Resonant frequency ...

WilleeCue

WilleeCue

The Barefoot Cuemaker
Silver Member
Has any cue maker thought about the resonant frequency of the butt vers the shaft?

If the two are close would that cue offer a better "hit" because of that?
When the cue tip strikes the cue ball it sets up a wave traveling down the shaft toward the joint.
If the resonant frequency of both the shaft and the butt were the same or close it would seem that wave would travel past the joint and on toward the bumper without changing much.

Would that be a good thing adding to the feel of the "hit"?

Do any cue makers make any extra effort towards a specific Resonant Frequency tone in their cue butts?

Willee
 
Last edited:
str8eight

str8eight

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Crisp has talked about this quite a bit.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
cueman

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
If it was the cats meow so to speak to have the butt and shaft have the same frequency, then solid maple cues with no metal in them would play or feel the best. But experience has shown me having a different wood in the back of a one piece cue instead of maple plays better. But then that probably has to do with weight distribution and balance and not frequency.

I will say that most of the best playing cues I have built had maple shaft and maple forearms. It seems like by the time you get to handle area that the balance the handle wood gives at that point is much more important and prevalent than it's flex or compression characteristics.

But when talking about frequency we are talking about feel instead of hit and I am not sure about that one.
 
WilleeCue

WilleeCue

The Barefoot Cuemaker
Silver Member
cueman said:
If it was the cats meow so to speak to have the butt and shaft have the same frequency, then solid maple cues with no metal in them would play or feel the best. But experience has shown me having a different wood in the back of a one piece cue instead of maple plays better. But then that probably has to do with weight distribution and balance and not frequency.

I will say that most of the best playing cues I have built had maple shaft and maple forearms. It seems like by the time you get to handle area that the balance the handle wood gives at that point is much more important and prevalent than it's flex or compression characteristics.

But when talking about frequency we are talking about feel instead of hit and I am not sure about that one.
Click to expand...

Chris, it was just one of those crazy thought that pass thru my brain every now and then. Thinking about it ... it would be a hard thing to do because of the different densities of the shaft and butt.
A solid one piece cue would solve most all that by having only one resonate frequency to start with.
Wasnt one of the old (and much respected) cue masters was a firm believer that hard maple was the absolute best wood for a pool cue?
 
cueman

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
WilleeCue said:
Chris, it was just one of those crazy thought that pass thru my brain every now and then. Thinking about it ... it would be a hard thing to do because of the different densities of the shaft and butt.
A solid one piece cue would solve most all that by having only one resonate frequency to start with.
Wasnt one of the old (and much respected) cue masters was a firm believer that hard maple was the absolute best wood for a pool cue?
Click to expand...
Harvey Martin built both halves out of Maple but used a Brass joint pin so that would change things a little.
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
WilleeCue said:
Chris, it was just one of those crazy thought that pass thru my brain every now and then. Thinking about it ... it would be a hard thing to do because of the different densities of the shaft and butt.
A solid one piece cue would solve most all that by having only one resonate frequency to start with.
Wasnt one of the old (and much respected) cue masters was a firm believer that hard maple was the absolute best wood for a pool cue?
Click to expand...

I know nothing of wood, but I find this subject interesting from a communications point of view...that is my background. We dealt with frequencies and resonating sounds.

I would think that the thinner end of the cue (whatever wood it happened to be) would begin the resonating process and it would continue down the cue. Since the cue gets larger in diameter as you go down from the tip, the resonating would decrease because the increasing mass of the butt would dampen them. Also, lighter and less dense wood would resonate more than heavier dense wood. With that in mind, I would think the butt wood would have to be made of something that "resonated" more than the shaft wood, in order to continue similar vibrations down the length of the cue. Anything added to the cue (metal pins, joints, etc.) would affect the vibrations, as well.

I read the part below on a guitar forum and I'm not a guitar person either, but it is somebody's take on the subject.

According to physics, a lighter (less dense) wood is less stable and has greater amount of vibration - this is a proven fact. For example, a les paul will have less resonance but more sustain than a Martin acoustic.

In guitar, the heavier (higher density) guitars will be more stable, thus less resonance but greater sustain. Sustain was such a fad in the 70's that everyone then seemed to prefer 10lb+ guitars with solid heavy brass bridges, sustaining metal blocks, etc..

Now, the buzz word is "resonance" - the lighter the better (zinc and aluminum bridges to lessen the weight,etc.).

So you can make a GENERAL assumption that swamp ash (less dense) is more resonance that mahogany (more dense). But general assumption won't do you any good when it comes to a SPECIFIC guitar because 2 pieces of ash (or any other wood of your choice) that came from the same tree could have drastically different density depending on what part of the tree they came from. And to throw another wrench into this GENERAL assumption, a SPECIFIC piece of mahogany could very well have lesser density than another SPECIFIC piece of ash.
 
L

louieatienza

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
HawaiianEye said:
I know nothing of wood, but I find this subject interesting from a communications point of view...that is my background. We dealt with frequencies and resonating sounds.

I would think that the thinner end of the cue (whatever wood it happened to be) would begin the resonating process and it would continue down the cue. Since the cue gets larger in diameter as you go down from the tip, the resonating would decrease because the increasing mass of the butt would dampen them. Also, lighter and less dense wood would resonate more than heavier dense wood. With that in mind, I would think the butt wood would have to be made of something that "resonated" more than the shaft wood, in order to continue similar vibrations down the length of the cue. Anything added to the cue (metal pins, joints, etc.) would affect the vibrations, as well.

I read the part below on a guitar forum and I'm not a guitar person either, but it is somebody's take on the subject.

According to physics, a lighter (less dense) wood is less stable and has greater amount of vibration - this is a proven fact. For example, a les paul will have less resonance but more sustain than a Martin acoustic.

In guitar, the heavier (higher density) guitars will be more stable, thus less resonance but greater sustain. Sustain was such a fad in the 70's that everyone then seemed to prefer 10lb+ guitars with solid heavy brass bridges, sustaining metal blocks, etc..

There are companies that make aluminum bridges and parts... but zinc is more relegated to cheaper import guitars. It rings like sheet rock. One of the best improvements that can be made to an import Strat is to swap out that zinc-blocked bridge for steel. I'm making some aluminum blocks that should give good resonance while being half the weight...
Now, the buzz word is "resonance" - the lighter the better (zinc and aluminum bridges to lessen the weight,etc.).

So you can make a GENERAL assumption that swamp ash (less dense) is more resonance that mahogany (more dense). But general assumption won't do you any good when it comes to a SPECIFIC guitar because 2 pieces of ash (or any other wood of your choice) that came from the same tree could have drastically different density depending on what part of the tree they came from. And to throw another wrench into this GENERAL assumption, a SPECIFIC piece of mahogany could very well have lesser density than another SPECIFIC piece of ash.
Click to expand...

I've owned some late 70's "kit" guitars from Mighty Mite, Boogie Bodies, Schecter, that had solid rosewood bodies and necks, solid brass bridges and nuts, knobs, pickup rings... even control plates. Slinging a 14lb guitar for a 3-hour gig is no fun. Sustain was great... though I cannot say I thought the "tone" of the guitar through the pickups was great. I'm of the camp that lighter is generally better, if it doesn't impede the structural integrity of the guitar. It's a finer point in an acoustic, where we build to the extremes of structural integrity. On electrics, it's not as nuanced but still there.

I also agree that the shaft is the main contributor to the "resonance" or "vibration" we feel, and the butt more or less attenuates or amplifies the frequencies. Aside from being a larger diameter, it's also about 4 times the weight of the shaft, so the butt will naturally have a higher resonant frequency. The resonant frequency is directly proportional to the stiffness, and I've argued it is this (and bend profile), and not necessarily weight, or shaft thickness, that determines if two shafts will play similarly.

Pertaining to woods, yes it is a fact that within the same species there can be variations in wood density. It can even happen within the same billet of wood. Density also doesn't always make a good prediction of the resonant quality and sustain of a particular wood. Bubinga is pretty dense, but we almost joke about it in the acoustic world for it's almost cardboard-like tap tone. But it makes wonderful guitars, more in the line of how a maple or cherry guitar would sound. On the other hand, jackfruit (langka) is relatively light, but can ring like plate glass, like rosewoods. The highly sought and rare "The Tree" mahogany is said to have a density and tap top very similar to rosewood; but at about $3000/bf I don't think I'll ever personally know!
 
Last edited:
JoeyInCali

JoeyInCali

Maker of Joey Bautista Cues
Silver Member
Chris, it was just one of those crazy thought that pass thru my brain every now and then. Thinking about it ... it would be a hard thing to do because of the different densities of the shaft and butt.
A solid one piece cue would solve most all that by having only one resonate frequency to start with.
Wasnt one of the old (and much respected) cue masters was a firm believer that hard maple was the absolute best wood for a pool cue?
Click to expand...
And how much would that cue weigh ? 15 oz ?
The best hitting house cues have purpleheart, cherry, ebony and other hard woods at the bottom .
Why is that ?
The bottom woods add weight and accentuate the resonance of the maple front is the theory.
 
Last edited:
Mcues

Mcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
sounds

At the end of the day any endeavor that's full of variables and inconsistencies; relies on humans to interpret and assign value its called art and generally represents the particular artist's condensed knowledge mottled by his own prejudices. Sometimes we like this alphabet soup other times we just shake our heads and try not to say muck. :) To mix two different avenues in search of a recipe just results in a congested intersection.

Mario
 
Mcues

Mcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
WilleeCue said:
Chris, it was just one of those crazy thought that pass thru my brain every now and then. Thinking about it ... it would be a hard thing to do because of the different densities of the shaft and butt.
A solid one piece cue would solve most all that by having only one resonate frequency to start with.
Wasnt one of the old (and much respected) cue masters was a firm believer that hard maple was the absolute best wood for a pool cue?
Click to expand...

Just want to mention that a lot of his knowledge came from cutting one piece Brunswick cues
which at the time were pretty much Maple upfront, later on others built his splices and probably were ordered along the same lines.

Mario
 
Yotehntr

Yotehntr

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Makes me think of the violin makers. The belly and back of a violin are connected under the right leg of the bridge by a "sound post". Since both the back and the belly have to vibrate together the violin maker tunes their natural frequency's to a major 2nd or a minor 3rd by scraping them. Slight changes in weight change the tone/note of the plate. If this isn't done the vibrating "plates" will on occasion vibrate against each other and cancel each other out. (sounds like a click)

It seems to me since the shaft and butt are screwed together they are one piece and their tone is one in the same. What if cues vibration or frequency was tuned to the resonant/natural frequency of the cue ball... :rolleyes:
 
Q

qbilder

slower than snails
Silver Member
I'm a nut bag so take my opinion as a fart in the wind.

Certain cues I played with through the years were simply just better cues, and it didn't matter what brand. They were what I consider, "point & shoot", because they made the game so easy. At some point I noticed that they all sounded about the same. Being the nut bag that I am, I began searching for that sound in the cues I make & to my pleasant surprise whenever I achieve it, the cue is bad ass. I have gotten better at it over the years so more of the cues I make today have that hit. I don't match shaft tone to butt tone. It's usually offsetting them to achieve the happy medium. For instance a pingy shaft on a dull butt or visa versa. A pingy butt with pingy shaft makes for a cue that feels like a steel rod. A dull shaft with dull butt makes it feel like a flat tire. Somewhere in between is the Goldylocks window, where if the cue fits into that small frequency range it will be that magic stick.
 
HawaiianEye

HawaiianEye

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
qbilder said:
I'm a nut bag so take my opinion as a fart in the wind.

Certain cues I played with through the years were simply just better cues, and it didn't matter what brand. They were what I consider, "point & shoot", because they made the game so easy. At some point I noticed that they all sounded about the same. Being the nut bag that I am, I began searching for that sound in the cues I make & to my pleasant surprise whenever I achieve it, the cue is bad ass. I have gotten better at it over the years so more of the cues I make today have that hit. I don't match shaft tone to butt tone. It's usually offsetting them to achieve the happy medium. For instance a pingy shaft on a dull butt or visa versa. A pingy butt with pingy shaft makes for a cue that feels like a steel rod. A dull shaft with dull butt makes it feel like a flat tire. Somewhere in between is the Goldylocks window, where if the cue fits into that small frequency range it will be that magic stick.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm talking about. I know nothing about making cues or wood, but I know certain cues have a "hit" that I like and feel works the best for me.

Over the years, I've found that "hit" in $3 cues, $50 cues, and high dollar cues, but it always wasn't the same type of cue, the same wood, or by the same maker.

I have always thought it was the combination of a lot of things that caused the cue to have a resonance that resonated with me.
 
Mcues

Mcues

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
qbilder said:
I'm a nut bag so take my opinion as a fart in the wind.

Certain cues I played with through the years were simply just better cues, and it didn't matter what brand. They were what I consider, "point & shoot", because they made the game so easy. At some point I noticed that they all sounded about the same. Being the nut bag that I am, I began searching for that sound in the cues I make & to my pleasant surprise whenever I achieve it, the cue is bad ass. I have gotten better at it over the years so more of the cues I make today have that hit. I don't match shaft tone to butt tone. It's usually offsetting them to achieve the happy medium. For instance a pingy shaft on a dull butt or visa versa. A pingy butt with pingy shaft makes for a cue that feels like a steel rod. A dull shaft with dull butt makes it feel like a flat tire. Somewhere in between is the Goldylocks window, where if the cue fits into that small frequency range it will be that magic stick.
Click to expand...

I think we are all a little nuts(we have to be) trying to reproduce a particular sound in a non-musical instrument. :) I do agree with what you have to say, specially about how small that window is.
Once I spent a whole afternoon bouncing shafts of the concrete floor and almost all the turned wood in the shop; they were all hanging from brass hooks and I bounced them with the hook still in, and without it. (that little metal hook seem to deaden the sound slightly each and every time. Not exactly a scientific experiment but it told me what I needed to know.
The particular sound I'm looking for in a cue is engraved in my brain and it plays throughout the day; when I hear it I know is a cue that makes playing a pleasure whether it be one of mine or anybody else's. Of course that sound is subjective and could be shrieking to some. :)

Mario
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top