Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72

Thread: Have You Used a ToneRite?

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkimura View Post
    Don't know about healing crystals or homeopathy but anything magical always catches my attention. Like a fast complicated strum where the sound reaches your ears after your eyes see the strumming so you can't figure out how it's being done. Magically good sounding.
    Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood.
    My point being; whether one has used the Toneright or not isn't really a valid argument towards whether one can have a valid opinion on the subject.
    There are many things in life we don't necessarily have to experience first-hand to prove or disprove.

    I haven't flown out to space myself to see that the world is round, but there is enough scientific knowledge and evidence out there to reasonably conclude it.

    Likewise, I haven't experienced healing crystals, homeopathy and talismans firsthand, but I know enough about medical science and general common sense to have the opinion that they don't work beyond the placebo effect.

    Thus, my skepticism towards Toneright or the general concept of applied sound/vibrations improving tonewoods. There is no plausible, scientifically sound (excuse the pun) explanation that it works.


    Making music is certainly as much an art as it is a science. What sounds pleasant to our ears when we strum a chord definitely involves some subjectivity. However, we can certainly explore the concept using scientific tools since physical processes are involved when we are claiming improvements to tonewood itself.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    South San Francisco
    Posts
    254

    Default

    Wow this is getting kind of intense... We are all here to enjoy and appreciate the art of music and the ukulele. For me trying the tonerite was kind of like getting new wheels for my car just because I wanted to. Some might think it's a dumb idea and some might think it is cool. It's really a personal preference and my own money. I already appreciated my ukes and their sound. I wanted to try out the Tonerite just because. So far I'm enjoying my purchase and I know there has been interest in the forum on the device.
    Last edited by deznuchs; 07-21-2021 at 05:53 PM.

  3. #33

    Default

    I understand we're all here to enjoy and appreciate the art of music and the ukulele.
    That's precisely what I am doing, though people may show it in different ways.

    Calling out false claims is part of the hobby and passion at times.

    Getting Toneright to me is not the equivalent of getting new wheels, but being scammed into getting one of those dodgy engine enhancement chips from Wish.com that promises more horsepower, but does absolutely nothing

    I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade, but I am just being honest and truthful as I can.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    1,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kissing View Post
    I understand we're all here to enjoy and appreciate the art of music and the ukulele.
    That's precisely what I am doing, though people may show it in different ways.

    Calling out false claims is part of the hobby and passion at times.

    Getting Toneright to me is not the equivalent of getting new wheels, but being scammed into getting one of those dodgy engine enhancement chips from Wish.com that promises more horsepower, but does absolutely nothing

    I don't wish to rain on anyone's parade, but I am just being honest and truthful as I can.
    Calling out false claims isn’t necessarily as simple as it might seem or even as constructive as it might seem. It also relies upon the caller actually being correct and not just correct against the information known now but against the information that will become known in centuries to come. History is littered with changes in scientific understanding so tread carefully; whilst some claims are clearly meant to deceive others are made in good faith and in years to come may well be substantiated.

    Is today’s scientific understanding always right? Science is right about a lot of stuff and a wise man uses it, but an even wiser man understands that all knowledge has errors and gaps in it. Just because we don’t understand how something works does not necessarily mean that it can’t or doesn’t work; being tolerant of ideas that don’t match our own is good, sensible even.

    As for the Tonerite my suspicion is that it works - and variably so - in some circumstances and doesn’t do much if anything in other circumstances. That might not be how its performance is described in sales literature and I think that calling out implied or actual claims to guaranteed improvements is fair, it’s all a matter of the customer making an informed and balanced judgement.
    Last edited by Graham Greenbag; 07-21-2021 at 08:56 PM.

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham Greenbag View Post
    Calling out false claims isn’t necessarily as simple as it might seem or even as constructive as it might seem. It also relies upon the caller actually being correct and not just correct against the information known now but against the information that will become known in centuries to come.

    Is today’s scientific understand always right? Science is right about a lot of stuff and a wise man uses it, but an even wiser man understands that all knowledge has errors and gaps in it.
    Calling out false claims is constructive and meaningful to community discord and shared knowledge within the hobby.
    If that is not your cup of tea and you would prefer blissful ignorance - then there's no need to engage in the specific conversation.

    The person calling out the false claim need not be actually "correct". We are all humans entitled to an opinion, so who is to say that any one of us has grounds to insisting they are absolutely correct?

    Rather, I have ensured to clarify that I am stating my opinion, which I contend to be from a logical perspective relying upon well known scientific concepts.

    I think your understanding of what should or should not be discussed on the public forum is a bit inconsistent and counter-productive to the overall progression of the collective knowledge. It's precisely the mechanism by which many false remedies and old wives tales continue to thrive even in this modern age.

    There was once a time most people thought traditional martial arts like traditional Kung Fu or Aikido are effective against aggressive, non-compliant assailants in genuine combat situations. When conmen like Frank Dux and Ashida Kim claimed that they were extravagantly skilled martial artists trained in these traditional systems, nobody questioned it for decades.

    People saw gaps in this reasoning, and now it is common knowledge in MMA circles regarding what works and what doesn't in real fights.
    What's amazing to me is that such realisations and shift in collective thinking took this long - perhaps aided by the internet making it possible to communicate and share ideas.

    Likewise, I think many musicians are still stuck on the outdated notion that physical vibrations from playing an instrument improves its sound. In my opinion, this is already debunked by basic physics and no one I've spoken to thus far have provided a plausible explanation regarding its mechanism. I understand that all areas of human studies have limitations and gaps, but to continue believing in "guitars and ukuleles improve with sound" is similar to acknowledging that the Earth could still be flat, or that the universe may revolve around the Earth since there are "gaps" in scientific knowledge.


    To go a little bit on a tangent, I am a rather active member in discussion groups concerning the ocarina, a round flute-like instrument usually made of ceramic. For a very long time, people in the hobby thought that ocarinas made of a certain kind of clay called "purple clay" had the property of improving over time as it absorbs the moisture and retains better sound qualities - much like how some of us believe guitars and ukuleles improve with being played. This has now been debunked, because there really is no scientific backbone to it.

    (to give context, the notion of 'purple clay' improving tone comes from the study of traditional Chinese teapots made of this material absorbing and retaining flavours of the tea over time, resulting in richer flavours).


    All in all, I think perhaps the issue is to not take the honest opinions of others personally and have a bit of tolerance for the diversity of opinions out there. There is no universal rule stating everyone has to be agreeable towards your views; nor should that adversely affect your enjoyment of the community or hobby.
    Last edited by kissing; 07-21-2021 at 08:35 PM.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Graham Greenbag
    Just because we don’t understand how something works does not necessarily mean that it can’t or doesn’t work;
    But there are those that do understand how things work.
    As I've said, I have a working knowledge of physics.

    Here are the lines of logic from ToneRite:

    One of the secrets of great sounding vintage instruments is the fact that they have been played-in for thousands of hours.
    This whole premise is based on the wrongful assumption that it's proven that vintage instruments sound great due to being played-in for thousands of hours. There's no physical reasoning that substantiates this case. By what mechanism does "playing in" improve sound?

    Alternatively, there are some plausible explanations of why some instruments appear to "open up" or why vintage instruments sound the way they do:

    -New instruments are made of younger wood which contain more moisture. The wood equilibriates with the environment over time, becoming a bit drier and lighter, affecting the resonating properties. If this is the case, then any perceived "improvement" in tone has nothing to do with being "played in". An instrument that is infrequently played will improve just as much as an equal instrument that is played a lot.

    -As someone owns a particular instrument for longer, it appears to "open up" because they subconsciously adapt to its characteristics and nuances.

    -Vintage instruments that have survived the years have done so because they sounded great to begin with, hence the owner has taken good care of it until the present day.

    -Vintage instruments sound the way they do because they were made using particular materials that were available at the time, using processes which may differ from today's.

    -Some brand new instruments sound excellent straight out of the box, some arguably similar or equivalent to how great vintage instruments sound.


    The ToneRite accelerates the play-in process by using a set of sub-sonic frequencies to simulate the same physics as long term playing.

    Simply attach the ToneRite whenever you are not playing and expect to hear a dramatic increase in resonance, balance and range after only a week's worth of use.

    Subsequent treatments will help maintain your new vintage sound!"
    By what mechanism do "sub sonic frequencies" make an instrument's wood perform better as a tone wood?
    Especially if the core hypothesis they have built their entire spiel on is easily debunked?

    Wood are dried cell walls of dead trees. They are rigid, stiff and maintain structural integrity.
    Any processes that intentionally manipulate the structure of the wood in an accelerated manner is not going to magically improve the sound of the wood.
    This is due to entropy.

    Any "sub sonic frequency" actually powerful enough to change a wood's structure would be quite destructive and compromise the structural integrity of the wood.

    That's simply not how sound waves work. They either meet the threshold of influencing a wood's structure or not.
    And if they do meet the threshold, you basically have weaponised sound waves capable of destroying the wood.

    The most plausible explanation of what this device does, in my humble opinion, is that it does absolutely nothing to change the wood
    Whether or not they believe in their own hype... they're making money from a very loose, unsubstantiated premise.

    The only claim they can really make is that the vibrations caused by the device creates an emulation as though the instrument is being played; although it is not. Kinda like stimulating your muscles with electrodes rather than actually working out. Whether this actually improves an instrument's sound, for the above-mentioned reasons I am very very doubtful
    Last edited by kissing; 07-21-2021 at 09:07 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    West Midlands GB
    Posts
    2,563

    Default

    I have built more than thirty ukuleles (just a hobby builder) and have observed that when the strings are first fitted, I am always a bit disappointed with the sound. However, the following day brings a very noticeable improvement.

    I don't believe the new strings are causing this effect. If it were the cause, then it would happen when I fit new strings to a well used uke - and it doesn't.

    This experience leads me to believe that newly built ukuleles do improve over a very short time span. It follows that they can continue to improve, after the first couple of days, but at a very much reduced rate.

    Whether this minuscule rate of improvement can be assisted or enhanced by applying vibration to the instrument is another matter. Personally, I am sceptical.

    John Colter

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Far North Central Illinois
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Here is a lengthy discussion about the Tonerite. I'm sure there are more out there.

    https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=556682

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NH
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Remember what Pat Solitano said in "Silver Linings Playbook", “I am practicing being kind over being right.”.
    Kamaka HF3, Tenor
    Ko'olau C1, Concert
    Pono MC, Concert

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    4,209

    Default

    I've seen this debate for years. Never tried one, so can't say myself, but know that what people "hear" is very subjective. With all the science available to us, have these Tonerites been tested in a controlled lab setting, measuring (before/after) the sound frequencies, volumes, etc? If so, I'd be interested in those results, and also followup measurements after a month of rest, to see if the instrument "went back to sleep", as some say.
    John
    1 sop, 1 concert, 3 tenors

    Yourube: https://youtube.com/channel/UC3RbwvJlE32BpbA3KmHSUug

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •