1. I started this channel just for fun during the pandemic. It's a hobby channel covering some decidedly less popular topics, and I'm fully aware this is never going to bring in a ton of views. We're all just having a little fun here. But what has really surprised me, is the truly helpful comments I've received on my videos. I've had hurdy gurdy players tell me how to get a better sound on my hurdy gurdy video, and synth/electronics people let me know about parts I couldn't identify on my K2000 video. Sharing information and helping people out is at the core of the maker ethos, and it's something I plan to foster as much as I can. I've mentioned this in other comments, but I deliberately leave in a lot of my dumb-assery for these videos, because it's the best way I can think of to fight the social media plague of perceived perfectionism. I was a classical violinist in my (much) younger years, and while I greatly value striving for excellence, I do think the perfectionistic attitudes in some of the classical arts can be toxic and not particularly conducive to creative thinking. And I see a lot of people being too intimidated to try anything because it's not "perfect" on their first try. Fuck that noise. So, big picture, I'm not really creating "I made a ____" videos, I'm telling the story of how creativity happens. How making happens. And hell, even how science sometimes happens. You try a thing. Fail at it. Or at least part of it. And then readjust for next time. This is how all improvement happens, and I'm not at all shy about showing that. And for those who aren't into that, I do leave descriptive chapter markers so people can skip ahead to the sections they want to watch. Doesn't hurt my feelings in the slightest. 2. With all of that said, what would your specific suggestion regarding measuring the timbre of an instrument be? I guess you could measure the frequencies/harmonics, but that doesn't say anything about whether I think something sounds "better". I'm pretty sure luthiers in the 18th century didn't have access to such equipment to refine their sound, either. I guess I could also create a mechanical "plucker" that made sure the amount of force was literally the same each time, but this doesn't strike me as having any real world usefulness, since no player (yet) is a robot. I'm actually quite serious. From an acoustical engineering standpoint, what would be the best method to measure something that seems as non-quantifiable as a sound preference? I love hearing from people who have specific knowledge on a topic I'm working on.

you think because this is a smaller or newer channel it gives you the right to be a shithead in the comments ? absolute fucking loser. nice video. keep creating

@@ComposerKristin Kristin, I have been playing guitars ( acoustic , electric , bass , slide , steel ) since 1967. The " pursuit of perfection " strikes me as similar to using the latest equipment, in that it can cause everybody's art to sound too much alike !

@@ComposerKristin​​⁠​​⁠​​⁠I think this video is about as scientific as one can be when starting to explore acoustics. Great work! Something to consider is that air cavities and plates can actually be tuned so they resonate with the string. The air inside resonates at a frequency that’s dependent on the size of the box and the size/depth of the hole. I had to do some research on this when I built a ukulele bass.

asking in somewhat good faith: are you new to YT? "process videos" that illustrate the complexities of how and why a person made choices they did in planning + execution is a convention here that goes well beyond music/audio. this video is pleasantly un-optimized for juicing the algorithm--personally i'd rather be put in the position of impatiently putting someone talking on 1.5x+ speed than be watching a video with the tiktok editing style that gives me a headache at normal speed. ultimately this video succeeded in offering me more than simply a text document of the end results. hope you found a different video you can say that about.