Have You Used a ToneRite?

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Perhaps you could test your theory that wooden musical instruments are actually rigid structures? If they are rigid, how do they work to create music? Most wooden musical instruments have rigid and vibrating components. In stringed instruments, are the strings sound sources which manipulate the wooden top and backs to turn the sound energy into music? If the sound source from the strings do not manipulate the wooden structure of the instrument, how does it work?

The point is that rigid structures can be vibrated to generate sound as musical instruments. After the instrument stops vibrating after a chord or play session, it returns back to its original form. You haven't caused a permanent change to the wood structure, but merely allowed it to vibrate lightly and spring back. Like how a diving plank springs back to its original shape after someone bends it.

However, in order for Tonerite to do what it claims, it would make a permanent & irreversible change to the structure of wood to cause the instrument to "open up" as claimed. Ageing and drying does affect the wood structure a bit, which is probably why an instrument's tone seemingly changes over time; but I think it has nothing to do with how much it is played. Applying vibration to emulate it being played more won't do anything.

Regarding your comments about scientific testing, any formal, credible testing should be done in a controlled environment with a proper experimental design, equipment and peer review. Any personal testing done would be purely anecdotal in nature, as are the claims of individuals who have tested it themselves. By the same token, many sham therapies like healing crystals and "miracle" vitamin products have lots of anecdotal evidence that they work.
I don't need to personally test homeopathic treatments or healing crystals in my own backyard experiments to express the opinion that they don't work beyond placebo effect. The premise that Tonerite or "playing instruments improve the wood structure" is based on the same kind of logical fallacy. It's a bold claim, but no scientific explanation to back it up. It's too premature even to do an experiment, because before you even design the experiment you need to start with at least a hypothesis on why you believe it would work.

Lastly, not everything needs to be tested in order to draw a conclusion.
For example, lets say someone makes the claim that red coloured guitars play faster than sunburst finish guitars.
Does something like this actually need to be tested, or can we infer from known scientific concepts?

As I've mentioned before, for Tonerite to work it requires a force sufficient to permanently and irreversibly change solid wooden structures. The logical conclusion is that if the device was indeed powerful enough to cause permanent change to the wood structure, it would be destructive and impractical at yielding the desired effect. It is not possible to attune powerful soundwaves with the god-like level of finesse in such a way that it specifically improves musical tone; not even on one specific instrument, let alone being applicable to all instruments of that type. This goes against the second law of thermodynamics among other physical aspects involved.
 
Last edited:

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Science knows the answer to everything and we should trust it without question? :confused: At one time Scientists believed that blood letting was a medical cure and that our Solar System rotated about the Earth but later ‘they’ discovered a few ‘little mistakes’. :uhoh:

Indeed. Just like how some people trust that Tonerite can plausibly improve instrument sound when there's no scientific reasoning to back it up.

The whole reason why humanity have come a long way is due to constant questioning, correcting and refining their discoveries and hypotheses about the world. Some people are making a claim that Tonerite improves tone because they feel that it does, and that instruments get improved by being "played in".

All the evidence for this thus far is purely anecdotal, which I am challenging with scientific and logical reasoning :)
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Remember what Pat Solitano said in "Silver Linings Playbook", “I am practicing being kind over being right.”.

Jordan B. Peterson — 'Kindness is the excuse that social justice warriors use when they want to exercise control over what other people think and say.'
 

rainbow21

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2018
Messages
903
Points
18
My memory takes me back to a graduate physics course where I occasionally paid attention.

The most insightful perspective on science the professor stated was: "Well, some experts think this is true. Other experts think that is true. The truth is no one really knows."
 

Brad Bordessa

Active member
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
1,830
Points
38
Remember what Pat Solitano said in "Silver Linings Playbook", “I am practicing being kind over being right.”.

This is a beautiful sentiment. One not to forget in the age of the internet echo chamber.
 

richntacoma

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
259
Points
18
It's a bold claim, but no scientific explanation to back it up. It's too premature even to do an experiment, because before you even design the experiment you need to start with at least a hypothesis on why you believe it would work.

No, that is 100 percent false, and is based upon, frankly, a very narrow logical positivistic view of science. So much research is done without theory or hypothesis in applied fields such as medicine, psychology. You most certainly can text for the efficacy of the product.
 

Cluze

UU VIP
UU VIP
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
436
Points
18
No, that is 100 percent false, and is based upon, frankly, a very narrow logical positivistic view of science. So much research is done without theory or hypothesis in applied fields such as medicine, psychology. You most certainly can text for the efficacy of the product.

To add to richntacoma's comment, you most certainly can test a "what" without knowing a "why." I don't need to know exactly how the underlying phenomena works in order to test the phenomena itself.

Kissing actually has a clear belief that can be tested. They seem to rather strongly feel that the Tonerite does nothing, and that all perceived benefit can be explained with the placebo effect. This is, in fact, testable with an appropriately designed experiment. I have yet to see a robust, peer-reviewed, double-blinded study with sufficient statistics in order to test this, but it doesn't mean that it can't be done.

I suspect one hasn't been done as there isn't sufficient motivation to do so. Too costly to do right. The manufacturer has no motivation, as if it shows that the device doesn't work, which could be the case, that's not good for their business model. They sell enough of them already. Why rock the boat?

And if it *is* just a bunch of snake oil, it's still just $150 for a thing that makes people feel better. Unlike homeopathy or crystals, which could keep you from seeking actual medical help, believing your ukulele sounds better doesn't really do much harm.
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
No, that is 100 percent false, and is based upon, frankly, a very narrow logical positivistic view of science. So much research is done without theory or hypothesis in applied fields such as medicine, psychology. You most certainly can text for the efficacy of the product.

Wow... I've no idea what kind of research you have been reading, but every respectable research in medicine and psychology I've read (and been involved in) have had to have ample background information supporting the hypotheses and theory before any actual research goes forward.

Exactly who is funding "so much research" that is without any theory or hypotheses?

Even in high school science class, no experiment is done without any theory and hypotheses :rolleyes::confused:


Cluze said:
And if it *is* just a bunch of snake oil, it's still just $150 for a thing that makes people feel better. Unlike homeopathy or crystals, which could keep you from seeking actual medical help, believing your ukulele sounds better doesn't really do much harm.

If a company is selling a product, knowingly or unknowingly, that makes unrealistic/misleading claims about what it can do, the harm is in the financial loss and trickery that is inflicted on the buyer.
 

Cluze

UU VIP
UU VIP
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
436
Points
18
If a company is selling a product, knowingly or unknowingly, that makes unrealistic/misleading claims about what it can do, the harm is in the financial loss and trickery that is inflicted on the buyer.

And my point is "dies from treatable disease" and "wasted $150" and not really the same thing.
 

richntacoma

Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
259
Points
18
Wow... I've no idea what kind of research you have been reading, but every respectable research in medicine and psychology I've read (and been involved in) have had to have ample background information supporting the hypotheses and theory before any actual research goes forward.

Exactly who is funding "so much research" that is without any theory or hypotheses?

Even in high school science class, no experiment is done without any theory and hypotheses :rolleyes::confused:




If a company is selling a product, knowingly or unknowingly, that makes unrealistic/misleading claims about what it can do, the harm is in the financial loss and trickery that is inflicted on the buyer.

Thanks for the insults and disrespect. Fortunately, given that I have taught doctoral level research, am a tenure full professor, and have 120 peer-reviewed pubs, I will try not not to cry. But, you did take highschool physics :). I will just take you for the know it all that you are coming across as and let you continue dancing with yourself. I will let everyone enjoy this thread--nothing to see here.
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Thanks for the insults and disrespect. Fortunately, given that I have taught doctoral level research, am a tenure full professor, and have 120 peer-reviewed pubs, I will try not not to cry. But, you did take highschool physics :). I will just take you for the know it all that you are coming across as and let you continue dancing with yourself. I will let everyone enjoy this thread--nothing to see here.

No insult and disrespect intended.
My commentary is purely in regards to the topic being discussed. Pointing out the apparent flaws in your reasoning need not be taken personally. You've done exactly the same towards me, and I have not taken offence.

Rather, I would have thought someone who is indeed a "professor" with "120 peer reviewed pubs" would be used to receiving some rhetoric and debate towards their views. At least people I've dealt with in the industry have been :confused:.
Furthermore, if your claim to being a professor with 120 publications is true, I find it a bit astonishing that you believe research does not require any hypotheses or theory. Even if you are exploring an unknown (which is the point of research), there is usually a solid foundation on what the researchers expect to achieve based on the plethora of existing theory.

Lastly, money for research doesn't grow on trees. You generally need a strong proposal based on facts and theory before the experimental component is approved.


Bill1 said:
We do have a hypothesis or opinion to start with, otherwise there wouldn't be a page of comments. The hypothesis is that making the instrument vibrate with music will result in beneficial improvement in the output of the musical instrument. We do not need a committee of "scientists" to tell us what the idea or concept or hypothesis is.

You raise a good point. There indeed is a hypothesis, which goes along the lines of: Since vintage instruments open-up and improve in sound from being played a lot, this Tonerite device that is essentially a variable transistor capable of generating vibrations of particular frequency to the strings and instrument will accelerate this playing-in process, hence noticeably improve the sound in a relatively short period of time.

The argument here is that I don't consider that to be a scientifically sound hypothesis as it relies upon unproven statements (whether playing a lot opens up instruments at all) and that I find it physically unlikely that vibrating an instrument's soundboard with this device causes any permanent and irreversible change to the wooden structure. If it did change the wooden structure (which would theoretically change the sound), I think the most likely outcome would be a damaged instrument rather than an enhanced one. Additionally, the Tonerite website recommends repeated sessions to maintain the enhanced tone; implying that the effects of Tonerite may even be temporary; which I find to be very extraordinary. Can solid wood store applied vibrations as potential energy through some undiscovered mechanism? Do the vibrations cause the wooden structures to align themselves specifically in a way that improves musical tone for a fixed period of time, before reverting back to its original form? It just raises too many unrealistic assumptions regarding its mechanism.

Should actual controlled experiment take place, using intricate measuring instruments to detect both the long term effect that "playing-in" has on an instrument and also Tonerite, while controlling all the extraneous variables (including the Placebo effect, which is a huge one).. and such studies are repeated by several independent and reputable parties - it would indeed give us a more definitive idea of what's really going on.

In the lack of such testing, we only have anecdotes and theoretical reasoning to go by.
What I'm stating in this topic is simply my opinion based on my understanding of science. No offence intended towards anybody :)

At the end of the day, I like how ukuleles play. Tonerite isn't for me, and I don't believe instruments improve due to being "played in".
I do believe relatively newer instruments may "open up" a bit simply due to the passage of time as the materials and structural tension reach equilibrium with the environment; but this occurs regardless of being played a lot or being exposed to vibrations.

Furthermore, even as someone who doesn't use Tonerite, it feels like the sound of my instruments change dramatically from time to time, especially depending on the condition of the strings. From reading anecdotes about Tonerite, it appears that the device wears out strings, and a string-change is highly recommended after a vibration session. The current model by which believers contend for Tonerite has too much subjectivity and uncontrolled variables to convince me as genuine change that can be attributed to the device itself. There also appears to be a fair amount of marketing and endorsement involved too.

Each to their own :) YMMV.
 
Last edited:

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
And my point is "dies from treatable disease" and "wasted $150" and not really the same thing.

Not everyone who uses healing crystals or homeopathy are at risk of dying from a disease though.
There are those who spend hundreds of dollars on them annually believing that it will provide genuine benefit.

Yes, it's their money and their choice.
But knowing what I know about medical science and the placebo effect, I am morally inclined to want to discourage such practices when given the choice to voice an opinion.

Likewise, are pyramid schemes and sale of counterfeit items also OK?
It's only causing certain people to waste money... no bodily harm per se :confused:
 

Cluze

UU VIP
UU VIP
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
436
Points
18
Not everyone who uses healing crystals or homeopathy are at risk of dying from a disease though.
There are those who spend hundreds of dollars on them annually believing that it will provide genuine benefit.

Yes, it's their money and their choice.
But knowing what I know about medical science and the placebo effect, I am morally inclined to want to discourage such practices when given the choice to voice an opinion.

Likewise, are pyramid schemes and sale of counterfeit items also OK?
It's only causing certain people to waste money... no bodily harm per se :confused:

I never said flim-flam was "OK." I simply stated that this (wasting some money on a hobby) is not the same as medical quackery. One results in lost money, one can result in lost lives. It is possible for two different things to both be wrong, but not be equivalent.

Look at the end of the day what do we have? Lots of people who own Tonerites post online that they work, lots of people who don't own Tonerites say that they can't possibly work, but relatively few people who own Tonerites who say that they don't work. I fully understand that the plural of anecdote is not data, but it seems to me that it is possible to test this.

To do it right would require an amount of money and time that I don't have.
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
I certainly understand where you are coming from. My perspective is that there isn't really much of a difference between medical quackery and Tonerite (musical quackery?).

There are many people who purchase medical quack products and claim it works.

That's about as much confidence I have in Tonerite :D Each to their own.
 

rainbow21

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2018
Messages
903
Points
18
Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it does not work. There certainly is a lot of opinions that are being confused by scientific knowledge or lack thereof. Stronger certainty of opinion does not make one more right. And other cliches...

Science has its place as does cultural beliefs and the placebo effect. If my illness disappears due to a placebo effect, count me in. If my expensive ukulele improves in sound over a $150 device, it is likely money well spent.

I read that before Newton got hit on the head with an apple, some people were able to float around the skies or walk on the ceiling. That ended once Newton formalized his theory of gravity.
 

Arik

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
300
Points
18
Wow still intense up in here. Not sure why this topic has elicited such a strong negative tsunami of a response. I am here to just share in the joy of the ukulele and my new tonerite, which I'm 80hrs into the treatment and think my uke sounds great. Could it be a placebo? or that I'm a SJW? or that I struggled in my math and hard science courses in school and in college? or that I'm a counselor and teacher that believes in touchy feelings things? It's probably all the above.

Let just keep jamming on our ukes and spread the Aloha spirit:shaka:
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Just because you cannot prove something does not mean it does not work. There certainly is a lot of opinions that are being confused by scientific knowledge or lack thereof. Stronger certainty of opinion does not make one more right. And other cliches...

Things can be proven not to work with scientific explanations.
Scientific knowledge can be applied to form an opinion.

I certainly have not claimed of being "more right" by having "stronger certainty of opinion".
That is your own assertion only :confused:

Science has its place as does cultural beliefs and the placebo effect. If my illness disappears due to a placebo effect, count me in. If my expensive ukulele improves in sound over a $150 device, it is likely money well spent.

The $150 improving sound is precisely what is being disputed though.
Does it? Some believe it does, some believe it doesn't.
I don't believe it does, and have stated my reasons clearly on why I believe what I do. What's the problem?

I read that before Newton got hit on the head with an apple, some people were able to float around the skies or walk on the ceiling. That ended once Newton formalized his theory of gravity.

Comparing the discovery of gravitational theory and whether a vibrational device can improve wood's ability in being a tonewood are (excuse the pun) apples and oranges.

Newton's discoveries were made in a time when far less was known about the physical properties of the universe compared to now.
At present day, we have an exponentially deeper understanding of physics compared to the 16th Century.

The theory behind vibration effects on a wooden soundboard is hardly a universal mystery that requires the level of breakthrough as Newton to understand. It can be relatively easily be understood and explained using existing scientific knowledge and theory.

If one was inclined to be experimental, yes one could design experiments that can reliably measure whether things like Tonerite make notable changes to a wooden structure in a manner that improves tone. However, the other half of science is the theoretical - in which the physics does not support the hypothesis at all as per explanations in my previous post(s).
 

kissing

Active member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
4,018
Points
38
Wow still intense up in here. Not sure why this topic has elicited such a strong negative tsunami of a response. I am here to just share in the joy of the ukulele and my new tonerite, which I'm 80hrs into the treatment and think my uke sounds great. Could it be a placebo? or that I'm a SJW? or that I struggled in my math and hard science courses in school and in college? or that I'm a counselor and teacher that believes in touchy feelings things? It's probably all the above.

Let just keep jamming on our ukes and spread the Aloha spirit:shaka:

What is negative about people participating in discussions with gusto and having disagreements?
Is the definition of positivity being agreeable with everyone?

My quote regarding kindness was not directed against people being kind.
It was more towards when people bring up 'kindness' in a discussion that has nothing to do with kindness.
Usually when people bring up 'kindness' in this manner, it means they are not happy with something in a rational and honest discussion and wish to discourage it.
I don't think there is any unkindness in a discussion about differing opinions on whether a vibrator improves ukulele sound.

My idea of a positive spirit when it comes to discussions like these is if people didn't take things so personally.
Naturally with over 7 billion people in the world, many are going to have strong unique opinions, some which are in disagreement with your's.
I've tried my best to keep the discussion on-topic and not to make personal assertions towards anyone. If I've stated a strong opinion on something, it is on the topic itself; not towards any individual.
 
Last edited: