in the sense you seem to be using the term. That's what cross-examination is for.

You contend that "It would be simple to tear [Big Joe's] testimony apart based on a number of factors." Such as? What "factors" do you believe would enable a cross-examiner to "tear apart" Big Joe's testimony, or would cause a reasonable jury to "tear apart" what Big Joe reported?

You contend that "There is nothing about his evaluations that can be considered anything other than opinion." I suspect that depends on what you mean by "opinion." He is reporting his (admittedly subjective) assessment of tone/timbre/volume which in turn is BASED on his empirical testing of a Tonerite, done by an individual who was an admitted skeptic who "ate crow" when he tested it. If you want to call that "opinion," it's a far cry from the sort of "opinion" that is untethered by empirical testing.

You are suggesting that "a set of measurable criteria would first need to be established prior to making recordings." Is that what you are proposing to do with your test of a Tonerite on the 1970s D-35 that you're proposing to conduct an "objective empirical test" on? Pray tell, what "set of measurable criteria" have you "established" that you believe "we would all agree [would] fit the definition of positive"?

Getting "recordings" to document "before-and-after" differences is a big task, as many folks have indicated. Picking or strumming an instrument in the usual way is difficult to replicate precisely, which is why people have been suggesting some sort of mechanical strummer to take the "human" element out of consideration. But in my experience, what people care about is how the instrument is played in a normal fashion, not some "mechanized strumming" sound.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, that's a pretty damning statement you're making about Joe Vest. As a luthier, I find myself insulted for his sake by your dismissal of his thoughtful and very thorough empirical testing of the device on several instruments.

Rick,

You should really stop taking this so personal. It an danged consumer product of heavens sake. It's like getting upset because someone likes Chevys over Fords. Just discuss the subject and ease up on the ego for a while. Both you and Joe have made personal comments about me and you don't see me whining about it do you?

For an evaluation to be done which would yield usable data you would first need to establish a definition for an opened up instrument using tonal qualities and perhaps volume, headroom, etc. Next you would need to develop a capacity for measuring any changes using recordings.

The problem with Joe's evaluations is he did not set up any criteria nor did he give him self a way to measure any possible changes. In my opinion he proved nothing except to himself. He certainly did not establish any evidence. This is his fault not mine. This is also nothing disrespectful toward him. I like Joe and I am sure I would like you, but facts are facts. I don't believe people because they happen to be nice. They must furnish a reason or evidence. This is exactly what Brian Kimsey did and why I trust his work.

[Chuck Naill]

You are suggesting that "a set of measurable criteria would first need to be established prior to making recordings." Is that what you are proposing to do with your test of a Tonerite on the 1970s D-35 you're proposing to conduct an "objective empirical test" on? Pray tell, what "set of measurable criteria" have you "established" that you believe "we would all agree [would] fit the definition of positive"?

There would have to be consensus established on what an open instrument consists of tonally. One person cannot do that as I discovered when Paul explained that not everyone considers a pre war Martin as the benchmark as I do. We would have to agree on several measurements.

There would have to be a way to measure the results. Perhaps some recording would suffice.

etting "recordings" to document "before-and-after" differences is a big task, as many folks have indicated. Picking or strumming an instrument in the usual way is difficult to replicate precisely, which is why people have been suggesting some sort of mechanical strummer to take the "human" element out of consideration. But in my experience, what people care about is how the instrument is played in a normal fashion, not some "mechanized strumming" sound.

Yes, research is work but at the end of the day you have something useable that is not just somebody's opinion. As I wrote in reply to Rick, Brian Kimsey has documented his work with before and after recordings. I have also played instruments that he has worked on and what I note is increased sustain and projection which translates into being able to pick lightly and still be heard.

[EdSherry]

Chuck: if you're right that there is no "consensus" way to set up "objective criteria" or "measurements" that everyone agrees would constitute a way to measure what constitues an "improvement," then IMHO your proposed "objective empirical test" will be no more "objective" than Big Joe's.

If you conduct a test on a particular instrument, it might persuade YOU individually in a way that Big Joe's reporting of his results has not -- a kind of "I tried and I think it worked, at least on this particular instrument" approach. How is that any more "scientific" or "objective" or "evidence" than what Big Joe reported?

As for your response to Rick, I don't want to put words into Rick's mouth, but I had the same reaction he did: namely, that your claiming that Big Joe's detailed reporting of what he found was "not even close to evidence" was an insult to Big Joe.

As for your "Ford vs. Chevy" analogy: there are objective criteria for comparing certain aspects of automobiles and their performance (e.g., horsepower, acceleration, braking, legroom, trunk space). There are other aspects (such as "handling" or "comfort" or "ease of use" of things like dashboard layout) that are more difficult to measure "objectively". But the auto magazines spend a lot of time and devote a lot of space to reporting their evaluations of such matters. The more you insist that any evaluation has to have "measurable" criteria that have to be "objective" and "scientific," the less attention one pays to such difficulty-to-quantify but clearly-important matters.

Big Joe didn't simply report an "opinion" of the form "I like it." He described in detail what he was hearing in terms of tone/timbre/volume as the test went along. That's a far cry from saying "I like Fords" or "I like Chevys." Again, you are free to discount what Big Joe reported; but that doesn't make it "not even close to evidence" or barefaced "opinion" not backed up by empirical investigation.

[Rick Turner]

Chuck, I do not take this personally other than to suggest that you are blowing smoke up everyones' shorts here.

You still, post after post, will not answer some basic questions, so here goes, and please answer.

1) Do you believe that instruments change in tone, volume, and/or responsiveness over time?

2) If you say "yes" to the above, do you think it is possible or probable that some of those changes happen from string vibration?

If you're not willing to go on record with the above, you're simply a hopeless case and there's absolutely no sense for any of us to continue in dialog with you on this subject.

There are a number of guitarists on other forums who steadfastly refuse to believe that guitars change at all with age. I just want to know if you're in that camp with regard to mandolins.

As for the Martin Authentics, I have had the pleasure of playing a D-18 Authentic at the Martin factory, and then having lunch with Chris, Dick Boak, Tim Teel (in R&D and who had a lot to do with these). Tim believes that the use of very original materials...Honduras mahogany, ebony 'board, "Adirondack" Red spruce, and particularly hot hide glue...in addition to "pre war" specs on thickness and brace carving...are what make these guitars good. And that D-18 was indeed one of the four or five best dreads I ever played...of any age. Killer guitar, would love to own it. Don't care if it needs a reset in a few years. Wouldn't care if the bridge pulled off. Fix it and play it. Oh, and give it a ToneRite treatment!

Martin is pulled by the issue of having the most liberal warranty of any major guitar company. I know. I used to do Martin warranty service, and in 1990 did some Martin-paid-for work on a '53 000-18 owned by the original buyer. Of course it needed a lot of non-warranty work, too!

But Chuck, you keep squirreling away from a key issue as stated above. Do you or do you not believe in A) the opening up phenomenon, and/or B) the "going to sleep and waking up" theory?

A simple yes or no to A and B will suffice, thank you...

[Keith Newell]

See Joe, this is why I stopped posting on this topic. It's like if you brewed beer and every one of your hundreds of friends liked it and wanted to buy it. But, you have a few friends jealous of your success that never have brewed beer and probably prefer wine but hang out with the beer guys just so they have someone to talk to about something. They know that you are successful for a reason but they have no experience in brewing, tasting or the technical lingo of the craft so they want scientific evidence that your beer is better, meanwhile everyone around them at the party is having a good time and is willing to enlighten them, they still wear the sour face and talk because that's why they are there...to talk for talks sake.
Keith Newell
(make an appointment for the next batch of mandolins, rent a room and come by once a day for a week and see for yourself...it's your money. In fact I will supply the beer

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, I do not take this personally other than to suggest that you are blowing smoke up everyones' shorts here.

And your're being critical of me for being disrespectful.

You still, post after post, will not answer some basic questions, so here goes, and please answer.

1) Do you believe that instruments change in tone, volume, and/or responsiveness over time?

2) If you say "yes" to the above, do you think it is possible or probable that some of those changes happen from string vibration?

I answered this before, but I will oblige. I do not believe that instruments change over time from my experience.

As for the Martin Authentics, I have had the pleasure of playing a D-18 Authentic at the Martin factory, and then having lunch with Chris, Dick Boak, Tim Teel (in R&D and who had a lot to do with these). Tim believes that the use of very original materials...Honduras mahogany, ebony 'board, "Adirondack" Red spruce, and particularly hot hide glue...in addition to "pre war" specs on thickness and brace carving...are what make these guitars good. And that D-18 was indeed one of the four or five best dreads I ever played...of any age. Killer guitar, would love to own it. Don't care if it needs a reset in a few years. Wouldn't care if the bridge pulled off. Fix it and play it. Oh, and give it a ToneRite treatment!

Why would you give it a Tone Rite treatment. I find this incredible.

The GE and Authentic are sourced with the same materials. Rick! So why the difference in your mind.

Have you researched the difference between the GE and Authentic. Both are plain jane mahogony/red spruce guitars. Look inside at the amount and size of the braces for the answer. Also, the Authentic is not truly authentic. Listen to the video link for what Mr. Martin said regarding how possible repairs dictated the price. I am not worried about repairs either, but I have easy access to a world class luthier. Most do not.

But Chuck, you keep squirreling away from a key issue as stated above. Do you or do you not believe in A) the opening up phenomenon, and/or B) the "going to sleep and waking up" theory?

A simple yes or no to A and B will suffice, thank you...

Please give the condescending retoric a break Rick.

I do not believe in the opening up theory. From what I read this theory assumes that at some point in time a positive transition occurs irrespective of strings and set up, but with the wood itself. I will allow this, if it does occur, I do not think it is significant enough that a player will become satisfied with the guitar if they were not initially.

Additionally, I do not think there is a consensus of what "opening up" means. I started a thread here and the definitions were not consistent.

My definition of an open instrument are ones that resonate noticeably, project regardless of effort, have sustain, notes are fat both trebles and bass, not metallic but woody, bright sounding regardless of wood. They have a striking brilliance causing them to stand out in a crowd of other products. In my mind, a Tone Rite, fossilized bridge pins, Cumberland Acoustic bridges, ivory nuts, new strings, cannot produce these results. In my opinion the genius is in the hands of the luthiers and the qualities of the wood they decide to use.

[Chuck Naill]

Or it could be that they like beer, have made beer, and just don't like yours. It's best not to assume.

I have noticed that some think because they are builders they just know more. Their posts are condescending at best. These are folks with long waiting lists I suppose who do not need to be concerned by how they speak in public.

[Ted Eschliman]

Enough flaming and personal sparring. Time to put this thread to bed.
As you were.