|
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | From what I have seen or been told, average frequency rating is 85-95. Several of my 1687 are rated at 93. I have one rated at 101.
Looking at the frequence rating of several of the original slotheads:
# 36 was 97
# 39 was 98
# 41 was 97
# 47 was 99
# 53 was 98
Just wonder if any of the 47RI were measured? |
|
| |
|
Joined:
September 2003
Posts: 9301
Location: south east Michigan | ....if ya don't ask, ya won't know...
What is a frequency rating? What standard do they use to measure against? Does "100" mean 100 percent of something or is it an arbritary number? And just what is the atomic weight of cobalt?
I'm guessing that it has something to do with the laser vibrometer. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 11039
Location: Earth·SolarSystem·LocalInterstellarCloud·Local Bub | I was under the impression that the frequency rating was an expression of the how various regions of the top were tuned to vibrate as oppposed to being a particular frequency of the top measured in Hz
I saw some RI47 vibrometer test results in the engineering dept at the tour, so I know they were put on the machine.... Or at least three or four were.
vibrometer image |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | As I understand it the number represents the fundamental frequency of the guitar. As a point of reference the open 6th string has a frequency of 82Hz. G at the 3rd fret 6th string is 98Hz. Many dreadnought builders aim for a G fundamental, for obvious reasons. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 11039
Location: Earth·SolarSystem·LocalInterstellarCloud·Local Bub | That makes sense. They must then use that reference to tune the top (bracing) to achieve the ideal (or near) fundamental frequency. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | If for example 98Hz is an "ideal" a few cents either way won't make a whole lot of difference given the huge amount of other possible variables. My Adamas 1 wideneck is 237-96. Every time I consider selling it I just grab a 1st position G chord and that gets rid of that ridiculous notion |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 11039
Location: Earth·SolarSystem·LocalInterstellarCloud·Local Bub | I'd love to know what the fundamental freq is for the FD14 is.
Seems like I should, with the proper conversion formula, be able to determine the fundmental frequency with a feature-rich clip-on tuner attached to the top. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | If only it were that simple. Check this out
http://www.speech.kth.se/music/acviguit4/part2.pdf
or this
http://www.ukuleles.com/Technology/Meyer.html
In a previous life I used to teach acoustic design at a local University. I'd forgotten how much it made my brain hurt. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 11039
Location: Earth·SolarSystem·LocalInterstellarCloud·Local Bub | Thanks, Paul.
I read up, whipped up a homemade vibrometer and got my answer...
. . . "The Battle Of Agincourt" . . ?
eeh, my vibrometer might need some more tweekin'...
Actually that was intersting to read. It describes well, what of the top, is actually being measured and why.
Funny, how I can spend almost an hour reading shit like this instead of doing the work I need to complete before business opens tomorrow. You should expect a few calls tomorrow from my dissappointed associates, asking you to refrain from further distracting me. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | I have heard those with 85 and 87 say how great their 1687 was, I won't part with two reasonably early 1687's (93 and 101) as they is a slight difference in the "voice".
So, I begin to wonder why the rating was even listed, except as trivia. I know that later Adamas I's and, I believe all Adamas II's, didn't have the rating on the label. This could have been the machine wasn't available, it was too time consuming to evaluate each guitar, or raised too many questions as to why their guitar was different from the "norm". I haven't heard of anyone disappointed with their guitar, whatever the rating.
From looking at the ratings for the original slothead, appears to me that each model would have a specific "norm". 1687 lower than a slothead? Factor of Adamas ring, bowl, materials, design factors (i.e., headstock).
Can't see how a comparison would be useful in comparing with the (old or reissue) 1187, 1687, 1688, 1681, 1685, or the new design U681T (only included the textured tops). Comparing a wood top with a textured top wouldn't be useful.
Still, as we compare the work the factory did in the 1187 reissue, still curious as to how it rates to the original. I believe, from feedback, that there is a slight difference in "voice" between the original and reissue...could be from aging over the years or maybe a little "mojo".
I can see how analysis would be useful in developing a prototype designs.
Course, the only rating that is appropriate is the grin on the player when he or she picks the guitar up for the first time and starts to play. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2005
Posts: 11840
Location: closely held secret | My '95 Adamas II has it written on the label - "85". |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | hmmm, now I feel depressed - my 1990 1681-7 must have been deemed unworthy :confused:
guess now I'll have to sell or trade it... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
March 2002
Posts: 15678
Location: SoCal | Tony, I hate it when you feel bad. I'll give you 10 bucks for it, sight unseen..... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
November 2003
Posts: 11039
Location: Earth·SolarSystem·LocalInterstellarCloud·Local Bub | i bet he's feeling better now, Paul. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
February 2002
Posts: 5750
Location: Scotland | For what it's worth, I just checked some early Adamas promo which said the target frequency was 90Hz.
Supposedly it was only Adamas 1's that had the fundamental recorded as a suffix of the serial number.
Waskel's Adamas 2 is a monster, whether that is related to the frequency may or may not be coincidence, either way it's a killer guitar. |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2005
Posts: 4903
Location: Phoenix AZ | Two of my Adamas 2's (that's a mouthful) have frequency written on the label. The slothead is 87 and the 1681 is 89. Four others (12 string and a cutaway 6 string, and 2 non-cutaway 6 strings) do not have the frequency noted. Seems like there is not much consistency to it. Dave |
|
| |
|
Joined:
January 2002
Posts: 14127
Location: 6 String Ranch | Some of those we just wrote numbers on. They didn't mean anything..... |
|
| |
|
Joined:
August 2003
Posts: 4619
Location: SoCal | :D :D :D
probably Bill's golf score for the day...mine was made on a really bad day :p |
|
| |
as Arte Johnson would say "Very Interesting"
