Acoustic Breakthrough - A Revolutionary New Process to "Open Up" Acoustic Instruments

[220volt]

Originally Posted by sdelsolray

To evaluate tonal differences the volumes should be either Peak or RMS matched to within .1 dB. Even then, the fact that there are two different performances make comparison difficult.

It is virtually impossible to compare volume differences due to the two different performances. It's too easy to play softer or louder by several dB without even realizing it. The robot player is a good idea for better and accurate testing of the claims by MMasters. The presented YouTube video is not a rigorous test.

But procedure is not just for tonal differences. Procedure claims to increase sustain and volume as well, so all should be left in there IMO. By that logic sustain would have to be matched and tweaked as well.

But I do agree, it's not a rigorous test.

[johnnylighton]

My inexperienced, newbie suggestion: the provider of this new service should choose two or three forum members who are very experienced and also even-tempered, and offer his service for free except for shipping.

If it's revolutionary, we will surely hear about it from (hopefully) unbiased members.

[scooter74]

Originally Posted by johnnylighton

My inexperienced, newbie suggestion: the provider of this new service should choose two or three forum members who are very experienced and also even-tempered, and offer his service for free except for shipping.

If it's revolutionary, we will surely hear about it from (hopefully) unbiased members.

You may be a newbie but your common sense is uncanny.

[JayMack]

Originally Posted by MikeD

Last time I checked Jay, my Collings and Hatchard that Mike processed didn't have a "more button" stuck on the side of them. I will drop a mirror inside of it so see if it's there, but the last time I checked the only thing in there were a bunch of braces, some glue, wood, the ball ends of some strings and a truss rod. Maybe with your expertise you can help me find it?

My apologies for making an obscure joke that belongs in another forum. Bob Womack might understand and can verify the following. All professional audio engineers have thought at some point in a mix that, "I need more of xxxxxxxx" and turned a knob, flipped a switch, or nudged a fader... only to find out (after a moment of satisfaction in the result) that the EQ wasn't engaged when that knob was turned, the switch wasn't really flipped, or the wrong fader was nudged. I've fooled myself and other professionals as well as clients into thinking something happened when it didn't. It happened today. In the course of preparing to make a change in a mix, the client thought I'd already done it and liked the "improvement." I was merely listening one more time to the section to be changed to get it into my aural memory before making the change. Perception (and it's influences) is a very interesting subject.

Originally Posted by MikeD

Funny thing, but I know nothing about you either. Imagine that?!? But, since you've asked, I will try to describe my association with music and acoustic guitars for you.

Thanks for that background. It adds a lot of perspective. I admire the depth of your experience. If I'm very lucky, I'll have 23 more years to get to where you are now in terms of guitars. That said, I've also got 25 years under my belt in a pertinent area: Making a living listening and adjusting sound mixes for film, television, and mutli-media; including evaluating venues/environments and adjusting mixes appropriately. I've been a musician for 35+ years. Have 1 degree + graduate work in music and played professionally before settling into the comfort of a recording studio. Though I'm new to the guitar, I'm experienced as a musician and critical listener.

Thanks for the reply. No offense intended at all, just trying to get beyond the computer screen!

jay

[JayMack]

Originally Posted by skatalite

I think he was suggesting it to masters.

If he's asking $500, he needs to find a way to get a professional musician in a non-affiliated studio, using the same strings, picks, distance from mic, mics, sitting position, etc. What JayMack is saying, and what a lot of people are saying, is that there are too many variables here to accurately determine if tone, volume, et. al., have changed.

JayMack's post of the robot is basically what masters needs to have done. While it might be impossible, it's something masters needs to strongly consider if he really wants his business to be successful.

UGH. I'm going to cut and paste from an old post:

I have witnessed a number of protracted online discussions involving attempts to quantify human perception. In other words: Some of the biggest storms I've seen on the internet involve arguing over what can or can't be heard. Some of them last for years... some have never ended.

A few of you may know of the "Mixerman Alsihad 192 Interface Bass Response" controversy.

That said, the process boils down to:
designing a test satisfactory to all (well... the majority)
performing the test (in the presence of witnesses who will only later say it wasn't done correctly)
analyzing (arguing about) the results
designing a new test

Repeat until bored, permanently PO'd, satisfied, or comforted by the fact that you've proven yet again that human perception is extremely difficult to quantify with precision.

Those in the field of science and research are comfortable with the nearly endless looping of testing. The rest of us --to put it very kindly-- are rather impatient with what's required when applying scientific methods.

SOOOOOOOO...................

A test should include:

1) A method for producing sound from the guitar that is repeatable with extreme precision. THIS RULES OUT HUMANS. Many of us have no doubt experienced the nuances that a gifted musician can coax from an instrument. In this instance, we're not looking for beautifully artistic variations. We're looking for cold, mechanical, infinitely repeatable performances of exacting sameness. Think robotic, literally.

2) A baseline set of data must be produced. Creating this baseline will also test the repeatability of the performance mechanism. An acceptable amount deviation in individual samples from the average must be defined. Data should include: temperature, humidity, recording equipment used, mic placement, SPL data, spectral data, waterfall plots (spectral data over time), etc. Anybody have access to an anechoic chamber?

3) As much data as possible about the Acoustic Alchemy process as performed on the test guitar should be documented. At this time, that is probably limited to how long the guitar is subjected to the process and to what "level/depth/intensity" the process was performed. "We set the master dial to 7 and let 'er rip for 3 hours!"

4) All of the data collected in #2 must be collected again. All attempts must be made to repeat the data generation process EXACTLY. IOW, there should be a calibration process for the performance mechanism.

5) All of the data should be supplied to the awaiting masses in both raw and analyzed form. This allows people to do their own analytical variations while assailing the "official" results.

Does all of this sound like overkill and a huge hassle? Well... yeah, but science ain't easy.

If you want to produce a test with results that will convince a large community, you must anticipate every possible claim that you failed to account for a particular variable in the testing procedure.

If I were to re-write that from scratch, I might make a few minor changes, but in the interest of ease, I'll stand on that.

jay

[MikeD]

Originally Posted by skatalite

I think he was suggesting it to masters.

Either way, it would require shipping of a customer's guitar (like mine, for instance) 1/2 way across the world to let a bucket of bolts strum it... so yeah, it's partly directed at the customer as well. Yes, I was without the guitar for a short while, but I have had a few years of playing this guitar to understand exactly how it sounded and reacted before the treatment... it is not some random guitar I randomly picked up in a guitar store only to return to play it 2 weeks later.

I understand for some of you there is NOTHING Mike will ever be able to do to get you to understand or believe what he is able to achieve. Part of the problem is that microphones and the human ear "hear" sound differently, so trying to capture it exactly is an impossible science under even some of the best scenarios. I am just hoping that a few people will give him the benefit of the doubt and one day get to experience first hand what he has to offer.

[min7b5]

Originally Posted by 220volt

I disagree with this. If one of the benefits of the procedure is increase of volume then that too should be evident in the video.
Even if you had a robot pluck the strings with same strength, increase in volume would be evident in "after recordings" and should stay IMO.

It would be nice to have both
If you've increased volume, great. But you can't really evaluate what may have happened to the instruments eq from recordings of different volume.

[rmyAddison]

I have participated in a bunch of high end audio double blind tests for cables/interconnects, speakers, and transports. Our ears are very easily "fooled" and yes as little as 2db louder is perceived as "better".

The problem is the "human factor" we cannot duplicate/play a piece exactly the same "ever". In audio double blind test a canned piece of music is used, something that is exactly repeatable over and over, and if there are volume differences due to impedence or whatever the volume is balanced/normalized to take it out of the equation.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a "robot" guitar player but that would help eliminate the human factor, which is a big problem.

Still my bottom line with all these "enhancers" is buy a great guitar(s) and grow old with it/them and let mother nature do as she will. If there is truly a "need" to spend $500 on a guitar, then in my opinion you have the wrong guitar. I have spent close to $15K on a guitar but I won't spend $500 for a "treatment", I think it's silly but to each his own!

[Herb Hunter]

I am late to this thread and only read the first page. A valid test would require a means of plucking the strings with exactly the same force and angle and at the same point along the string each and every time. In other words, a precise, custom machine would have to be used to pluck the strings. Furthermore the microphone spacing and angle would have to remain precisely constant. With such a machine, the record level could remain invariable to illustrate differences in volume before and after treatment.

[mmasters]

Well guys I've done my best to try and demonstrate what I have to offer and put a lot of time, energy and thousands of dollars into it. I don't know how much more I could do and really think some people either don't want to see something like this exist or will not accept it no matter what lengths I go to.

I did come on the forum a few months ago and put up an amatuer demonstration of the process as a test balloon of sorts and got a lot of feedback about how to do this right. I sincerely took most of that advice along with being able to get a couple of forum members to give it a shot for free.

I will consider something like the robot in the future but for now people are going to have to take or leave what I've put out there.

I know what I have achieved and this something people have been searching for, for a very long time. Perhaps there is a bit of a boy that cried wolf syndrome with all the products claiming to open up, but it is what it is and in time I know what I have will become accepted as real.

PS thanks mike for all your support and I look forward to doing the next guitar.

[archtopGeek]

I think one very important thing is missing from the discussion or overlooked. Mike from AB claims that their process mimics the aging. Now, could we possibly expect BIG differences in the recording of an instrument say 50 years before after test (Ofcourse with same recording setup)? The difference WILL be subtle, even with possibly perfect experimental conditions. So the point that Mike's youtube videos show anything or not is immaterial.

Important is what MikeD says whose instruments are being treated and who seems to have detected the improvements. He may be inquired about his experiences (With his permission of course) and intricate details to get more insight in the claimed improvements.

aG

[corleyd]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

I have participated in a bunch of high end audio double blind tests for cables/interconnects, speakers, and transports. Our ears are very easily "fooled" and yes as little as 2db louder is perceived as "better".

The problem is the "human factor" we cannot duplicate/play a piece exactly the same "ever". In audio double blind test a canned piece of music is used, something that is exactly repeatable over and over, and if there are volume differences due to impedence or whatever the volume is balanced/normalized to take it out of the equation.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a "robot" guitar player but that would help eliminate the human factor, which is a big problem.

Still my bottom line with all these "enhancers" is buy a great guitar(s) and grow old with it/them and let mother nature do as she will. If there is truly a "need" to spend $500 on a guitar, then in my opinion you have the wrong guitar. I have spent close to $15K on a guitar but I won't spend $500 for a "treatment", I think it's silly but to each his own!

rmyAddison,

I don't mean this in any harsh way, but your statement seems illogical to me as well as some of the other folks who are taking the position that $500 is "silly".

You said you would pay $15K for a guitar but not $500 for a treatment. What if the luthier who offers the $15K guitar also offers $14K guitars but charges $1k to "hand pick" the wood? OR he charges $100, $200-$2000 for wood upgrades? What about $500 to custom shave the braces? Guitar enthusiasts do buy many of these upgrades as part of their passion for chasing tone. Not because the "need" to but because the "want" to. Hey, it's fun to chase tone.

What does it total when you: change out to a custom nut, custom saddle of whatever fossilized thing is hot, and bridge pins, etc. How many people can testify to the great improvements in a professional set-up? I see no difference in a $500 treatment than a $500 tonewood upgrade.

I hope you and others are not offended by my response to your positions. Obviously, to each his own, especially in regards to something as personal and "so not important or critical" as guitars.

There just seems to be some sort of emotional and polarizing quality to these recent efforts involving treatment. I guess it's human nature. I have heard that Louie Pasteur's peer scientists laughed at him when he talked about the existence of small organisms we now call germs.

I think it has to do with the fact we can't see this treatment and we don't have a "marketing pitch" being given that "claims what is happening", although Acoustic Breakthrough seems to be trying to offer a little more than Alchemy Acoustics Labs. They both have qualified players as satisfied customers.

I wonder if we are at a point in time where 10 years from now the history of guitars will include these new advancements? Or not. Only time will tell that part of the story. Perhaps $500 will get you a ticket into the "I was one of the first to have xyz.. done to my guitar" club. A story for your grand children....



Dennis

[rmyAddison]

Originally Posted by corleyd

rmyAddison,

I don't mean this in any harsh way, but your statement seems illogical to me as well as some of the other folks who are taking the position that $500 is "silly".

You said you would pay $15K for a guitar but not $500 for a treatment. What if the luthier who offers the $15K guitar also offers $14K guitars but charges $1k to "hand pick" the wood? OR he charges $100, $200-$2000 for wood upgrades? What about $500 to custom shave the braces? Guitar enthusiasts do buy many of these upgrades as part of their passion for chasing tone. Not because the "need" to but because the "want" to. Hey, it's fun to chase tone.

What does it total when you: change out to a custom nut, custom saddle of whatever fossilized thing is hot, and bridge pins, etc. How many people can testify to the great improvements in a professional set-up? I see no difference in a $500 treatment than a $500 tonewood upgrade.

I hope you and others are not offended by my response to your positions. Obviously, to each his own, especially in regards to something as personal and "so not important or critical" as guitars.

There just seems to be some sort of emotional and polarizing quality to these recent efforts involving treatment. I guess it's human nature. I have heard that Louie Pasteur's peer scientists laughed at him when he talked about the existence of small organisms we now call germs.

I think it has to do with the fact we can't see this treatment and we don't have a "marketing pitch" being given that "claims what is happening", although Acoustic Breakthrough seems to be trying to offer a little more than Alchemy Acoustics Labs. They both have qualified players as satisfied customers.

I wonder if we are at a point in time where 10 years from now the history of guitars will include these new advancements? Or not. Only time will tell that part of the story. Perhaps $500 will get you a ticket into the "I was one of the first to have xyz.. done to my guitar" club. A story for your grand children....



Dennis

No offense taken, but it's illogical to you, not me, please allow the difference in opinion.

Your analogy with woods and other upgrades doesn't hold water with me, I do have a $14K guitar, the upgrades are tangible, I can see them and more importantly I can hear them.

I drive a supercharged Jag, it isn't the money, to me it's a solution looking for a problem. The implication is our guitars are somehow "wanting", I don't buy that with high end instruments. Yes guitars age IMHO and sound better with time, but I am quite content to let mother nature handle that process and enjoy the journey.

To sell something you have to establish "need", I can only speak for myself but I have no need of artifically aging my guitars, I'm blessed with wonderful instruments and love the way they sound, we're growing old together.

Whether this process works or not I'm not interested "for me", and I never tell other people what to do with their money, that's their business. I won't judge others who are interested in the process, by the same token don't presume I should need it, even if it works, that's my decision to make. Take care!

[mmasters]

rmaAddision, if this is not is not up your alley then why bother being so obsessed with discrediting my service and those who show interest in it or have tried it?

[archtopGeek]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

No offense taken, but it's illogical to you, not me, please allow the difference in opinion.

Your analogy with woods and other upgrades doesn't hold water with me, I do have a $14K guitar, the upgrades are tangible, I can see them and more importantly I can hear them.

I drive a supercharged Jag, it isn't the money, to me it's a solution looking for a problem. The implication is our guitars are somehow "wanting", I don't buy that with high end instruments. Yes guitars age IMHO and sound better with time, but I am quite content to let mother nature handle that process and enjoy the journey.

To sell something you have to establish "need", I can only speak for myself but I have no need of artifically aging my guitars, I'm blessed with wonderful instruments and love the way they sound, we're growing old together.

Whether this process works or not I'm not interested "for me", and I never tell other people what to do with their money, that's their business. I won't judge others who are interested in the process, by the same token don't presume I should need it, even if it works, that's my decision to make. Take care!

I believe what I am quoting here makes utmost sense, and I am quoting it just because it very well represents the feeling of many who do not wish to improve their guitars. Most of it being emotional/subjective, can not be contested.

As about, "To sell something you have to establish need" may not be true in all the fields, Art being one and luthiery closely related at some point. Further, it would not be very correct to say one doesn't want improvement. Everybody want improvement (in it's positive meaning). What one may not want is change. Now, although improvement IS change logically, rhetorically change is indeterministic qualitatively, whereas improvement is only positive.

That is, when you say you drive a supercharged Jag (Jaguar I suppose) with 500 hp power, and I offer you fine-tuning service (just loosening tightening some nuts and washers) which will make it 600 hp. Thus, I am not changing your car, just the performance. Is it improvement? Sure. Will you take it? I don't know. May be you wanted a car with exactly 500 hp, no more no less. Its absolutely your decision to take, as you say. But most others will take it. The do right now as we speak.

I understand that the analogy is not very appealing and you are the best judge of how much appropriate is to to compare tone of a guitar to power of a car.

Once again I should note that no personal stuff is involved here, and I quoted you because whatever you said made best sense from a certain pont of view.

aG