Anders Buen

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Anders Buen

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/03/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Oslo, Norway
  • Interests
    Violin-, Hardanger- fiddle-, room- and architectural acoustics.

Recent Profile Visitors

19230 profile views
  1. That is probably a significant correlation. In Schelskes test the body was the same through the experiment, reducing the variation from varying arching, wood properties, setup etc to a minimum. In the presentation I refer to earlier in this thread I go through Schelskes experiment, copied his data and run the statistical analysis on all possible correlations in that set. There were plenty of correlations, more with the back plate, and this is opposite to his conclucion that there were no correlations. But he was mainly looking for correlations between M5 top plte data and the assembled insturment. Even plate masses does correlate, as well as any of the suggested "impedance parameters" including mass, mode frequencies or "stiffnesses" will do because they are statistically dependant. Stiff plates will in general give a stiff instrument.
  2. If the chart look like R^2 = 1 then there is something wrong. One parameter like the M2 or M5 frequencies can't explain everyting!
  3. The B1-modes and other wood based modes are also very dependant on the setup, type, position and weight of chinrests, possibly weight of pegs, etc. The climate also matters: That is humidity content in air and the wood.
  4. In a finished instrument it is quite seldom to see A1 interact with the B1- mode as it usually will lie lower than the A1 in frequency. The B1l will drop whan the neck is installed. The dip is more likely to be the A1 than the top there. It is weakly driven from the bridge. It is fun to see that George Stoppanis software is in use by makers utlizing the possibility to calculate the net volume change per N force input besides the a/F or v/F curves (admittance). A lot of work, but fun! :-)
  5. Have you tried to compare the mode 2 data against the B1 frequencies? In my former work on this mode 2 came out with significant correlations.
  6. Interesting experiment. Which of them was preferred? Or was there an audible or playability difference?
  8. In the HUNT studies from North Thrøndelag, n = 50000, they found that hunting and shooting is the highest risk factor for hearing loss after age and genetic factors I believe. I never tend to read books. But there is a graph in Moores book Fig. 4.9 showing that at high sound levels the difference between normal hearing and impaired hearing show a more similar response. This support my opinion on this.
  9. The most common hearing loss cause is age, not exposure to high sound levels. A good source is Brian C J Moore. "An introduction to Psycology of Hearing".
  10. Yes, but from the low end. The hearing threshold increases. The sensing at higher sound levels is not affected. Therefore many with severe hearing loss being yelled at are in pain just as any other normal hearing loss would be if someone yelled intyo our ears. The distance between hearing threshold to hearing levels is smaller. Signal to noise distance narrows in. Having said this a former collegue of mine is one of the leading experts on hearing loss. So if you think I need to check with him, I will.
  11. He apparently threw away the most important information: The overall loudness. All the curves are adjusted top down to the loudest peak at 25 dB. So a direct comparison on the levels cannot be done based on his curves. Only relative values between different part of the spectra can be done.
  12. The sound absorption in the high frequencies is rather large in the air and the revverb time drops in the highs in large reverberant spaces. High frequency sound is also very directive, more beam like. Long reverb blur up the fast content in speech and to a somewhat lesser degree music signals and song as the transients in music, ecept some percussion maybe, are a bit slower. I think the graph above of the hearing sensitivity is a bit oversimplified. There are several påeaks and notches up in higher frequencies due to details in the ear shape and maybe canal.
  13. I think the hearing loss work from the low threshold side, and that it does not affect the sense of spectral balance. The hearing at normal and high sound level is the same for persons with some hearing loss and those with no hearing loss. The maximum - to minimum level just gets a bit smaller. The sensation of loudness is not affected, I think.
  14. Yes, there can be beating of the energy between a mode in the body and a tailpiece mode or between an air mode and a body mode, for example. But the beating frequency might be so high that we do not notice. And excited body modes die out faster than the strings if they are excited. Sometimes it can be experienced as vibrations, or it can even be heard. There is probably more of it between open strings, but part of the music is also to minimize stuff like that, i guess. Beats play a significant role e.g. during tuning of the instruments.
  15. I think a fair amount of the workers in Chinese bowed musical instrument factories are females.