Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:47 am
Rocktacular96 wrote:I decided to post again in this thread for a few reasons;
1.) Hurry up with this!
2.) I made a mistake in an earlier post about the block in the Tribute DF bridge. It is brass, not zinc. Pretty sure the DF bridges on the Tributes and USA models are the same exact thing except the saddles, and I'm not 100% sure about the saddles. The tributes might have zinc saddles.
3.) For those who can't wait for G&L steel saddles, GFS sells steel ones that work. I installed them on my 1993 Legacy, and they work great. Just the difference in tone I would expect from going from brass to steel in other guitars. Steel is harder sounding, more of a "ping" to it, punchier, a little brighter, louder. Brass is softer, richer mids, and nice bloom. I will still buy the G&L saddles whenever they are available and replace the GFS ones.
There's no option available to us for a steel block at the moment. Not unless you're willing to convince Callaham to make you one, and also willing to spend a fortune.
4.) HURRY UP WITH THIS!
Thu Jul 12, 2012 2:56 am
Thu Jul 12, 2012 3:58 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean by "flat response", but that's not how I would describe the sound of brass when it comes to saddles or blocks. The mids are more full and richer than steel. It's not as loud as steel. I don't notice a huge difference in sustain between the two.
Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:03 pm
louis cyfer wrote:flat response is how it affects the sound of the string. it lacks the hi mid peak of steal, which is where our ears are sensitive at, so the steel sounds brighter and louder. on brass the mids are not fuller, rather the steel has the higher frequency peak, so in comparison, because of the lack of that resonant peak, you hear the mids fuller on brass. what you hear and what actually happens are 2 different things.
Sun Jul 15, 2012 1:32 am
Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:flat response is how it affects the sound of the string. it lacks the hi mid peak of steal, which is where our ears are sensitive at, so the steel sounds brighter and louder. on brass the mids are not fuller, rather the steel has the higher frequency peak, so in comparison, because of the lack of that resonant peak, you hear the mids fuller on brass. what you hear and what actually happens are 2 different things.
Maybe. But what you hear is the only thing that's important when trying to explain to people what the difference are. It wouldn't be much help to those trying to decide which they would prefer, if you don't explain what you hear as the differences.
Besides. Have you ever struck a bell? Tapped on a piece of brass? Nothing flat about it.
Sun Jul 15, 2012 10:03 am
Sun Jul 15, 2012 2:30 pm
louis cyfer wrote:
brass is more of a flat response, steel has a resonant peak in the upper mids. brass also doesn't vibrate as well, hence less sustain.
Sun Jul 15, 2012 3:22 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:27 pm
Elwood wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .
Elwood
Mon Jul 16, 2012 1:50 pm
Elwood wrote:louis cyfer wrote:
brass is more of a flat response, steel has a resonant peak in the upper mids. brass also doesn't vibrate as well, hence less sustain.
I think the relative comparison of response curves louis might have been pointing out was somehow
obscured or interpreted as describing brass as having a completely flat response curve in the range of frequencies
that guitar strings produce.
The term "flatter" would have been another way to convey the fact that steel has higher peaks in it's
response curve under identical conditions.
Sustain is a whole 'nother ball of wax (generally not good for sustain ).
I think sustaining the original sine wave from the string is often confused with
re-introduced reflected waves from the saddle/bridge/body/neck/fret/finger chain of mass.
I see it as a dry/wet signal sort of thing ; the dry being the original uncolored string vibrations , the wet being the colored
reflected ones determined by the materials. of course these reflections will more likely than not be out of phase.
That will still contribute to the sustain but it will sound different . Easy to see how it's not always easy to reproduce tones across different guitars considering all the variables factoring in.
Graphs might help.
I guess I'm trying to say there is alot of grey and colored areas that make it hard to discuss if things are generalized too much.
Elwood
Mon Jul 16, 2012 2:01 pm
louis cyfer wrote:Elwood wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .
Elwood
indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.
Mon Jul 16, 2012 3:53 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:Elwood wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .
Elwood
indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.
I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.
And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.
Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.
Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:28 pm
louis cyfer wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:Elwood wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .
Elwood
indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.
I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.
And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.
Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.
go back to school, learn some physics, and we can talk again. if you think there is no way to test the frequency response of different bridge materials as regarding to guitar, i don't know where we could even begin.
Mon Jul 16, 2012 6:19 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:Elwood wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote: Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed.
...but a flat response means an uncolored transfer of energy, the final result is not "sounding flat" .
Elwood
indeed. i think a fundamental misunderstanding of what flat response means. like a flat speaker means an accurate reproduction, not at all a boring bland etc. i think the idea that flat has a negative meaning to it somehow was introduced, i am not sure how. after all the guitar is not a carbonated beverage.
I'm not misunderstanding what you mean by flat response. You are now trying to say that flat means a flatter eq curve. Brass does not accurately reproduce anything. Any material you use as a block will impart its own sound. Including brass. There's a reason it's been used on bells and many musical instruments. I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve. Steel having more in the highs and lows, and brass having more spread out throughout the entire mid range.
And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded. There's no way to even test that. What would be the standard? There's no point in even bringing it up. Especially when actually listening to the difference in sound when doing the comparison many times does not suggest that. It suggests just what I've been saying. Brass has a softer response, has more bloom, is more filled out in the entire mid range, and richer sounding. Steel has more highs and lows, has more PING, is harder sounding, punchier, louder.
Everything else you're saying doesn't make much sense, and is only showing that you probably don't have much experience comparing the materials. There's no reason to try and over-complicate this. My description is spot on.
go back to school, learn some physics, and we can talk again. if you think there is no way to test the frequency response of different bridge materials as regarding to guitar, i don't know where we could even begin.
Thank you for the advise, even though it is a straw man argument. My advise to you would be to actually have experience with what you're talking about, instead of preaching some pseudoscience you've read on the internet. In other words, please don't waste everyone's time unless you have first hand experience.
There's enough nonsense on the internet.
Tue Jul 17, 2012 12:26 pm
Tue Jul 17, 2012 1:36 pm
Tue Jul 17, 2012 2:06 pm
Tue Jul 17, 2012 5:36 pm
meowmix wrote:On another note.
My mountain bike has a bell. Before purchasing, I compared both the steel and the brass types. Brass was much easier on my ears.
Wed Jul 18, 2012 7:53 am
louis cyfer wrote:i do. it's not pseudoscience and i did not read it on the internet. get a spectrum analyzer and you can do it yourself.
Wed Jul 18, 2012 8:01 am
meowmix wrote:I have a titanium block and saddles. Never installed it.
How does that compare?
Wed Jul 18, 2012 12:09 pm
Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:41 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:Titanium is like Steel Plus. Think of the difference from brass to steel. Titanium is more of that, basically. It shares some tonal properties of Aluminum, as well. Very hard and cutting. Very tight response.
Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:51 pm
Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:07 pm
Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:16 pm
Lefty wrote:
Thank you for getting a brass bell for your mountain bike. When I'm out walking a trail, i really appreciate that some bikers announce their presence with a bell rather than just yelling a startling "Look out behind you" or some other nonsense.
Wed Jul 18, 2012 5:33 pm
meowmix wrote:I was reading somewhere on the web. John Shur said something along the lines of having dog ears to tell the difference between titanium and steel. Think Brian Wilson. Do you really need to spend that much time in the studio to get it right? Woof!
I passed on installing the titanium block.
Here is the weight of the Titanium Block
And Weight of Titanium Saddles
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:29 am
Rocktacular96 wrote:It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:50 am
meowmix wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.
If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:13 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:meowmix wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.
If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?
That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.
Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.
Thu Jul 19, 2012 8:37 pm
louis cyfer wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:meowmix wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.
If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?
That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.
Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.
i have lots of experience with brass and steel. also understanding human hearing. don't have much experience with zinc, titanium or aluminum saddles and blocks. i have tried them, but not enough comparisons to be able to really understand the differences. as far as continuing a discussion with someone who does not understand rudimentary physics of sound, or what the advantage of using a spectrum analyzer is vs. just relying on the memory of the sound in the same guitar, it is entirely pointless.
Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:29 pm
Rocktacular96 wrote:louis cyfer wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:meowmix wrote:Rocktacular96 wrote:It's splitting hairs. Definitely not worth the price. Not to me. I never would have even tried it, if not for the fact that there's a local guy who makes blocks for me and made me a couple Titanium blocks for dirt cheap.
If you can get them so cheap, why not send one to Louis to try out?
That might prove to be rather pointless. He'd probably be more content in not trying it and arguing with those who have.
Besides, the local guy doesn't want to deal with titanium anymore. Something about the tooling involved. And my titanuim blocks are for Floyd Roses. I like brass and steel just fine. I have no interest getting any more titanium blocks, or saddles for that matter, so I don't care.
i have lots of experience with brass and steel. also understanding human hearing. don't have much experience with zinc, titanium or aluminum saddles and blocks. i have tried them, but not enough comparisons to be able to really understand the differences. as far as continuing a discussion with someone who does not understand rudimentary physics of sound, or what the advantage of using a spectrum analyzer is vs. just relying on the memory of the sound in the same guitar, it is entirely pointless.
Louis. Stop it. Please. This is getting embarrassing for you. No, you DON'T have experience with brass and steel blocks in G&Ls. Stop implying that you do. I understand rudimentary physics a lot better than you'll ever know. But please. Go on and enlighten us with your mastery of rudimentary physics of sound. Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up. For what purpose would someone who has no experience with the topic at hand (comparing the differences that Zinc, Steel, and Brass trem blocks make in G&Ls) be bringing up a damn spectrum analyzer?!
Seriously. What purpose? I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do. I know what they do and how to use them. But again,...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?
Go a head. Swap zinc, brass, and steel trem blocks in a G&L guitar and use a spectrum analyzer. Post your results. Then MAYBE you might be contributing SOMETHING worthwhile to this thread. Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story. You probably have no idea why, but that's fine. So yes, having lots of experience with this, doing the swaps MANY times, is way more valuable to others in this thread than some bozo with a spectrum analyzer. Of course, if the experienced person used a spectrum analyzer along with giving his first hand accounts, then that would be something worthwhile.
I also understand human hearing very well. Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG. You came into the thread replying to my perfectly good post that explained very well the differences for anyone interested, and attempted to correct me with nonsense to feel relevant or something. Stick to talking about things you actually know about. Or get ready to be called on it by those who do.
I don't think I would agree based on my experience, but I don't even know of a way to test that properly
I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do
(what does an eq curve have to do with compression?)Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed
I understand what he meant, and I still disagree. I didn't take it as a negative
Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG
Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story
Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?
I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve
And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded
Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:08 pm
Fri Jul 20, 2012 6:43 am
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:19 am
louis cyfer wrote:you are a liar. also have difficulty with basic comprehension.
I don't think I would agree based on my experience, but I don't even know of a way to test that properly
I know what a spectrum analyzer is. Probably way better than you do
louis cyfer wrote:????????
(what does an eq curve have to do with compression?)Flat usually refers to bland, boring, overly compressed
I understand what he meant, and I still disagree. I didn't take it as a negative
louis cyfer wrote:????????
Your statement that steel sounds just like brass but with more highs, is not only unfounded, but WRONG
louis cyfer wrote:where did i say this?
louis cyfer wrote:it's not about the sound brass makes. it's about how it effects the string on the guitar. a totally different issue. but from your response it is pretty obvious you have no idea what flat response refers to, so further discussion would be pretty useless.
understanding what our limited senses are perceiving, and what is actually happening is not a bad thing. what is perceived as more mid is often less low or high end, and what is perceived as less mid is more low or high end. understanding what is happening is a good thing.
Keeping in mind that a spectrum analyzer would NOT tell the whole story
louis cyfer wrote:i didn't say it did. i simply pointed out as a way to actually test the difference.
Using a spectrum analyzer was a stupid thing to even bring up...For what purpose did YOU bring it up?
louis cyfer wrote:it was an answer to this
I would argue that steel and brass both have peaks in their eq curve
louis cyfer wrote:indeed. flatter ( or more of a flat response) would mean those peaks are smaller.
And your statement that brass only sounds like it has more mids than steel because steel has a higher frequency peak, is unfounded
louis cyfer wrote:not exactly what i said, but whatever. if you take 2 things that have similar output in the mids, but one has more low and high end, the other one will sound to the human ear as if it had more mids. remember, amplitude of the frequencies is part of the curve, and can be compared when measured.
louis cyfer wrote:this has been a colossal misunderstanding. you had no idea (still don't) what i was saying, and went on a rant challenging something you misunderstood.
i don't have the patience to try to type slow enough for you to understand. i am out.
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:31 am
Elwood wrote:um..wow,
Do you make music rockyT ? I'm sorta curious what it must be like.
I know other discussion boards can be coarse and fleeting insults are no big deal,
that kind of communication stands out here ( like a hi-freq peak in a black granite bodied guitar ) .
Are the differences in saddle materials really worth burning the bridges of good communication
with members here?
Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:58 am
Rocktacular96 wrote:Elwood wrote:um..wow,
Do you make music rockyT ? I'm sorta curious what it must be like.
I know other discussion boards can be coarse and fleeting insults are no big deal,
that kind of communication stands out here ( like a hi-freq peak in a black granite bodied guitar ) .
Are the differences in saddle materials really worth burning the bridges of good communication
with members here?
I got personal? In what way? Was it after he told me to go back to school because I wasn't agreeing with his nonsense? Because that's possible.
Sorry. But I don't take lightly people speaking on topics that they have zero actual experience with, while also being a vague contrarian to those who actually do. If he has actual experience with what we're talking about, the conversation would have gone much differently, even if there were disagreements.
I like disagreements and discussions of differing points of view. That's how you learn. But when you're arguing with someone who has zero experience with what you're talking about, it gets ridiculous.
I'm not sure what my music has anything to do with this. For what purpose did you bring that up? And the differences in saddle materials has little to do with what happened here. This was not an argument over how we disagree on what these materials sound like. It was an argument over someone posting in this thread that should've have been. At least, not acting like he has experience when he doesn't. That's the point, and I've brought it up many times here for a reason. Why would Louis keep arguing nonsense here when he has ZERO EXPERIENCE with the issue at hand? I'm supposed to just say that he's entitled to his opinion and move on? No. You have a right to an opinion. You don't have a right to express an opinion based on no experience and not have someone call you on it. Otherwise, that's how nonsense spreads on music forums.
Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:32 am
I've got an opinion and ZERO scientific proof to base that opinion on - I'll stick with the brass saddles on all my G&L's.
This discussion has become boring!
Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:35 am
Sat Jul 21, 2012 7:32 am
willross wrote:I have an oscilloscope & could send it to whom ever wants to conduct a study, but I'd rather be making music. Many aspects of an instrument "color" it's sound output. He happy that you can recognize them. Let's give peace a chance...
Cheers,
Will