🚀 go-pugleaf

Uncle Samuel wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 14:30:50 -0700, Alan <alanb4@uswest.net> wrote:
> 
> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 04:03:12 -0700, Alan <alanb4@uswest.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Uncle Samuel wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 02:09:29 GMT, "Phxbrd" <phxbrd@earthlink.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Uncle Samuel" <stars@bars> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:d39rivocsfl5q641g69cukk77ofhrln1ou@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Mon, 04 Aug 2003 00:01:19 GMT, "Phxbrd" <phxbrd@earthlink.net>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >> >> I bet you used those crappy Pickering cartridges too! Or maybe it was
> >> >> >> >> that Shure gobbige.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >Shure, that tracked at a half ounce.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And sounded like it too, thin, tinny, poor separation. Stanton was the
> >> >> >> most balanced performer.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You just stepped in it after a good start.  Separation has nothing to do
> >> >> >with tracking pressure.  Mebbe you were an apprentice.
> >> >>
> >> >> It has quite a bit to do with the overall performance (hence
> >> >> separation numbers) of the cartridge. That's why all the broadcast
> >> >> boys like Stanton's. Sure you ran a gram to 1.25, but the sound
> >> >> quality was far improved. A Shure would dance on you if the skating
> >> >> wasn't spot on and you'd lose portions of the signal. The Pickering's
> >> >> were tolerable, but Stanton ruled for my span.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's like guitar strings, heavier is better, that's why SRV's solos
> >> >> were so punchy, BTO's chords too.
> >> >
> >> >Not too butt in, but heavier guitar strings are not better,
> >> >they are just heavier.  In general, heavier strings are for
> >> >rhythm players.  Most lead guitarists prefer a lighter gage
> >> >because they are easier to bend.  If you ever get a chance
> >> >to look at some old film, take a look at both Jimi's and
> >> >SRV's hands.  They're huge.  Muscular, not slender, and
> >> >definitely atypical for us mere mortals.
> >>
> >> Heavier equates to greater pickup fidelity.
> >>
> >> It's a magnetic pole and a vibrating transmitter. More is better.
> >
> >It's a musical instrument, not an electronic equation, and
> >the word you're struggling to find is "brighter".  Heavier
> >strings are "brighter".
> 
> It is a combination of materials, wood can also be brighter

In my experience the type of wood the guitar is made out of
effects sustain, resonance, and the "warmness" of a guitar's
sound, not the "brightness".

>,  a Parker
> Fly (composition)  can be bright - the equation comes down to the
> interaction of magnet and vibrator.
> 
> Think humbucker vs. single pole, there are all manner of
> intreractions, but string gauge will add to the fidelity, not just
> treble brightness,  on each.
> 

I'm getting the feeling you're bullshitting.  

While not professionally, I *do* play one of the damn
things, and I have for nearly 20 years now.  I've long since
given up the electric in favor of the acoustic, right about
when I figured out I'd never play like Malmsteen or
Rhoades.  Or SRV, for that matter.  

Which brings us on home.  You can't hold these guys up as
the norm.  It's ridiculous. Saying "SRV used heavy guage
strings and managed to solo just fine, why can't I" is
silly.  


If Tiger Woods would ever deign to play in the Tucson Open,
I would have a chance to see how he plays a course I've
hacked about on myself.

Fun to think about, but damned if I'm gonna use a nine iron
on a 155 yard par 3.


> >They're brighter because they're bigger.  That's a
> >characteristic of both electric AND acoustic guitars. The
> >problem is, bending a note on heavier gauge strings is a
> >stone cold bitch.
> 
> Tell Leo Kotke that....

See above.

 
> > It doesn't matter for shit how much
> >brighter the signal is at the pickups if the note is out of
> >key.
> 
> No, an off note is an off note.
> 
> But it will sound bigger, not just brighter,  on heavier gauge
> strings.

Fine.  Both Bigger and Brighter, but not Better.  Got it?