Re: Another tuning question

Brian Running <brunning@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If it's incorrect, it's odd that there are an awful lot of
knowledgeable people out there who are using that analogy. Here's
another example:

"The general shape of the amplitude of the vibrating string is a
shallow curve that begins at one end of the string, is a maximum at
the string's mid-span, and ends at the other end of the string,
with the amplitude diminishing over time (decay). Thus, there is no
displacement of the string at the nut or saddle, and there is a
maximum displacement at the 12th fret. To accommodate the amplitude
of the vibrating string, there are two options: either raise the
height of the strings (the "action") sufficiently that the bottom
of the vibrating strings do not touch the tops of the frets, or
make the top of successive frets assume the shape of the vibrating
string. The string height can be minimized by doing the latter,
which reduces the distance that the strings must be depressed for
fretting. This, in turn, makes the guitar easier to play."

Note that he doesn't say that the curve of the neck relief matches the
arc of the string. Obviously, it's the string's displacement that
necessitates neck relief, you know darned well I never said otherwise.

See below....

"You need to have a small bit of relief or clearance in the middle of
the fingerboard so that a vibrating string has ample clearance to
vibrate freely and naturally. This is achieved by adjusting the truss
rod."

Well, no kidding, Rich -- did you see me say anywhere that there's no
need for relief in the neck? Good grief.

You obfuscated the issue of why relief was needed in the neck with your
example of plucking a string really hard and watching the vibration "as
large as 1/4 inch". The clear implication was that the amplitude of
string vibration had nothing to do with the need for relief. Never mind
that as far as the up-and-down motion of the strings are concerned, in
your example the actual *hitting of frets* by the string is what imposes
limits on that up-and-down motion, i.e., that the relief profile is what
constrains the up-and-down motion.

Now that I've posted material that supports the *obvious* connection
between the shape of the vibrating string and neck relief, you once more
shift goalposts, claiming that I said the relief must "match" the arc of
the string. What I said (and later clarified what I meant) was that the
relief roughly "follows" the shape. You also conveniently ignored the
sentence in the link I cited that said you "make the top of successive
frets assume the shape of the vibrating string." Apparently his use of
"assume" is acceptable, whereas my use of "follow" is not, even after I
clarified by saying "No, it doesn't match precisely the vibrating
string. That was a visual image, not an exact guideline."

The fact of the matter is that the up-and-down component of string
vibration has *everything* to do with relief, despite your prior
insinuations to the contrary.

Look, I appreciate that this may be reducing to semantics, and it
may be a result of the difference between how a technically-oriented
person approaches things in comparison with a
non-technically-oriented person. So I'm not going to belabor the
point any longer.

That is a pure cop-out, and we call that "Duncanizing" an argument,
here in a.g.b. The fact that you are not technically-oriented has no
bearing on the facts here. There's nothing about this that's so
technical that you can't understand it, Rich.

I offer a general, conciliatory gesture and you come back with yet
another in a series of irrelevant, ad-hominem attacks.

"I've been playing longer than you" (wrong)

"You're not even a real bass player" (wrong)

"After you ... have learned the facts, get back to me." (demeaning)

"The fact that you are not technically-oriented has no bearing on the
facts here. There's nothing about this that's so technical that you
can't understand it" (so far away from the truth it's laughable).

Tell you what Brian: next time I and the other Ph. D. physicists and
engineers that I work with are faced with a difficult problem, we'll
just call an attorney and see how far that gets us.

I am capable of understanding *any* technical argument that you are
capable of constructing and throwing at me. Either trust me on this or
try me on something (absent the ad-hominem stuff and the emotional
hysteria).

I can post 25 more pictures like the one I posted (which you
conveniently refused to comment on) that show the neck relief following,
*to a reasonable approximation*, the up-and-down amplitude of the string
vibration *over a significant portion of the neck*, or post detailed
text from Erlewine's books that supports the gist of what I was saying,
and rather than address the content you'll just continue to repeat
unsubstantiated assertions, and, more to the point, further insult Gerry
and me. You seem to think that if you just throw your weight around and
ridicule those who differ from you, you win.

You may or not be an ***; I can't say since I've never met you. But
you've been acting like one throughout this thread.

For some reason, which I can't fathom, you seem to have had it out for
me almost from the moment I started posting to AGB. The only possible
explanation that I can think of is that *once*, way back when, I made a
wisecrack about lawyers that you took offense with, and I apologized for
that.

I don't get it, Brian.


.