# Instruments and Equipment > Equipment >  Tone rite

## nick hyserman

Has anyone tried a ToneRite?  And if so, what results have you gotten?

----------


## MikeEdgerton

While you're waiting for an answer you might take a cruise through *these* threads.

----------


## sblock

_<removed by site owner. has nothing to do with discussion at hand. strongly suggest you pull back, lest you entertain the ire of the site owner who is not amused with your last two postings, one of which ended a lengthy discussion. take it elsewhere or figure out how to fit in. no further warning.>_

----------


## George R. Lane

Nick,
I used one on my Yellowstone. Did it make a difference, maybe just a little. I had more luck just playing the snot out of mine.

----------


## DHopkins

I don't know whether it's the power of suggestion or not but I believe it has really helped mine.  Occasionally, I'll even pull a mandolin out of the herd that I haven't used lately and let the Tone Rite run for a couple of days just to keep it in shape.

I know a producer that's worked for some great names (Emmylou, Loveless, Presley, etc.) who puts his new instruments in front of some loud (volume-wise) speakers for a couple of weeks.  It apparently does the same thing.

----------

Papalobo

----------


## Explorer

There are definitely those who believe vibration makes changes the sound of an instrument over time. Among those who have gone on record as having heard such changes over the life of an instrument, and even more dramatically in the period when an instrument is being played for the first time, are Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings.

There are also those who say that those people, as respected as they are in the instrument-building community, are either deliberately  lying, or can be relied upon in everything except this one area in which they are deceiving themselves. It's interesting to claim that the only place these folks, as well as others, are wrong is the one place where one disagrees with every one of them. That might lead some to suspect the disagreement has more to do with the claimant's personal views on the phenomenon than on the group all going independently astray in exactly the same observations.

Me? On the matter of instruments opening up, I have no reason to doubt the ears of those folks, or to think they all just happened to get it wrong in the one place with which someone has a philosophical disagreement.

----

As to whether the vibration induced in the top has to come from the strings, instead of from any source which induces vibrations in the top, I have no reason to think the bridge movement caused by the strings, and then transmitted to the top, is different in a substantial way from vibrations in the bridge caused by a device like the Tonerite, or from a speaker against which the instrument is placed.

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## MontanaMatt

I just got done with a week of break in with the Tonerite on my new Ratliff custom R5...it totally does as advertised, I had time to play about four hours and the vibrations ran for 160 hrs, on both low and high power.  I heard and observed the mando expand, with the headroom for power sound greatly developed.  Considering it is the equivalent of over 50-3hr gigs of vibrations, some may poopoo the device, but logical deduction leads to a non deleterious effect.  For such a little cost, why not?  Not sure if it can do anything to an already broke in rig, but of a green instrument, for sure it has an effect, revealing the potential sooner.

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## Willie Poole

I didn`t use a Tone rite but I did wrap my mandolin in a heat pad that has a vibrating mechanism and without the heat turned on I let it vibrate on high for five days and being open minded when I then tried it I did not see one bit of change in the tone of the mandolin, of course my Ratliff has been pretty well "played in", it was new in 2008, so maybe as stated above on a new (green) mandolin they might really work, don`t see where they will do any harm...My neighbors would not like it if I turned up my speakers real loud and let them blast for five days while I was out of town, probably shake all of the doors and windows loose, pictures falling off of the walls etc...

     Willie

----------


## Ron McMillan

I too am deeply skeptical, but too many people I respect swear by the benefits of such devices and/or of 'playing in' an instrument, for me to dismiss them as wrong.

----------


## sblock

> There are definitely those who believe vibration makes changes the sound of an instrument over time. Among those who have gone on record as having heard such changes over the life of an instrument, and even more dramatically in the period when an instrument is being played for the first time, are Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings.
> 
> There are also those who say that those people, as respected as they are in the instrument-building community, are either deliberately  lying, or can be relied upon in everything except this one area in which they are deceiving themselves. It's interesting to claim that the only place these folks, as well as others, are wrong is the one place where one disagrees with every one of them. That might lead some to suspect the disagreement has more to do with the claimant's personal views on the phenomenon than on the group all going independently astray in exactly the same observations.
> 
> Me? On the matter of instruments opening up, I have no reason to doubt the ears of those folks, or to think they all just happened to get it wrong in the one place with which someone has a philosophical disagreement.
> 
> ----
> 
> As to whether the vibration induced in the top has to come from the strings, instead of from any source which induces vibrations in the top, I have no reason to think the bridge movement caused by the strings, and then transmitted to the top, is different in a substantial way from vibrations in the bridge caused by a device like the Tonerite, or from a speaker against which the instrument is placed.


Unfortunately, this post is filled with so much innuendo and misrepresentation that it should not be left unchallenged. No one on the MC, to my knowledge, has ever accused Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings of "deliberately lying" with respect to this phenomenon.  And no one has even claimed that they are all specifically wrong about it alone, but somehow correct about everything else. That would be a pretty silly thing for anyone to say, in fact. As for the part about "deceiving themselves", this is a common phenomenon in human sensation. There are many optical (and auditory) illusions that are well known to us all, and these are all examples of our perceptions being "deceived." It's hard-to-impossible suppress them, in fact. Being misled by our eyes, ears and memory happens all the time, but this does not diminish us somehow as human beings. Therefore, characterizing this a "deceiving ourselves" comes across as rather harsh, even if might be true.  _Fooled_ might be a more apt term.

That said, it might be worth pointing out that at least some of these individuals -- Roger Siminoff, for example -- are (or _were_; Roger is retired now) actually in the business of offering a professional "de-damping" service for a fee, so they stood to gain something monetarily. _Caveat emptor._ That doesn't mean they're wrong or lying, only that they may have a conflict of interest that you should consider.

If you want to read more about the effects of Tone Rites on acoustic guitars (from Martin and Collings), where they have actually been tested, you might start with a _controlled, peer-reviewed scientific study_ published in the respected acoustic journal, _The Savart Journal_, by Stanford professor Bruce Clemens and his colleagues, back in 2014.  *They debunk the idea that it improves the tone.*  It is found here:

----------

Billy Packard, 

Christine Robins, 

jesserules, 

RustyMadd

----------


## Bertram Henze

> ...Therefore, characterizing this a "deceiving ourselves" comes across as rather harsh, even if might be true.  _Fooled_ might be a more apt term.


... _adapted_ might be another, even more neutral term. Perception effects must have been useful for something, originally, or else they wouldn't exist. They were probably intended for some purpose of survival, not analysis.

----------

sblock

----------


## Explorer

> Unfortunately, this post is filled with so much innuendo and misrepresentation that it should not be left unchallenged. No one on the MC, to my knowledge, has ever accused Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings of "deliberately lying" with respect to this phenomenon.  And no one has even claimed that they are all specifically wrong about it alone, but somehow correct about everything else. That would be a pretty silly thing for anyone to say, in fact. As for the part about "deceiving themselves", this is a common phenomenon in human sensation. There are many optical (and auditory) illusions that are well known to us all, and these are all examples of our perceptions being "deceived." It's hard-to-impossible suppress them, in fact. Being misled by our eyes, ears and memory happens all the time, but this does not diminish us somehow as human beings. Therefore, characterizing this a "deceiving ourselves" comes across as rather harsh, even if might be true.  _Fooled_ might be a more apt term.
> 
> That said, it might be worth pointing out that at least some of these individuals -- Roger Siminoff, for example -- are (or _were_; Roger is retired now) actually in the business of offering a professional "de-damping" service for a fee, so they stood to gain something monetarily. _Caveat emptor._ That doesn't mean they're wrong or lying, only that they may have a conflict of interest that you should consider.
> 
> If you want to read more about the effects of Tone Rites on acoustic guitars (from Martin and Collings), where they have actually been tested, you might start with a _controlled, peer-reviewed scientific study_ published in the respected acoustic journal, _The Savart Journal_, by Stanford professor Bruce Clemens and his colleagues, back in 2014.  *They debunk the idea that it improves the tone.*  It is found here:


As far as I know, none of the other individuals I listed are selling a ”dedamping" service, including Big Joe. My point was, these individuals certainly seem to have been able to make great instruments... except for the one place their ears place them in conflict with someone's worldview. 

It was interesting to look at the charts in that study and to see how the range around 200hz showed an increase responsiveness. i guess that means it stayed the same across the six instruments' befores and afters.

----------


## DHopkins

> If you want to read more about the effects of Tone Rites on acoustic guitars (from Martin and Collings), where they have actually been tested, you might start with a _controlled, peer-reviewed scientific study_ published in the respected acoustic journal, _The Savart Journal_, by Stanford professor Bruce Clemens and his colleagues, back in 2014.  *They debunk the idea that it improves the tone.* :


And I can show you studies that say coffee is good for you and some that say it's bad.  There are studies that say milk isn't good for you, and on and on.

It depends on who did the study *and who paid for it.*

----------

Billkwando, 

ccravens, 

Mandoplumb, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Phil Goodson

> And I can show you studies that say coffee is good for you and some that say it's bad.  There are studies that say milk isn't good for you, and on and on.
> 
> It depends on who did the study *and who paid for it.*


Do you suspect undisclosed funding for the above study that might have influenced the results?

----------


## Reinhardt

Hi I used one on a new Crump Bouzouki for one full week and it definitely made a difference, really opened the instrument up. Also tried it on my Duff A5 Mandolin but I didnt notice any real difference on that to be honest. Mind you, the Duff ( which is less than one year old) , sounded great to begin with so there probably wasnt much room for improvement. 

I used a Mandolin Model tonerite on the zouk but had to loosen the A and D strings so the device would fit.

I think Tonerite had been debated a lot on a number of forums. Some love it some think its a waste of time. I think that it definitely works but its results may vary from instrument to instrument as described above. Hope that helps.

John
John

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## varmonter

> Do you suspect undisclosed funding for the above study that might have influenced the results?


I for one am always suspect of results vs funding sources.. a perfect example would be a climate change theory debunk funded by exxon/mobil.
  But in this case i cant see where this is applicable as the results were negative and the only entity to gain any clout from this study would be tonrite. And it failed to produce decernable results.
  I for one have heard or thought i heard inst. Open up..if you will after say 20 min of playing. If it sat in the case unused for awhile it would take another
20 min to open up again. This time to open up would decrease as the inst aged. My only hypotheses here woul be curing ...which only time 
can dictate..or maybe a kiln..but i would have to  conclude that the TR simply 
Brings the inst to that "opened up"place.and that if
Returned to the case it closes back up again.until it is fully cured ..
.

----------


## DHopkins

> Do you suspect undisclosed funding for the above study that might have influenced the results?


Absolutely not!!!  I simply know that it happens.  I do not know whether that's the case here.  But, because it does happen, I tend to take these kinds of studies (medical, musical, whatever) with a grain of salt until I know otherwise.

----------

Phil Goodson

----------


## MontanaMatt

I only used th TR on a brand new mando, which had room to change.  I can't imagine a mechanism of change after dedamping occurred.  It doesn't simulate the seasonal changes that happen with time(curing/aging, baseline moisture change)  Not sure how it can be categorized as a waste of time as it was working while I was doing something else.  It used very little power, so at worst it was a slight waste of electricity, but so much of our modern life is wasteful...
The only way I see to experiment is, get a brand new instrument, a nice one, put it on a stand, put it on a tonerite for a week, enjoy your awesome new mando...if you got a good mando I'm sure you'll be happy with the results!  If you got a dog, try again!  Science! :Whistling:

----------


## sblock

The funding for the Clemens et al. study, published in the _Savart Journal_, was provided by Clemens himself. He purchased the new guitars from Martin and Coillings that were used out of his own pocket, as well as the ToneRite.  The spectrum analyzer and computer were laboratory equipment that was already owned.  As someone already pointed out, it's pretty hard to fake data like these.  And the work was subjected to peer review by acoustic experts.

It's certainly true that pharmaceutical companies have funded some highly suspect studies about the efficacy of their drugs in the past, and that tobacco companies have funded bogus studies to show the supposed harmlessness of their cigarettes.  But these are cases where the sponsoring business stands to make a large profit, and which lead to a clear conflict of interest.  There is no such conflict here, because Clemens stands to gain no profit whatsoever.  He's a research scientist and he doesn't sell anything.  In fact, he's out thousands of dollars!  

If you don't believe the findings, I think you should probably look elsewhere for more likely reasons not to accept them.  Questioning the funding sources doesn't make a whole lot of  sense in this instance.

----------


## Tobin

That Clemens study was interesting, and well presented.

Having only studied it briefly to get the gist of it, I do see that some measurable changes occurred with the treatment.  One can attempt to write this off as statistically insignificant if one chooses, but the measurements do show that *something* happened.  I'm looking specifically at page 6 of the report, showing the charts for each instrument.  As one might expect, not all instrument brands will react the same way.  But the Collings results seemed to show a dramatic spike at the 200Hz range after treatment.  Responsiveness nearly doubled.

Granted, the control sample (Collings A) also showed an increase at that frequency in the 2nd measurement, despite not having been subjected to the ToneRite treatment.  But it had a higher peak to start with, and ended at a lower peak than the test sample (Collings B), which was lower to begin with.  

*edited to add*
I want to be specific here.  Doing my best to read the charts and interpolate the measurements in the 200Hz spikes, Collings A (the control sample) started at about 170 and ended at about 230, so it increased by 60.  That's about a 35% increase, which we could call the baseline for variations in the measurement technique, since we know the instrument did not change.  Collings B (the test sample) started at around 145 and ended at around 255, increasing by 110.  That's a 76% increase over its first measurement, and nearly double the numerical increase of the control sample.
*end edit*  

Collings B also appeared to have some improvement in the ranges of approximately 760Hz and 975Hz, which the control sample did not.

If nothing else, I would think that a conclusion would have been made that these differences were worth further study on a wider sample of Collings guitars, to see if it is repeatable.  A real scientist cannot make a conclusion based on a study that only involves one pair.

The Clemens study was a good start, but in my opinion it doesn't settle the issue definitively.  In fact, it does suggest that changes happened during the treatment.  A 76% increase in responsiveness in a certain range is anything but "negligible" as he claims.

----------


## sblock

> That Clemens study was interesting, and well presented.
> 
> Having only studied it briefly to get the gist of it, I do see that some measurable changes occurred with the treatment.  One can attempt to write this off as statistically insignificant if one chooses, but the measurements do show that *something* happened.  I'm looking specifically at page 6 of the report, showing the charts for each instrument.  As one might expect, not all instrument brands will react the same way.  But the Collings results seemed to show a dramatic spike at the 200Hz range after treatment.  Responsiveness nearly doubled.
> 
> Granted, the control sample (Collings A) also showed an increase at that frequency in the 2nd measurement, despite not having been subjected to the ToneRite treatment.  But it had a higher peak to start with, and ended at a lower peak than the test sample (Collings B), which was lower to begin with.  
> 
> *edited to add*
> I want to be specific here.  Doing my best to read the charts and interpolate the measurements in the 200Hz spikes, Collings A (the control sample) started at about 170 and ended at about 230, so it increased by 60.  That's about a 35% increase, which we could call the baseline for variations in the measurement technique, since we know the instrument did not change.  Collings B (the test sample) started at around 145 and ended at around 255, increasing by 110.  That's a 76% increase over its first measurement, and nearly double the numerical increase of the control sample.
> *end edit*  
> ...


Unfortunately, you are interpreting the response spectra in Fig. 4 incorrectly. I will try to explain.
 (Moreover, you seem to be cherry-picking the data, which is decidedly unscientific.) 

First, the acoustic power is given by the _integral_ under these curves (not by the peak heights), and those values changed negligibly before/after treatment.  So no instrument got any louder with the treatment.  Second, the frequency positions of the peaks did not change.  So the harmonic structure of the sound did not change before/after, and no instrument sounded with a different timbre ("voice") after treatment.  Third, the widths of the peaks in question did not change, and these set the basic strength of that acoustic frequency component, because the peaks are so sharp at the top.  The height of a given peak is not a particularly sensitive measure, simply because they are so sharp. Small differences in the digitization register (sampling intervals of the plot) can easily cause these to change by ~10-20%.  So this is not good evidence that anything changed at all!  Furthermore, you have clearly cherry-picked these data, because _no such changes_ were observed in either the Taylor or Martin guitars!  Finally, you seem to have ignored all the remainder of the data in the paper, which included player-assigned scores for a wide variety of sonic characteristics (Fig. 2), the average scores (Fig. 3), and the numerical correlations of the before/after spectra (Table 1).  These all point to NO DIFFERENCE produced by the ToneRite treatment. 

Finally, your math does not point to a "76% increase in responsiveness." This is simply wrong, and also highly misleading.  There was NO measurable increase in the responsiveness overall, measured both objectively (spectra) or subjectively (player evaluations) and only a small -- but negligible -- change in the responsiveness _peak_ (not area) at 200 Hz (only) for 1/3 of the matched guitar pairs tested, but _not for the other 2/3rds._ Finally, this study _was_ performed by "a real scientist" (why did you impugn the author that way?), and it was not based on just "one pair" of guitars -- it was based on three pairs, drawn from three different manufacturers. Granted, this is a small sample size (how would you like to finance the purchase of more than 6 brand new guitars, I ask?!), but the experimental evidence presented in the paper clearly shows that this sample size has sufficient statistical power to support the paper's conclusions.  It is _way_ more authoritative, in my opinion, than your purely anecdotal evidence.

You are perfectly entitled to believe anything you wish, of course. And you are perfectly free to reject the conclusions published in this paper. Or to suspend judgment pending the development of additional data.  But please, be cautious when offering scientific critiques. You might be a just little out of your depth with that, especially if you don't have much of a background with acoustic spectra.

----------


## Phil Goodson

@ Varmonter & DHopkins:  I totally agree that one must always be skeptical of studies that are funded by those who can benefit based on the results.   I'm well versed on pharmaceuticals and others with deep pockets.   I also did not see any reason to suspect a problem with the above study.

@sblock: Thanks for the help with interpretation of the charts.  Always hard for me.

Frankly, I'm always more suspicious of my *own* perceptions.  Many are the times when I pick up an instrument and play and think that it just doesn't sound like it did yesterday, .... or like it did 30 minutes ago.   

Is it my ear, or my technique, or my brain's interpretation, or my expectations, or something else?????   
And totally forget about trying to remember what the instrument sounded like in the store when I bought it and how much has it changed.   

I always *think* I know the answer.   But I also know that I DON'T *really* know the answer. :Confused: 
.....  so I try hard to believe the best data that I have till better data arrives. :Smile:

----------


## Tobin

> Unfortunately, you are interpreting the response spectra in Fig. 4 entirely incorrectly. (Moreover, you seem to be cherry-picking the data, which is decidedly unscientific.) First, the acoustic power is given by the integral under these curves (not by the peak heights), and those values changed negligibly before/after treatment.  So no instrument got any louder with the treatment.


OK, I'm a licensed structural engineer, not an acoustic engineer.  Please explain to me what that means.  Please define "acoustic power" with this integral you refer to.  I'm not seeing that explanation in the study.  

More importantly, though, his presentation of these charts is supposed to show "something".  What is it showing?  The Y-axis is labeled "Instrument Response", with no units.  What exactly is it depicting, if not volume at particular frequencies?  What are the units on the Y-axis?  




> Second, the frequency positions of the peaks did not change.  So the harmonic structure of the sound did not change before/after, and no instrument sounded with a different timbre ("voice") after treatment.


I can't make sense of that statement.  Is that how "voice" is defined?  I guess it goes back to the first question of what exactly these charts are supposed to be measuring.




> Third, the widths of the peaks in question did not change, and these set the basic strength of that acoustic frequency component, because the peaks are so sharp at the top.  The height of a given peak is not a particularly sensitive measure, simply because they are so sharp. Small differences in the digitization register (sampling intervals of the plot) can easily cause these to change by ~10-20%.  So this is not good evidence that anything changed at all!


Again, depending on exactly what they are measuring and depicting in the charts (volume?), I don't think it can be said that the peaks should be disregarded.  Per their description, this was from the microphone data, and they claimed a 1% to 2% certainty.  And in any other type of chart that graphs X versus Y, a high Y reading is very much significant.  




> Furthermore, you have clearly cherry-picked these data, because _no such changes_ were observed in either the Taylor or Martin guitars!


Now wait a minute.  The data must be separated between instrument brands.  You're claiming that "cherry-picking" one brand is wrong, but I would think that it must be evaluated that way.  If, as many people claim, some instruments will respond better to de-damping than others, you can't just take all the results from all the brands and lump them together.  It would be ignoring any significant results from the brands that do respond to the treatment.




> Finally, you seem to have ignored all the remainder of the data in the paper, which included player-assigned scores for a wide variety of sonic characteristics (Fig. 2), the average scores (Fig. 3), and the numerical correlations of the before/after spectra (Table 1).  These all point to NO DIFFERENCE produced by the ToneRite treatment.


Player-assigned scores are not scientific.  Sorry!  The human ear is not a measuring device, and human opinion on what a person hears is notoriously unreliable.  At best, such results would have value in a psychological study, but they are pretty worthless in a scientific study of acoustic response.  It's just "anecdotal data" like people posting here on the Cafe that they did hear a difference.  

I'm not saying I doubt their results of the human tests.  Just that it isn't what I consider reliable, precise measurements.




> Finally, your math does not point to a "76% increase in responsiveness." This is simply wrong, and also highly misleading.  There was NO measurable increase in the responsiveness overall, measured both objectively (spectra) or subjectively (player evaluations) and only a small -- but negligible -- change in the responsiveness peak at 200 Hz (only) for 1/3 of the guitars tested, but not for the other 2/3rds.


Interesting that you see it that way.  I'm simply pointing out what's in the charts.  If they represent something other than what they say they represent (i.e. responsiveness), charted out on X-Y axes, then they have done a poor job of presenting the data.  

Look, I'm not trying to say that the paper is without merit.  But there seem to be a lot of unanswered questions here, and vague explanations of what they're trying to show us.  If I'm reading it all wrong, fine.  But since you posted this study and are defending it as the be-all end-all, you are going to have to help explain it.  Please, help me understand what exactly those charts are depicting.

----------

jtv

----------


## Tobin

*edit: double post

----------


## sblock

Alas, this is not the place for a tutorial on audio power spectral analysis. And every time I respond to one of your points, you seem to spawn five more, and my patience (and time) for this seemingly endless disputation are limited!  You can begin to learn on your own about things like power spectral density by starting with Wikipedia, *here*.  Typically, power spectral graphs, like the ones in the paper, are computed using fast Fourier transforms. _Their proper interpretation is a whole subject in-and-of-itself._  Merely looking at the apparent height of a sharp spectral peak (as you have) is not the right way to do it, I'm afraid.

Let me make one tutorial point, though, since you asked about definitions. The timbre we hear (the "voice" of an instrument) in any given musical note is associated with the _numbers and relative intensities_ of the many OVERTONES produced above the fundamental. A trumpet playing a G note sounds very different from a piano playing that same G note because of the overtone structure -- and nothing more.  And that structure, in turn, is determined entirely by the instrument's _acoustic spectral response_.

Let me get a bit more technical. Tapping a stringed instrument's bridge once smartly with a small hammer is a good (and broadly accepted!) experimental way of approximating a "Dirac delta function," (that is, an infinitely short, but infinitely high, pulse with unit area underneath) whose power spectral density (which is the square of the complex Fourier transform) is _white noise_, that is, it contains equal amounts at once of all possible frequencies. When the instrument responds to all these equal input frequencies, it outputs a very complicated spectrum that displays peaks located at the frequencies where sounds propagate best through the instrument. In a phrase, it is responding to all possible frequencies at once!  And _that_ is the scientific measure of its "voice."  

It is curious to me that you are very quick to reject the subjective (human) analysis supplied in this paper, where players evaluated various characteristics before/after, and which was fully corroborated by the purely objective spectral data, but you seem pretty well satisfied by your own anecdotal evidence, and that of some other people.  That strikes me as a double standard.  Furthermore, it is not correct to dismiss player-assigned scores as somehow being unscientific.  There are thousands upon thousands of of psychological and psychophysical studies that have been carried out over the years by research scientists using scores generated by humans, arising from human perceptions.  What matters, from a scientific perspective, is the way in which the data are analyzed, the controls that were carried out, and the statistical power of any conclusions made. Not whether it was some human percept being scored! Yes, you can reach meaningful, scientific conclusions from subjective data.  _The problem with anecdotal evidence is NOT that it comes from humans_. You misunderstand this point. The real problem with anecdotal evidence is that there were no proper experimental controls conducted (leading to uncontrolled observer bias!) and/or that the statistical power is low due to small numbers of observations.

----------

DataNick, 

Phil Goodson

----------


## Explorer

> There are definitely those who believe vibration makes changes the sound of an instrument over time. Among those who have gone on record as having heard such changes over the life of an instrument, and even more dramatically in the period when an instrument is being played for the first time, are Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings.
> 
> Me? On the matter of instruments opening up, I have no reason to doubt the ears of those folks, or to think they all just happened to get it wrong in the one place with which someone has a philosophical.





> Unfortunately, this post is filled with so much *innuendo* and misrepresentation that it should not be left unchallenged. No one on the MC, to my knowledge, has ever accused Roger Siminoff, Ervin Somogyi, Bob Taylor, Big Joe Vest, Bruce Weber and Bill Collings of "deliberately lying" with respect to this phenomenon.  
> ...That said, it might be worth pointing out that at least some of these individuals -- Roger Siminoff, for example -- are (or _were_; Roger is retired now) actually in the business of offering a professional "de-damping" service for a fee, so they stood to gain something monetarily. _Caveat emptor._ That doesn't mean they're wrong or lying, only that they may have a conflict of interest that you should consider.


I had someone point out to me that I should clarify why there's only a few options on two points. 

Each of the individuals I listed, and many more, have gone on the record about having heard the changes. (I had listed Bill Collings and Bob Taylor, and it was interesting to see sblock mention guitars from another fellow in his post, Chris Martin, who also has gone on record about "opening up" being an observable phenomenon.)

First, there are only two possibilities that would lead to them saying they heard the phenomenon of opening up:
They believe they heard something.They *know* they didn't hear something, and are therefore lying when they say they did. 
If they did hear something, there's two possibilities:
"Opening up" genuinely exists as a phenomenon.All those experts in instrument construction got it wrong in that one place where they disagree with the one person's opinion. 
The only two possibilities which allow those individuals to go on record and say they heard something *without* it existing are:
The ears and expertise which have resulted in decades of top instruments just got this one wrong.They deliberately lied about having heard something when they know they didn't, possibly for a profit motive. 
When sblock mentions that "they may have a conflict of interest which you should consider," and "they had something to gain" by claiming they heard something which they didn't, that certainly fits that last one. Additionally, sblock employed *innuendo* to get there.

Really, when challenging a claim, one shouldn't give support to that claim at the same time. That seems obvious. 

----

As to why the instrument plots differ from one plot to plot over time, and whether a "statistically insignificant" variation in decibels is inaudible or not, it would seem impossible to state with confidence. In fact, in reading the study I discovered that the researchers don't dismiss the changes evident in the plot as insignificant as sblock has.

I do find it interesting that while this study concludes that the Tonerite didn't affect tone. 

However, even the investigators note the following, starting the last paragraph at the bottom on page 8: "Interestingly, *subtle but significant changes are also observed for the guitars before and after treatment*. However, these changes were essentially the same whether or not the guitar was subjected to the vibration treatment. So these differences are due either to *the small amount of playing during the player trials (about 1-2 hours total)*, the passage of time (about three months), the changing of weather from late summer to fall in Palo Alto, or irreproducibility of our measurement method. ...Hence *it is likely that the changes in frequency response function represent a real change. However, there is no significant difference between the effects of the control treatment and the vibration treatment.*" They observed instruments changing over time, possibly due to playing time. 

*I agree that this study shows no evidence of the Tonerite affecting the instruments. However, it does possibly provide evidence of instruments changing over time, and (strangely enough, as noted by the researchers) of that change being consistent.*

That actually does nothing to rule out the idea that the people I mentioned (and numerous others), who have gone on record as having heard an instrument "opening up," actually heard the phenomenon. Even your chosen study shows "significant changes," and given your endorsement of the researcher's independence, that rules out questioning his fiduciary incentives in his findings.

Interesting study, incidentally.

----------


## sblock

I'm glad to learn that you "agree that this study shows no evidence of the Tonerite affecting the instruments."  Woohoo -- we do agree about something, after all!  That's progress, in my opinion.

Whether a ToneRite improves the tone of an instrument is, after all, is the *subject of this thread*. It is not about "opening up."  In fact, I believe that you were the one to introduce all this extra discussion about "opening up."  I certainly didn't.  When you discuss opening up and ToneRite effects (or lack thereof), you are conflating potentially different phenomena, and muddying the waters.

You also note that "it does possibly provide evidence of instruments changing over time, and (strangely enough, as noted by the researchers) of that change being consistent."  Yup.  I think we pretty much all agree that the sound of an instrument can and does change over time.  It certainly changes with the seasonal humidity (on a fairly rapid time scale of weeks to months), and there are also long-term ageing affects in woods, varnishes, and glues (on a time scale of years). These things are pretty well documented. But these particular changes are not necessarily (or even likely) correlated with _playing_ the instrument. And they don't necessarily result in the instrument always sounding better.  Sometimes, the instrument can sound worse.  

I don't want to get involved in another protracted debate about whether "opening up" _due solely to playing_ is a real phenomenon. We all know your position on this.  I remain a skeptic.   

But irrespective of whether you believe in "opening up" on a long time scale -- and the possibly related but different phenomenon of "waking up" on a short time scale --  the point here is that ToneRites don't substitute for any of these things, because they don't seem to work.

----------

Explorer

----------


## Explorer

> I'm glad to learn that you "agree that this study shows no evidence of the Tonerite affecting the instruments."  Woohoo -- we do agree about something, after all!  That's progress, in my opinion.
> 
> But irrespective of whether you believe in "opening up" on a long time scale -- and the possibly related but different phenomenon of "waking up" on a short time scale --  the point here is that ToneRites don't substitute for any of these things, because they don't seem to work.


I agreed that this one study shows no evidence. I'm hopeful we can both agree that more studies would help reinforce that, as opposed to concluding something is proven from one study (as your last sentence could be read as implying).

----------


## sblock

As a scientist, I could hardly disagree with the proposition that more high-quality data are always better!  So YES, we agree.  Now, back to my practicing...

----------


## Timbofood

Isn't playing the fun part of listening to an instrument whether or not they really "open up" or not. I am in the open up through personal interaction not any kind of mechanical inducement. It's cheaper too!

----------


## dhergert

I once listened to a guitarist theorize that the opening-up phenomenon that some artists demonstrate with their instruments isn't from playing hour after hour, but rather is from driving thousands of miles from gig to gig.  The variety of vibrations and the variety of temperatures and humidity levels that the instrument absorbs were suggested as being the key.

I'm not suggesting this is either fact or fiction, but just another theory.

Personally, when I'm not playing it, I put my mandolin on top of the washing machine while washing my bib overalls.

 :Laughing:

----------

Billkwando

----------


## MontanaMatt

> Isn't playing the fun part of listening to an instrument whether or not they really "open up" or not. I am in the open up through personal interaction not any kind of mechanical inducement. It's cheaper too!


I borrowed a Tonerite, so my cost was the handful of nickels for seven days use...plus postage, as my friend that lent the device lives 140 miles away.

----------


## Mike Snyder

There was a short lived exchange of a traveling toneright maybe 5 or 6 years ago. A dealer in Florida provided the machine and a user list was grown on the cafe. I had it on my Gibson for about 72 hours. For the price of postage to the next guy, a bargain. I liked it.

----------


## HoGo

Like in the few previous threads I'll add view of a maker.
When I finish building mandolin I certainly hear some breaking in period - meaning the tone changes after first tringing the changes are more dramatic at first and become less and less audible after few hours. In a week or so the instrument settles and the changes are no longer large enough for me to hear. I string the instruments in white and let them settle and again after finishing and finish curing (can take me few months) I can hear it again though not as evident as during the first stringing.
I could hear it (though even less evident and settles in few hours) on instruments that were without strings for longer period of time during repairs.
I would describe that the change during first few hours is as large as change of next day and then next 10 days and then next few months etc. 
BUT I cannot claim there will be any more changes after that initial breaking and VERY slow (and decreasing) changes afterward. I have opportunity to play and inspect few of my instruments once a year or two and I cannot hear any significant changes (other than result of new strings, setup, or climate changes...) on any of them though owners often believe the instruments are developing this or that quality. Human hearing is so subjective and unreliable so I never tell them anything against their belief, I mostly suspect thay are still improving in their technique and inconsciously found way of getting more out of the box....
Regarding the vibrational devices I believe there is quite a bit of placebo effect going on and some of the proponents used them on brand new instruments and I think the vibrations WILL speed up the initial breaking period (ever heard of vibrating welded steel constructions for faster stress relieving?) so changes can be dramatic in such cases, but I doubt vibrating instrument that has been played for decade(s) will introduce more change than just weather (or miserable human hearing) can within the same time frame (that's roughly what the study cited above claims).
From other perspective you can see that the bubble of the devices is all but gone these days, few years back they were discussed regularly and bold claims were made (often by folks that offered the devices or rented tem) but now you see question bout the devices once a six months or so... The trend moved on and there are new things that are IN, like torrefied wood etc...

----------

Billkwando, 

dhergert, 

MontanaMatt, 

Phil Goodson, 

sblock

----------


## fscotte

You can't recall how an instrument sounds, but you can recall how it made you feel.   That's how you know if an instrument has changed tonally.  I'm sure some of us has had a mando that used to make us feel "meh", but now it makes us feel "yay"!  I couldn't tell you what changed tonally, but I can tell you that the mando I used to like, now I love.  My playing never got better, probably worse cause I used to play more.  But my old Gibson reminds me daily, why Gibsons sound so good.  It was never like that for the first 3 years of its life.

----------

Paul Statman

----------


## DHopkins

I think it works and there are many others, including professionals who have been in the business for many years,  who think it works.  Your study intimates that we don't know what we're talking about.  I don't care.  I'm still gonna use it.

----------


## sblock

> I think it works and there are many others, including professionals who have been in the business for many years,  who think it works.  Your study intimates that we don't know what we're talking about.  I don't care.  I'm still gonna use it.


You are entitled to believe anything that you want!  But you need to realize that your firmly-held belief may, _or may not_, be factually correct!  That said, you are certainly wrong about at least one thing:  the study published by Bruce Clemens, et al., doesn't "intimate" whether you do, or you don't,  "know what you are talking about."  It simply reaches a conclusion that happens to be different from yours.  

This is nothing personal. You should not interpret Prof. Clemens' disagreement with your opinion as some kind of attack on your integrity or sincerity: it's not.  This is a forum for reasoned discussion, no?

----------


## DHopkins

It said it doesn't work. I think it does.  Fancy wording notwithstanding. it says I'm wrong.

I'm getting out of this thread.  I'm not about to get into a "spitting" contest with anyone here.

----------


## Explorer

> It said it doesn't work. I think it does.  Fancy wording notwithstanding. it says I'm wrong.


To be fair, the data in that study doesn't show an effect on the Tonerite-treated instruments alone., while it does show other frequency changes on both the treated and untreated instruments. 

That's a matter of your beliefs not being supported by that data. 

Getting upset by experimental data not supporting a belief, or even feeling insulted by a lack of support for a belief, doesn't make a belief true or the data wrong. There's always a chance to add more data, either replicating the study's results or disproving them, but to say that a study is unacceptable purely because it doesn't fit one's previous beliefs doesn't actually change that the beliefs might be mistaken. 

The "spitting contest" you're proposing is purely about the data versus how you think things should be regarding physics. I'm not sure that's even a contest. 

I'm sorry you feel that way when confronted with evidence that you might be mistaken, and that seems like a hard road to take, but it is your choice.

----------

Billkwando, 

Phil Goodson, 

sblock

----------


## MontanaMatt

Why has no one pointed out that this is a mando forum, and that guitar drivel (the lone study) belongs on a guitar forum :Laughing: 
Let's raise the money and I'll do the study on some sweet high end mandos.  I need six brand new mandolins from one awesome builder, maybe Oliver A. or McClannahan... There will be a large amount of empirical and human based data for all to do chi square regressions and confidence intervals...we can recuperate the upfront costs selling,... let's say four of the well broken in test subject!  My idea, copyright! :Wink:

----------


## MontanaMatt

BTW, I relayed my experience with a fresh mandolin significantly changing with the tonerite treatment.  I'm wondering, have the naysayers used it with a green mando?  Or are you all grumbling because your not new, previously dedampened mando did not change after riding on the tonerite, and you're sore that what you got is what your stuck with(you can always buy a nicer mando)
I guess that is a bit provocative, but I had to say it :Popcorn:

----------


## HoGo

> BTW, I relayed my experience with a fresh mandolin significantly changing with the tonerite treatment.  I'm wondering, have the naysayers used it with a green mando?  Or are you all grumbling because your not new, previously dedampened mando did not change after riding on the tonerite, and you're sore that what you got is what your stuck with(you can always buy a nicer mando)
> I guess that is a bit provocative, but I had to say it


From my experience new fresh mandolins WILL change regardless of what device you hang on it....

----------


## MontanaMatt

> From my experience new fresh mandolins WILL change regardless of what device you hang on it....


Totally agree, my first new mando took a long time to become "non-brittle " and easy playing.  Perhaps my current new mando would be in the exactl same place without the tonerite, but it might have time warped me past the waiting game too...

----------


## PiginaPen

THIS: https://www.mandolincafe.com/ads/111544#111544
is why I choose not to use a tone gard.

----------


## sblock

> THIS: https://www.mandolincafe.com/ads/111544#111544
> is why I choose not to use a tone gard.


You have confused a Tone-Gard with a ToneRite.  A Tone-Gard keeps the back of the mandolin off your belly while playing.  A ToneRite is a vibrator that attaches to your mandolin and shakes it.  Tone-Gards work very well for their intended purpose.  ToneRites, as you will see from this thread, are more controversial.

----------


## Bertram Henze

> You have confused a Tone-Gard with a ToneRite.  A Tone-Gard keeps the back of the mandolin off your belly while playing.  A ToneRite is a vibrator that attaches to your mandolin and shakes it.  Tone-Gards work very well for their intended purpose.  ToneRites, as you will see from this thread, are more controversial.


The ad in question explicitly mentions a tone guard - damage to back and sides. Now applying a ToneRite to back and sides would open totally new gates to hilarity... :Wink:

----------

Billkwando, 

Stevo75

----------


## Chris Daniels

> The ad in question explicitly mentions a tone guard...


With an active thread currently going on for each of the oft-contentious Tone-X products, I'll give the benefit of the doubt that this was simply a matter of cross-posting. At least PiginaPen presents a valid reason (i.e. potential damage) as to why he/she doesn't use the product, a justification that could apply to either.

It's the statement from the ad itself; "I really don't understand why people use those things", that willfully ignores the tens of thousands of words written here at the cafe (some very few my own) explaining exactly why people do use them despite the known risks.

To keep this post in the spirit of the topic at hand, I'm skeptical of the ToneRite but am open to the idea that it might have a long term benefit if eventually proven. Don't plan on buying or using one though, so my opinion is certainly of no benefit whatsoever.

C.

----------


## MontanaMatt

I found it refreshing to see that the fantastic picker, and featured Monday Mando picker, Alan Bibey, is a Tone Rite and Tone Guard endorser.  He has the tone and knows how to get it!

----------


## MontanaMatt

I wanted to again drag up the issue that "The Study" was on guitars!  How can your strong science background(sblock) let you espouse inferences about mando tone, placebo effect, consumer gullibility, etc. based on non mando research?

And again I want to volunteer to run a real mando study.
My CV includes a first tier peer reviewed publication (Journal of Economic Entomology),  almost ten years of research in a GLP laboratory, 15 years of mando picking, and twelve years of professional Bluegrass playing in The Bridger Creek Boys.

----------


## Explorer

> I wanted to again drag up the issue that "The Study" was on guitars!  How can your strong science background(sblock) let you espouse inferences about mando tone, placebo effect, consumer gullibility, etc. based on non mando research?


I'm curious.

What factors, in your view, prevent data regarding wooden tops on plucked-string fretted instruments from being relevant to other similar plucked-string fretted instruments? 

If you've been involved in the sciences, you should know that in deductive reasoning, one knows that if something is true of a class, then it is true of all members of a class. I think normally it's stated as the syllogism, All men are Mortal, Socrates is a man, Therefore Socrates is mortal. 

If you are arguing that it is unreasonable for luthiers, players, and even the makers of the Tonerite to view wood-top plucked-string musical instruments as one class, I'm happy to hear why you believe the Tonerite is being falsely advertised as being equally appropriate to them all. 

Of course, that shifts your proposed argument quite a bit, and requires strong evidence to support your claim, that mandolins and guitars are sufficiently dissimilar that luthiers over the centuries have wrongly classed them together in terms of function and working mechanisms. I look forward to seeing that evidence, because otherwise you seem to be cherry-picking one very small point without supporting your broader required foundational claim regarding instrument principles. That lack of evidence will be disappointing, given how strongly you've been claiming the point.

----------

Billkwando

----------


## MontanaMatt

The lack of evidence is disappointing, thus my picking at the point that one study on a mechanically dissimilar device is not a compendium of info.  If you think a study of carbon fiber behavior done on flat sheets can yield accurate deductive results for the whole class of items made from carbon fiber, please don't build my race car.  The fact that strings, wood, and frets are shared doesn't make a guitar equal or even similar to a mando or fiddle.  Arched and graduated woods are not the same as "thickness sanded" plates.  The compression of a graduated mando or fiddle top is obviously behaving in a very different manner than the torqued upward load of the guitar.  

As for the marketing scheme, that is an obvious one, you can't prove false advertising and deception, since there is not conclusive results, they market to everyone, as profit is obviously a strong motivation.

BTW, if we want to talk about science n=6, or 60 is a ridiculously small sample size for statistical analysis.
Additionally, the study admitted that they couldn't accurately replicate strumming, so they used a hammer strike for generating data...really.  Hammer used to evaluate tonal response...really.
Each of their citations for methodology was from guitar work.
They concluded that perhaps the long term effect of playing might impart a beneficial change over time...
One week of Tonerite is equivalent to a full year of gigs vibrations for a busy musician......is it the vibrations or time making the changes?
A Tonerite imparts a lot of energy into the mandolin, not sure how they concluded that the force is a small fraction of picking force.

I was dubious when I tried the treatment on my new mando, I'm a believer after hearing the results.  Humans do have acute senses, even if they are easily fooled.

One thing I do know, apples ain't oranges, thus my previous comment that the guitar study belongs on a guitar forum  :Grin:  and we need to collectively commission me to do a mando only study, and upon further consideration I want to greatly expand my proposed sample size for the study to 100 awesome mandolins.  We'll sell all the Tonerites and 95 of the aged and mechanically aged mandolins at the conclusion of my work, thus recouping the costs.  Brilliant!  Any investors interested?

----------


## William Smith

Never used one but when I was a kid my Grandpappy who built mandolins and a few guitars, not the best but he had caveman tools/or made the tool he needed for the job, he didn't have much $$$, 1 good eye, lost one to diabetes we built a Martin bone Kit together, he built one previous for himself he swore that you should put your new instruments in a closet and crank up the tunes to break em in! a tonrite vibrates right so same concept. But I'm ONE of THOSE people who believes the more ya play em the better and they do fall asleep after a long period of non usage!

----------


## Explorer

MontanaMatt, you again are claiming that it is wrong to treat guitars and mandolins as operating under the same principles, even though those principles are successfully taught to and employed by luthiers for centuries. The evidence disproves that claim of yours.

You also claim that the exception to the principles which should be kept separate is the Tonerite. 

You need to prove your first claim, and to disprove the centuries of understood basic instrument operation principles, before you then engage in whatever special pleading you'll need to carve out your claimed Tonerite exception. 

Saying that a Macintosh and a Winesap can't be compared because the Winesap is actually an orange is obviously silly, because both are apples. Similarly, an acoustic guitar and an acoustic mandolin share characteristics in the same way.

Arguing against evidence while providing none for one's central argument would be embarrassing for most who are involved in actual science. I look forward to seeing if you continue to ignore your claims' central failings, and shudder to think of paying someone for shoddy reasoning in the sciences.

----------


## MontanaMatt

Apples, ha, good one.  Uh, my point is that the assumption of equivalency is a mistake, as much so a saying a guitar behaves like a fiddle acoustically.  Nope.  And it's not the absence of frets causing that difference, they are different machines.  Additionally, the string imparts a different waveform of energy to the instrument vs a hammer strike on the bridge.  Is not the issue of discussion damping and dedamping of newly assembled instruments?

Scientific discourse doesn't require counter evidence when methodologies are criticized and false equivalences revealed.  Seems reasonable, not shoddy.
The ancient luthiers attended witch burnings and used lots of leeches...are we sure we trust that a guitar and a mandolin are identical in form, function, and physics?  Strum sticks ain't working like a Stradivarius.

----------


## JeffD

Could something that doesn't appear to make much difference on a guitar make a more significant difference on a mandolin? Of course it could. Lots of little things make a bigger difference on the mandolin than one would expect with only guitar experience. 

That doesn't invalidate or call into question the study, or anything, its just another thing to keep in mind when generalizing from the  specific.

----------


## Timbofood

Jeff wins. :Wink:

----------

Billkwando, 

FLATROCK HILL

----------


## JeffD

A couple of other questions seem to loom large, and largely unaddressed - 

Is the tone rite effect (assuming there is one) really accomplishing the same thing as playing the instrument hard and long? Assuming it is eventually found to be doing something, is it the right thing?

And secondly, a question that someone brought up years ago that really shook up the place - can a mandolin get "played out", in other words the opposite of opening up, after years of hard playing, becoming less responsive due to some kind of fatigue. Strings can sure, and we replace them, but what about the rest of the instrument.

The reason this second question is interesting is because if there is any validity to the idea, it implies there are a finite number of "good vibrations" and one might not want to artificially use them up with a tone rite or similar device.

----------


## JeffD

Setting aside the bickering, and the SIWOTI effect (Someone Is Wrong On The Internet), I do genuinely find this topic interesting. I know a few old fiddlers who store their fiddles against their stereo speakers.

----------

Billkwando, 

MontanaMatt

----------


## Billkwando

> Setting aside the bickering, and the SIWOTI effect (Someone Is Wrong On The Internet), I do genuinely find this topic interesting. I know a few old fiddlers who store their fiddles against their stereo speakers.


I've known folks who did this with guitars. I joked in another thread that all the dremeling I did to install the endpin jack on my Loar LM-310 (with the strings still on) should probably help it open up nicely, and probably put years of playing on it!  :Laughing:

----------


## Bertram Henze

> Setting aside the bickering, and the SIWOTI effect (Someone Is Wrong On The Internet), I do genuinely find this topic interesting. I know a few old fiddlers who store their fiddles against their stereo speakers.


I think we are just comfortable with a topic we have written down our opinions on so often that we have them well figured out and memorized.

----------

sblock

----------


## JeffD

> I think we are just comfortable with a topic we have written down our opinions on so often that we have them well figured out and memorized.


Probably some truth to that.

----------


## Mark Gunter

It seems to me that if overmuch playing and the resulting vibrations over time might somehow physically alter a stringed instrument in such a way as to improve its acoustic response, well, that same overmuch playing over time has the potential to simultaneously improve the skill and musicality of the player by virtue of both play and practice, perhaps in such a way as to grow and age the player in positive ways in synch with the instrument ... and if that were the case, what would be the reason for a mechanical device used to approximate the effects of overmuch playing? To grow and mature the instrument while the player remains idle?

IDK, seems to me I have other things to spend my money on, and a lot of mandolin-learnin' to do, y'all can keep the tonerite  :Wink: 

"Dude, that's a sweet mandolin, and seems well broken in and opened up!"

"Yeah, man, that tonerite has paid its dues."

----------


## Billkwando

> It seems to me that if overmuch playing and the resulting vibrations over time might somehow physically alter a stringed instrument in such a way as to improve its acoustic response, well, that same overmuch playing over time has the potential to simultaneously improve the skill and musicality of the player by virtue of both play and practice, perhaps in such a way as to grow and age the player in positive ways in synch with the instrument ... and if that were the case, what would be the reason for a mechanical device used to approximate the effects of overmuch playing? To grow and mature the instrument while the player remains idle?
> 
> IDK, seems to me I have other things to spend my money on, and a lot of mandolin-learnin' to do, y'all can keep the tonerite 
> 
> "Dude, that's a sweet mandolin, and seems well broken in and opened up!"
> 
> "Yeah, man, that tonerite has paid its dues."


Hahaha, nice. By that rationale, people can stop buying old Gibsons and get a nice new mandolin that will "grow with them".  :Laughing:

----------


## Bertram Henze

> "Dude, that's a sweet mandolin, and seems well broken in and opened up!"
> 
> "Yeah, man, that tonerite has paid its dues."


The main point why I don't understand this whole thing. It's a bit like marrying and having a robot make your wife happy...

----------

sloanypal

----------


## Billkwando

> The main point why I don't understand this whole thing. It's a bit like marrying and having a robot make your wife happy...


While some folks would undoubtedly be into that, it's really not the same thing.  :Laughing: 

It's more like, as I said previously, buying a vintage instrument instead of a new one. Why else do you think most people buy vintage instruments when new ones are typically so much cheaper?

I think the Tonerite is simply seen, by the people who buy it (both literally and figuratively) to be a way to quickly "vintage-ize" their instruments.

----------


## JeffD

> I think the Tonerite is simply seen, by the people who buy it (both literally and figuratively) to be a way to quickly "vintage-ize" their instruments.


My take is a little different. I think many folks are just impatient to get the great sounds expected once the instrument "opens up". I think its impatience.

----------


## Willie Poole

I have owned quite a few mandolins and "most" of them did sound better as they aged ..BUT  I have had two that seemed to sound worse the more they were played...Back in the days when we didn`t know as much about set ups as we do now could be the reason but I still have one of them and it seems that nothing that I do helps it get back to the original sound that it had for the first 5-6 years that I owned it...Probably one of the reasons is that maybe some builders use wood that isn`t aged and completely dried out...

   And  a lot of it is the weather on a given day, some days they sound great then on another day they sound like they are losing something...It will drive you nutty if you let it, just play them and hope for the best...

    Willie

----------


## Billkwando

> My take is a little different. I think many folks are just impatient to get the great sounds expected once the instrument "opens up". I think its impatience.


No you're definitely right, but the "vintage" thing was the easiest way I could think of to articulate it. 

I don't think our takes are dissimilar. I do still think that many folks buy vintage because of the perceived "pre-opened" factor, the assumption being that an old instrument will have had plenty of time to open up, and I do still think that at least some of the folks who purchase the tonerite are hoping that it will suddenly turn their instrument into a 1920s Gibson.....but yes, impatience is certainly the likely main motivator. I like to over-complicate things sometimes.  :Smile: 

...and then there are folks in some corners asking the question of whether instruments actually open up at all, beyond the initial break in period immediately after construction. Who knows? Maybe those Loyd Loar mandolins sounded the same/just as good, the first day they were put out for sale? It would be neat if someone kept a stock instrument for 20 or 30 or 50 years, with the express purpose of checking to see if the sound changed over time, but even with recording, I'd imagine it would be hard to replicate the exact same factors to make it scientific (mic, equipment, room acoustics, etc).

----------


## Mark Gunter

> Hahaha, nice. By that rationale, people can stop buying old Gibsons and get a nice new mandolin that will "grow with them".


 :Smile: 

Well that was written "tongue in cheek" but it does kind of express my true sentiments, I don't see a great need for a tone-rite machine personally. If I thought it'd transform one of my instruments magically into a Gibson Loar-era instrument, OK, sign me up - but I don't believe that. Not knocking people who use the tone-rite, that's my own perspective that it would have little or no value to me even if it did work a bit.

----------


## SternART

I just saw this new thread....I wrote in the previous threads.  I had Siminoff do dedamping on 4 instruments.  On one a Gilchrist, the A string was weaker that the others, which were all strong & wonderful.  The instrument came back with the A string in balance. I whupped on that thing for a year & no change....... but Roger's process did the trick.

Another instrument, a Heiden opened up VERY nicely and the other two it didn't transform them but maybe a bit more open.  I've had a number of good instruments & am around great players with good instruments, so I think my ear is pretty good........ but hey YMMV.  

I think the Tone Rite makes an instrument sound like you've already been playing it for awhile, but IMO not as good as Siminoff's dedamping.  Wonder what Roger did with his setup?

----------


## MontanaMatt

> Well that was written "tongue in cheek" but it does kind of express my true sentiments, I don't see a great need for a tone-rite machine personally. If I thought it'd transform one of my instruments magically into a Gibson Loar-era instrument, OK, sign me up - but I don't believe that. Not knocking people who use the tone-rite, that's my own perspective that it would have little or no value to me even if it did work a bit.


I agree that it won't take an instrument to "aged, and fully broken in". It doesn't impart the full range of fluctuations and changes that an instrument goes through in the aging process.  I did observe rapid dedamping during my use of the tonerite.  A tight new mando developed great amplitude control and full power clarity in under a week, as it was tight and stuffy when tuned up after transport.

When I bought my custom Weber a decade ago, the factory had a tank that instruments were hung in with an ozone generator to impart a curing or aging effect.  I suspect that in the future there will be a design for a box that holds an instrument, strums it constantly with a pick, frets the notes, gradually ramps up barometric pressure and humidity and drops it down, adds ozone and uv radiation, all this after full torrification.  Why not?

----------


## dhergert

Yup.  It's called a garage, on top of the washing machine or on top of the dryer, with my bib overalls inside.  I may throw some tennis shoes in too, for a little more bass emphasis.

I learned this trick from an antique dealer that I bought an old Swiss pocket watch from.  Noting that it didn't work, I asked her if she knew of a local tinker who could fix it.  She said, "put it on top of the washer for an hour or two."

It worked.  The watch keeps perfect time.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Stop

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

----------


## MikeEdgerton

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


I'm not sure I agree with that. *This* one had some movement that wasn't real healthy.

----------

Mark Gunter

----------


## allenhopkins

> vibration ( movement of the wood)and age is good on instruments...no matter what kind of movement.


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...

----------

Mark Gunter

----------


## 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?

----------

FLATROCK HILL, 

Mark Gunter, 

pit lenz

----------


## 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.   :Smile:

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## Cheryl Watson

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

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## 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.

----------

Hendrik Ahrend

----------


## 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.

----------

Paul Kotapish

----------


## 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_."

----------

Kevin Stueve, 

Mark Gunter, 

Paul Kotapish

----------


## 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...  :Laughing:

----------

Mark Gunter

----------


## 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.

----------

Mark Gunter

----------


## 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.

----------

allenhopkins

----------


## 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._

----------

Phil Goodson

----------


## 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!

----------


## Jeff Mando

hmmmmm........

----------


## Mark Gunter

Making plans to try one of each device discussed here, first each in isolation, then all devices simultaneously, and also plan to monitor all tests with latest generation tautology detector firmly in place. I'll let y'all know how it comes out.

----------

DHopkins

----------


## Kevin Stueve

be sure and update us on the amplitude control and power clarity readings

----------


## George R. Lane

I tried one once, but I couldn't hear any difference. I guess I should have put my hearing aids in.

----------


## Mike Snyder

There was one that went around like the pick sampler, been a few years ago. Helped my Gibson get over the hump. I sent it along.

----------


## MontanaMatt

> be sure and update us on the amplitude control and power clarity readings


I don't take kindly to open mockery.
You're welcome to discount my observations of rapid break-in of a new high end mando.  You are also allowed to not understand the processes of damping and acoustic coupling, headroom, and playing with control across a wide dynamic range.

----------

George R. Lane

----------


## dan in va

IIRC, Chris Stanley used one on the just finished A5 in 2012.  It sounded great, except for the lowest 4 notes on the G string, so i picked up a pre owned Tone Rite on the Cafe.  It ran nonstop for a month, 24/7, except when i was playing the mandolin pretty hard.  i really wanted to believe it was helping, but the witness of those 4 notes could not be refuted.  So it went to another Cafe member and i played on pretty much every day...still do.  The volume balanced across the strings after some 3 years of playing and i'm a satisfied owner.  Other small shop name mandolins have come and gone, but the Stanley stands strong.

i hope others had a more fruitful experience than i did.

Now, the innovation i would like to see is a machine that can duplicate picking motion by a player.  Seems like there must be a way to do this.

----------

MontanaMatt

----------


## Papalobo

I've been using the "put them in front of speakers" break in for years , and if done carefully , in my experience makes a difference. 
You'll notice the strings vibrating in sympathy as the top does it's work . Being an engineer and luthier I find it a kick .  The larger the top surface of the instrument , I believe the more dramatic the effect from observation .  I've done it with violin and guitars.

----------


## DHopkins

> I've been using the "put them in front of speakers" break in for years , and if done carefully , in my experience makes a difference. 
> You'll notice the strings vibrating in sympathy as the top does it's work . Being an engineer and luthier I find it a kick .  The larger the top surface of the instrument , I believe the more dramatic the effect from observation .  I've done it with violin and guitars.


That's the way Emory Gordy, Jr. does it.  (He's a famous unknown who's played with Elvis, Emmylou. George Jones, Billy Joel, Vince Gill, his wife Patty Loveless and many others.)  He told me that a couple of days worth would usually do the trick.  He and I are both ham radio operators and I originally met him at a state-sponsored emergency exercise several years ago.

----------


## FourPairPicker

I know this is an old thread but I'm looking to either get a couple of tone rites or a tone traveler.  The tone traveler is works a lot like the old put it in front of your speaker method but it lets you target individual strings and tuners.  Has anyone here had any experience with it?

----------

