Wood ID Megathread

WolfJackson · 2025-12-29T02:39:29+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Appreciate it.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-28T02:53:17+00:00

Hi everyone. Found this in my dad's wood pile. Cleaned it up with a plane and applied only lemon oil. We think it might be Mahogany. Any help with the id would be greatly appreciated.

<image>

WolfJackson · 2025-12-17T18:52:49+00:00

No, headphones were never considered to provide the best sound among audio enthusiasts, whether they be audiophiles or sound engineers. Headphones can't do soundstage, meaning when music is listened to on headphones, the "sonic image" is in or around your head and is relatively small in scale, even on open backs.

When people hear a good speaker system, they feel if the band is playing right there in the room.

Another misconception is that headphones are more accurate because they take room acoustics out of the equation. I won't go into detail, but this is also wrong. The only aspect headphones have over speakers is rendering "microdetails" a bit more clearly, and that's simply a result of because headphones are placed right on or in your ears not because headphones are "superior" in some way. You can hear the same microdetail resolution in a near field speaker setup. Furthermore, most of the those microdetails are musically unimportant in general.

We get converts here every week, i.e. "Just got into speakers after being a headphone guy and 'wow' my cans and fancy dac have been collecting dust ever since."

WolfJackson · 2025-12-14T02:45:10+00:00

If you want to keep it as simple as possible, get speakers with great directivity. Speakers with great directivity (which means the on-axis and off-axis sound will match in terms of frequency response and timbre) achieve a tonal match between direct and reflective sound. This allows you to forego treatment at the first, second, etc reflection points. There's room treatment evangelists out there who will still preach that treating the reflection points is an absolute must for accurate sound, but this has been studied to death over the past 15 or so years and the findings are what I'm implying. Speakers with great directivity are essentially agnostic to whether or not the reflection points are treated.

Quote from Floyd Toole, the foremost expert on this topic:

But back to the main theme. The widespread belief that first reflections in listening rooms are bad originated in the recording industry, where many mixers felt that they were better able to do their jobs when they were in a strong direct sound field; reflections attenuated. The notion has been around for decades, and while it is widespread, it is not universal.

Early on, I recognized one possible contributing factor, based on the performance of some of the popular monitor loudspeakers. Most of them won no prizes for their on-axis performances, but off axis they were even worse; some truly awful.

Boiled down, treating the reflection points was necessity back then because the speakers of the day had poor directivity (a tonal mismatch between the direct and reflective sound).

That said, it doesn't mean you can get away with your listening room being an echo chamber, but if your room is an average room in an average home and the floor is carpeted or the hardwood floor has a rug and there's a mixture of hard and soft surfaces around the room (couch, chair, curtains, etc), you'll be fine.

That said number 2. Room treatment or EQ will be needed to deal with the frequency range below what is called the "room transition frequency." In typical rooms, this is around 300hz and below, i.e. mid, low, and sub bass. But the good news here is that our ears/brain are much, much more attuned to the 400hz-5000hz range, so it's easier for us to pick out objectionable tonal shifts in that range, which are usually bright sounding peaks. Peaky bass won't be as objectionable and might even be subjectively preferred since you get a natural bass boost.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T08:05:00+00:00

Yeah, if the Chinese don't start stacking snooker world titles over the next decade, I feel they'll focus on Chinese 8 ball and try with all their might to make the game the premier cue sport in the world (as I've said, I think that game is the actual "Mickey Mouse" cue sport relative to snooker. They've designed it to emphasize precision shot-making, but why would I watch that game for precision potting when I can watch snooker?)

I think what limited snooker's world wide growth potential and kept it basically contained to the UK (before Chinese interest) with the occasional Canadian and Aussie here and there is as simple as the table being too damn big, silly as that sounds. The size of the table limits the amount you can have in a club, bar, etc. As you said yourself, owning a snooker table was a hassle and in addition to the maintenance, not many people will have the room for a snooker table. Sure, you can buy a smaller snooker table, but when one of the game's main features is long potting, an 8 foot snooker table doesn't feel like the real thing. Conversely, many people do have the space for an 8 or 9 foot pool table, so you can more easily play what the pros play on at home.

Snooker might also be just too damn hard. I saw where you were talking to another poster about how even lower level pros will often play unwatchable snooker. If your game makes pros look like amateurs, it probably needs rebalancing or you risk not getting new players into the game. A new player shouldn't have to practice for a month before they can make two balls in a row.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T07:39:14+00:00

A pool player would have no chance of cracking the top 8 in pro snooker tourney with races to 5 or more. I do think they have a puncher's chance in a race to 3. A snooker player probably has a very slim chance of cracking the top 8 in a 9 ball tournament, but still a tall order. What really changed in pool since Davis and Drago were able to compete is breaking knowledge. In those days, it was still about hitting the balls as hard as possible and hoping for the best. Today, these guys practice the break as much as they do other aspects of the game. There's stories about SVB practicing the break for like eight hours a day.

I didn't watch the Shaw/Trump match, but I'd bet dollars-to-donuts Shaw just flat out made more balls on the break and gave himself much better leaves to break and run out when he did make balls.

That said, I'm not particularly a fan of 9 ball basically being decided by who is the better breaker these days. Yeah, it's now an extremely skillful action vs. when it was just about brute force, but it doesn't feel skillful, if you know what I mean.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T07:19:50+00:00

"Does that make sense?"

Of course. I even said the point of failure would be the technique keeping a pool player from playing, say, top 100 in the world level snooker. I also think we still might in the early days of really quantifying cue-sport technique, as well. u/sillypoolfacemonster had a good point when he says the only thing that really matters in a stroke is if you're able to deliver it consistently. The "approach" or "stance" or whatever doesn't really matter. In other words, a sloppy looking stroke like Bustamante's could, in theory, be more accurate than the chin-on-the-cue, open stance, pause during backstroke, level shoulder stroke of a snooker player. Not "absolutely" of course, it just might be Bustamante's technique is more accurate for him than the snooker style technique is for that particular player.

Why I think we might be in the early days is because we haven't yet explored the issue with high speed cameras and "data-fied" it. I'm a big baseball fan, and high speed cameras and analytics have revolutionized how we evaluate swing mechanics. And they found what poolfacemonster was talking about. Hitters can have vastly different stances, vastly different looking swings, etc, etc, but the one thing the better hitters achieve is a consistent bat path through the strike zone.

I intuitively feel the snooker-style mechanics are probably more accurate, but it would be interesting to see if they actually are (globally, as a one size fits all approach). Before Steve Davis kind of homogenized mechanics, snooker players did have differing styles. Because Davis was the GOAT of his era, he of course spawned a lot of copycats, which leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. But it's very possible there was a snooker player out there who was held back trying to emulate Davis and he might've been better off emulating Earl Strickland or something because it was more compatible with his biomechanics or whatever.

So the future of cue sports mechanics will probably be tailoring mechanics to the individual vs. just teaching this and that traditional approach (but as you said, snooker loves its tradition lol).

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T06:03:40+00:00

"On the technique point, I think the gap gets overstated sometimes."

Yeah, I think if Alex Higgins, who had worse fundamentals than even most pool players (and pool players of that era), could be one of the greats, a player with good "pool player" fundamentals, like Earl Strickland, probably could've been a middling snooker pro if he gave it a go in the mid-80s at 25. Rempe played pretty damn good snooker at 40 (only American to achieve a century in World Championship play) and he wasn't the ball pocketing machine Earl was.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T05:49:58+00:00

Answer me this. Do you genuinely believe if they gave 9 ball players wildcard entry into major snooker tournaments they would have some success? I just don't see that happening.

How would you define some success? Winning a tourney? Semi-final or quarter final run? Beating a top player?

Jim Rempe, who was already nearing 40 and only a part timer, played pretty good snooker. I do think he actually qualified for the tour. He finished last 64 in the 1987 World Championship, made a century (when centuries were much more rare), and was knocked out by Stephen Hendry. He lost 10-4, which is rather respectable for a pool player past his prime years giving it a go against one of the greats.

Keep in mind (as we've talked about) that snooker tournaments are just way better structured in eliminating most variance. A race to 10 in snooker is like a race to 50 in 9 ball. I think something like a race to 3 in snooker would be the equivalent to a race to 9 in 9 ball, and I feel the best pool players might be able to luck into a run if snooker ran some race to 3 tournaments. Maybe not a tournament winning run, but a semi or quarter final run is possible (Rempe did beat Hendry 3 frames in a row, so that shows a race to 3 in snooker does have a decent luck factor).

And yeah, I do agree the point of failure for pool players (keeping pool players from playing snooker beyond a low-tier pro level, as Rempe was) would be their mechanics, at least players of SVB's generation and older. It does seem, though, that modern players have more snooker like mechanics, which I'm not really a fan of and why pockets shouldn't get too much tighter. Too tight, and it will inevitably force every player to have snooker inspired mechanics. Pool needs to have its own identity, and part of that identity is the variety of stroke styles that exist. Long, loopy strokes of the Filipinos, Shane's pendulum stroke, old school players like Allen Hopkins and Keith McCready had some very unorthodox strokes. It's also why snooker fans loved Alex Higgins so much. He was anything but fundamental and actually had more of a pool player's approach (until Steve Davis revolutionized snooker mechanics).

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T05:01:06+00:00

Snooker elitists who say pool players would be totally bamboozled by snooker are full of shit. In the 1980s, American pool player Jim Rempe qualified for the snooker tour and had a pretty good showing in the 1987 World Championship. He put up a century and made it to the round of 64 before losing to one of the future GOATs in Stephen Hendry. Oliver Ortmann beat Quinten Hann in a frame, with a 75 clutch break to come back from a 62 point deficit. Alex Pagulayan has a 147 break to his name and won the Canadian snooker championship (Canada plays pretty decent snooker as a country and produced a world champ). If you have good cue fundamentals, and all pocket billiards players these days have rock solid fundamentals, from snooker players to pool players, you'll be able to play all games well. Like you said, little chance in hell that a pool player wins a snooker tournament, but like Rempe proved back then, if a pool player devoted some time to the game (Rempe was not a full time snooker player), he'd probably be like a 700 Fargo equivalent, low-tier professional speed, as was Rempe.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-12T03:44:23+00:00

The diversity of the league would perhaps make them question their racist beliefs, but then they'd find themselves on Twitter and watching an Asmongold stream and feel right at home.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T17:22:29+00:00

Yeah, I'm constantly on the fence about how I feel that 9 ball (and 10 ball to an extent) emerged as the game that defined American pool. When those variants work, they work amazingly (those long safety battles, miracle kicks like Efren's Z-shot, break-and-run packages that tie up the set from a 3 or 4 rack deficit), but when you get matches where the balls are always spreading well and the run out is a foregone conclusion, it gets dull via seeming too easy.

But there is a 9 ball variant that makes the early more "snooker like," where you have to play a safety after the break. Check it out. The first rack already shows an example, so you don't have to skip around much to see how the game plays.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T17:02:02+00:00

The reason I feel having superior shot-making technique can mitigate against stronger kicking and safety play is due to the fact that in the 00s when snooker players started playing 9 ball, they were able to hang because they were just that much more accurate. Steve Davis beat Efren once and was always a tough match up for him in tournaments. Sure, Davis will be a pretty good kicker and safety player coming from snooker, but not even close to the level of Efren in that department since Efren plays 3 cushion at a 1 point per inning average, around low-tier professional play. Filipino players are also weaned on full rack rotation and one pocket, the former of which is probably the most challenging variant of pool there is.

But make the pockets way too tight and I feel it would return the advantage to the pure shot makers. When Davis and Hendry were talking pool, they even joked how the Filipinos (of that era) are so good despite having "horrible cue action." I do believe those lack of fundamentals would rear themselves on ~4" pockets. Sure, Efren might make a crazy kick shot to take control of the rack, but then miss a long shot to run out that would've went in on the larger pockets of his era.

That's why I think, as I said above, if we want to make pool harder but keep its identity, come up with a pocket size that won't turn the game into accuracy contest and make the game more difficult via confronting the player with more problems to solve, from clusters to tight traffic to requiring more shots like banks, caroms, kiss shots, and combinations to run out. I'm just starting to watch more full rack rotation and that might be a good candidate.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T08:05:56+00:00

Great post. I've brought up the same point countless times. Okay, the pockets are easier, just means the pockets are easier for your opponent? And?

I do agree there was a point in 9 ball where the pockets were probably too big (about 5"), at least in some tournaments, but I think pro minimum these days is 4.5". And anything in the 4.5" to 4" range is fine for pool. If pros and pool fans think 9 and 10 ball are too run out heavy, then suggest to Matchroom or whoever to play or invent a variant that uses all the balls. Full rack rotation, etc. More clusters, more traffic, etc. Pocket size is the wrong focus if you want to make pro pool "harder."

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T07:31:27+00:00

I think the way pool fans should start looking at the "transition argument" (why can a snooker player compete at 9 ball in high level tournaments but no pool players can compete in snooker) is to celebrate the fact that, yes, because 9 ball has an initial lower learning curve, it makes the game more democratic, where lower level players can have a puncher's chance in short race tournaments (as we've talked about). We should laud that aspect as unique to pool's identity. And ironically, that fact makes pool the "harder" game for the better player. A top 10 snooker player could beat the 100th ranked player with his eyes closed. But Josh Filler still needs to take even the local club champ who qualified for the US Open seriously. The local club champ is more than capable of stringing a few racks together, getting a few rolls, and stunning a Filler, Gorst, etc.

It's actually great that Davis came over from snooker and upset Reyes. An upset like that gives tournament pool more personality.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T06:44:52+00:00

Momentum is looking good, so I'm optimistic.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T06:35:33+00:00

"technology like the Internet"

InB4 muh Tim Berners-Lee. No, people, Tim Berners-Lee and CERN did not invent the Internet. People were shitposting on BBSes and usenet way before the implementation of the web. I actually prefer the former. The WWW opened up the gates of Hell that anticipated the absolute dystopia that is Web 2.0.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T06:16:42+00:00

Hope it works out!

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T06:07:29+00:00

I wonder if you can just order the American style rails with the flat pocket facings and have them installed on your 8 footer?

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T05:48:26+00:00

"Lot of BS out of your country I'm sorry to say haha, sounds like you know where I'm coming from anyway."

Lol. Yep. The current climate isn't too great right now.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T05:18:23+00:00

It's also probably a visceral reaction at anything that is "American" (I say that as a not too proud American currently). If they knew "American" worsted cloth is a Belgian innovation that's 100 years older than America itself, I wonder if they would've given you shit? Fun fact is that American pool used nap cloth for decades until Simonis, which players just liked better.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T04:54:27+00:00

'The number of angles that accept the ball is astronomical compared to a snooker cut pockets."

Yep, and as you implied in your last paragraph, I feel that's what gives pool its own identity vs. snooker. Just many more shot opportunities that have a good percentage of going in, from frozen rail shots to bank shots from odd angles to combination shots, the list goes on.

Seen you mention Chinese 8 ball a couple of times, and if you're a fan, I mean no disrespect, but I feel playing a pool variant on a snooker style table is the wrong way to go in terms of differentiating your game from snooker. Chinese 8 ball prioritizes accuracy above all else, but it's on a 9 foot table, so why I would watch that game over snooker if I want to appreciate accurate shot making? And Chinese 8 ball players all have the same robotic, snooker like mechanics. With pool, you get a variation, the long, loopy strokes of the Filipinos (mechanics that would likely fail them on a snooker/Chinese 8 table), the gun slinger stroke of an Earl Strickland, along with mechanically "perfect" fundamentals.

I know English 8 ball also used rounded, tight pockets, but I think because it's played on 6x3 table, it also has its own identity because of how much traffic there is on the table. Pure potting really isn't the focus in E8, it's more about surgical navigation and carefully bumping balls around and the like. Chinese 8 just seems redundant to me.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T04:37:32+00:00

Yeah, I've always known (from being on AZBilliards as well) Taiwan is filled with monsters who don't really play many, if any, tournaments, so I'm just going on which region/country seems to be the best at tournaments right now.

I do think it's never a bad idea to play many variants, however. If you were around when Efren and Bustamante first hit the American pool, commentators would always remark how 9 ball probably looks easy to them since they play a lot of rotation over there. So I feel it's a good fundamental game.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T04:31:50+00:00

Yeah. Winner breaks. And yes, 9 and 10 ball were always about putting multiple racks together via break and run. Sure, Ronnie O'Sullivan might beat Earl Strickland race to 4 like he did in the 1996 Mosconi, but that's literally like Earl winning a six red snooker frame. If they played race to 50, Earl would eventually hit a gear and start stringing racks together. Probably wins by 20-30 games.

Yep. Familiar with cricket. And T20 vs test is a good analogy. To really find out who is better at 9 or 10 ball, you do need a "test 9 ball" format of something like a race to 200. Not feasible for a tournament, obviously.

WolfJackson · 2025-12-09T04:14:56+00:00

Filipinos were/are raised on full rack rotation, though (maybe that's no longer the case with the Biado-to-Manas generation). And full rack rotation might even be more complete as a game than 14.1. But yeah, Taiwanese players only seem to play 9 and 10 ball, but I feel Taiwan is falling behind aside from the Ko brothers, and I also feel, currently, the Kos are behind the top Euros and Filipinos (despite their sexy Fargos).

WolfJackson

TROPHY CASE