the demise of the pick guard

[Jim Adwell]

I posted on page one of this thread, three years ago!!

I'm in total agreement with the folks who say the finger rest doesn't block sound coming from the f-hole. In my opinion the finger rest is too far from the surface of the top to interfere with the sound waves from the f-hole.
BUT it's provable that the finger rest mutes the E and A strings (at least on my instrument.) As you probably know a Gibson finger rest is attached with two pins into the side of the fingerboard and a bracket screwed to the side of the mandolin. I can leave the bracket unattached but the finger rest held on by the pins only, play the instrument; then slip the finger rest off and play the instrument again. (And repeat as often as desired.) These two examples of playing are only a few seconds apart so it makes it possible to compare the sound accurately. With the finger rest attached there is a small but clearly discernible muting of the high strings. I can't detect any change in the overall loudness of the instrument. I would imagine I could attach an equivalent weight to the edge of the fingerboard and get the same effect. It's not a huge difference but it is undeniable. I won't claim that every mandolin on the planet would behave the same way, as construction and responsiveness can vary between instruments.

Steve

You've failed to determine whether the effect you hear is caused by 1) the finger rest *** being attached to the fingerboard, or 2) the finger rest being in place whether connected to the fingerboard or not. You need another experiment where you attach the finger rest by the bracket only without the fingerborad touching it at all.

I would imagine I could attach an equivalent weight to the edge of the fingerboard and get the same effect.

Imagination is all well and good, and even indispensable for scientific investigation, but experiment is more important, especially one like this which is doable and can potentially disprove your contention. Attach the weight and see what happens.


*** Sheesh, now I'm calling a 'finger rest'. It's a pickguard, dammit.

[sblock]

Why don't you post some recordings of your mandolin being played with and without its finger-rest/pickguard, but not tell folks which is which, and see if people on this forum can hear the difference? Of course, this is not a fully controlled experiment, since you know which condition is which, and can thereby change the way that you play (either consciously or unconsciously), but it's a start, and would give folks an idea of the size of the effect. We could use some data for this discussion!

[Bertram Henze]

I think my brain just sprung a leak!

Come on, we have not even considered Schrödinger's cat being inside the mandolin body (dead or alive) yet.

[Mandoplumb]

Now we need to do 6 pages to determine if a little added weight attached to the fingerboard will mute the first and second strings. Just to get the ball rolling I don't see how, although

[Dave Cohen]

Come on, we have not even considered Schrödinger's cat being inside the mandolin body (dead or alive) yet.

Right, and of course the cat has a dead state AND an alive state.

[MikeEdgerton]

If it's dead or alive is it still Schrödinger's cat?

[Timbofood]

You guys!

[Bernie Daniel]

I posted on page one of this thread, three years ago!!

I'm in total agreement with the folks who say the finger rest doesn't block sound coming from the f-hole. In my opinion the finger rest is too far from the surface of the top to interfere with the sound waves from the f-hole.
BUT it's provable that the finger rest mutes the E and A strings (at least on my instrument.) As you probably know a Gibson finger rest is attached with two pins into the side of the fingerboard and a bracket screwed to the side of the mandolin. I can leave the bracket unattached but the finger rest held on by the pins only, play the instrument; then slip the finger rest off and play the instrument again. (And repeat as often as desired.) These two examples of playing are only a few seconds apart so it makes it possible to compare the sound accurately. With the finger rest attached there is a small but clearly discernible muting of the high strings. I can't detect any change in the overall loudness of the instrument. I would imagine I could attach an equivalent weight to the edge of the fingerboard and get the same effect. It's not a huge difference but it is undeniable. I won't claim that every mandolin on the planet would behave the same way, as construction and responsiveness can vary between instruments.

Steve

H. Not to be a pain in the rear but if your proof is based on what you think that you hear that is not proof.

Rather that is your opinion--however strongly held.

Now if your ears happened to have an electronic device embedded for measuring sound waves and you recorded the difference in volume, pitch or shape quantitatively THEN you would have proof.

[Dave Cohen]

H. Not to be a pain in the rear but if your proof is based on what you think that you hear that is not proof.

Rather that is your opinion--however strongly held.

Now if your ears happened to have an electronic device embedded for measuring sound waves and you recorded the difference in volume, pitch or shape quantitatively THEN you would have proof.

Nope, not even THEN. You know the doctrine of falsifiability. We don't prove. What he would have would be, e.g., corroboration, or demonstration, or verification, or,......, but NOT proof.

[Mandoplumb]

What I hear is proof for me. Science proves something today then something different tomorrow so I can do the same thing. Prove the cat is dead today and maybe it's alive tomorrow. All kidding aside how do we really prove the things we have been talking about, a lot of knowledgeable people have stated slightly different proofs. Probably all are correct as for as it goes, but come on we are talking art, how do you prove art.

[sblock]

If I may, David Cohen seemed to be making a point that's related to the philosophy of science, and one made famous by the late Karl Popper, among others. The basic idea is to recognize that the universe of all possibilities is truly VAST, and therefore it is (usually) a practical impossibility to prove that something is "true" to the exclusion of all other possibilities, if for no other reason than that there are simply too many of those possibilities to be tested. On the other hand, it is often possible (usually) to falsify an idea, by simply showing that the idea is inconsistent with observations. In simpler (but slightly less accurate!) terms, you can show that something is wrong, but it's very hard to show that something is right (to the exclusion of any other explanation). In other words, ideas are FALSIFIABLE. They are not really "provable."

It is not possible to "prove" that a pickguard does not affect the sound quality of a mandolin. Whatever that means. On the other hand, it is certainly possible to test whether someone can -- or cannot -- reliably distinguish the sound of their own mandolin with or without its pickguard, when it's being played by someone else in a blind test. That is, can someone reliably detect the presence or absence of the pickguard simply by listening to the mandolin's sound, without other clues? If they cannot tell, then we have falsified the notion that the pickguard affects the tone. For them, that is! It's always possible that someone out there exists with super-ears who can tell, and at better than chance levels.

Scientists try to be very careful about claims, and they seldom use the word "prove," because it's so loaded. But they are skeptical, and they tend to use "disprove" a lot more! The best we can do with the claim that a pickguard changes the sound of a mandolin is to TEST that claim in a valid, controlled way. As many of you realize, "seeing is believing" is a rather flawed concept. "Hearing is believing" is probably just as flawed.

Any yes, I am extremely skeptical of the claim that someone can hear a change in tone when his pickguard is attached. Especially when no attempt was made to control for observer bias. This does not invalidate their experience. They might believe perfectly well that the sound changed. But they also saw whether the guard was on or off! Plus, we all have preconceived notions, whether we admit to these or not. They may accept their own anecdotal evidence developed in this way ("I believe my own ears!"). But I don't.

[Dave Cohen]

Mathematicians can prove. So can philosophers and logicians. Lawyers claim to offer proof. All because they can show by logical extension that if something is true for one case now, it will be true for any particular case in the future. In science, experiment always has the last word. Even though we may have some intuitive idea of the outcome of an experiment, in principle, we are doing the experiment because we do not know the outcome with certainty. There is always the possibility that a future experiment will contradict or even negate our present results. Ergo, we cannot prove in science. We can demonstrate, corroborate, verify,..., but not prove.

[Mark Gunter]

Now if your ears happened to have an electronic device embedded for measuring sound waves and you recorded the difference in volume, pitch or shape quantitatively THEN you would have proof.

LOL, the electronic gadgets are there to teach you something about what it is you're hearing or not hearing, to suggest that the electronic gadget can prove that you heard something? OK, I'll leave that one alone. It's like, "Make a recording, and transfer to us via electronic impulses carrying digital data through a series of servers so that we may verify through blind testing what it is you are hearing (or not) with your eardrums in your own room."

OK, y'all just go for it, fellows.

[Mark Gunter]

Good to see that the discussion has turned a bit toward philosophy. A couple of observations:

1. None of us will probably ever know what loudloar heard, or is hearing, in this case or why he hears what he testifies to hearing. An electronic gadget and a series of blind tests won't help. And unless you happen to be omniscient, omnipresent and infallible then there's no point in adamantly denying what another person experiences. You can doubt away, and happily; you can even try to persuade him that he's mistaken, and perhaps you will prevail.

2. Never underestimate the placebo effect. At the beginning of this discussion I might have sworn that I in my near deaf state could never tell the difference in sound between pick guard on/off at any distance. But now, miraculously, I can hear the difference! In fact, the sound coming from the lower f-hole has gotten louder and I can easily make a distinction between the resonance of the f-hole nearer me and the lower one! The resonance from the lower one is stronger! At times, I can almost see the sound waves coming from it.

I've read the article referenced earlier, as well as chapter 6 in the text book - also, I very much doubt that any listener could truly hear the difference on a mandolin with/without pick guard from a short distance away. In short, I am in agreement with most parties here on that particular issue in general. But in my living room, I could sense audibly, in a manner so real as to practically visualize the sound!

Do not underestimate the placebo effect, or the variety of human experience.

[Dave Cohen]

Mr. Carts, the point of recording quantitative measurement is that (a) you can repeat it and thereby judge it's reliability, (b) it becomes a point of comparison for other and future observations, and (c) most important, [someone else[/I] can repeat it under the same conditions and hopefully get the same result(s). Without those three markers, your eardrums are producing only anecdotes. Further, audial memory is good for maybe 0.4 seconds, no more than 10x that under best conditions. You record it quantitatively, and you have preserved it for comparison and evaluation. You can be as dismissive as you like, but anecdotes neither advance knowledge nor settle arguments.

[Mark Gunter]

Mr. Cohen, I meant no disrespect by my lighthearted remarks. It's Mark Gunter, markscarts is simply a username I frequently use. I do understand the value in your work, and I feel we are privileged to have your input. I am enjoying the fruits of your studies, and understanding a bit of it. I was being a bit "funny" in my mode of expression, but I was writing the truth for the most part, as I see it. And, in no way intending to be dismissive of your work, or of your methods. I assume it would not be your method to implant devices in a person's ears in the manner someone else has suggested? And I hope you see my point about making a recording on just any old device, sending it over here in order to blind test the recorded sounds in hope of understanding what loudloar is experiencing? My reference to your work was given only to indicate that I had read it, I think it is great. I was being specifically dismissive of the other suggestions made here. Sorry for the confusion.

[Rick Jones]

I reach the limit of my ability to explain it if I get much further into it than this.

This may be the best phrase I have ever read, anywhere, on any topic, and pretty much defines my life! I may steal this one for future use/abuse.

John - in all seriousness, a huge thank you for all your contributions to the forum. They are always appreciated, probably much more than you know.

[xSinner13x]

Well my 2 cents:
If you play with a destructive technique and don't use a guard,
you have NO ONE to blame but yourself.

I have left the Scratch Guard on my vintage mando, just for that reason,
To prevent Scratches, be it from picks or fingers(trim your damn nails ya buncha ladies)...
(as to the issue of "Borrowing", I see it kinda like swapping significant others, NO I don't wanna crack at yours...)
I also use it as a rest, as I tend to plant my pinkie on it Not The Body

As to tone, a subjective issue no matter the instrument, As I like to taunt the folks in the guitar forums...
Tone Is In The HANDS
(this should really burn some nerd boy butt...)

[Dave Cohen]

Mr. Cohen, I meant no disrespect by my lighthearted remarks. It's Mark Gunter, markscarts is simply a username I frequently use. I do understand the value in your work, and I feel we are privileged to have your input. I am enjoying the fruits of your studies, and understanding a bit of it. I was being a bit "funny" in my mode of expression, but I was writing the truth for the most part, as I see it. And, in no way intending to be dismissive of your work, or of your methods. I assume it would not be your method to implant devices in a person's ears in the manner someone else has suggested? And I hope you see my point about making a recording on just any old device, sending it over here in order to blind test the recorded sounds in hope of understanding what loudloar is experiencing? My reference to your work was given only to indicate that I had read it, I think it is great. I was being specifically dismissive of the other suggestions made here. Sorry for the confusion.

I didn't think you were at all dismissive of me or my work, but I thought the tone was somewhat dismissive of science. And since I identify so strongly with science, dismissiveness toward science is one of the things that pushes my buttons.

[Bernie Daniel]

Nope, not even THEN. You know the doctrine of falsifiability. We don't prove. What he would have would be, e.g., corroboration, or demonstration, or verification, or,......, but NOT proof.

Dave is correct of course as regards a strict use of the concept of proof (or to prove).

I think part of the problem is how "universal" or general are you claiming for your evidence is "proof" of some phenomenon.

For example, instrumented tests on one mandolin performed with and then without a pick guard could establish that you can show that the pick guard is changing the measured properties of the sound coming from the instrument. Some might say that "proves" it is happening at least for that particular instrument.

But of course it in no way does that one test establish that the same result would happen with the next mandolin that you tried the same test on.

If you did the test on 100 mandolins and got the same results than you would have established a greater likelihood that that pick guards do impact the tonal output of a mandolin and if you tested a 1000 mandolins then you have even a greater likelihood.

But you have not proven it in the absolute sense because on the 1001st mandolin tested you might fail to measure any influence of the guard!

But unfortunately common use of words tends to "pollute" then (IMO). The term "entropy" is a specific concept in thermodynamics describing the uncertainty or disorder in a system as a function of temperature or heat with very specific and predictable consequences for the system but as the word has crept out into common language you often see it used in inexplicable way.

Merriam-Webster on proof:

1. a. the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b. the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning;

2. obsolete : experience;

3. something that induces certainty or establishes validity;

4. archaic: the quality or state of having been tested or tried; especially : unyielding hardness;

5. evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal;

6. plural: proofs or proof :
a. copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction;
b. a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph;
c. a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation;
d. a test photographic print made from a negative;

7. a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality;

8. a the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit
b strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present <whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol.

Anyway.............

[Givson]

I have a Duff F-5 mandolin with a mini pickguard, attached to the fingerboard extension with three pins, and no clamp or bracket attached to the body of the mandolin. I have been a musician for many years, and my "ears" are very good. I have tested with pickguard on and off repeatedly, and my experience is close to loudloar's. I find that the high frequencies appear to be diminished with the pickguard on, in addition to reduced sustain of the harmonics on the E and A strings. There appears to be less "air" in the highs with the pickguard on.
I have not attempted to determine whether the sonic difference is caused by the additional weight of the pickguard attached to the fingerboard extension, or if the plastic pickguard somehow filters the sound emitted by the TOP of the mandolin. For whatever reason(s), the tonal response is altered with the pickguard on, with a reduction in the high end.
The decision to use a pickguard or not is a personal choice. Ultimately, musicians need to trust their ears.

[Bertram Henze]

If you play with a destructive technique and don't use a guard,
you have NO ONE to blame but yourself.

That brings back the original practical purpose of the pickguard. If it is needed, it is needed. If it is not needed, why optically obliterate half a beautiful instrument?

[DavidKOS]

That brings back the original practical purpose of the pickguard. If it is needed, it is needed. If it is not needed, why optically obliterate half a beautiful instrument?

Because it is needed for some playing styles and in the way for others. That's what I have gathered from the player's responses on this and other threads.

No judgement intended:

If you play more with classical pick technique (thin stiff sharp pick, subtle dynamics and articulations, etc.) the pickguard is very useful.

If you are hitting the mandolin hard Bluegrass-style with a large thick often rounded pick and trying to be loud enough to be heard over the banjo, then a pickguard could be in the way.

Thus there is no single rule.

[sunburst]

...For example, instrumented tests on one mandolin performed with and then without a pick guard could establish that you can show that the pick guard is changing the measured properties of the sound coming from the instrument. Some might say that "proves" it is happening at least for that particular instrument...

If we were to apply the scientific method to the question of whether or not a pick guard/finger rest affects the sound of a mandolin, I think we would be best served by a double blind listening test with a large sample size of players, listeners and instruments. If it can be shown that listeners and/or players can distinguish the sound of mandolins with and without pick guards at a rate significantly better than chance, we have presented evidence that there is a difference in the sound of a mandolin with and without a pick guard. If the results are no better than expected from chance, we've presented evidence that there is no difference in sound. Let several more groups try the same experiment and show similar results, and we accumulate more evidence that there is or is not a difference in sound, but we can repeat the experiment as many times as we can and we can never prove that there is or is not a difference.

I know this has been brought up many times and that some people are darned tired of it, but reading these articles "changed my life" so to speak. I know from experience that there are people who hear things that I do not hear, that we can learn to hear (and see) things that we have previously missed, so I've never entirely dismissed someone's claim to hears something that I do not. That has led me to accept the claims of many people who say they hear distinctions that I do not hear.
Then along came these studies, both well designed and carried out, the second in particular, that lead to these results:
http://josephcurtinstudios.com/artic...is-experiment/
http://www.thestrad.com/cpt-latests/...n-instruments/

Of all the claims by people to hear something, to be absolutely sure of it, to believe it to the depths of their beings, we would be hard pressed to find any more strongly held beliefs than those of many high level violinists, that antique violins are superior in many ways, especially in sound, to modern violins. Those were the people participating in these tests!
What did I learn from reading these articles?
-That sometimes (often?) claims to hear something that I do not hear may be unfounded.
-That antique violins, despite their centuries-old reputations, perhaps do not sound significantly better than modern instruments.
-That people, when their beliefs are called into question by scientific evidence, will often dismiss the scientific results as invalid: The test wasn't well designed, the testers were biased, etc.. People with strongly held beliefs can be very reluctant to accept the possibility that they may be wrong.
-That things that I am sure of could be shown to perhaps be wrong by a well designed double blind (or other scientific) test. The high level violin soloists in the studies are well educated, professional musicians who have basically eaten, slept and breathed violins and music from a very early age (no one else becomes a top level soloist), yet they are human beings, just like me. Why would I expect to fare any better in a double blind test than they did? Yet there are those who will say, "yeah, but..." and continue to claim that they can hear what may or may not actually be there. It's an attitude that I don't completely understand. It seems to me that if we consider ourselves to be humans on an equal footing with other humans, we must assume that we are subject to the same prejudices, conditioning and self deception, and that we are equally likely to find out that evidence indicates we may be wrong.

So anyway, there is a little background in why I have recently become more skeptical of people's claims to be able to hear and distinguish sounds on very subtle levels, and yet I remain aware that "perception is reality" and that if someone thinks he/she hears something, that's as good as actually hearing it for that individual. That individual who hears what others do not, in my opinion, should not insist that what he/she hears is real and that the rest of us just don't hear it, unless there is some sort of evidence (not anecdotal!) to back up that claim.

[DavidKOS]

If we were to apply the scientific method to the question of whether or not a pick guard/finger rest affects the sound of a mandolin, I think we would be best served by a double blind listening test ......

......
Of all the claims by people to hear something, to be absolutely sure of it, to believe it to the depths of their beings, we would be hard pressed to find any more strongly held beliefs than those of many high level violinists, that antique violins are superior in many ways, especially in sound, to modern violins. Those were the people participating in these tests!
What did I learn from reading these articles?
-That sometimes (often?) claims to hear something that I do not hear may be unfounded.
-That antique violins, despite their centuries-old reputations, perhaps do not sound significantly better than modern instruments.
-That people, when their beliefs are called into question by scientific evidence, will often dismiss the scientific results as invalid: The test wasn't well designed, the testers were biased, etc.. People with strongly held beliefs can be very reluctant to accept the possibility that they may be wrong.
-That things that I am sure of could be shown to perhaps be wrong by a well designed double blind (or other scientific) test.

.

In so many areas of musical mythology, the commonly held wisdom has never been properly tested. All of the anecdotal evidence does not mean anything compared to real double-blind tests.

However there seem to be very few such studies, leaving most of us to debate these issues based on opinion rather than facts.

One of my favorites is the "tube amps sound better than SS guitar amps" myth. I recall a few studies where listeners could not tell accurately which type of amp was being used - even though so many guys claim they can tell.