If I can learn it without having to go thru your requirement and back then without a lossless recording, why not experience it for yourself?
If being hassled is your excuse to continue asking me questions, then recursive we shall be. (emphasis mine)
My excuse to
continue asking you questions, Alex?
I only asked two questions that weren't rhetorical, and only in my first post.
It would help you understand my context if you re-read what I posted earlier:
To be clear, I have no trouble believing that YOU believe.
Why should I care what another person believes, if it doesn't harm me?
I'm not posting here to determine whether your "hiyaw" exists or not, because I don't care that much.
Instead, I began posting about how you could improve
the manner in which you preach about "hiyaw".
The reason is that it, and reactions to it, are disruptive to other threads (Rizal Luthier the most recent).
I offered you advice, and you've read it.
Somehow the focus has shifted into
describing a proper test for "hiyaw", and again, while I appreciate
anyone's invitation to their space, I'm not really interested in determining whether your "hiyaw" exists,
because I don't care that much (you should be familiar with how contemplating impending mortality can
change one's priorities). What I am offering, wrt "testing for so-called hiyaw" is again advice on how to
make it easier or better --to the object AGAIN that a definitive, properly-constructed test will help to limit
disruptive "hiyaw" arguments derailing so many threads.
I'll recap my input and add some more (because if I didn't have more helpful advice, I'd not keep posting):
-More people could test for hiyaw if it could could be tested in a downloadable, lossless recording.
It's too bad that you now indicate that your so-called "hiyaw" won't transmit over ANY sound file.
-You shouldn't create bias by announcing which guitar has "hiyaw" and which one hasn't, among
the guitars you let a volunteer tester play. By revealing early on that the ("crappy") Charvel is the
control, you've prejudiced volunteer testers towards NOT hearing anything special in the Charvel,
and to hearing "something" in the others. Blind for the win.
-A control should be as similar as possible in all respects to the actual samples,save for the quality
you want to test for. You don't need fifteen different guitars that you feel have "hiyaw". You only
need one, plus one or more of identical brand/model that you feel DON'T have "hiyaw". Have the
volunteer tester play them, no prompting as to which is which. (Afterwards, an experience --not a
test-- involving the rest of your 15 begins acquires more potential value).
Please reconsider your control sample, and especially divulging which guitar it actually is.
I'll end with a more relevant example than vegetable rape, so that I'm clearer.
If a volunteer tester has never owned /played a Les Paul, handing him a Les Paul with "hiyaw" is almost
useless as a test. Without prior experience with specimens lacking "hiyaw", he may reasonably assume
that
all LP's are so, thus failing to distinguish the quality you want him to find. It's worse still if a
volunteer tester does own a Les Paul that just happens to already have "hiyaw": he'll try yours and say,
"there's nothing really special here, compared to what I've known. That is why you hand him an LP with
alleged "hiyaw", and a nearly identical one without".
Others have heard and know it.
1. many have visited Firemodel at his place.
2. many have discovered that "Hiyaw" is not solely found on Alex's guitars, but in their guitars as well (to varying degrees)
Their input, on this thread, could be helpful.
Perhaps they can provide a useful (or at least usefully-different) description of this so-called "hiyaw".
Even if their descriptions would be anecdotal/qualitative, meron pa ring value yun.
Kasi, at this point where I'm reading that "hiyaw" isn't just heard, is hard to describe in words, and has
to be experienced by
playing the subject guitar... I suspect it can be lumped into another catch-all (and
fuzzy) term which I mentioned earlier: 'mojo'. Even "x-factor" might apply... in which case, well, if this new
term sticks in popular use, it'll stick. If not, then not.