The peak hold controls in REW don't seem to do what I'd expect.
I don't know REW well enough to tell you what settings would or could duplicate what I did with Smaart.
I dont know if there are such settings as well. Was hoping Joe could duplicate your recording frequency content analysis in REW, which he has. Nothing like seeing for yourself and having the skill to do that analysis again with future material.
Forgot I'd last seen David Byrne do it 50 years ago at the end of "Psycho Killer" in the "Stop Making Sense" movie.
David had to lean down towards a floor monitor to get the feedback started.
I've seen and heard it happen unintentionally with amplified acoustic guitars too many times to count.
You trickster! Here I am clicking on the play button to see him do it - until I read "screenshot". Got me!
Thanks much Art - I can't compete with Mark Knopfler and Emmylou Harris, especially when they have a guitar, bass guitar, vocals and who knows what other instruments, but it does lead me to wonder how my guitar could fit into a similar situation.
The feedback ending was just for fun, I have already removed it. I do like the very end to show what this guitar can do vs. a standard guitar, if one wants to get a little crazy.
I am surprised that the 82 Hz is not stronger in your data, it is very strong in many of my REW recordings. You mention, and I can see, the second harmonic at 164 Hz. I know it sounds good, but would like your opinion of how effective this second harmonic is, thoughts?
The with and without horns clearly boosting the low mids is great in my opinion, I really love low mids on a guitar, sweet spot, thoughts?
My singing voice sucks, so good to have a talking voice that records well. I was always a little worried about recoding voice and guitar, they pretty much need to stay at the same level for this type of video. I assure you my voice would be wildly diminished by this guitar with horns cranking live, recording level issue I believe.
I want to go back to the studio one last time and redo the ending with one take as you mention. More powerful chords to show the real difference, it is not captured, plus with my Taylor as you mention, maybe outside also. I just can't put this on YouTube without a better comparison, it is there live, I know that for sure. Any other suggestions you have for recording would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
The feedback ending was just for fun, I have already removed it. I do like the very end to show what this guitar can do vs. a standard guitar, if one wants to get a little crazy.
I am surprised that the 82 Hz is not stronger in your data, it is very strong in many of my REW recordings. You mention, and I can see, the second harmonic at 164 Hz. I know it sounds good, but would like your opinion of how effective this second harmonic is, thoughts?
The with and without horns clearly boosting the low mids is great in my opinion, I really love low mids on a guitar, sweet spot, thoughts?
My singing voice sucks, so good to have a talking voice that records well. I was always a little worried about recoding voice and guitar, they pretty much need to stay at the same level for this type of video. I assure you my voice would be wildly diminished by this guitar with horns cranking live, recording level issue I believe.
I want to go back to the studio one last time and redo the ending with one take as you mention. More powerful chords to show the real difference, it is not captured, plus with my Taylor as you mention, maybe outside also. I just can't put this on YouTube without a better comparison, it is there live, I know that for sure. Any other suggestions you have for recording would be greatly appreciated, thanks!
For most string instruments in the lower registers the second and higher harmonics are louder than the fundamental. In the upper notes the fundamental will be as loud or louder than the harmonics.
Here is an open low E bottom string (lower chart), high E top string on an acoustic:
Up to around the ~48th harmonic is louder than the E82Hz fundamental, while the E330Hz harmonics are all a lower level than the fundamental.
The ratio of the harmonics to the fundamental determine how "bright" or "dark" an instrument is perceived.
The effect of the fundamental being as loud as the second harmonic in the low registers tends to sound "muddy".
If that's what you love, fine by me.
The low to high midrange (~200 to 5000Hz) is where electric guitars generally live, yours included.
In the context of a band mix, I may cut the low end of an acoustic rhythm guitar considerably to avoid competition with drums, bass, keys, and electric guitars.
Art
Art - I assumed that the fundamental was stronger than the harmonic in all cases, seems logical, but an assumption, which is often wrong. OK got it, I will buy that, and especially interesting that they are stronger in the lower register only, I wonder why? 
Also, I stand corrected, my 82 Hz was not relatively strong compared to the other frequencies I was measuring, but it was strong compared to a standard acoustic guitar (all the frequencies are of course).
That got me thinking, I hear an open low E string, I don't really know what 82 Hz or 164 Hz sounds like, I know what an in tune open low E string sounds like. I grabbed an 82 Hz pitch from online and held it in my ear as I hummed and then turned on my video, yeah the open low E string did sound higher, hmm.
Then I grabbed a 164 Hz pitch also, and the open E string sounded lower in comparison. I know this is not exact, but I can hear a difference. I thought since the open low E string first harmonic is 164 Hz, and the A string at second fret (E chord) fundamental is 124 Hz, how does that affect the sound, and our perception of the sound?
Is the open low E string really 164 Hz? Maybe it is a combination of the fundamental and first harmonic? Somewhere in between? My ear was telling me it may be somewhere in between, I just do not know where.
For fun, lets take the average of the fundamental and first harmonic of each string, and see where it lands on your data and my data - see attached. Sure enough this average is at many of the peaks of your data and mine. I know this is not scientific, but it sure is an interesting hypothesis.
That said, I keep listening to Casey play, and man do I love that sound. The lows are indeed rich and warm, the highs sparkle, I can't hear anything bad, I kind of can't believe it! I was listening to a very well known singer/songwriter on TV the other night, somebody that has been a long time favorite of mine. Great show, the guitar sounded great overall, the singing was beautiful, but the guitar was Piezo into the feed. Man every time I heard that high E string I would cringe, it happens.
What do you think? Let me have it!
Also, I stand corrected, my 82 Hz was not relatively strong compared to the other frequencies I was measuring, but it was strong compared to a standard acoustic guitar (all the frequencies are of course).
That got me thinking, I hear an open low E string, I don't really know what 82 Hz or 164 Hz sounds like, I know what an in tune open low E string sounds like. I grabbed an 82 Hz pitch from online and held it in my ear as I hummed and then turned on my video, yeah the open low E string did sound higher, hmm.
Then I grabbed a 164 Hz pitch also, and the open E string sounded lower in comparison. I know this is not exact, but I can hear a difference. I thought since the open low E string first harmonic is 164 Hz, and the A string at second fret (E chord) fundamental is 124 Hz, how does that affect the sound, and our perception of the sound?
Is the open low E string really 164 Hz? Maybe it is a combination of the fundamental and first harmonic? Somewhere in between? My ear was telling me it may be somewhere in between, I just do not know where.
For fun, lets take the average of the fundamental and first harmonic of each string, and see where it lands on your data and my data - see attached. Sure enough this average is at many of the peaks of your data and mine. I know this is not scientific, but it sure is an interesting hypothesis.
That said, I keep listening to Casey play, and man do I love that sound. The lows are indeed rich and warm, the highs sparkle, I can't hear anything bad, I kind of can't believe it! I was listening to a very well known singer/songwriter on TV the other night, somebody that has been a long time favorite of mine. Great show, the guitar sounded great overall, the singing was beautiful, but the guitar was Piezo into the feed. Man every time I heard that high E string I would cringe, it happens.
What do you think? Let me have it!
Your assumption does not seem logical to me, but I've been looking at RTAs of instruments for 45 yearsArt - I assumed that the fundamental was stronger than the harmonic in all cases, seems logical, but an assumption, which is often wrong. OK got it, I will buy that, and especially interesting that they are stronger in the lower register only, I wonder why?
The second harmonic is louder because the acoustic instrument is not large enough to resonate the low frequencies as loud as the upper frequencies. If you built an acoustic guitar with a double bass sized body, it may have a fundamental as strong as the second harmonic.
Lower (thicker) strings have more mass, which tends to reduce upper harmonic level compared to thinner string
An E82.41Hz or E164.81Hz pitch "grabbed from online" may be a pure tone with no harmonics (a sine wave), you could look at it on your REW RTA to see what you are listening to.
No matter the level of the fundamental, it's harmonics are always multiples, so it's easy to hear the difference between the pitch of a note even through a tiny "tinny" speaker.
No, it's second harmonic is 164.81 Hz, 3rd is 247.23Hz, 4th is 329.64Hz, the 32nd harmonic is ~2637Hz....
What your brain makes of what your ear hears depends on what (and how) you have learned to hear.
Each note of every instrument is a combination of some noise (non-harmonic content), the fundamental and it's many harmonics, and it's resonant qualities.
Those qualities, or timbre are what make each instrument sound different, even when playing the same frequency note.
With decades of sound training experience it was easy for me to hear that the low fundamentals of your amplified FHAG had much less SPL than the harmonics, and that it's amplification was not increasing the upper harmonics proportionally.
As you become more aware of harmonic relationships (look back to post 67..) it may become more easy for you to hear.
Art
Art 45 years, Joe 2 years and counting - post #67, oh yes I remember it well Godfather!
From Art: "No, it's second harmonic is 164.81 Hz, 3rd is 247.23Hz, 4th is 329.64Hz, the 32nd harmonic is ~2637Hz...."
Yes for sure, so what I was wondering does the low E string really sound like 164.81 Hz second harmonic to my ear and also measured that way in REW and your data, seems to be correct, even though the fundamental is 82.40 Hz. Plus you mention body size, my soundboard has about 30% more area, and is lighter, so moves easier, not sure how that affects everything. When my Sitka Spruce soundboard is complete, it is also obviously just as big, but the sound should travel better along the grain, or so I am told, we shall see.
32nd harmonic, WOW! The more I learn, the more fascinating it becomes, I may not get everything right (which is rule number one in any new product that has not been done before), but I sure am trying to apply this information. The feedback I am getting from my video is very positive. One guitar player (40 years) said "wonderful sustain, guaranteed winner!" I would not go that far just yet, plus I know I will be getting much feedback from people without "diyAudio crowd" knowledge, but still interesting to me. Plus the music industry is a bit crazy now, Sam Ash closed after about 100 years, real bummer, and of course the AI unknown.
Yes I did want to hear a pure tone (sine wave) with the fundamental only, so I could compare it to my low E string to see if I was hearing fundamental or second harmonic.
I decided to wait for the YouTube release. I really need a new ending for better with and without horn comparison per earlier comments from Art and JJ, that can improve for sure, plus add comments about horns being covered, amp can be internal...other missing info.
Oh yeah, timbre, very interesting to me....why a specific frequency sounds different from a guitar, to a piano, to a saxophone...or why an acoustic guitar sounds different from an electric guitar. Or why a high end acoustic guitar sounds different from a cheap acoustic guitar, or why a guitar that somebody crazy enough to put horns in might sound different than a standard acoustic guitar.
From Art: "it was easy for me to hear that the low fundamentals of your amplified FHAG had much less SPL than the harmonics"
Agree, so does a standard acoustic guitar as shown in my data.
From Art: "and that it's amplification was not increasing the upper harmonics proportionally"
Not seeing that in my data, the upper harmonics are stronger.
So Art what about my attached data from the last post. I know averaging frequencies is probably dicey, but it sure does show up as peaks in my data and yours, thoughts?
Plus the video link again, but removed the dicey ending. I am back to 1,000 hits every two weeks, so I keep posting for anybody that has not seen it yet Thanks!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/151VdED1pT8BZCCgMVRBT0IgrH90lAWq1/view?usp=sharing
- post #67, oh yes I remember it well Godfather!From Art: "No, it's second harmonic is 164.81 Hz, 3rd is 247.23Hz, 4th is 329.64Hz, the 32nd harmonic is ~2637Hz...."
Yes for sure, so what I was wondering does the low E string really sound like 164.81 Hz second harmonic to my ear and also measured that way in REW and your data, seems to be correct, even though the fundamental is 82.40 Hz. Plus you mention body size, my soundboard has about 30% more area, and is lighter, so moves easier, not sure how that affects everything. When my Sitka Spruce soundboard is complete, it is also obviously just as big, but the sound should travel better along the grain, or so I am told, we shall see.
32nd harmonic, WOW! The more I learn, the more fascinating it becomes, I may not get everything right (which is rule number one in any new product that has not been done before), but I sure am trying to apply this information. The feedback I am getting from my video is very positive. One guitar player (40 years) said "wonderful sustain, guaranteed winner!" I would not go that far just yet, plus I know I will be getting much feedback from people without "diyAudio crowd" knowledge, but still interesting to me. Plus the music industry is a bit crazy now, Sam Ash closed after about 100 years, real bummer, and of course the AI unknown.
Yes I did want to hear a pure tone (sine wave) with the fundamental only, so I could compare it to my low E string to see if I was hearing fundamental or second harmonic.
I decided to wait for the YouTube release. I really need a new ending for better with and without horn comparison per earlier comments from Art and JJ, that can improve for sure, plus add comments about horns being covered, amp can be internal...other missing info.
Oh yeah, timbre, very interesting to me....why a specific frequency sounds different from a guitar, to a piano, to a saxophone...or why an acoustic guitar sounds different from an electric guitar. Or why a high end acoustic guitar sounds different from a cheap acoustic guitar, or why a guitar that somebody crazy enough to put horns in might sound different than a standard acoustic guitar.
From Art: "it was easy for me to hear that the low fundamentals of your amplified FHAG had much less SPL than the harmonics"
Agree, so does a standard acoustic guitar as shown in my data.
From Art: "and that it's amplification was not increasing the upper harmonics proportionally"
Not seeing that in my data, the upper harmonics are stronger.
So Art what about my attached data from the last post. I know averaging frequencies is probably dicey, but it sure does show up as peaks in my data and yours, thoughts?
Plus the video link again, but removed the dicey ending. I am back to 1,000 hits every two weeks, so I keep posting for anybody that has not seen it yet Thanks!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/151VdED1pT8BZCCgMVRBT0IgrH90lAWq1/view?usp=sharing
A quickie; interesting that the 82-ish frequency shows as a hump for both the no horns case and the std acoustic. When you turn the horns on, there's a trough in that spot instead. Phase switch!
An oft seen accessory on acoustic guitar preamps, all it does is in your case is swap the + and - signal going to the speakers. So you need to do a frequency response plot in the +/- connection and then again in the -/+ connection from the amplifier. Both speakers + to + and - to -, of course.
Maybe that trough turns into a hump when you flip the phase.
An oft seen accessory on acoustic guitar preamps, all it does is in your case is swap the + and - signal going to the speakers. So you need to do a frequency response plot in the +/- connection and then again in the -/+ connection from the amplifier. Both speakers + to + and - to -, of course.
Maybe that trough turns into a hump when you flip the phase.
Post your "data" from the audio of your video "with and without horns".
I've given my thoughts on the "data" you attached multiple times already, they have not changed.
The horn's output is not phase coherent to the phase of the pickups at their sources nor the acoustic output of the guitar.
A polarity switch (incorrectly called a "phase switch") reverses the phase of all frequencies 180 degrees.
If two electrical signals of equal amplitude were perfectly coherent, say "Y" corded, they would add together +6dB, if the polarity was reversed on one they would cancel completely.
Adding two non-coherent signals of the same amplitude results in a +3dB increase in level.
Reversing the polarity of one of two somewhat correlated signals, like a magnetic pickup and a piezo transducer as many acoustic guitars use will change their relative phase relationship, which may result in an increase (or decrease) of more than +3dB in different frequency ranges.
Reversing the polarity of one of the two inputs is worth pursuing.
Reversing the polarity of the FHAG speaker will make far less difference, certainly not enough to account for the differences in Joe's "data", but could amount to a dB or three if the acoustic and horn output was balanced in level.
As the level difference between the two non correlated signal increases, the contribution of the lower level signal is diminished:
https://sengpielaudio.com/calculator-leveladding.htm
If the FH output was ~13dB louder than the AG ~80Hz, flipping it's polarity might make 0.2 to 0.4dB difference.
Anyway, flipping polarity between sources is interesting...
Art
Thank you JJ and Art!
JJ - I do have a phase switch on my Fishman piezo, and I do remember it being out of phase with earlier recordings, I did hear a difference after I corrected it.
That was a while ago, and have not had that problem for some time, but the FR data is older, so interesting.
Art - I printed out your Sound Calculations info - homework! I am in front of a laptop all day, so reading from print instead of a screen is something I enjoy - old school! I know my past REW shows harmonics increasing proportionately, proof, but I do NOT know that about the before and after horns in the video, because I do not have any REW data for that. I am sure what you say is true, but I do like it enough to keep it in the video. That said, a much more powerful chord structure is needed to really hear the difference, and that needs to be recorded to show the harmonics increasing proportionately. I have shown it in the past, it will do it again!
As you know, I do not like the "tinny" sound of the high E string on a guitar. I like a tenor, not a soprano. I like all the keys on a piano except the far upper range, where they sound downright crazy, unneeded. When I listen to a sweep it all sound pretty good until it goes above 12,000 Hz, drives me nuts.
I guess I just don't like high frequencies for some reason, maybe it is my ear. Hell I probably can't hear anything above 15,000 Hz at my age anyway, maybe that has something to do with it? That said, having harmonics increasing proportionately in the high range does not bother me much, in fact I think it can be a good thing at times. Of course the problem with that is trying to sell an instrument to somebody that does not share my preferences!
JJ - I do have a phase switch on my Fishman piezo, and I do remember it being out of phase with earlier recordings, I did hear a difference after I corrected it.
That was a while ago, and have not had that problem for some time, but the FR data is older, so interesting.
Art - I printed out your Sound Calculations info - homework! I am in front of a laptop all day, so reading from print instead of a screen is something I enjoy - old school! I know my past REW shows harmonics increasing proportionately, proof, but I do NOT know that about the before and after horns in the video, because I do not have any REW data for that. I am sure what you say is true, but I do like it enough to keep it in the video. That said, a much more powerful chord structure is needed to really hear the difference, and that needs to be recorded to show the harmonics increasing proportionately. I have shown it in the past, it will do it again!
As you know, I do not like the "tinny" sound of the high E string on a guitar. I like a tenor, not a soprano. I like all the keys on a piano except the far upper range, where they sound downright crazy, unneeded. When I listen to a sweep it all sound pretty good until it goes above 12,000 Hz, drives me nuts.
I guess I just don't like high frequencies for some reason, maybe it is my ear. Hell I probably can't hear anything above 15,000 Hz at my age anyway, maybe that has something to do with it? That said, having harmonics increasing proportionately in the high range does not bother me much, in fact I think it can be a good thing at times. Of course the problem with that is trying to sell an instrument to somebody that does not share my preferences!
I know this is cra, everything cranked up too high, surprised the circuit limiter does not blow. I can sustain a chord, pretty much forever, but of course the great tone is completely gone. Just for fun!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lxE9iSjr5UAI_CnyqenRYXTqb1263ryl/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lxE9iSjr5UAI_CnyqenRYXTqb1263ryl/view?usp=sharing
Looks like it may have been an "E" chord:
Could hear the amp clipping distortion initially, then it settles down to a less objectionable level.
As usual for the FHAG horn response, not much below 124 Hz or above 800Hz.
The horn's rolled off upper response also filters out the speaker's upper harmonic distortion.
Could hear the amp clipping distortion initially, then it settles down to a less objectionable level.
As usual for the FHAG horn response, not much below 124 Hz or above 800Hz.
The horn's rolled off upper response also filters out the speaker's upper harmonic distortion.
Art - E chord indeed, look at that strong 2nd harmonic, really great data. My data also falls off below 124 Hz and above 800 Hz for sure, but not as aggressively as your data, not sure why. Plus a standard acoustic guitar also does this, almost as aggressive as your data, but not quite. My FHAG with horns on is much flatter comparatively, so encouraging. I am highly interesting in this comparison, plus I can hear the guitar sounding great, not missing any low end and not missing any sparkle up high, compared to what I am used to hearing from an acoustic guitar.
Since I am obviously measuring the guitar itself, and you are measuring a recording of the guitar, do you think this has any affect, or no? Thanks! Joe
Since I am obviously measuring the guitar itself, and you are measuring a recording of the guitar, do you think this has any affect, or no? Thanks! Joe
Joe,
Great data?
Really?
Can't tell from the screen shot in post 995 or listening to your latest feedback performance the contribution of the 82.4Hz low E second harmonic compared to the fundamental E164.8Hz on the second fret of the D string, or the contribution of speaker (and amp) harmonic distortion compared to the guitar's acoustic output in the harmonic sequence seen.
Easy to hear and see that ~165Hz is honking more than twice as loud as anything else
I don't think measuring the guitar or a recording of the guitar affects the guitar
The recorded output of of an amplified guitar using different combinations of transducer and magnetic pickups using different amp settings, recorded by different mics in different positions in different rooms with different performances visually averaged over different time periods will (obviously...) look different.
Art
Art - yeah great data, I didn't say great sound. This is an E chord banged out at too high of volume, and with too much tone control increase, just to get this long sustained chord that is very close to feeding backing, but just not quite there. I don't expect it to sound good, unless you want a raunchy sound for a song ending maybe. It looks like a more extreme example of strong around 164 Hz and much weaker up at about 8,000 Hz earlier data.
I would expect 164 Hz to be strong, as it is the second harmonic as you note, plus you can see the three lower strings really vibrating strongly (not sure if you can see that in the video), and especially the 3 string (D when open, but fretted in an E chord is an E note at 164 Hz frequency). It is vibrating more than any other string. Again, at frequencies I like, and in my opinion give the acoustic guitar a rich warm sound. I really really like to hear those lower three strings be more dominant than the higher three strings (especially the dreaded tinny high E string). I really want these frequencies to be dominant. Of course I also want the harmonics, and they fall off very fast in your data, but nowhere near as fast in my data, still not sure why the difference. Thanks! Joe
I would expect 164 Hz to be strong, as it is the second harmonic as you note, plus you can see the three lower strings really vibrating strongly (not sure if you can see that in the video), and especially the 3 string (D when open, but fretted in an E chord is an E note at 164 Hz frequency). It is vibrating more than any other string. Again, at frequencies I like, and in my opinion give the acoustic guitar a rich warm sound. I really really like to hear those lower three strings be more dominant than the higher three strings (especially the dreaded tinny high E string). I really want these frequencies to be dominant. Of course I also want the harmonics, and they fall off very fast in your data, but nowhere near as fast in my data, still not sure why the difference. Thanks! Joe
I think I posted before, here's what our friends at Yamaha think is a good pickup preamp response for a nylon, "silent" guitar. They roll off at 1kHz -
When I take it to the open mic, I usually get compliments on how it sounds. No one says where's the sparkle, or why is your guitar so dull sounding. This is Pink Noise mechanically driven into the bridge pickup.
If I take the same "Sound mechanically driven into the bridge" and put that into an acoustic, measure the sound radiated from the body, something like this gets filtered through - I think it's a sweep this time...
Note how two different guitars actually track until ~500, where one peaks, the other troughs, then they track again for a couple more peaks, then one peaks at ~9XX, while the other troughs.
So one way is the Yamaha flat to 1k, roll off, put that straight through a commercial guitar amp, sounds good. Another way is Yamaha flat to 1k roll off, put that through a filter set with 7 or so peaks, say at 110, 220, 440, 5XX, 6XX, 8XX, 9XX - and then it should sound acoustic guitar-ish.
Question; does the FH part implement a filter set anything like the above? One would think any physical length sound has to travel down to get out and radiate is going to have an f0, a double, a quad, etc. I would propose if the tuning differs from the above, it can still sound like a guitar, just not so much like a Yamaha G230 or Aria 551B. Nothing wrong with a deeper tone, as long as the "guitar-ish" overall character is there.
All this testing by strumming chords - using the guitar strings as several simultaneous signal generators - isnt giving a clear picture of what the horns are actually doing as a filter to the sound going into them. How can we get beyond an "I think it sounds good / I think not so much" turntable spin to help you make a better instrument, or, understand why it sounds the way it does?
Love to see a sweep, with a certified flat response amplifier driving the speakers, to see just what is happening. Maybe it shows clear it is what it is - then we can help in a better way to shift things around if that would be a desirable thing to do. I'm pretty sure in a classic guitar body design those 110, 220 and 440 -ish resonances are not a coincidence. They are its "tone" and were deliberately designed to be that way - with a target customer audience in mind.
When I take it to the open mic, I usually get compliments on how it sounds. No one says where's the sparkle, or why is your guitar so dull sounding. This is Pink Noise mechanically driven into the bridge pickup.
If I take the same "Sound mechanically driven into the bridge" and put that into an acoustic, measure the sound radiated from the body, something like this gets filtered through - I think it's a sweep this time...
Note how two different guitars actually track until ~500, where one peaks, the other troughs, then they track again for a couple more peaks, then one peaks at ~9XX, while the other troughs.
So one way is the Yamaha flat to 1k, roll off, put that straight through a commercial guitar amp, sounds good. Another way is Yamaha flat to 1k roll off, put that through a filter set with 7 or so peaks, say at 110, 220, 440, 5XX, 6XX, 8XX, 9XX - and then it should sound acoustic guitar-ish.
Question; does the FH part implement a filter set anything like the above? One would think any physical length sound has to travel down to get out and radiate is going to have an f0, a double, a quad, etc. I would propose if the tuning differs from the above, it can still sound like a guitar, just not so much like a Yamaha G230 or Aria 551B. Nothing wrong with a deeper tone, as long as the "guitar-ish" overall character is there.
All this testing by strumming chords - using the guitar strings as several simultaneous signal generators - isnt giving a clear picture of what the horns are actually doing as a filter to the sound going into them. How can we get beyond an "I think it sounds good / I think not so much" turntable spin to help you make a better instrument, or, understand why it sounds the way it does?
Love to see a sweep, with a certified flat response amplifier driving the speakers, to see just what is happening. Maybe it shows clear it is what it is - then we can help in a better way to shift things around if that would be a desirable thing to do. I'm pretty sure in a classic guitar body design those 110, 220 and 440 -ish resonances are not a coincidence. They are its "tone" and were deliberately designed to be that way - with a target customer audience in mind.
Last edited:
The D string is the 4 string.
My "data" are just RTA screen shots from sound you provided demonstrating your FHAG.
If you RTA those clips, they will look similar if you capture them at the same time.
Sorry to have to repeat, but your "data" consists of the recorded output of an amplified guitar using different combinations of transducer and magnetic pickups using different amp settings, recorded by different mics in different positions in different rooms with different performances visually averaged over different time periods.
Because of the way you have averaged them, much of your "data" show incongruous results.