A Test Rig for Assessing Tonal Properties of Solid Body Electric Guitar Construction

[curtisa]

...or perhaps a more realistic analogy, stick a capo on the 12th fret and tune all your strings down an octave. The result will be pretty ugly sounding compared to all six strings open and tuned back to normal, even though the pitch is the same both ways.

[curtisa]

OK, time for a controversial one. Radiata pine vs Tasmanian Oak - what can you hear?

Stats for the test pieces used:

• Two planks cut and dressed to same dimensions of 840mm x 65mm x 25mm, one in radiata pine and one from the tas oak used for all the previous tests.
• Pine plank weighs 650 grams, the tas oak weighs 1140 grams
• Typical Janka hardnesses for radiata pine and tas oak are 3200N and 6000N respectively
• Pickup recess milled to the same dimensions at the same location in both planks
• Scale length 25" on both test pieces, with the bridge, nut and string lock at the same positions on both.
• Same strings, hardware, pickup and electronics used for each test.
• Pickup to string distance checked for consistency between each test using the wooden feeler gauge mentioned earlier
• Each string checked for tune using the Peterson strobe tuner before each test
• Both planks resting on rubber pads positioned at the same locations for each test
• Robo-picker positioned at the same position along the string and with the same amount of 'pick engagement' for each test

The attached WAV file illustrate 3x groups of strikes of a low-E, a D and a high-E using the robo-picker. The string strikes are arranged in pairs, the first sample in each pair is the pine, the second being tas oak. There's also the amp-sim'ed version if you want a more real-life comparison.

Have at it.

04 Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 04 Pine vs Tas Oak.wav

[mistermikev]

On 4/29/2021 at 1:23 AM, curtisa said:

I guess we'd have to draw the line somewhere in terms of practically mimicing a hand holding a pick vs picking the string. I suppose you could go to great lengths to design and build some kind of robotic hand with synthetic 'flesh' to hold the pick that accurately mimics someone's picking action. But you could also begin splitting hairs and say, 'well that's not the way *I* play guitar, your tests are all null and void!' This is more about getting the strings to move in a way that is repeatable and using a tool that a typical player would use to do so. Assessing tonal effects due to a player's picking hand technique is well beyond the scope of this test rig.

I was explicitly trying to avoid the variations that might be encountered in trying to excite the strings in some of the Youtube tonewood comparison videos that seem to have received lots of attention over the years:

• This one by our old mate Ola Strandberg is interesting, but the method that was used to get the strings moving was to allow a ruler to swing down under gravity and 'hammer' the string, effectively turning the guitar into a piano or dulcimer, which is not how anyone plays an electric guitar. There's also inconsistency between some string strikes within the same wood samples that (to me at least) raises some doubt that it's possible to conclude each timber sample is actually sonically different.
• This old favourite is commonly cited, and while the claim is that the two guitars differ only by body material, the biggest difference I can see is that there's two different people playing the instruments. You'd also need to consider any differences in the electrical characteristics of the pickups and electronics and the proximity of one player to the amp vs the other (acoustic feedback?), amongst other things.
• Another one that seems to pop up occasionally also suffers from the human factor. It's clear that the same riffs are being played differently each time, which changes the validity of the comparison. Sometimes the samples sound the same between timbers, sometimes they sound noticably different.

i think I might have a slightly used latex fist... perhaps mount the pick in that?  lemme know if you want a send (hehe).

seriously I think as much could be compensated in the pick itself.  I know that when i strum an acoustic with a fender thin pick... zero resistance... place the sm thing with a dunlop 2mm and all the resistance is in the hand.  I believe I have some picks that have a thinner pivot point between the thumb grip and the tip... I think something like that, or just a fender thin... would mitigate any hand movement.

all that said... I think your actuator is pretty sophisticated.  reminds me of "house on the rock" which has been a fascination of mine forever... have been there several times.  For those who don't know... it's a house the was built (as I recall) by one man... thousands of mechanical instruments inside it and they play some pretty complex tunes.  oddly, less robotic sounding than what you might get just loading some classical piece into midi and playing back on a generic soundcard.  Perhaps I'm romanticizing it.

I completely support where you were already headed... but if you want the fist just say so!

[mistermikev]

7 hours ago, curtisa said:

OK, time for a controversial one. Radiata pine vs Tasmanian Oak - what can you hear?

Stats for the test pieces used:

• Two planks cut and dressed to same dimensions of 840mm x 65mm x 25mm, one in radiata pine and one from the tas oak used for all the previous tests.
• Pine plank weighs 650 grams, the tas oak weighs 1140 grams
• Typical Janka hardnesses for radiata pine and tas oak are 3200N and 6000N respectively
• Pickup recess milled to the same dimensions at the same location in both planks
• Scale length 25" on both test pieces, with the bridge, nut and string lock at the same positions on both.
• Same strings, hardware, pickup and electronics used for each test.
• Pickup to string distance checked for consistency between each test using the wooden feeler gauge mentioned earlier
• Each string checked for tune using the Peterson strobe tuner before each test
• Both planks resting on rubber pads positioned at the same locations for each test
• Robo-picker positioned at the same position along the string and with the same amount of 'pick engagement' for each test

The attached WAV file illustrate 3x groups of strikes of a low-E, a D and a high-E using the robo-picker. The string strikes are arranged in pairs, the first sample in each pair is the pine, the second being tas oak. There's also the amp-sim'ed version if you want a more real-life comparison.

Have at it.

04 Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 7.4 MB · 0 downloads 04 Pine vs Tas Oak.wav 7.4 MB · 0 downloads

i so want to listen to this but phone speaker would spoil it for me.  mental note I will dive in after work tonight and respond - thank you so much for doing it!!

EDIT: for the record my confirmation bias is that oak is going to sound very bright in the highs and tight in the lows... pine will be flabby on the low end and dark on the top.  that said I will try to hear them blindly.

[Bizman62]

If you said all samples were from one single setup I'd believe you. Wooden ears... Or limited headphones which they should not be.

[ScottR]

Yep, I hear zero difference.

SR

[curtisa]

FWIW, it's not a given that the two sample should or shouldn't sound the same. I've only compared one example each of two different species in the previous test, and two woods that many people wouldn't use in their builds at that. It could be that tas oak 'sounds' the same as pine anyway. There could be something in my test rig that is unifying the results somehow.

While I would like to extend this test to include the more commonly used woods like mahogany, maple, alder etc, I'm a bit hamstrung with these species as they're so bloody expensive and hard for me to obtain down here.

However the initial run of results based on two common materials with substantially different properties, while keeping all other aspects of the instrument and the way it is played identical (ie what should be the backbone of any of the numerous tonewood comparison tests out there) could indicate that the wood doesn't make a difference to the sound (or perhaps at most, a difference that disappears into insignificance).

[Bizman62]

9 hours ago, curtisa said:

 It could be that tas oak 'sounds' the same as pine anyway. There could be something in my test rig that is unifying the results somehow.

By the theories of "tonewood" I don't believe the sound of your woods would be similar. Given that one weighs half of the other and by Janka is only half as hard (guess your pine is as soft as ours) there should be enough difference to affect the tone - acoustically! Can you do a similar test using an acoustic microphone for comparison? That would tell if the magnetic pickup only catches the vibration of the strings. - Measuring the sustain with various woods would be the next thing to test after the actual "sound" test which seems to tell no audible difference.

Didn't you also say that the rig stands on rubber feet to eliminate feedback from the table? Your system really is built to eliminate all extra variables!

[curtisa]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

Can you do a similar test using an acoustic microphone for comparison? That would tell if the magnetic pickup only catches the vibration of the strings.

I could, but I also think that the first comparison I did (pickup directly mounted vs free-floating) suggests that the pickup can only 'hear' the strings' motion, and not how the wood 'sounds' acoustically. The unplugged response of the guitar might be interesting but it's probably not particularly relevant to the sound that emerges from the amp in and of itself.

Sustain tests are another interesting possibility, but it's one you'd have to be careful approaching. Essentially you'd need to be able to reliably differentiate between the length of single notes disappearing into the noise floor that might only differ by a second or two over 20 seconds or more. It might take significant differences to reliably detect, in which case you'd probably argue that the guitar with the shorter sustain was probably broken

[curtisa]

1 hour ago, Bizman62 said:

By the theories of "tonewood" I don't believe the sound of your woods would be similar

Yep. That was my thinking in chosing pine as the comparison material. If an alder Strat, a basswood Strat and an ash Strat are meant to sound uniquely different then surely two disparate woods such as pine and tas oak should sound different, even if few people are familiar with them as materials.

I have other species at my disposal which I want to try out, but again they won't be familiar to anyone outside Australia. That may be a good thing, as perhaps most people won't have any preconceptions as to how they should sound?

Seriously though, if anyone wants to donate a plank of one of the commonly accepted tonewoods to try out I'm more than happy to run it through the tests

[Bizman62]

4 hours ago, curtisa said:

The unplugged response of the guitar might be interesting but it's probably not particularly relevant to the sound that emerges from the amp in and of itself.

The main reason I asked for it is to see how much difference there might be when unplugged and compare it to how little of that difference is left with a magnetic pickup.

4 hours ago, curtisa said:

Sustain tests are another interesting possibility, but it's one you'd have to be careful approaching.

I agree. It's hard to tell when the sound really ends. I may have seen some testing where they cut the recording at a certain level of the meter, but it can be affected by just nudging the table so it would not be accurate.

[Bizman62]

4 hours ago, curtisa said:

I have other species at my disposal which I want to try out, but again they won't be familiar to anyone outside Australia.

As long as there's physical difference in them, all is good. I believe more in the properties of the wood than in the species, with the side note that the difference in cell construction can affect tone as well. There's many "tonewoods" that carry the same name despite being of totally different species. The Wood Database lists several mahoganies and rosewoods plus dozens of woods that are related but don't carry the name, or which are sometimes called by those names but aren't related, or look and behave like the famous ones. Your Tasmanian equivalents are as good as the "real" ones.

[mistermikev]

On 5/3/2021 at 11:50 PM, curtisa said:

OK, time for a controversial one. Radiata pine vs Tasmanian Oak - what can you hear?

Stats for the test pieces used:

• Two planks cut and dressed to same dimensions of 840mm x 65mm x 25mm, one in radiata pine and one from the tas oak used for all the previous tests.
• Pine plank weighs 650 grams, the tas oak weighs 1140 grams
• Typical Janka hardnesses for radiata pine and tas oak are 3200N and 6000N respectively
• Pickup recess milled to the same dimensions at the same location in both planks
• Scale length 25" on both test pieces, with the bridge, nut and string lock at the same positions on both.
• Same strings, hardware, pickup and electronics used for each test.
• Pickup to string distance checked for consistency between each test using the wooden feeler gauge mentioned earlier
• Each string checked for tune using the Peterson strobe tuner before each test
• Both planks resting on rubber pads positioned at the same locations for each test
• Robo-picker positioned at the same position along the string and with the same amount of 'pick engagement' for each test

The attached WAV file illustrate 3x groups of strikes of a low-E, a D and a high-E using the robo-picker. The string strikes are arranged in pairs, the first sample in each pair is the pine, the second being tas oak. There's also the amp-sim'ed version if you want a more real-life comparison.

Have at it.

04 Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 7.4 MB · 2 downloads 04 Pine vs Tas Oak.wav 7.4 MB · 4 downloads

well... I don't want to hear a dif cause I'm afraid of backlash.  I don't think I have golden ears or anything... listening to the amp version (first of all sounds like dog poo poo what is that buzzing???).  the first two strikes of the low e... the second one is darker.  so... there are two strikes, then hard stop... then two darker strikes. right at the begining.  then a third set of two dark strikes.  if I understand you correctly this does not match with what you told me.  i think you said that each strike is alternating?  set 2 and 3, of 2 strikes each, sound a small amount dif.  no idea what I'm listening too and fully aware of putting my ears out on a limb.  perhaps placebo, perhaps imagining things... perhaps just an anomaly.  I jumped around a bit to see if I was really convicted about what I heard and I think my orig take describes it accurately as I can.  d strings sounds pretty consistent.  can't really hear anything in the high e either.  the two strikes within each pair - I can't distinguish anything there.  

clean sound - third set of two low e's sounds different than first two sets.  again, fully putting myself out there... this is my honest interpretation whether it makes me a retard or not.  doesn't exactly sound 'darker' but maybe... flabbier?  again the set of two strikes sounds fairly consistent.  

again, can't tell if there is any difference on the upper strings at all.  

 

 

 

 

[curtisa]

15 hours ago, mistermikev said:

if I understand you correctly this does not match with what you told me.  i think you said that each strike is alternating? 

If we're talking about file '04 - Pine vs Tas Oak', then yes - correct. The samples always alternate between the two. There is no randomising going on. So what is being played in the recording is:

• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, end of file.

I would suggest that if you are hearing something different between pairs of plucks that can't be consistently identified as one or the other within each pair (eg, you can reliably identify the first pluck in each pair always sounds darker than the second) it is minute differences between the plucks produced by the robo-picker. Two plucks will never be 100% clones of each other no matter how good the mechanism is, but they will be more consistent than any human can manage, which was my main intention here.

If there is something intrinsic about the two timbers that makes pine sound different to tas oak (or ash vs alder, or mahogany vs basswood, or poplar vs black limba etc) it should stick out like crazy each and every time rather than flip randomly between sample A and B within each pair. If the running order of the samples does not change and they sound appreciably different then the 'tonewood' theory should make it easy to identify the two samples when played back-to-back.

 

15 hours ago, mistermikev said:

clean sound - third set of two low e's sounds different than first two sets

The raw recordings are identical, just that the clean file is fed through the amp sim to generate the 'amped' version (my apologies if the amp sim doesn't sound so crash hot, I just grabbed the first one I could find in my DAW and left all the controls at 12 o'clock). The amped version does not use a unique group of string samples compared to the clean version. Again, if you've managed to identify that pairs of plucks are different but the difference within each pair is not consistent, I'm tipping microscopic differences in the motion of the string once plucked by the robot. However, given that the amped and non-amped recordings utilise the same base playback file, if what you can hear is (assuming I've understood your explanation correctly):

• Amped version of low-E strings: (two samples are different), (two samples are the same), (two samples are the same)
• Clean version of low-E strings: (two samples are the same), (two samples are the same), (two samples are different)

Then perhaps it suggests that the samples cannot be reliably distinguished, as the <different> samples should have fallen in the same position in both recordings.

[curtisa]

Just to be clear in case I've used too many words, using file 04 (take you pick between amped or non-amped versions):

1 hour ago, curtisa said:

• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause <- compare these two notes together
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, end of file. <- compare these two notes together

The comparisons should not span across adjacent samples separated by a 'pause', otherwise it becomes too difficult to reliably remember what your reference point is.. The strikes within each pair are purposely placed back-to-back to give you a fighting chance to quickly identify any differences there may be between the two timbers.

[mistermikev]

6 hours ago, curtisa said:

If we're talking about file '04 - Pine vs Tas Oak', then yes - correct. The samples always alternate between the two. There is no randomising going on. So what is being played in the recording is:

• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck pine, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck pine, D pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck pine, High E pluck tas oak, end of file.

I would suggest that if you are hearing something different between pairs of plucks that can't be consistently identified as one or the other within each pair (eg, you can reliably identify the first pluck in each pair always sounds darker than the second) it is minute differences between the plucks produced by the robo-picker. Two plucks will never be 100% clones of each other no matter how good the mechanism is, but they will be more consistent than any human can manage, which was my main intention here.

If there is something intrinsic about the two timbers that makes pine sound different to tas oak (or ash vs alder, or mahogany vs basswood, or poplar vs black limba etc) it should stick out like crazy each and every time rather than flip randomly between sample A and B within each pair. If the running order of the samples does not change and they sound appreciably different then the 'tonewood' theory should make it easy to identify the two samples when played back-to-back.

 

The raw recordings are identical, just that the clean file is fed through the amp sim to generate the 'amped' version (my apologies if the amp sim doesn't sound so crash hot, I just grabbed the first one I could find in my DAW and left all the controls at 12 o'clock). The amped version does not use a unique group of string samples compared to the clean version. Again, if you've managed to identify that pairs of plucks are different but the difference within each pair is not consistent, I'm tipping microscopic differences in the motion of the string once plucked by the robot. However, given that the amped and non-amped recordings utilise the same base playback file, if what you can hear is (assuming I've understood your explanation correctly):

• Amped version of low-E strings: (two samples are different), (two samples are the same), (two samples are the same)
• Clean version of low-E strings: (two samples are the same), (two samples are the same), (two samples are different)

Then perhaps it suggests that the samples cannot be reliably distinguished, as the <different> samples should have fallen in the same position in both recordings.

yes, that is what I heard.... or at least what I thought I heard!  and yes... it seems I did understand your original description and def should NOT be hearing any difference.  so in summary... think it means there is not a difference.  

[Bizman62]

I tried to listen to them again for double checking that I had understood the instructions right which I seemingly had.

The biggest issue to me is that the first sound of each pair seems to be still ringing when the second sound comes in, and the second one ends with an 'oomph' like you had faded it in a split second. That's most prominent with the amped low E but it can be heard with both amped and plain. Like 'PlingggggggPlingggmph'.

[curtisa]

The two samples are back-to-back with no overlap or crossfading in between. Interference between the first and second samples could be the way we interpret unnatural sounds occurring in nature. The pick attack at the start of the second file would not normally take place hard up against the tail of the preceeding note in real life. I suppose you'd normally expect some choking off of the tail of the first note for a fraction of a second as the pick comes in contact with the string for the second strike if it were two plucks of the same string played by a human on a real guitar..

The tails of each sample are deliberately and artificially cut off, which again is not a natural phenomena, and could be colouring the interpretation of how the two samples sound and interact with each other. I suspect this is one of the shortfalls of Ola Strandberg's tonewood video I linked to earlier as well, as it sounds like he's also butted all the samples up against each other to try and make the sound comparison easier. The tradeoff being that we may be misinterpreting some of the detail because our ears hear one long continuous noise with a distracting join in the middle, rather than two discrete sounds.

I can repost them again with a short gap between and less-abrupt fade-outs if you think it would help? It's actually pretty hard to decide the best way to present some of these comparison files. I don't want to make the samples too long though, as that also makes the comparison difficult if you have to rely on your memory too much when comparing two sounds. I get the impression that the shorter the gap between examples improves the chances of being able to detect differences between two sounds. Leave it too long and you 'forget' what the first one sounded like.

[Bizman62]

8 hours ago, curtisa said:

I can repost them again with a short gap between and less-abrupt fade-outs if you think it would help?

If that's not too much of an effort, it would be nice to compare to the current ones. As for the fade-outs, would the length of the samples grow much if you let the sound die naturally, or fade/cut it when it's barely audible?

[curtisa]

1 minute ago, Bizman62 said:

As for the fade-outs, would the length of the samples grow much if you let the sound die naturally, or fade/cut it when it's barely audible?

A lot more. I'm using 2 second windows of each, but the unadulterated decay of them is between 5-15 seconds each depending on the string played.

[curtisa]

Some more comparisons for your examination. Same deal as before: 3x2 strikes of a low-E, D and high-E, each example alternates between two timbers. The 'new' timber is played first followed by the tas oak (weight = 1140g, typical Janka = 6000N) for reference using the following pattern:

• Low E pluck <new timber>, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck <new timber>, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• Low E pluck <new timber>, Low E pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck <new timber>, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck <new timber>, D pluck tas oak, pause
• D pluck <new timber>, D pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck <new timber>, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck <new timber>, High E pluck tas oak, pause
• High E pluck <new timber>, High E pluck tas oak, end of file.

Strikes within each pair have been separated by a short gap as per @Bizman62's request, plus the fadeout of each sample is a bit gentler. Amped and non-amped versions are provided, with 30% less dog poo-poo for @mistermikev's benefit . Each timber plank used had the same dimensions. Hardware, electronics and strings were the same for each. Mounting positions for the hardware and pickup was the same. Robo-picker was set to the same location, speed, string/pick engagement.  Same everything everywhere (to the best of my abilities). Only the timber differs.

• 04 Radiata Pine vs Tas Oak: Radiata Pine weight = 650g, typical Janka = 3200N. No other changes to the earlier version other than to provide more space between the string pairs as per @Bizman62's suggestion (note that this recording is the same file as before, except that the samples within are moved around a bit)
• 05 Celery Top Pine vs Tas Oak: Celery Top Pine weight = 794g, typical Janka = 4500N. CTP is not part of the pine family, but adopted that name owing to the early English settlers in Tasmania naming it based on its coniferous appearance.
• 06 Blackwood vs Tas Oak: Blackwood weight = 856g, typical Janka = 6000N. Blackwood is a close relative to Koa, so that probably makes it as close to mahogany as I'm likely to get my hands on at the moment.
• 07 Kauri Pine vs Tas Oak: Kauri Pine weight = 860g, typical Janka = 2500N. Also not actually a pine, Kauri is part of the Agathis family.

I need a drink...

04 Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 04 Pine vs Tas Oak.wav 05 Celery Top Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 05 Celery Top Pine vs Tas Oak.wav 06 Blackwood vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 06 Blackwood vs Tas Oak.wav 07 Kauri Pine vs Tas Oak + Amp.wav 07 Kauri Pine vs Tas Oak.wav

[Bizman62]

Thanks, the little pause really helped, it made analyzing the attack much easier.

After having really concentrated in listening to all the samples I couldn't hear the tiniest difference! At some point I thought there might have been something but it seemed more like a fraction of a second out of tune than actual difference in the shape of the sound. The whole listening process felt like double checking the tuning of well tuned guitars...

No sound samples needed, but after not having heard any difference in the sound samples I'd like to know if there's any difference in the length of the sound i.e. does the sound go beyond a certain level in the same time. Images of the graphs, maybe?

Another interesting comparison would also hear the acoustic sound of each wood in pairs... Five species would make - what - ten different pairs? Would that be too much to ask?

[curtisa]

8 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

No sound samples needed, but after not having heard any difference in the sound samples I'd like to know if there's any difference in the length of the sound i.e. does the sound go beyond a certain level in the same time. Images of the graphs, maybe?

That should be reasonably easy to cobble together. Something along the lines of how long it takes for the sound to reach some nominal level, which doesn't necessarily have to be the threshold of silence. Say, measure the time taken for the note to lose 75% of its initial peak, or the time taken for the note to decay to an absolute dB value.

 

8 hours ago, Bizman62 said:

Five species would make - what - ten different pairs? Would that be too much to ask?

I reckon you'd lose perspective with so many choices at your disposal, and the relevance to the sound produced when plugged in seems somewhat tenuous.

What about if I recorded acoustic samples of the sound of each species when knocked as a compromise; one file for each species and leave it up to the listener to shuffle them around at their leisure? It's quicker for me to produce and will probably be easier for you to hear differences in the raw acoustic properties of the materials.

[mistermikev]

interesting... I'm hearing a difference... but it might have something to do with your test picker  and how consistent it is?  listening to blackwood vs tas oak... the front of the note is varying quite a bit to my ears.  that second pluck... it's more percussive.  the first pluck seems to ramp up... I can't really tell if it's doing it consistently but those first two I def notice it.  def the second pluck sounds louder.  

[mistermikev]

1 minute ago, mistermikev said:

interesting... I'm hearing a difference... but it might have something to do with your test picker  and how consistent it is?  listening to blackwood vs tas oak... the front of the note is varying quite a bit to my ears.  that second pluck... it's more percussive.  the first pluck seems to ramp up... I can't really tell if it's doing it consistently but those first two I def notice it.  def the second pluck sounds louder.  

edit - also sounds much nicer... recording quality is much improved here it seems.