Braves,

With all due respects to everyone's posts (and, I for
one, appreciate everyone's contributions weather I
agree with them or not) here is another article that
articulates what I had been saying last week.

I pulled my original thread from this Forum because I don't
want to drive off potential contributors by bickering.

(I can re-post my original thread if anyone is interested.)

Suffice it to say, some of us have extensive background
and credentials in the technical field of physics and
electronics, others in music, and others in both. The
jargon is killing us in these discussions :-)

Here is what the Fender site says about tremolo and
vibrato.

http://www.fender.com/news/index.php?display_article=578

So, let's all enjoy life and play music together! Amen!

--Big Nick

i agree

fender was probably the main reason the lingo is so 'challenged' today

at least this article admits it

they just mis-used them at random or for their own dumb reasons

wle

wle,

Yep .. Blaming Fender works for me

Actually, if ones Google's;
"difference between tremolo and vibrato"
there are numerous articles supporting the
same conclusion.

And now, I think I'll immerse myself in some
phase-modulation for the sheer joy of it

--bn

A guitar is a stringed instrument . An accordeon has reeds.

"A guitar is a stringed instrument . An accordeon has reeds."

--wow

--wle

Just to clarify the distinction for those who apparently don't quite get the subtle distinction, or who reside in Rio Linda.

I wish to give Fender some slack though...

like JBL with their whole convention of reversed polarity - back in the day...

maybe they started misusing the term before 'standardization' of the distinction?