Playing vibrations through your instrument to play it in?

[jazzyvee]

I just read this item in a thread where a poster describes being advised to place an acoustic guitar against a speaker when listening but not playing as the vibrations help with playing in. I recall reading about something like this before but it was some kind of machine that you clamped your bass/guitar into and it played vibes through it for a period of time for the same reason.Any views, I have none... :-0 just curious.

[lbpesq]

Jazzy, you are probably thinking of the ToneRite for guitar.   It is a small box that has an adjustable vibrator inside and rubber feet that clip on to the strings just above the bridge.  You run it for at least 72 hours and it's supposed to "open up" the sound of the guitar.  I've also heard of people doing this for many years by placing an acoustic guitar in front of a stereo speaker and then playing loud music for a few days.  If you poke around the internet, you will find both empirical tests of the ToneRite unit where the guitar really sounds different, at least one scientific test that shows a difference in the frequency output of the guitar,before and after, as well as at least one scientific test that shows the ToneRite did nothing.   I tried the ToneRite and it did seem to make a little difference on an acoustic guitar.  It seems most people do this on acoustic instruments.  Some people claim the ToneRite works on their electric guitars too.  I think I tried it once on an electric and didn't notice much difference.  I hope this helps.

Bill, tgo

[pauldo]

I seem to recall where a newer Fender was strapped to a vibration table trying to see if they could “age” the bass to replicate the pre-CBS’s.  Theory is that if the instrument vibrates at a specific frequency that it will find itself of become warm and remove dead spots. 

If memory serves me (ha!) multiple tests didn’t result with anything absolutely conclusive.

[hieronymous]

I seem to recall where a newer Fender was strapped to a vibration table trying to see if they could “age” the bass to replicate the pre-CBS’s.  Theory is that if the instrument vibrates at a specific frequency that it will find itself of become warm and remove dead spots. 

If memory serves me (ha!) multiple tests didn’t result with anything absolutely conclusive.

pauldo, I misread your post, I thought it said they tried to remove the CBS from the instrument!

[keith_h]

There are some schools of thought that believe acoustic instruments that are played regularly tend to have a looseness, for lack of a better word, due to the constant vibrations. This looseness improves the tone. The Smithsonian even subscribes to this by ensuring their classical string instruments get played regularly so I don't doubt there is a benefit to playing.

I think the idea behind the vibrating is that mechanical process can replace the processes that take place while physically playing an instrument. Personally I don't see how it could really reproduce a human since playing involves more than just playing notes to vibrate the instrument. You also have the numerous pressure points the physical body contact creates that also affect how an instrument vibrates. A speaker or shaker just can't reproduce that. It might have some benefit in a worst case scenario but I don't see how it could come close in benefit to actually playing the instrument.

As to electric instruments I don't see it having any effect since they primarily rely upon the string vibration being projected through the pickups not the complex vibrations that take place between the body components of an acoustic.   

[dfung60]

I don't think inducing vibration will have a lot of effect on pieces of wood, especially the thick wood of a solid body instrument. 

But an acoustic guitar has many glue joints all around the body.  The glue joints are strong (often stronger than the wood that they're binding), but  I wouldn't be surprised if vibration has a "loosening" effect on the joints.  There can be glue on the wood surfaces immediately outside of the main joint, and vigorously vibrating the instrument will probably cause some of this seep out to release from the wood.  This would happen naturally over a long period of playing and I can see how this might have some effect on tone.  They'll be less excess left behind on a better instrument.

[bigredbass]

Similar idea, but engineered in as a process in building guitars, Yamaha's A.R.E. (Acoustic Resonance Enhancement) process, here in this video applied to one of their brilliant L-Series acoustics (THE most overlooked killer acoustics out there).  Yamaha also uses this in the wooden soundboards on their various pianos and their higher end solid-bodies and basses.


https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=yamaha+a.r.e.+treatment&&view=detail&mid=A71E039584ED2EA8AA1EA71E039584ED2EA8AA1E&&FORM=VDRVRV


. . . . . the audio equivalent of already-faded and holed jeans . . . . . . and 'increased crystallinity' would be a BIG selling point in some circles !

[LMiwa]

I knew this sounded familiar - Timbre Tech from the early 2000's
https://markweinguitarlessons.com/forums/threads/can-a-vibration-machine-make-a-new-guitar-sound-like-an-old-guitar.8484/

[peoplechipper]

I agree on the L-series Yamahas...I've only had one come through the pawnshop but I remember it being a fantastic sounding guitar for something basically new...and I'm sure that vibrating the wood will have an effect, but maybe adding environmental changes to the mix would enhance even more?

as much as some folks would say that solidbodies are mostly the pickups and the wood and construction doesn't matter, most folks on this forum would say you're wrong and I would be loudly among them; when I buy an instrument I often don't bother to plug it in, I listen to the wood; you can always change pickups and fix electronics but you can't fix bad wood...if it sounds dead acoustically, no pickup will save it...Tony

[jazzyvee]

peoplechipper, I'm still really confused about whether I think wood makes a difference that I can hear directly and attribute it's characteristics to an instruments sound. So I leave that to those who can hear and can make those differences work when building a guitar or bass. I think many aspect of a build have some affect on the overall tone and some more than others.

For example over the years I have been told that maple is a bright wood and rosewood is less bright as it relates to fingerboards, or X wood is a bright body wood and Y wood is less bright etc.
However I don't think I can categorically isolate that over everything else that makes up the sound of an instrument especially and in the context of a band. I have series alembics made from a variety of woods that have a familiar sound but enough differences to allow me to choose what I want for a gig. My assumption is electronics are the biggest influence here.

Generally I tend to make wood choices based on cosmetic appearance, I prefer the look of maple or ebony fretboards to rosewood so would avoid it. That said I would not doubt the experience of a luthier in their understanding of wood choices and tone but still if they suggested a bit of timber I thought was unpleasant visually I wouldn't be keen to go along with them. But then I doubt alembic would make an instrument that sounded bad regardless of wood choice.

I have a 1980 series I shorty which has such an incredible sound all of it's own. It has been a well played bass and fortunately the previous owner to me has refurbished it so it looks great but I'd  like to think all those years of music making vibrations has helped it sound as good as it does.

[mario_farufyno]

IMHO an instrument is being played for years because it sounds good in the first place and those coveted instruments tends to be treated with love and care during its life, so they are also prone to age nicely. If something goes bad during this process (cracks, floods) - and they aren't that special to the point its owner commit to recovering it - it can end being dumped away and will be lost unstrung and dusty, thrashing forgotten in some locker. So I'm not really sure if the ones played for years got better because they were exposed to vibrations or because of they dried and hardened (aged) properly. Honestly, who regularly oil, change strings or set up the truss rod of an instrument you don't play often? And how could we expect that those will get better over the years?

That vibe thing may help something (who am I to affirm not?) but can't think it could seriously help to get an inexpensive junk guitar close to a vintage wonder.

[pauldo]

I agree with Tony based on building characteristics of companies lesser than Alembic. 
Alembic hand picks wood that has been aged under watchful eyes.  Their end goal is a masterpiece of aesthetic and functional form which then gets coupled with a truly magical electronics package.  We know how beautiful that is.

Now turn your attention to companies who are more focused on volume of sales instead of quality of the end product.  I ass-u-me their standards (effected by both fiscal and production quantity reasons) for wood quality is less than high end companies.  This could easily result in a body or neck that has a grain/ aging/ curing conditions that negatively impacts the resonance of the plucked string.