YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → T119 Klang kann man nicht messen? -1-

T119 Klang kann man nicht messen? -1- — Transcript

by Physik der Elektrogitarre · 7,294 words · 1,104 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:09Sound cannot be measured. So why are
0:13there so many measurement curves in my
0:15videos? A difficult topic. In this
0:21video, we will dive into the world of
0:25measurement technology, signal analysis
0:29, and psychometrics together. At the
0:38last Guitar Weekend in Regensburg, I
0:42gave a presentation on the topic of
0:45perception, pointing out that I am a
0:51trained electroacoustician, but not a
0:54psychologist. Although I worked as a
0:59scientist at the Institute for
1:01Electroacoustics in Munich for almost 8
1:04years and studied psychoacoustics
1:07intensively, I am not a psychologist
1:10and therefore run the risk of making
1:13the mistake that I sometimes accuse
1:16others of, namely talking about things
1:19that they do not understand enough
1:22about. Let's see where this leads. It
1:28says pitch here, you can read it. But
1:33you can see that these letters are all
1:36broken. Nevertheless, it is no problem
1:41for our signal evaluation, for our
1:44brain, to recognize what is meant here.
1:49The letters are completed and we read
1:52pitch. In this case, with our visual
1:57sense, with our sense of sight, we can
2:01also recognize individual objects, such
2:05as a line or an angle. But we can also
2:10summarize, group, and recognize a word.
2:15Visual analysis is quite good at
2:18recognizing individual objects and
2:21grouped objects, and we can jump back
2:25and forth to see more detail and get a
2:28better overview. With hearing, with
2:32auditory perception, it is not so easy.
2:36With a sound, we cannot hear every
2:39harmonic, every individual partial tone
2:43. But if the brain now supplements
2:47incomplete information, then the
2:50question naturally arises: How is this
2:53done? Is it always done according to
2:57the same rules? This is how objects are
3:00changed. Here, we do not always
3:04recognize generally meaningless lines,
3:08but we complete them to form a word,
3:12because these letters are familiar to
3:15us, and based on learned information,
3:19defects are corrected, supplemented,
3:23changed, that is the essential thing,
3:27changed. Such changes can also occur in
3:31auditory perception when listening. Two
3:36more examples. Here you can see a white
3:41triangle, although it is not there at
3:43all. There are only these Pacmans and
3:48angles. Nevertheless, it is obvious
3:52that there is a white triangle on top
3:54of this rest. And here you can get the
3:58feeling, yes, this is spatial. Such
4:01prisms or logs lie on top of each other
4:04, but of course it is only a
4:05two-dimensional representation. The
4:08brain works there and completes it to
4:10create meaningful impressions. What
4:14color are these balls? Well, somehow
4:18reddish, greenish, bluish, who knows.
4:21No, they are all the same color, light
4:24ochre. An illusion. There are many
4:28books about optical illusions, which
4:30could also be called visual illusions.
4:35The balls do not change in the image,
4:37only the lines pass in front of the
4:40ball and then behind it. Our perception
4:45is not always true. Our perception is
4:49subject to subjective evaluations,
4:52which is not necessarily a bad thing.
4:57If incorrect information is
4:59supplemented in a meaningful way, it
5:02could be quite advantageous, could and
5:05still can ensure survival. Before I go
5:10into the details, a few terms that come
5:16from Wikipedia. Later, when it comes to
5:21psychology, it's a bit of a lifeline
5:23for me to say, I'm not a psychologist.
5:27Should that be outdated by now? Well,
5:30the term isn't outdated, but opinions
5:33in psychology sometimes change. If it
5:37is outdated, well, then Wikipedia will
5:40surely correct it soon. There's no need
5:44to correct anything. Physics: The
5:46natural science that examines and
5:48hopefully explains fundamental
5:50phenomena of nature. Psychology: The
5:53empirical science for describing,
5:55explaining, and predicting human
5:57experience and behavior. There have
6:01certainly been other definitions for
6:03this, and there are probably other,
6:06supplementary definitions at present.
6:09Psychophysics: The interaction between
6:12subjective and psychological experience
6:14and quantitatively measurable, i.e.
6:17objective, physical stimuli as the
6:19triggering processes. Psychophysics has
6:23nothing to do with esotericism, that's
6:25still to come. Psychometrics: Theory
6:28and method of psychological measurement
6:31. Esotericism: A philosophical doctrine
6:37that is only accessible to a limited
6:39inner circle of people. One could say,
6:45what a nice euphemism. Mysticism, among
6:50other things, the connection between
6:53spiritual practice and everyday life,
6:55religious experience, i.e. playing the
6:58guitar, religious experience. Now
7:03psychoacoustics, a subfield of
7:05psychophysics, quantitative statements
7:08on the question of what can and cannot
7:11belong to something. There are many
7:16books on this topic, a few as a
7:17selection here, but there are many more
7:20. I cannot quote all the people who
7:24have dealt with this field. You have to
7:29do your own research. From myth to
7:33logos. That's a nice title with an
7:37explanatory sentence: "Myths are
7:40primarily there to pass on knowledge
7:44before there is a scientific language
7:48for it." So it is, you could say, a
7:53pre-scientific state. At first you
7:58think that when there is thunder during
8:01a storm, the gods are rumbling across
8:04the sky in their horse-drawn chariots.
8:08Myths do not only exist with the
8:10electric guitar. For those of you who
8:14are not interested in culture, there is
8:17a shortcut: The myths of antiquity.
8:21Occasionally, two people stand on my
8:24doorstep. There are always two, a
8:27Jehovah's Witness, and they tell me
8:30that the answers to all questions are
8:33in the Bible. In the past, I've had
8:37questions about that occasionally. I
8:41learned in school-back then it was
8:43still called elementary school-when the
8:46pastor came, paradise, the fall of man.
8:50Adam and Eve had two sons, Abel and
8:52Seth. Later, a third one came along.
8:56Well, Abel, well, how should I put it,
8:59had a little mishap, but then there
9:02were two more sons, Abel and Seth. This
9:07one, you won't believe it, later became
9:10famous. Yes, there's a hamburger in the
9:13morning. Yes, but that's another topic.
9:17So they had two sons and what was it
9:21like with this growing up and more of
9:25you? More of you in particular. Back
9:30then, in elementary school, you
9:32wouldn't have asked the pastor about
9:35that. Well, you didn't have such a
9:39clear idea of this sea, and you were
9:41also told, if you had sinful thoughts,
9:44come to confession on Saturday. At that
9:48time, Bavaria was still predominantly
9:50Catholic. But of course today you can
9:54think, well, two sons, how do they do
9:57it with this Meen, with this
9:59reproduction, because Oedipus was later
10:02, that didn't exist yet. Today we would
10:07call it reproduction. That's not
10:11possible. Yes, and I didn't think that
10:15the answers to all questions were in
10:18the Bible, but instead looked it up on
10:21the Internet. There are many answers
10:24there. But if they come from the Bremen
10:27area, you have to be careful. But
10:29sometimes you can also find good
10:31explanations there. And then I found a
10:35page from a brotherhood, the
10:38Brotherhood D. At first, with my
10:41limited knowledge of Latin, I thought
10:44it wasn't called Brotherhood di, but it
10:48was the Brother Hand. Oh, so they did
10:52it well. Brother Dog d. If the Bible
10:56also contained all the statements that
10:58we can arrive at by deduction, then the
11:00Bible would have to be a work of at
11:02least 100 volumes. But God has only
11:06given us a single book and the gift of
11:08thinking. As a scientist, that's
11:12something that really appeals to me. In
11:14this way, we can also answer questions
11:16that are not directly addressed, but
11:18can easily be derived from other
11:19statements. End quote. So I thought to
11:23myself, yes, by thinking about it, one
11:26can get closer to the myths. And there
11:28you find, these are now quotes from the
11:30brother hand. And Adam was 130 years
11:33old and fathered a son. Yes, and called
11:38him sheh. Aha, he came quite later and
11:41then lived for 800 years and fathered
11:44sons and daughters. Says the brother
11:48hand. Ah yes, 800 years. Back then,
11:53there were no microplastics or car
11:55exhaust fumes. Life was just somehow
11:59better back then. Adam, the ram of Eden
12:02, fathered sons and daughters. So,
12:05above all, the daughters were necessary
12:06, otherwise it wouldn't have progressed
12:08any further. Whereas beyond Eden, he
12:11was already out of paradise. He
12:15fathered there for 800 years and then
12:19you can already imagine. He was good at
12:22breeding, but okay, that's okay. What
12:26happens now? Let's take a look at a
12:31timeline. Scientists like to simplify
12:34complicated structures. Our calendar
12:38starts at zero. Today we are back there
12:41. Then there is Moses. Yes, the exact
12:46year doesn't really matter. You really
12:49shouldn't look too closely at it.
12:52Research is not entirely in agreement
12:53as to whether it was here or here or
12:55here or anywhere else. Then we don't
12:58know the exact year, but it was around
13:00that time when the Flood occurred. And
13:04the Brotherhood knows that. That was
13:08paradise with this Adam, who was 930
13:14years old. That means he probably
13:18didn't experience the Flood, but here
13:20he procreated as much as he could. He
13:23probably was in the armory. The Flood,
13:26that's where we need it now, what's it
13:31called? The gift of thinking, the Flood
13:36is now the next big event and the
13:39source of further myths, because a
13:42certain Noah built a ship, an ark,
13:46which is very well known today. We know
13:51down to the nearest centimeter how long
13:54, wide and high it was. And then he had
13:57to take two of each animal species with
14:00him on the ark, because then something
14:02terrible happened, then it rained until
14:05even the highest peaks on earth were
14:08covered in water. Mount Everest was 85
14:12meters high. That would have been
14:15something for the Federal Chancellors,
14:17who were always walking around in
14:19rubber boots during floods. They would
14:22have had something to do then. All the
14:25mountains covered in water, the flood.
14:30Something was going on. I don't really
14:34believe the animals in this picture.
14:38The elephant would have been a bit
14:41bigger, the giraffe too, but about as
14:44impressive as that. A giant thing, two
14:48of each animal species to save them,
14:51and seven people. In total, there were
14:54eight people. The ark was on the road
14:58for 377 days. Some say 371. So with all
15:02these numbers, we're not talking about
15:04the last percentile. About a year, and
15:08so I thought, he had to take two
15:11elephants with him, you can even see in
15:14the picture, they like to eat about 300
15:18kg of leaves from trees per day. That's
15:22about 300 tons in 3 years. And if you
15:27consider the storage space to be about
15:291,500 cubic meters, why 3 years? Well,
15:32you have to think about it, we're using
15:34our minds. If the ark lands now, the
15:40animals won't have anything to eat.
15:42There was 8 km of water on Earth for a
15:45year. Everything was destroyed. All the
15:48vegetation was destroyed. That means he
15:52had to take food for these animals with
15:54him. So 300 tons is just enough space.
16:00There was more than one species of
16:02elephant back then. Today you read that
16:04there are still three species of
16:06elephant. Back then, there were more
16:09than six different ones. But it's still
16:15okay, because the ark has about 40,000
16:18cubic meters. I've generously rounded
16:21up the height, I don't know exactly how
16:23to say, 40,000. That's still okay.
16:28However, there were also dinosaurs back
16:32then and that's a bit tricky. 3,400
16:36different types of dinosaurs and it's
16:38not even the pterosaurs, but the ones
16:40that roam around below. The heaviest
16:44weighed up to 80 tons and was 35 meters
16:47long. So it wouldn't have fit sideways,
16:50but it would have been fine lengthwise.
16:53No problem. And it has to be said that
16:55not all of them were that heavy, there
16:57were smaller ones. Now of course the
17:00question immediately arises, yes,
17:04dinosaurs, when did they live? Were
17:08there even dinosaurs at the time of the
17:11Flood? But the brother hand has an
17:14answer for that too. Yes, there were.
17:20Well, then there were 3,400 different
17:24dinosaurs and then we only have the
17:29elephants and the dinosaurs. Okay, he
17:34was incredibly lucky with some of the
17:36animals. For example, he didn't have to
17:38take the blue whales with him. They
17:40could swim in the water. I would have
17:42been very happy about that, because
17:44there would have been a big pool of
17:46water on this ark, phew, that would
17:48have been difficult. But blue whales
17:52and all other types of fish, I think he
17:55said that, they can do it. Even if the
17:58water rises, they simply swim higher.
18:02Okay, you might have to consider what
18:04happens at an altitude of 8,000 m with
18:06the perpetual ice? But it works under
18:12the ice, so let's assume that it worked
18:15. It's all written down. That's how it
18:18was. What did the dinosaurs eat? A lot,
18:25I assume. The big ones in particular,
18:28there were big ones. And what about the
18:32weight, if the thing is 13.4 m high, it
18:36can't be under water up to the roof. If
18:41you make a rough estimate, well, maybe
18:44a draft of 5 m, then you get the amount
18:47of water displaced. That's physics and
18:51the gift of thought. Buoyancy. Well,
18:5615,000 tons, as a rough estimate. The
19:00ship itself certainly weighs a lot too.
19:02It had to be very solid with all the
19:05wood and then inside there were the
19:07reinforcements, walls, no idea what
19:10else there is. So, well, the animals
19:14need food. Two elephants weigh, let's
19:18say, 10 tons and eat 300 tons in 3
19:21years. I've now factored in two more
19:25years after the flood in these
19:27calculations, because everything is
19:30destroyed first and it takes a while
19:32for the trees to grow back, but at
19:35least the grass grows quickly. So if it
19:40were 30 times the weight, well, they
19:43would be put on a diet and all the
19:48other animals, you read about 15
19:50million different species. Many have
19:53become extinct, a few have been added.
19:56So, he was already busy, there was
19:59already a lot going on in there. It
20:02must have been quite busy, but there
20:04were eight of them. They managed that.
20:07Okay, take some food with you too. A
20:12few more springboks for the lions and a
20:15few little deer for the Luxe. I think
20:20he didn't just take two everywhere, but
20:22a few more so that the predators would
20:25have something to eat. Yeah, good. The
20:31flood is over, the water has evaporated
20:33, the ark has landed. The water around
20:37the earth. A good 8 km high, 4 billion
20:42cubic kilometers of water. Evaporated
20:46because the sun is shining properly
20:50again. I could imagine that all the
20:54water had already evaporated, Noah said
20:57, just quickly go over to Mount Everest
21:01, because the peak of that will be the
21:04first to reappear. At least we can give
21:09the two there, we're kind of creepy,
21:12and then we'll just wait until the sun
21:14has really started to generate steam
21:17again and then land. To evaporate 4
21:23billion cubic kilometers of water, you
21:27need 25 x 10 to the power of 20
21:30kilowatt hours. I read that on the
21:33internet. So let's hope that's right
21:36for you. Yes. 10 to the power of 20
21:39kilowatt hours, yes, hours. That would
21:43take 1,500 years, assuming that the sun
21:48shines continuously and emits 1.4
21:51square meters of power per area. What I
21:58can't quite explain, that's where I
22:00reach the limits of my physics
22:01knowledge. What happens when water
22:04evaporates? Are there no clouds? And
22:07when there are clouds, the sun doesn't
22:09rise as early. Okay, let's leave it at
22:14that for now. And for the good 1,500
22:18years, I think if you can get 4 billion
22:23cubic kilometers of water, then you
22:26could say to the N, stay under the roof
22:29for now, we'll increase the solar
22:32energy 1,000-fold, no, it's faster. And
22:35you built the ark out of fireproof wood
22:39as ordered. Okay, then it must have
22:43worked out somehow, because otherwise
22:46you would have to say, Flood, water
22:49evaporates, a good 1,000 years. Wow,
22:53how about Moses? Ah, he came in a small
22:58boat on the Nile, I think. You can see
23:02it all fits together. Moses came
23:05swimming and then it was already done
23:07or just increased solar energy. Well,
23:10that's faster. So, now there's one more
23:13question and I can't offer an
23:17explanation for that. If you evaporate
23:214 billion cubic kilometers of water,
23:23then the all-knowing Internet says
23:26again that 6,692 billion cubic
23:31kilometers of steam are created,
23:33because you wouldn't believe it, if you
23:35evaporate just a little bit of water,
23:37then it becomes a huge amount of steam.
23:41But now the earth has 25 billion cubic
23:43kilometers of air as a total volume. So
23:47I can't explain it now. Either you
23:52simply assume that it went into space
23:55and was gone. Or you would have to get
23:59an explanation from the highest experts
24:01. If someone gets € 12,526 a month as
24:07a cardinal, which is already a higher
24:10salary class, they should actually be
24:14able to explain how that happened. So,
24:19let's assume that somehow it worked.
24:22Anti-spirits, that works, because we
24:26are here today, so it must have worked
24:30somehow back then. Now there is another
24:34problem, when they land, the earth is
24:37now full of corpses, all the vegetation
24:40is destroyed, because God punished the
24:43people with this flood and only the
24:46eight were saved, everyone else was
24:48here. Natural disasters clearly show us
24:54the fallen nature of creation.
24:56According to Peter Rommel, nature longs
25:00for liberation. This unfortunate
25:04situation came about solely because of
25:06man's turning away from God. Personal
25:11and undeserved misfortune is therefore
25:13not primarily a direct consequence of
25:16someone living an ungodly life. Even
25:20God-fearing people are plagued by
25:22accidents and disasters. They are much
25:26more a call from God to us humans to
25:29reflect and turn to him. God has often
25:33guided the forces of nature in the
25:36history of mankind. Today he uses
25:40disasters to shake us awake and lead us
25:44into his arms. End quote. Everyone must
25:48now read through the details themselves
25:50. Otherwise it would take too much time
25:52. God also destroyed all the people,
25:55all but eight. And there were a lot of
25:58corpses lying around. You can roughly
26:01estimate how many there were. There are
26:04studies by the University of Kiel. In
26:08the year 3500 BC, there were about 80
26:12million people in the Near East. 80
26:17million. Here, there were already 280
26:21million. Now let's assume, but that's
26:25difficult because we can only guess at
26:27the time of the Flood. The 80 million
26:31fed and at the time of the Flood there
26:35were perhaps 200 million. Then there
26:41were a lot of corpses in 1999, because
26:49eight were left on the ark. The problem
26:53is that the vultures were all dead too.
26:56The vultures are gluttons. But if they
26:59had had nothing to eat for a year,
27:02there was only water everywhere. Okay,
27:05the sea could catch fish, but the
27:07vultures, phew. So with the corpses,
27:11Noah immediately said, I'm not going to
27:14bury them all. It was also a kind of
27:18burial at sea. I have a stomach ache. I
27:21have to go to the North Pole now, then
27:24on to America, Asia, then down to the
27:27South Pole, Australia. I have to
27:29deliver the animals everywhere. That
27:32takes weeks. So dear people, dear
27:35colleagues, dear remaining seven people
27:38, you get rid of the bodies and the
27:40first thing you do is look at grain and
27:43what else you need when I get back, so
27:45that you can live properly again and
27:47then of course it starts again straight
27:50away. People have to grow back. There
27:56is an interesting statement from the
27:59funny Gloria from Regensburg. She said
28:03early on back here, however, that
28:06people die of Eids, that was true back
28:09in 2001, because they have too much sex
28:11, the black guy likes to have sex. Of
28:16course, that also had a positive side
28:19so soon after the flood, because people
28:23had to grow back and if UNIKIL is right
28:26, there were already 280 million. Wow,
28:32but the science of exponential growth,
28:38you have to get used to it and then it
28:40will be fine again. And as you can see,
28:44today we have billions of billions of
28:47people. So a little deluge of meaning
28:51didn't really do that much. Maybe I
28:55should talk to the Jehovah's Witnesses
28:59and go through the topic when we get
29:02there. You have to believe these myths,
29:07because otherwise he'll wait for you.
29:10Now as a musician you could still say,
29:13the alternative is to bring a stick,
29:16that must be deadly boring. All the Sex
29:20Trucks rock and roll guitarists are
29:23down there. After this reassuring
29:27outlook, let's leave the ancient myths
29:31and return to modern psychology. Uh,
29:36that's not a myth, that's science. And
29:40after that, we'll actually continue
29:43with the electro-gear. But there has to
29:46be some psychology, you have to go
29:48through that. A small step into
29:52psychology, also quoted here from the
29:56worldwide web: "The anchoring effect,
30:00systematic bias in judgment and
30:03decision-making. Consciously made
30:08choices are influenced by existing, and
30:11this is the important thing, irrelevant
30:13environmental information or stimuli,
30:16the stimulus being the anchor, without
30:19this influence being consciously
30:21perceived. The decisions or judgments
30:25are systematically distorted in the
30:27direction of the association connected
30:29with the anchor. This continues for a
30:33while. So we are not in the area of
30:35guitar playing, that will come later.
30:39It is a bit in the direction of
30:41perception psychology, distortions of
30:44perception. Someone plays the guitar
30:48and says, there is a difference, do you
30:50hear that? And then people say, of
30:54course, that they insist on beliefs.
30:58That they insist on a stubborn initial
31:00hypothesis, even though new information
31:02contradicts this belief. Zoll published
31:06something. Well, we always thought
31:08differently, that can't be right.
31:11Belief-based is the tendency to accept
31:14credible conclusions, regardless of
31:16whether they are logically derived
31:18correctly from the premises. can be.
31:22And here, the ownership effect is very
31:25interesting, the tendency to rate a
31:28good as more valuable if you own it.
31:32Yes, okay, that's not a bias. Of course
31:35, Mines Paul is more valuable than
31:37everyone else. Confirmation bias, the
31:42tendency to select and interpret
31:44information in such a way that it
31:46confirms one's own expectations. This
31:50happens very quickly here and anyone
31:53interested in this would be well
31:55advised to read it through again in
31:58peace. Distortion blindness, the
32:02tendency to consider oneself
32:04uninfluenced or relatively
32:06uninfluenceable. Yes, only scientists
32:11are allowed to consider themselves
32:13uninfluenceable. Professional formation
32:19, the tendency to unconsciously apply a
32:22professional or subject-specific method
32:25or perspective to other topics and
32:28situations beyond its scope. What has
32:33to be right for a violin, the vibration
32:37of the wood on the top, has to be right
32:41for a Telecaster too. And some other
32:46tendencies of less competent people to
32:49overestimate their own abilities and
32:52underestimate the competence of others
32:55and the tendency to regard a felt
32:57emotion as proof of an assumption. That
33:04Escalating commitment, a behavior
33:06characterized by the tendency to feel
33:09obligated to a previously made decision
33:12and to invest further resources in it,
33:16even though this decision has proven to
33:19be ineffective or wrong so far. Think
33:24of pickup gurus who claim something or
33:28other. The IKEA, which is actually
33:32called that, the tendency to value
33:35objects that have been designed or at
33:38least assembled by oneself more than
33:41ready-made mass-produced products. This
33:47also applies to conversions. The moment
33:50I installed a different pickup in my
33:53guitar myself, well, of course it had a
33:57much higher value if people who are
34:00well-versed in a tool or a procedure
34:04tend to use that tool even when another
34:07would have been better suited. And the
34:13tendency to retrospectively justify a
34:16purchase, yes, yes, yes, something that
34:19makes little sense. Then the source of
34:25error, especially in retrospective
34:28studies, retrospectively, is
34:31overconfidence, the overestimation of
34:34one's own abilities and skills, the
34:38distortion that serves to maintain a
34:41positive, consistent self-image. The
34:46tendency To attribute greater truth to
34:49statements that have already been heard
34:53or read than to those that are heard or
34:56read for the first time. A few examples
35:01of this can be seen when listening. The
35:04battered guitar, e.g. aged Murphy,
35:06simply sounds better because it looks
35:09battered. False analogies. The top of
35:14the acoustic guitar vibrates. Yes, it
35:18vibrates. So the solid guitar must
35:20vibrate too. Piper goes as far as
35:24comparing it to Kremenser violins. They
35:28are made of Alpine wood. Yes, that's
35:30right. And that's precisely why the
35:32wire from the 50s sounds better,
35:34because it is also made of old wood. Or
35:38the lower the frequency, the bigger the
35:40speaker. Yes, about right. Bass
35:43speakers are big, so the inner
35:45conductor of the bass cable must also
35:48be thicker than that of the guitar
35:50cable. That's complete nonsense. Every
35:53cable can carry direct current, can
35:55handle 0 Hz. Nevertheless, there are
35:57special cables for bassists. The
36:01incomplete adoption of actually correct
36:04findings. For example, capacitors
36:08become inductive at high frequencies.
36:11Yes, that That's right. However, the
36:14high frequencies are not 5 kHz for
36:17guitars, but 5 MHz for radio, for
36:19example. Medium wave, short wave,
36:24ultra-short wave. Books from which
36:27these findings are taken are not called
36:30the Grid Amp Designers Handbook, but
36:33the Radio Designers Handbook, for
36:36example for Lenkmith's book. However,
36:40due to a lack of training, these
36:42differences are not recognized. The
36:45Gomb editorial office supposedly has
36:47three proofreaders for good German, but
36:50as far as I know not a single technical
36:53expert. Esotericism, occultism, there
36:57is more between heaven and earth.
37:01Nilang, for example, believed that
37:03every note played on a guitar somehow
37:05remains within it. Therefore, every new
37:10note is also a reflection of the
37:12guitar's past. In a similar sense,
37:15people like to quote that everything is
37:17connected to everything else. Yes, not
37:20entirely wrong. The color of the wire
37:23insulation must therefore have an
37:26influence on the sound. And these
37:28things cannot be measured, because you
37:31cannot measure sound at the beginning.
37:34Pipper said:" Silver door sounds
37:37horrible. "" Quote with "subjunctive.
37:41Sounds funny without the subjunctive.
37:44Maybe it also plays a role that you
37:46want to personalize your instrument.
37:49The Lesp has Tele pickups, the Tele has
37:53Les Paul pickups. I have something very
37:56special. No one has ever thought of
37:58that before. I pulled back the curtain
38:02and looked behind it, or just the same
38:05as Jeff Back or now H. You have to make
38:09a few percent profit. Get two pickups
38:14and capacitors for a mere € 1164 and
38:17get the Peter We signature sound. I
38:22actually need the money for rent, but
38:24if I then sound like Peter Weehe. The
38:28cool, weird image. I'm a one-of-a-kind,
38:33which is why I play a totally run-down
38:35AC30, half of whose pickup material is
38:38hanging down and a wire whose paint has
38:41been scraped off so that everyone can
38:43see what's going on. psychomotor
38:48control circuits. If you learn that
38:53cable A has more highs than cable B,
38:56then it could be that you pluck the
38:59sides a bit more with A, perhaps
39:01unconsciously, perhaps consciously, in
39:04order to boost sales. Yes, and then
39:09Blink cables actually do have more
39:11brilliant signal details that the
39:15tester has not noticed. This is no
39:18longer always cognition, it is always
39:20in practice. In the listening test, the
39:24test subject does not recognize his
39:27tube amp by its better sound, but by
39:29its specific hum or noise. And that
39:33really puts a lot of pressure on the
39:35tester to pay attention to all the
39:37influencing factors. Completely
39:41pointless experiments. Tube comparison.
39:44Someone is humming on the Relicad, then
39:46the tubes are replaced. 10-minute break
39:49announcement. Now come the Malz with
39:53the softer highs. Dudel dudel and
39:55everyone can actually confirm that. The
39:57highs are softer now. That doesn't make
40:00sense. The universal dilettante, if the
40:06dielectric of two capacitors, no idea
40:09what that means, is different, then of
40:13course the sound must be different. To
40:18be on the safe side, technical terms
40:20are not translated. Joke and wiringness
40:24, trends conductance, all remain
40:27English. That's how you gain competence
40:32, name dropping, brand dropping, I also
40:35like speaking English. And you avoid
40:38the embarrassment of translating the
40:40term incorrectly. Joke is not the
40:42starting flap at the office. Can you
40:47measure sound now? Now we're moving
40:50more towards acoustics, towards guitar.
40:56In my last video, I dealt with the
40:59question of whether it really makes
41:03that much of a difference if you turn
41:06the screw in a guitar pickup a quarter
41:10turn. There's a video link here. It
41:17says that if you turn the slot here at
41:19a 90 ° angle to the side, i.e.
41:21perpendicular to the side, then it has
41:24a bit more midrange. Sounds a bit
41:26different, sounds a bit more
41:27homogeneous. If you turn the slot
41:31parallel to the side, then it has a
41:34strangely raised sound. And I already
41:37said in the last video, well, of course
41:40, the analogy, the screw head is also
41:43hollowed out by the slot. Now I've made
41:47a few recordings myself with my Les
41:51Poll, turning this screw here and
41:54playing the A on the high E side like
41:57in the Klopmann video. The screw slot
42:03is positioned transversely four times,
42:05then four times to the left, four times
42:08to the right, four times to the left.
42:12The question is, how big are the group
42:17differences, the group of transverse
42:21screws compared to the longitudinal
42:26screws. The left is parallel to the
42:29side. How big are these differences? I
42:33hear small differences. As I said, I
42:37can't reproduce DB perfectly on the
42:39Zentel either. But I can't hear any
42:43differences between the groups. I
43:11criticized the Gloopmann video for
43:15having very poor reproducibility. Here
43:20we see it again. This is the last video
43:24. Less Paul. The Mistbustter
43:29video. If the screw is turned
43:33lengthwise in the lateral direction,
43:35then he plays a few times. For this
43:40purpose, I performed spectral analyses,
43:43measured the sound and then you can see
43:46that in these cases alone there are
43:49large level differences of 20 over 20
43:53dB. 20 dB over a factor of 10. So we
43:57are not talking about per mille effects
43:59. But that is not the difference
44:02between the longitudinal and transverse
44:05screw. These are the differences in
44:08playing, in reproducing. If the screw
44:12is parallel to the sides, the screw is
44:15then turned transverse to the sides. If
44:19a few notes are played again, it is
44:22always this high A, not the very high A
44:25, 440 Hz and there are also large level
44:29differences. According to my
44:31explanations, the differences between
44:33the longitudinal and transverse
44:35position of the screw are very small.
44:38In the last video I said that in
44:40previous measurements it came out to
44:430.9 dB. It depends on various things,
44:45it can also be a few tenths of a dB
44:47more. You cannot demonstrate this
44:51effect if you play notes that already
44:55differ by 20 or more dB in the
44:58repetition. And because the differences
45:02were so big here, I thought I'd record
45:03a few tones myself. Screw slot
45:06lengthwise, screw slot crosswise.
45:10That's what mine looks like. There are
45:13differences there too. Scattering by 2
45:18dB here, a bit more. There's still an
45:22outlier here. Most of them are here.
45:24But with the higher harmonics, the
45:27higher overtones, the scattering is
45:30also bigger for me. I think if I had
45:35invested a lot more time, played over
45:38and over again, selected the best ones,
45:41then these scatterings would have been
45:44a bit smaller. Coming soon, be patient.
45:51These are spectral measurements now and
45:54one could now ask the question, yes,
45:56why don't we see the time function here
45:58, the signal that comes directly from
46:00the microphone, the oscillogram, the
46:03lateral vibration? Quite simply because
46:07the human ear cannot evaluate this time
46:10curve, sound pressure, time curve in
46:13this form. In the hearing system, the
46:17first thing that happens in the inner
46:19ear is a spectral analysis, not an FFT
46:22analysis. These are FFT analyses, but a
46:27spectral analysis nonetheless. I can't
46:32go into all the auditory
46:34psychoacoustics here. Let's leave it at
46:37that. The human ear does not evaluate
46:41the sound pressure time function
46:43directly, but first performs a spectral
46:46analysis. And that's why such spectra
46:51are a good way to analyze sounds. Color
47:01spectrograms. Here we see the time from
47:06left to right, and the frequency from 0
47:08to 3 kHz from bottom to top. The
47:13individual partial tones, this E-string
47:17fretted at the fifth fret, were plucked
47:20four times. Screw slot across the side.
47:29The level of the fundamental tone is
47:31measured. Here are DB 2 DB procesties.
47:38Fundamental tone. Musicians would say
47:40that the first overtone is at this
47:42frequency, which is the octave. The
47:45second overtone is a fifth. Signal
47:48theorists would say first harmonic,
47:50second, third, fourth, fifth. We see a
47:53level curve from the second harmonic,
47:57i.e. from the first overtone octave
48:00above the fundamental tone. What can we
48:03learn from these images? Can we measure
48:06the sound? Of course, you can't measure
48:11sound by saying that it sounds like 173
48:15, by assigning a number to a sound. Yes
48:18, I think that's well known. But you
48:22can get information about a sound and
48:25use psychoacoustics knowledge to decide
48:28what such curves say about the decay,
48:32also called Sasin, and above all about
48:35level differences. Are there big
48:39differences, small differences, what do
48:41you hear, what can you learn from such
48:43images? And I can see from this image
48:47that in the second group, where the
48:50screw slot is now parallel to the side,
48:53the level was a bit lower when the
48:55second side was struck, the fundamental
48:58tone level. Otherwise, you can't look
49:04at a tenth of a TB or even more
49:06precisely. These are simply small
49:09variations, because the guitarist, i.e.
49:13me, can't do it any better. A second
49:18image. Now here is the third harmonic,
49:22the fourth harmonic, and here too I
49:26can't see any group differences. What
49:31you can see and it's quite interesting
49:33is that the time course of individual
49:36notes is different, the decay behavior.
49:41For example, down here, there's
49:43suddenly almost a saddle point, or not
49:46here. That can't possibly be caused by
49:50the screw slot, because it was the same
49:52for all four notes. We'll listen to
49:54them later. The side was struck
49:58differently, even though I intended to
50:01reproduce it perfectly, marking exactly
50:05where I strike the side and with which
50:08pickguard angle. But it just doesn't
50:12work perfectly. If the pickguard hits
50:15the side from a slightly different
50:17angle, then there are differences like
50:19this. At the top, it's still similar,
50:22but there are differences down there.
50:26Nevertheless, I can't say that the
50:29groups differ, like here, for example.
50:34This isn't a measurement result, nobody
50:36says that, but there was an effect once
50:38. I deliberately moved the image up
50:42here. No filtering. A very simple
50:46effect by editing the image, moving the
50:50part up. I would say now, yes, the
50:53transverse slot here and here, the
50:56levels are significantly lower than in
51:00the two cases. That's just not how it
51:04was measured. That's how it was
51:07measured and I can't see these group
51:10differences. Then it continues. Fifth,
51:13sixth harmonic. In all these cases I
51:18recognize a few peculiarities. This is
51:22again due to the striking of the page.
51:26I happily and intentionally left that
51:28in there. I could have also said, let's
51:31do that again, but I want to show what
51:33happens when you do such experiments,
51:35when you put a lot of effort into it.
51:38What does it look like then? There are
51:41small differences, but I find it
51:44difficult to say, this is clearly an
51:47effect of the screw slot, when someone
51:52says, yes, stop there, what happens
51:54next? The levels then become very low
51:56very quickly, we are then above the
51:58resonance frequency and not much
52:00happens there either. And these small
52:02levels up there then also no longer
52:04play such a big role in the auditory
52:06impression. Back to the spectra. Here
52:12below is the bell demo. Here above are
52:16my recordings, which is also noticeable
52:20, what's all this fidgeting? Well, he
52:25clearly didn't put much effort into it
52:27and occasionally other sides sound too.
52:32And now we come to your important point
52:33. I can only assume that, since I
52:37wasn't there when he recorded and I
52:39don't plan on traveling all over the
52:42country just to do it, I can only
52:45assume that he thinks that these
52:48differences are so significant, so
52:51fundamental, that it doesn't matter at
52:54all what you play. That may be true,
52:59for example, if I take the plug-in
53:02pickup of a Tele or Stratocaster and
53:05compare it to the neck pickup of a
53:07Lises Paul, where the tom pot might
53:10even be turned down a bit. These are
53:15such huge differences that you'll
53:17probably hear them no matter whether
53:19you pluck the sides further forward or
53:22further back with an upstroke or
53:24downstroke. But with these tiny
53:29differences that occur when a pickup
53:31screw is positioned lengthwise or
53:34crosswise, you really have to be
53:37careful that only this one side sounds.
53:42I dampened the others today, so there's
53:45silence and you have to try to
53:46reproduce them as well as possible. And
53:51if we now compare the spectra and say,
53:53are there any indications that the
53:56sound is different, which can also be
53:58assessed by listening to them, but
54:01measurements are objective, anyone in
54:03the world can do them if they set the
54:06same measurement parameters and take
54:08the same signals. My conclusion, when I
54:14look at this scatter here, is that I
54:17can't document that the two are
54:20different. If someone now says, but I
54:25want to document this with measurement
54:28technology, then it won't work, to use
54:31a term from an earlier video, then it
54:34won't work with a reguitar ring. Here,
54:38the real side actually has to vibrate.
54:43We can't excite the pickup with a
54:45magnetic field. We need a vibrating
54:48side, and it has to vibrate in exactly
54:50the same way, regardless of whether the
54:53screw is transverse or longitudinal.
54:58This can't be achieved with the
55:00necessary accuracy by a guitarist
55:02plucking the strings. What could be
55:07done? Using a robot that can pluck the
55:11strings in an exactly reproducible way
55:14is one option. Unfortunately, I don't
55:18have one. What I did once was to hang a
55:23guitar on the strap pin, on the back
55:26strap pin. This minimizes the damping
55:31of the lateral vibration and I struck
55:34the strings with a pendulum. The
55:38deflection of the pendulum can be
55:40adjusted very precisely. The pendulum
55:43always hits the strings in the same way
55:45. The problem with this is that the
55:50position of the guitar must not be
55:53changed at all. It has to be fixed
55:56somewhere so that it doesn't move when
55:58you turn the pickup screw, because
56:01otherwise it won't help if the pendulum
56:04makes exactly the same movement and the
56:06guitar is shifted by a few millimeters.
56:10So it's complex, but if you put in the
56:14effort-I explained this in the book
56:17Physics of the Magnetic Pickup-then you
56:21can reduce the scatter when repeating
56:24and you can also measure smaller
56:27differences. A completely different
56:33question is: How important are
56:35differences that are so small that no
56:37guitarist can reproduce them? In my
56:41opinion, they are completely irrelevant
56:43for the studio and stage. For science,
56:47you can take a closer look. That kept
56:51bothering me, so I took another
56:54recording. The video is already
56:57dragging on a bit, I know, but we were
56:59also at the beginning of humanity. Now
57:01it's going a bit faster. Here are the
57:05pictures again. The one above was my
57:07first attempt. That's when I noticed
57:10where the problems were coming from. I
57:14plucked the string a few times, put the
57:16pickguard aside, took the screwdriver,
57:18turned the screw, put the screwdriver
57:20away again, took the pickguard, and in
57:22doing so, the guitar sounded a little
57:24different and the black trumpet a
57:26little different. And that's why I got
57:30an assistant. He had worked on a video
57:34before. Small problem. He said he was a
57:38professional master crew driver. His
57:41hourly rate was € 1,164. But then we
57:45were able to come to an agreement. I
57:47told him that if I made other people
57:50happy with my presence, then I would
57:52also cost € 1,164 an hour. That was
57:55worth it. Then he was ready to turn the
57:58screw. This allowed me to always keep
58:02the pick in the same, well, almost the
58:04same position. And then this came out.
58:09I standardized it to the level of the
58:11fundamental tone. You can see that,
58:15screw l, screw across. At the high
58:18levels, there are almost no differences
58:21anymore. Here, in the minima, there are
58:25. These are the effects of the filter
58:28in the book. This experiment is
58:32particularly sensitive to tiny changes.
58:36That would be the comparison down there
58:40. The first video shown. Extremely poor
58:44repeatability. Here, in comparison, if
58:49you try hard, it gets significantly
58:51better. Enlarged. Second harmonic, i.e.
58:55first overtone, there are almost no
58:58differences here anymore. With the
59:02fourth harmonic, there are slightly
59:04larger differences. With the fifth, it
59:06gets less so again. Psychoacoustics
59:09says that these small levels down here,
59:11you can see them, are most likely
59:14already hidden anyway and even if they
59:16are just barely audible, they don't
59:19contribute much to the auditory
59:21impression. 6 7 8 9 harmonics. Then we
59:27are already quite high up. Differences
59:30at low levels. At high levels, we've
59:33reached the end of the possibilities.
59:38Let's listen to that now. Supposedly, a
59:43transverse screw slot produces a more
59:46centered, more homogeneous tone, and a
59:49longer screw slot produces a strangely
59:53elevated tone. This time, I've made the
59:58sequence random. So you can't say that
1:00:01the first four are transverse and so on
1:00:04, but it can be anything. Everyone
1:00:07should listen to it and see if they can
1:00:10tell whether it's more centered, more
1:00:13homogeneous, or strangely hollowed out.
1:00:48The answer is quite simple. Transverse
1:00:51left, transverse left, transverse left,
1:00:53transverse left, transverse left.
1:00:55Listened to alternately. Ah, finally,
1:01:00my last attempt. I plucked the side at
1:01:04three different positions. Deviation +
1:01:11-1 cm, so a total of 2 cm varied.
1:01:16That's what it looks like. And here too
1:01:19, you can see a big effect in the
1:01:22minima of the combat filter effect.
1:01:25Here we have almost 10 dB again. Here,
1:01:30there are over 10 dB if you only vary
1:01:32the plucking point on the side. These
1:01:37are the main effects. Different
1:01:41plucking of the side, the orientation
1:01:43of this screw slot is completely
1:01:45insignificant. And because the effect
1:01:50of the screw is so small, you have to
1:01:52help out and, on the one hand, vary the
1:01:55plucking direction, upstroke,
1:01:57downstroke. Slot across, slot
1:02:00lengthwise. On the other hand, choose
1:02:02the plucking location a little closer
1:02:05to the pickup, a little further away
1:02:07from the pickup. Yes, then you also get
1:02:11differences. This brings us back to
1:02:14psychology, to perception, to the
1:02:17philosophical question. What is true?
1:02:21In the next video, things will get less
1:02:24philosophical. It will be about
1:02:26psychoacoustics and sound measurement
1:02:28technology. О.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of T119 Klang kann man nicht messen? -1- by Physik der Elektrogitarre, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 7,294 words across 1,104 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.