What I am Claim is: There is a Tele with Hiyaw and There is a Les Paul with Hiyaw. Hiyaw is universal across the different types while at the same time preserving the unique timbre of the Les Paul and Telecaster.
Yes, I understood that, whence I said:
"now you're claiming 'hiyaw' as a separate phenomenon that elevates tone to greatness."
Heavy Modulation or Heavy Distortion may minimize Hiyaw. In fact anything, that approaches the synth timbre -- for example 100% Delay Mix with Chorus with Reverb with Harmonizer -- will make hiyaw not obvious.
Yes again. This is why, given the prevalence of heavily processed output these days (there
is no accounting for taste or fashion), an alleged phenomenon that is subdued or eliminated
during said processing isn't going to matter very much to users who PREFER said processing.
Theirs-theirs 'yan, when it comes to preference: and when the preference is for the intensive
sort of processing you described above, then this hiyaw of yours becomes undesirable, or at
least irrelevant.
Arie Hipolito and some others ... Its heard but more of felt in comparing one guitar from another.
Mahirap ang ganyang qualitative/anecdotal reference in any serious, factual discussion.
When you make an assertion that others cannot relate to (and make the assertion in an
abrasive manner) talo tayo.
What most people can relate to are
terms of common reference.
Everyone ought to (or can learn to) understand fairly common terms like "bass", "treble",
"sustain", etc ... and to a lesser extent, matters like resonance, wave theory, etc... and
these are all terms with very long provenance and acceptance behind them.
when you try to coin some new term, the assumption is that it is one of two things:
1) it describes a completely new phenomenon --otherwise, why didn't you just use standard
terms to describe what you are talking about. You will be met with doubt, because centuries
of inquiry would have likely found and described this phenomenon before you.
2) it refers to something you are unable to correctly describe using standard terms, in which
case there will be problems communicating your message to others. Kasi nga you are not
using common references that most can understand. Dagdagan mo pa ng abrasiveness and
there'll be even more reason to devalue what you claim.
I always optimistically believe that ALL should hear it but Arie tells me there are others that cannot hear it.
Arie is rightly catholic in allowing for the possibility that people are different from one another,
meaning differences in individual ability to perceive, as much as differences in
preference.
I'll cut to the chase:
I am perfectly willing to listen to your promotion of a phenomenon you call 'hiyaw', but three
things have long obstructed my ability to do so:
1) You have never satisfactorily described what the phenomenon actually is, in standard terms
that I can understand. Thus far it's been qualitative and anecdotal --no different from someone
talking about "that X factor ---you'll just now it". The crucial difference here is that terms like
"x-factor" and "mojo" aren't often used in arguments for universal value. When someone cites
"mojo" or "x-factor", there's PLENTY of room left for different preferences: one guy's mojo is one
gal's meh. If you want to describe or define something new, try to use standard terms that all
can understand.
"It's heard but more of felt" isn't good enough for serious discussion, and
your argument of universality (as well as the tone in which you make your arguments) makes it
serious.
2) As you admit, you've been abrasive in your presentation: you cannot seem to promote this
phenomenon or quality you call hiyaw, without bashing the lack of it. Most any quality will have
admirers, detractors and those who are indifferent --the same way some like, dislike, or don't
care either way, about freckles on a pretty girl. I agree you've calmed down a bit, and I thank
you for that, but you're still not helping promote your message. Again, I suggest you don't start
off with saying someone else's stuff is crap. Instead, just offer them an alternative in terms that
all can understand. As also I said, maybe a commercially-available recording that can be played
back with high fidelity. Non-commercially, you clearly have the ability to make such a recording.
If this quality you're claiming (hiyaw) cannot translate into a recording, then many will rightly
question its real-world value, and even its actual existence.
3) You seem to (brand)name-drop a lot. In rare cases it's relevant, but most of the time it does
come off as you bragging that you can afford certain gear. Specificity when making reference
(to a guitar) is a good thing, but if that reference isn't one that your audience has a common
familiarity with (
por ejemplo, you cite a brand/make/model that most of your audience have
zero experience with, because it's so exclusive/expensive), then bringing it up is pointless. The
only people you'd be convincing are brand-conscious lemmings, and we both know the priciest
and most exclusive brands can still turn out lemons.
Even if standard terms fail to find use in your arguments, a recording (one that can be played to
high fidelity), featuring two similar guitars: one with and one without this 'hiyaw', will put this
issue to bed quickly.
Good health,
h.
