Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Measuring Good Vibrations

Posted by timothy on from the practical-upshot dept.

Chris writes "A laser vibrometer finds its first application analyzing the vibrations in a guitar when different strings are plucked. The laser Doppler vibrometer (LDV) measures displacement and vibration speeds at 16 separate points simultaneously. The first application of the XVI is musical, analyzing the vibrations produced in a guitar when its E-string (the fattest string) was plucked. Analysis of this kind could prove useful for enthusiasts and manufacturers trying to replicate the sound made by old musical instruments in their new designs. They want to know what made these old instruments sound so good."

32 comments

  1. oh great by nocomment · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now we're gonna have "Live Double Doppler" on guitars too?

    --
    /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
    /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
  2. Why so good? by gnovos · · Score: 4, Funny

    They want to know what made these old instruments sound so good.

    They should look into a little thing called "talent". I know it's not a very popular thing today, but I'll bet you 99 times out of a hundred it's why that older music sounds better than now...

    --
    "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    1. Re:Why so good? by nocomment · · Score: 1

      More than that, I think that the people who invent things and little gadget to go on guitars have gradually improving their technology to remove all kinds of pops, and unwanted "ambient" frequnecies out. Not knowing of course that it's these ambient waves that are responisble for making it sound so good.

      I think this Jurassic Park quote sums it up for me

      Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could they didn't stop to think if they should

      --
      /* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
      /* http://allyourbasearebelongto.us */
    2. Re:Why so good? by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Hey good thing only the 80's on had bands that sold-out and groups owned and put together by record execs.

      Now, let's just forget all that and Payola and go on with our thinking that no matter what, our time was better than whatever time we're living in now.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    3. Re:Why so good? by Myco · · Score: 2

      Troll. The question is why old instruments (such as the famous Stradivarius violins) sound so good compared to modern instruments, when played by the same musician. And do you honestly believe that there aren't talented classical musicians out there today? Puh-leez.

      --
      My deviantArt site
    4. Re:Why so good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept is called humor, look it up.

    5. Re:Why so good? by taphu · · Score: 1

      In related news, scientists have discovered a direct correlation between perceived music quality and drug quality..

    6. Re:Why so good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you make that up yourself? Really, I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you really know anything about music, synthetic or otherwise, or acoustics? If you do, you've got me fooled.

  3. Why, by 3-State+Bit · · Score: 2

    isn't looking at the wave form produced enough? (In terms of matching the same sound in "new form factors", etc.)

    1. Re:Why, by clearcache · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, if you're just looking to reproduce the specific sound, then wave form would be fine. But if you're looking to understand why and how the instruments produce the wave, this helps tremendously:

      the XVI instrument offers a "new concept" in vibrometry, as it can measure the rate of phase change at various points of a vibrating object.

      Ever notice how a guitar string sound decays and modulates a bit as the sound fades away? We can measure that...and reproduce it...but this lets us look underneath the hood a bit. Of course, depending upon where on the string the pick/finger hits it, and how hard it is struck, it's going change phase at a different rate. They can measure the results of that phase change (in the wave form) now, but an increased understanding of how the material itself vibrates, correlated with the waveform change over time, will bring new understanding to the physics of sound.

    2. Re:Why, by ripler · · Score: 3, Informative
      The current version of the instrument produces a line of 16 points, but Morel says that this can be altered according to the needs of a specific application: "It is neither inherently limited to 16 points, or to a linear pattern."

      The way a guitar creates the waveform you hear is not only dependant on vibrations in the string, but also resonant vibrations on other strings, the soundboard, back, neck, head, bridge, and nut. Looking at how these components make up the resulting waveform could allow actual Engineering of a classic sound and it's nuances, rather than just a close approximation.

      The article also mentions the auto industry as a potential candidate for this technology. Structural Engineering is another that came to mind.

  4. God vibrations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was the first I have read.
    I have allready settled for Hell, but I might have a seccond thought and be good if they play R'n'R in Heaven.

  5. Question by aster_ken · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Could this technology be used in helping to determine what made violas made by Stratavarius so pleasing to the ear? I know that MRI scans have been done to determine composition of the instruments, but perhaps these types of non-destructive testing could also prove useful.

    1. Re:Question by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Unless the violin was made with iron trees, I don't see how an MRI is destructive.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    2. Re:Question by aster_ken · · Score: 1

      I was not implying that an MRI is destructive. I was merely noting that this is *another* form of non-destructive testing. Sorry if there was any miscommunication.

  6. I know somewhat guitar but... by Gamasta · · Score: 1

    ... this time I was really tricked: I thought E-string meant electronic-string. Well, it's on /., why not after all?

    --
    Hire a concert 1-800-... ;-)

    --
    reason defies logic
    1. Re: I know somewhat guitar but... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > ... this time I was really tricked: I thought E-string meant electronic-string.

      Yep. And G-string means GNU-string.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  7. Let's fall for nostalgia for once... by pruneau · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They want to know what made these old instruments sound so good.

    Well, let me see. In the ol'(which maybe was not so good) time, instruments where done by people who where master of their art, which in turn took years to produce.
    They were respected for their unique knowledge, and made apprentice of young people that wanted to learn it. Of course, since making a "proper" instrument was a revered art, it took time as well.

    But as time passed, this apprenticeship business losed its appeal for the young generations.
    Why ? Because after all it was hard, masters tended to be harsh, brutal and extremely demanding. And they wanted their "secrets" to be closely kept too.
    This was eventually replaced by mass industrialisation: producing always cheaper goods with far less dedication and quality, but for everybody to access.

    The difference here is clear: current instrument maker simply do not have the same goal and values as past ones.

    Is it good, or is it bad ? Who knows, and I'm not the one to start the debate.

    But even if they manage to find why a stradivarius is a stradivarius, will they simply be willing to reproduce it truly, and not a scaled-down version of "process" ? I doubt it. Because it might take something that is not only technical. Or maybe those instruments are going to be an elite-thing again.

    And in my opinion, there we lose the interest.

    --
    [Pruneau /\o^O/\ warranty void if this .sig is removed]
    1. Re:Let's fall for nostalgia for once... by Myco · · Score: 2

      Sorry, but no. How much time and love was put into an instrument is not (directly) relevant -- all that matters is its physical makeup. The best instruments today are still painstakingly handmade -- just because there exist mass-produced versions doesn't mean nobody takes the time to produce quality anymore. This is a scientific question about determining in physical terms why one instrument sounds better.

      --
      My deviantArt site
    2. Re:Let's fall for nostalgia for once... by pruneau · · Score: 1


      Exactly, my point is that even if you manage to find the "what", you might have real difficulties to find the "how". Because the "how" depends on a situation and mindset that is really foreign to the modern minds. </BeeingStubborn>

      --
      [Pruneau /\o^O/\ warranty void if this .sig is removed]
    3. Re:Let's fall for nostalgia for once... by Myco · · Score: 2

      And I don't think that's the case, because we're dealing with scientists rather than craftsmen. Not to say that scientists are somehow better or immune to their own prejudices and conceits, but rather they have different goals. A modern craftsman making a violin is going to work towards an abstract idea of a "good violin," one that sounds good to him and suchlike. This is a subjective process. On the other hand, a scientist attempting to recreate these old instruments has concrete, quantitatively defineable goals that are not so subjective. If we discover what makes these instruments different, the "how" will depend on developing a process which can re-create those qualities. Sometimes good engineering can provide an acceptable substitute for artistry. At the logical extreme, we could have replicators that would produce exquisite instruments without any of the painstaking work put in by old-time crafstmen. There's more than one way to skin a cat, that's all.

      --
      My deviantArt site
    4. Re:Let's fall for nostalgia for once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modern minds are far more diverse than ancient ones, simply because there are more of us. The illusion of a lack of passion and drive comes from within, a psychological result of feeling small and isolated in a world full of people. If you beleive nobody devotes their life to their art anymore, you simply haven't been looking at the right people.

  8. Computer cases by awerg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How about putting this thing on a computer case and determining how to make it _not_ vibrate?

    Then we could get closer to a silent PC without haveing to go to extreme measures.

    --
    -- Andy
  9. This is cool by Jru+Hym · · Score: 1

    One can think of hundreds of applications for this technology. They should have no problem selling this one. Buy stock if they ever go public ;) One use I was thinking about is the study of the vibration in the keel/centerboard of sail boats. I think the best part about this is being able to study vibrations in materials without dampening them. I.e. probing a system without altering it, upto a Heisenberg limit of course.

    --
    This lobster was alive when it hit the frothy, boiling water.
  10. Why by Arthur+Dent · · Score: 0, Redundant
    would you want to measure Good Vibrations and more importantly, what criteria do you use since everyone says size doesn't matter?

    :)

    1. Re:Why by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Size doesn't matter? Oh, I believe good ol' /. would like to disagree with you there.

      http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/1 1/129221 :)

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
  11. How complicated is this technology? by nani+popoki · · Score: 1

    For awhile there were three or four designs out there for MIDI guitar (controllers). None of them felt or played all that much like a real axe, IMHO. Could this technology be adapted (in a cost-effective way) to "read" a standard accoustic guitar and transcribe to MIDI? Or is this stuff a twelve-ton behemouth best left in the corner of a physics lab?

    1. Re:How complicated is this technology? by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      MIDI guitar (controllers). None of them felt or played all that much like a real axe, IMHO.

      Um, Roland's little GK-A2 dohickey installs on your own steel-string guitar. How can it not feel or play like a real axe? I put one on a cheap stat copy and it didn't change the feel at all - it's just a new pickup.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
  12. Beach Boys by joyoflinux · · Score: 2

    The Beach Boys would be so proud :)

  13. Shove a vibrator up your ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then turn it to "High." Fun for the whole family!

  14. Don't they allready have this? by Cyno01 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't they already use something similar to this in some guitars? Lightwave Optical Pickups

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."