Michael, how would you you go about to easily measure rod frequency? I’m sure you have some ideas that are both easy and reliable, which may work. I find the CCF measurements quite cumbersome to perform, and I hate the idea of loading the tip of a rod with a weight equivalent to the rods IP and setting it in motion. For many of the rods I deal with you need a pound to two pounds of weight. I don’t perform CCF measurements, just seems too arbitrary and artificial to me.
Norm

Norman, I'm working on it.

I agree that CCF is so cumbersome as to be useless. AND I doubt if it has the ability to sort modest changes to the rod.

I am not in agreement that the rod that oscillates the longest/most amplitude/highest frequency equates to the most sensitive one.

To me, the deflected rod that returned to its natural state in the shortest time and with the least amount of oscillation would be the most sensitive.

Russ in Hollywood, FL.

I believe you would find the one that returns the fastest would have the highest amplitude. Only tests could verify my theory though.

Might be , Russell. But would that mean that to increase sensitivity we would add "damping" material to the mix? Then it wouldn't "ring" like some have reported their favorite rods do? I can testify that Point Blanks sound different when I bump them onto the rail of my boat. How fast do they damp compared to lesser blanks? I don't know. The faster a rod damped the higher the sensitivity? The higher the ability to detect a subtle bite?

From my causal observations and conclusions I think my rods that dampen the fastest are rods with the lightest guides and fastest actions (per CCS AA). But I have no data.

I can tell you without a doubt that the rods I like the best for finesse fishing have the highest frequencies. How fast do they damp? I don't know.

Please keep in mind that my question was only about frequency, and not about amplitude or longest resonant deflection or anything else. Just frequency.

I appreciate yours and others' comments. This has been interesting and informative.

Micheal, I agree that the CCF analysis would not detect small frequency changes due to added component weight. I also agree with Russ that recovery rate is important. As I see it the, the lightest and stiffest material would have the fastest recovery time and also the highest frequency. I think they are directly related to each other.
Norm

Norman, Russ argued for more damping along with fast recovery. Perfect world? Maybe you cannot get the fastest recovery rate with high damping?