Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Does age matter?


joerobson

Recommended Posts

I recall an interesting article in popular science in the mid-late '60s entitled "The Physics of the Bowed String" which described the basic "goings on" pretty well. Anyone else seen this article?

I haven't seen it. But the bowed string was studied by Helmholz with his vibration microscope in the 1800ds, and later by Raman (minimum bow force to make the string speak + other matters) in the early 1900ds. Schelleng has worked on the problem as well as Lothar Cremer which has devoted the first chapter in his book "The Physics of the Violin" to the bowed string. Schelleng is known for his diagram explaining the bow force needed to get the string going depending on how close the bow are to the bridge. It was published in his 1972 JASA article: "The bowed string and his player", I enclose the figure.

Ralph Schumacher and Cremer and later McIntyre and Woodhouse has been working on the problem and only quite recently they have found a qualitatively correct way the "rosin slip stick melting loop" look like. Schellengs figure is not correct according to Knut Guettler (I think it relates to the fact that the bow force is the factor changing the timbre of the played string and not the bow bridge distance as one may believe from his figure). But I think this Woodhouse article sum up the current knowledge quite well.. I think there will be such a "Schelleng diagram" for each played note with a different slope of the bow force versus the bow bridge distance. Woodhouse call them Guettler diagrams after Knuts simulation results plotted as perfect attacks or not perfects attacks in a space of bowing parameter (bow force, acceleration and bow bridge distance) inputs.

Knut Guettlers PhD takes this further (e.g. he found an incorrect assumption in Woodhouses work, and corrected some of Shumachers work.) The latest larger work on the subject is Erwin Schonderwaldts PhD work.

Many names and possibly "name dropping" there, but I think these names cover what is needed to read to get the current knowledge on the subject. I haven't been much concerned with this problem as there is not much I can add, besides a wish for seeing how more strings than just one will affect the simulations and possibly the playability. The theory and simulations is basically for a monochord violin but I do not have the capacity nor the models to work on.

post-25136-0-72872500-1311977887_thumb.jpg

Edited by Anders Buen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very simple. The violin body is the amplifier and the "loudspeaker" of the string signal. The effect the body has on the strings are usually practically unimportant, unless we are close to a wolf note.

You're kidding us. For sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I am serious, of course. The model has not been well accepted, but there is not much I can do about that. I can live with those who do not accept it and I feel no need to convince them.

That's not a recipe for making progress, you'll end up taking to yourself.

What exactly is being AMPLIFIED ? And what makes you believe that a violin is not a REVERSIBLE system where the body drives the strings ?

But anyway let's hear what the model is all about, if you please. There's a thread running about these. Care to present ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is being AMPLIFIED ? And what makes you believe that a violin is not a REVERSIBLE system where the body drives the strings ?

I think I have answered the question of what is amplified in an earlier post. But lets repeat it. If we string up a solid body violin and play that we will hear much less sound than from a normal violin. I therefore has made an analogy between the violin body and an amplifier (of sound) and a filter, crating the timbre, as Oded has described in a different thread.

No process in the nature is perfectly reversible. Some energy is always "lost" into heat or another "lower level" form of energy. This is formed into a law in physics or chemistry called "the second law of thermodynamics" which in short say that the entropy will always increse. Now physics theory aside.

If we tap a violin body, we hear the strings on that violin ring, so some energy can go back to the strings and there is a "sort of reveribility". But we do not get the string to drive a bow if we tap a violin body, while a bow is in contanct with the strings. So there is a strong "assymmetry" in that "reaction". The most of the bowed string signal is lost as heat, only a very small amount becomes radiated sound. I think it is in order of a few percent of the vibration energy in the system. But still that percentage can still be many thousand times stronger than it would have been if the violin body was radiating like a solid body, or if no body was present.

The dB scale is logarithmic, so say a 40dB difference between the sound from a solid body and the normal body violin (which is not an unreasonable estimate), is in reality a difference of 10000 for the squared pressure level from the two. My idea then is to call the violin body an amplifier of sound as the sound level will increase somewhere around 40dB when the normal body is put in there to radiate the vibrations coming from the bowed string.

But anyway let's hear what the model is all about, if you please. There's a thread running about these. Care to present ?

Does the above sentences help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I have answered the question of what is amplified in an earlier post. But lets repeat it. If we string up a solid body violin and play that we will hear much less sound than from a normal violin. I therefore has made an analogy between the violin body and an amplifier (of sound) and a filter, crating the timbre, as Oded has described in a different thread.

No process in the nature is perfectly reversible. Some energy is always "lost" into heat or another "lower level" form of energy. This is formed into a law in physics or chemistry called "the second law of thermodynamics" which in short say that the entropy will always increse. Now physics theory aside.

If we tap a violin body, we hear the strings on that violin ring, so some energy can go back to the strings and there is a "sort of reveribility". But we do not get the string to drive a bow if we tap a violin body, while a bow is in contanct with the strings. So there is a strong "assymmetry" in that "reaction". The most of the bowed string signal is lost as heat, only a very small amount becomes radiated sound. I think it is in order of a few percent of the vibration energy in the system. But still that percentage can still be many thousand times stronger than it would have been if the violin body was radiating like a solid body, or if no body was present.

The dB scale is logarithmic, so say a 40dB difference between the sound from a solid body and the normal body violin (which is not an unreasonable estimate), is in reality a difference of 10000 for the squared pressure level from the two. My idea then is to call the violin body an amplifier of sound as the sound level will increase somewhere around 40dB when the normal body is put in there to radiate the vibrations coming from the bowed string.

Does the above sentences help?

Yes, the above sentences do help. You might recollect being somehow taken aback by a comment I've made re "your science" and also that this started with Jim asking you for the leading theory in violin working which I basically understand to be what you presented.

I gather that you have chosen to call the violin an "amplifier of sound" and decided that for the purpose of explaining variabilities of sound ( THE problem for violin makers ) and predicting them the back driving of the strings by the body does not matter.

I'll eat the amplifier bit ( just don't call it an audio amplifier ) but a dead simple experiment will show you the back driving of the strings by the body is fundamental for violin tone.

I believe you're confusing observation with explanation and description with theory. What you presented me is not a "theory of violin workings" by any stretch and gathering of empirical data does not a theory make.

A couple of people here called Jim's attempts "bonkers". While is obvious that Jim can't verbalize his concerns in the pseudo scientific lingo dropped often times here, his concerns are valid and MIGHT just be contributors to the workings of violins.

'cause I don't understand how to make a better violin based on the leading theory.

( leave the 2nd princ of TD to the experts. MANY have been cought in that one )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the above sentences do help. You might recollect being somehow taken aback by a comment I've made re "your science" and also that this started with Jim asking you for the leading theory in violin working which I basically understand to be what you presented.

Ok, fine. However, I have not intended to present a leading theory in how the violin is working, but rather to give my opinion and a thought model for how the body does influence the sound from a violin.

The body vibrations have a very small influence on how the strings vibrate when the strings are bowed except for when we are at a wolf note. Then the body have a major influence on the strings. As earlier said, the body response also influences the needed minimum bow force to get the strings to "speak". It also may influence the "steepness" of the Schelleng or better Guettler diagram. But the bow string system is to a large degree described by the bow and strings alone along with a loss function at each string end. The violin body is not included in the simulations, to what I know, so how can these simulation be so sucessful as Jim Woodhouse claims if the body is not present?

I read that the bodys influence on how the strings work is small, and if it werent, it would probably be impossible to play the violin.

Edited by Anders Buen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, fine. However, I have not intended to present a leading theory in how the violin is working, but rather to give my opinion and a thought model for how the body does influence the sound from a violin.

The body vibrations have a very small influence on how the strings vibrate when the strings are bowed except for when we are at a wolf note. Then the body have a major influence on the strings. As earlier said, the body response also influences the needed minimum bow force to get the strings to "speak". It also may influence the "steepness" of the Schelleng or better Guettler diagram. But the bow string system is to a large degree described by the bow and strings alone along with a loss factor at each string end. The violin body is not included in the simulations to what I know, so how can these simulation be so sucessful as Jim Woodhouse calims if the body is not present?

I read that the bodys influence on how the strings work is small, and if it werent, it would probaly be impossible to play the violin.

My point was that a passionate guy like you should pay less attention to the enormous amount of noise "published" and do his own thing starting with the obvious : the closer a violin is made to a Strad, the better it sounds.

Let me give you a BETTER example. One of my friends is a SERIOUS audio amp expert and I follow his work. Most amps nowdays measure better than better, harmonic, intermod and TIMD distortions are close to the tool's floor. However, any moron can hear the difference between two of these "blameless amplifiers". That puts the meaty part not 40dB down but some 90dB.

I remember one of Woodhouse's tests. Basicaly was about finding out if a very bad violin sounds the same as another very bad violin. I think he gets often caught in his own enthousiasm. Lovely chap however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point was that a passionate guy like you should pay less attention to the enormous amount of noise "published" and do his own thing starting with the obvious : the closer a violin is made to a Strad, the better it sounds.

Well, Dan, I think you can leave it up to me what I spend my time on. What you see here on this site is me sharing information on subjects that are discussed, and not giving the readers a full overview of my library and what I think is good literature or not.

How "a Strad" sounds is not a constant. So making a violin sound like "some Strads" may not be as difficult as it might seem. There are other good makers too among the older masters and their fiddles are not all sounding the same either. In my trade there are other ideals, I am making Hardanger fiddles. That gives a nice freedom and autonomy in comparison to how it must be for most violin makers.

Let me give you a BETTER example. One of my friends is a SERIOUS audio amp expert and I follow his work. Most amps nowdays measure better than better, harmonic, intermod and TIMD distortions are close to the tool's floor. However, any moron can hear the difference between two of these "blameless amplifiers". That puts the meaty part not 40dB down but some 90dB.

I remember one of Woodhouse's tests. Basicaly was about finding out if a very bad violin sounds the same as another very bad violin. I think he gets often caught in his own enthousiasm. Lovely chap however.

I think that the works of Sean Olive and especially Floyd E. Toole are very interesting with tespect to sound reproduction. In Tooles book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" he give the primary inputs needed to get a good sound system and they base their models on double blind tests. it is about loudspeakers and the rooms of course, and less about the electronics behind these, I think.

Woodhouse is one of the very best theoretichians in the field. He has made some violins as well (mroe than 10) and his son is a professional guitar maker. He has a good grasp on the practical aspects of violin making.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think is important in the violin bodys response on the strings. The playability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Dan, I think you can leave it up to me what I spend my time on. What you see here on this site is me sharing information on subjects that are discussed, and not giving the readers a full overview of my library and what I think is good literature or not.

How "a Strad" sounds is not a constant. So making a violin sound like "some Strads" may not be as difficult as it might seem. There are other good makers too among the older masters and their fiddles are not all sounding the same either. In my trade there are other ideals, I am making Hardanger fiddles. That gives a nice freedom and autonomy in comparison to how it must be for most violin makers.

I think that the works of Sean Olive and especially Floyd E. Toole are very interesting with tespect to sound reproduction. In Tooles book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" he give the primary inputs needed to get a good sound system and they base their models on double blind tests. it is about loudspeakers and the rooms of course, and less about the electronics behind these, I think.

Woodhouse is one of the very best theoretichians in the field. He has made some violins as well (mroe than 10) and his son is a professional guitar maker. He has a good grasp on the practical aspects of violin making.

I'd be interested in hearing what you think is important in the violin bodys response on the strings. The playability?

Point taken Anders. I have no problem with that.

My complaint is about your constant tendency to dilute the subject at hand with a deluge of "data" and the like which show a degree of over confidence in whatever is "published" and ( in my view ! ), almost complete desinterest in discriminating the important from the trivial.

I don't quite get the reference to Jim Woodhouse, his violins and his son. I wish them the best but am not aware of any breakthrough from that direction. I respect yours ( and a couple of others ) "scientific" aproach to violin making but I think you guys should be tolerant towards more plebeian members. In the end, by David Burgess's standards, I and others have a warranted expectation that you also know what you're talking about ( understand what written in the papers you keep on showing, beyond the first page ).

Let me give an example. You say : <<<<I think that the works of Sean Olive and especially Floyd E. Toole are very interesting with tespect to sound reproduction. In Tooles book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" he give the primary inputs needed to get a good sound system and they base their models on double blind tests. it is about loudspeakers and the rooms of course, and less about the electronics behind these, I think. >>>

I'm sure on 2nd reading you'll see how you diluted the subject. Do you really think that an amp designer ( SONY, Panasonic, etc etc ) in his right mind will test amps with different speakers ? Or in different rooms ? Was I discussing "good sound systems" ??? Nope. I was discussing the fact that amplifiers measuring IDENTICALLY sound different and I was doing this in order to argue that for violins as well it is POSSIBLE that minor effects might contribute greatly were it matters.

And by the way, one current theory trying to explain this "blameless amp" paradox has A LOT of similarity with the violin body backdriving the strings. And you won't believe how neatly Jim's AIR could fit into that as well.

And that's about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My complaint is about your constant tendency to dilute the subject at hand with a deluge of "data" and the like which show a degree of over confidence in whatever is "published" and ( in my view ! ), almost complete desinterest in discriminating the important from the trivial.

I for my purpose, the ability to distingvish between good and not so good literature works perfectly well, thanks. I am one of the more creative thinkers in the violin acoustics field, and are also one of the most productive. I rely quite heavily on acoustics intuition and experience wich probaly is wider than most researchers and makers insights, due to my daytime job as an acoustician, my making experinece and the quite extensive investigations into the field. The available literature is one of the sources in that respect.

I tend to work and think in a quite broad angle, and thrive with that. I enjoy complexity. Possibly there is an apparent lack of clarity or focus, I'm also not writing in my native language. I could have been more eclectic and less bastant in the issues I know less of. There are wide fields I have a lot to learn.

I don't quite get the reference to Jim Woodhouse, his violins and his son. I wish them the best but am not aware of any breakthrough from that direction. I respect yours ( and a couple of others ) "scientific" aproach to violin making but I think you guys should be tolerant towards more plebeian members. In the end, by David Burgess's standards, I and others have a warranted expectation that you also know what you're talking about ( understand what written in the papers you keep on showing, beyond the first page ).

You seemingly do not show a good ability to distingusih between who are important writers and those that aren't. Woodhouse is a very top notch scientist and one of the greater lecturers I have met. His works are published very early after the articles are submitted. The quality of his works are always of the very top level. Many of his articles describe the current knowledge. E.g the works in the bowed string.

He also spend a lot of time increasing and spreading the acoustics knowledge among makers interested in that matter, as he is a major poster in a forum for that.

I do have a decent insight into the articles I do post, at least I can read and understand them. I usually do not read every sentence of them, but is that necessary if somebody is asking for it? I do not need to be approved by anybody else in that matter. If the articles are not interesting for you, you can just ignore them. I think most readers do that, by the way. But a very few download them for their archives or whatever.

Let me give an example. You say : <<<<I think that the works of Sean Olive and especially Floyd E. Toole are very interesting with tespect to sound reproduction. In Tooles book "Sound Reproduction, Loudspeakers and Rooms" he give the primary inputs needed to get a good sound system and they base their models on double blind tests. it is about loudspeakers and the rooms of course, and less about the electronics behind these, I think. >>>

I'm sure on 2nd reading you'll see how you diluted the subject. Do you really think that an amp designer ( SONY, Panasonic, etc etc ) in his right mind will test amps with different speakers ? Or in different rooms ? Was I discussing "good sound systems" ??? Nope. I was discussing the fact that amplifiers measuring IDENTICALLY sound different and I was doing this in order to argue that for violins as well it is POSSIBLE that minor effects might contribute greatly were it matters.

Let me be clear: I do not have any confidence in the hi-fi amplifier or electronics trade. I consider most of that literature to be nonsense, mumbo-jumbo and full of myths. Electronics, amplifiers and mics should have a flat frequency response and a low signal to noise ratio. That's it.

This may seem ignorant, but it is my simplified approach to it. Now, I do find the references given above to be reliable sources for loudspeakers and I also trust what Toole say about amplifiers in his book. That book also contain some very interesting information that may be relevant for violins. A trained listener is able to draw the frequency response of a loudspekaer system just by listening to it in a normal room. That is: We can most likely hear the violins response through the room response.

A side track, but I like these and will continue using them.

And by the way, one current theory trying to explain this "blameless amp" paradox has A LOT of similarity with the violin body backdriving the strings. And you won't believe how neatly Jim's AIR could fit into that as well.

And that's about it.

I am all ears, tell us about what you know or think about that.

Edited by Anders Buen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am all ears, tell us about what you know or think about that.

About violins getting better with age ?

I think seasonal cycling plays a role. Humid-dry, hot cold. This may act ( will act ) to reduce residual stresses in the plates and consequently, linearize the response. Is it measurable ? My amp example was intended to argue that even very difficult to measure parameters are significant enough for the qualified ear.

In general I think that maybe, just maybe, too much emphasis has been placed on impact tests done with crude tools in the sense of the paragraph above. As a tool they're surely usefull but in my view they are two orders of magnitude too coarse. From all I could gather, the subtantial progress made in violins over the past 30 years or so is based on following closer than ever the good ( or great ) Cremonese models. I am not interested in plate tunning or modes. Unless they're DEAD right they'll "suck" energy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About violins getting better with age ?

No, I meant how you think the body influence the strings and playing. But thanks for your opinion on the ageing process.

In general I think that maybe, just maybe, too much emphasis has been placed on impact tests done with crude tools in the sense of the paragraph above. As a tool they're surely usefull but in my view they are two orders of magnitude too coarse. From all I could gather, the subtantial progress made in violins over the past 30 years or so is based on following closer than ever the good ( or great ) Cremonese models. I am not interested in plate tunning or modes. Unless they're DEAD right they'll "suck" energy.

I am not sure if you are interested in my comment here. But my wiev on the impact thests are that they are too detailed in comparison to how the ears are able to pick up the sound. The subjective just noticeable differences seem to be larger than we have anticipated originally. The research on this has just recently, a couple of years ago, been published.

The violin modes may or may not contribute to the radiated sound. For the more effective sound radiators they do amplify the sound. And between them they also amplify the sound in comparison to an instrument without body. And the amplification will be larger the larger the damping is in those regions. For the signature modes the damping from holding for playing makes them less effective as "amplifiers".

The distance between the resonance tops and valleys are only 20dB ish, and even less if the violin is held for playing or is more damped. I ahve filled a violin body with cotton. That inxcreased the damping, but I do not consider that to be a good violin, and it did not become any better. Here the good loudspeaker and violin show different properties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I meant how you think the body influence the strings and playing. But thanks for your opinion on the ageing process.

I am not sure if you are interested in my comment here. But my wiev on the impact thests are that they are too detailed in comparison to how the ears are able to pick up the sound. The subjective just noticeable differences seem to be larger than we have anticipated originally. The research on this has just recently, a couple of years ago, been published.

The violin modes may or may not contribute to the radiated sound. For the more effective sound radiators they do amplify the sound. And between them they also amplify the sound in comparison to an instrument without body. And the amplification will be larger the larger the damping is in those regions. For the signature modes the damping from holding for playing makes them less effective as "amplifiers".

The distance between the resonance tops and valleys are only 20dB ish, and even less if the violin is held for playing or is more damped. I ahve filled a violin body with cotton. That inxcreased the damping, but I do not consider that to be a good violin, and it did not become any better. Here the good loudspeaker and violin show different properties.

I'm always interested in your comments. I must say in all honesty that I'm deeply suspicious of the magnitude of "just noticeable differences". We could argue this both ways : some people claim they can hear the diff between a CD and an LP and, at least on paper, I can prove there is none.

Sure, in a sense modes are amplifiers but at this stage I am not concerned with that. I am concentrating exclusively on the plate shapes and associated modes at high frequencies.

As to damping through manipulation watch Milstein in Bhrams. He consistently lifts the back of the violin off his shoulder with very noticeable result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you were 'pumping' me for information then? :angry:

No. Read again post 156.

My intention was to show that while Jim might not have had a theory as to how the violin works, neither do you. You like to think that a violin is like an audio amplifier and some sort of filter, and the body has no meaningful influence on the strings.

What body of information you offered after being "pumped" ??????????

And I'd urge you to give some thought to David Burgess's line : "Useless and repetitive static takes away from educational value of the site, and enjoyment of the site."

P.S. Never restle with a pig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intention was to show that while Jim might not have had a theory as to how the violin works, neither do you. You like to think that a violin is like an audio amplifier and some sort of filter, and the body has no meaningful influence on the strings.

I have severqal models for how a violin works and have numerous approaches towards finding out how it works and how the timbre is influenced by modifications. Read say 10 % of my nearly 3000 posts here and we can talk again. You are a newbie on this forum, so I think you can be a little more careful in your statements.

You keep on putting words in my mouth and behave as you know what I think. - Of course you don't!

Are you Mr. Daniel S. Prier, by the way?

And I'd urge you to give some thought to David Burgess's line : "Useless and repetitive static takes away from educational value of the site, and enjoyment of the site."

P.S. Never restle with a pig.

There are some indications here that you may be a quite young person.

I think David can speak for himself, and I remember where the sentence comes from, so don't try to use this against me.

I think your last sentence qualifies for a consideration by the moderator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have severqal models for how a violin works and have numerous approaches towards finding out how it works and how the timbre is influenced by modifications. Read say 10 % of my nearly 3000 posts here and we can talk again. You are a newbie on this forum, so I think you can be a little more careful in your statements.

You keep on putting words in my mouth and behave as you know what I think. - Of course you don't!

Are you Mr. Daniel S. Prier, by the way?

There are some indications here that you may be a quite young person.

I think David can speak for himself, and I remember where the sentence comes from, so don't try to use this against me.

I think your last sentence qualifies for a consideration by the moderator.

I've read ALL your posts and have an off line copy of them. I am 52 years young.

I also think David can speak for himself and also think that the sentence does apply to you in my view. In my opinion you are using the forum as a platform to gain some sort of notoriety as a violin researcher. That's fine to me but then you MUST accept that others might question your science. YOU are calling yourself "senior data orchestrator".

I'm going to keep a close eye on your data and your orchestrations and in this context I expect you actualy read and comprehend what you persistently feed to the forum in, what's often times, a deluvial manner.

I find you enthousiastic and intelligent but (by your own account!), manic, superficial and disorganised in presentation and somehow constantly UNSURE of what the "data" indicates or it's relevancy. That qualifies as STATIC in my book.

I respectfully suggest that you proof read your posts - your command of english is degrading over the past couple of years. The Senior Data Orchestrator should do better there.

As to my last sentence I fail to see what the problem is. Quite recently somebody else's ideeas were likened to feaces and haven't seen you complaining of that one. Here it is :

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=324014&view=findpost&p=508400

Not a nice way to treat people I'd say. What do YOU say ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion you are using the forum as a platform to gain some sort of notoriety as a violin researcher. That's fine to me but then you MUST accept that others might question your science.

It is a place where it is convenient to share graphs and data for discussion. I use it by part as a propellant for my hobby. I am now back at work, so the number of postings will go down.

When it comes to the questioning of the science, there are better forums than this available when it cvomes to the science part. But I enjoy very much the level of knowledge and information shared here on the violin making part.

YOU are calling yourself "senior data orchestrator".

That is supposed to be with some humour. :-)

I'm going to keep a close eye on your data and your orchestrations and in this context I expect you actualy read and comprehend what you persistently feed to the forum in, what's often times, a deluvial manner.

I donot know what deluvial means. But I am finding your tone to be a bit vulgar. It will take me some integrity to live with it. And I may put you on the ignore list as the first person on this site.

I find you enthousiastic and intelligent but (by your own account!), manic, superficial and disorganised in presentation and somehow constantly UNSURE of what the "data" indicates or it's relevancy. That qualifies as STATIC in my book.

I'm honest. And do deliver ideas. One has to be somewhat critical about own ideas and results. I think that is a good thing. I feel a development in my work, and can live with you having your opinion about it.

I respectfully suggest that you proof read your posts - your command of english is degrading over the past couple of years. The Senior Data Orchestrator should do better there.

I think I take advice from my friends and not you. But thanks anyway.

As to my last sentence I fail to see what the problem is. Quite recently somebody else's ideeas were likened to feaces and haven't seen you complaining of that one. Here it is :

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=324014&view=findpost&p=508400

Not a nice way to treat people I'd say. What do YOU say ?

I still think you should write under your real name. I think the tone of your postings would be better then. I would encourage anybody to write under their own name, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read ALL your posts and have an off line copy of them. I am 52 years young.

I also think David can speak for himself and also think that the sentence does apply to you in my view. In my opinion you are using the forum as a platform to gain some sort of notoriety as a violin researcher. That's fine to me but then you MUST accept that others might question your science. YOU are calling yourself "senior data orchestrator".

I'm going to keep a close eye on your data and your orchestrations and in this context I expect you actualy read and comprehend what you persistently feed to the forum in, what's often times, a deluvial manner.

I find you enthousiastic and intelligent but (by your own account!), manic, superficial and disorganised in presentation and somehow constantly UNSURE of what the "data" indicates or it's relevancy. That qualifies as STATIC in my book.

I respectfully suggest that you proof read your posts - your command of english is degrading over the past couple of years. The Senior Data Orchestrator should do better there.

As to my last sentence I fail to see what the problem is. Quite recently somebody else's ideeas were likened to feaces and haven't seen you complaining of that one. Here it is :

http://www.maestronet.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=324014&view=findpost&p=508400

Not a nice way to treat people I'd say. What do YOU say ?

Dan,

You're overeacting, Anders is a very nice guy and at least he's interested.

Now go back nicely to http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=173896

and jump on them with both feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I'd urge you to give some thought to David Burgess's line : "Useless and repetitive static takes away from educational value of the site, and enjoyment of the site."

This was not written in reference to Anders, nor would I do so.

One contribution which could help round out our inquiry would be the data mining of existing studies, and Anders seems to have taken on that role knowledgeably and willingly, along with other contributions. And he shares what he finds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...