Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
Forum Ringside => Guitars, Amps and Effects => Topic started by: DaveyHoran on February 04, 2013, 12:10:31 PM
-
If you're a tone junkie, you need to be sitting down for this :-)
So this college degree student and guitar player did some thorough tests and came to the conclusion that the body wood in an Electric guitar has no effect on the tone or sustain the guitar produces.
He was testing the "common knowledge" that's floating about about some woods being better than others and he could find no evidence to prove that woods make a difference to electric tone, despite all the big brands claiming that the rarer woods are better and charging top dollar for it... (not talking aesthetics here, purely sound)
He used various guitar shapes and bodies but with identical pickups, same pickup to string gap, same strings and same set ups, recorded the results, comparing frequencies etc and found that the notes were indistinguishable from guitar to guitar...
I guess its another vote for quality pickups but it really makes the tone wood argument void. He has evidence based facts and there is nothing other than opinion and speculation to argue those facts.
I know I bought in to the tone wood story, I have several Mahogany guitars but if I'm honest they have better pickups than my cheaper guitars so are bound to sound better.
What do you think about that fact?
-
Sometimes you get a guitar which doesn't sound right no matter what pickups you put in it. I've never got on with poplar or basswood for example.
The difference in brightness between different woods is also quite clear - try a Les Paul with and without a maple cap for example.
Also: rosewood and maple fingerboards
-
Do you have a link for this?
Do you definitely mean tone? It would be good to see what he concluded. I have tried various guitars with same pickups and they sound different plugged in also sustained different. Expensive wood doesnt always guarantee this. that is true
-
Here's where I read it:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/ (http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/)
When you hear stuff like some Squires being better than Fenders, and some Epiphones being better than Les Pauls, and in my experience some Schecters being up there with Fenders and Gibson you have to wonder how can that happen. I know we all say its a fluke but maybe it is more about the strings, string height, pickups and general set up than it is about the wood...
Very interesting anyway, and as yet this is the first study I've read about that attempts to prove or disprove the idea.
-
It's an analogue medium. In that arena, everything has an effect on the sound. It's not 1s and 0s that are absolute. This argument is why Hi Fi purists (I don't like the expression audiophiles, as they tend to be flat earth nutjobs) put so much on the construction of turntables and arms when it comes to getting the information from vinyl as the deck makes a difference to the retrieval as well as the cartridge and electrical side of things. The stability of the drive, the isolation of the motor, the ability of the arm to track smoothly.
This all applies to guitar as it all has a effect on the way the strings vibrate. Subtle or not, there is an effect. It's why unplugged different guitars sound different and resonate differently. All this translates to what the electrical system picks up.
Now how big these differences are is I suppose the point, and the laws of diminishing returns apply in both fields. Does a custom shop Fender sound £1500 better than a Mexi? Likewise a Linn to a Rega? (showing my age there). It's subjective of course. But there are differences there.
-
I look forward to reading this thesis with interest.
-
Here's where I read it:
http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/[/url
(http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/)
the video on that was rather funny (not by the guy doing the study and the douche kinda undermines his research). he says a steinberger has more sustain because the strings are in contact with large metal saddles and a metal nut (zero fret). So basically the things the strings touch makes a difference, but the material those things are connected too dont :? so what would happen is i connected that nut and saddles to a piece of dense rubber compared to metal bar, would they still sound the same.... nope, the rubber would absorb the string vibrations, the metal would not.
the same thing happens with wood, but obviously most hardwoods are a lot closer to the middle ground of those two examples. but all with different stiffnes and densities, both within and across species
but i am all for good science to investigate this and look forward to reading the study when its complete. my main issue so far is that he is using different guitars for this and still finding no significant difference. if your doing this investigation you need identical guitars where the only difference is the body wood to rule out other variables. he is using different guitar with the same pickups - so i assume he is not only saying wood/shape makes no difference he must also be coming to the conclusion that scale length and hardware make no difference as he so far has found "no significant differences" between these different guitars with identical pickups. makes me wonder if he is measuring the right thing!
then he says we should be making guitars out of something more rigid like carbon fibre. why? apparently it makes no difference... also its often more expensive to manufacture guitars that way than using traditional woods
-
I'm looking forward to the Thesis too... unless it gets sidelined and he gets a paycheck from Gibson :-)
He's basically saying that if you set up a strat with a Nailbomb and an Les Paul with a Nailbomb, using the same brand strings, intonation and string height to the pickup, that the sound (plugged) will be identical and indistinguishable to the naked ear.
He is NOT referring to their unplugged sound and I think it helps his point that some critics need to refer to the differences in electric guitars unplugged sound in order to show a tone difference.
-
He's basically saying that if you set up a strat with a Nailbomb and an Les Paul with a Nailbomb, using the same brand strings, intonation and string height to the pickup, that the sound (plugged) will be identical and indistinguishable to the naked ear.
this is my problem. its basically saying the string length makes no difference. I actually think this is one of the fundamental things that does make a difference. it changes the vibrational properties of the string much more directly than changing body wood. the vibrational properties of the string are the thing the pickup sees which directly leads to your amplified sound. any argument on whether wood changes the tone has to account for how the wood can change the vibrations of the string. this is complex and covers many variables. But the scale lengths affect on the vibrating string is very simple physics
also. anyone who has tried a vertically strung piano compared with an overstrung (diagonal) will know that string length can make a massive difference to tone. the diagonal strung pianos have much longer bass strings which sound nice, the vertical ones tend to sound like a wet fart on the low notes. obviously that is acoustic tone... but the difference comes down the way the string vibrates
-
If it really didn't matter then my two guitars which both have Crawlers in the bridge should sound identical. Well ... they don't ... why?
Did the guy doing the tests have his ears checked before the test?
Cheers Stephan
-
Don't agree that they're exactly similar, and there's also that little thing called feel that makes or breaks a guitar for a particular person as well.
-
I will concede that in a full band setting the audience will probably not be able to tell the difference - unless it's vastly different guitars.
Cheers Stephan
-
He didn't use his ears, he used scientific equipment so he could show fact based evidence rather than opinion. I think that was his point. (i'm not having a go at anyone here, that's really why he did the test)
Regarding the crawlers, maybe the tone would be identical if you tested the same set of crawlers in both guitars with the same pickup height etc.
This is a highly charged topic because we've all been taught from an early age to believe that woods have a huge effect on the tone of our Electric instruments...but has anyone seen real testable evidence proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt?
But I was also taught the rule " I before E except after C " and that's been proven to be incorrect most of the time :-)
We dont have to like the results, in fact I hate that it could be true, and it means that I've paid way too much for some of my guitars, but he has evidence and all we have to argue against it is our highly charged opinion
-
We dont have to like the results, in fact I hate that it could be true, and it means that I've paid way too much for some of my guitars, but he has evidence and all we have to argue against it is our highly charged opinion
He doesn't have irrefutable evidence. we need more details of the guitars and the tests, and to see some actual evidence
all we have is our highly charged opinions based on extensive experience working with guitars and a basic knowledge of physics. to be honest I am always happy to see these kinds of tests - but we are a long way from having any actual evidence!
I have made guitars from many kinds of woods, all traditional types and quite a few more unusual choices too. And i have worked on and played enough different kinds of guitar to know that there is a difference. If he can't hear the difference between a strat and a les paul, even with the same type of pickup in the same position then whatever he is using to measure the sound is not up to the task. But we have no details of the tools he is using.
Also he talks about having pickups in "exactly the same position". Now if he is using guitars with different scale lengths then this also causes issues. lets say you put all pickups exactly 2" from the bridge. that is not exactly the same position relative to the whole string length if the scale length is different, and you could be sensing very different vibrational patterns. so he should be hearing a difference here too - if he isnt then again I would say he is measuring the wrong thing.
he says he has had people listen to the clips and they can't tell the difference. but we have no details of recording set-up or how the test was conducted. Could be that the sounds were recorded through a modeller, and played back through cheap headphones... limiting the chances of hearing the differences. without knowing different we have no evidence to the contrary
Ignore whether wood makes a difference for a minute. because if he cant detect the difference caused by scale length then i dont trust he has any chance of picking up the differences caused by wood.
A the moment the strength of his argument is very weak and disproves nothing. Hopefully the actual paper will be much more detailed and contain something worth discussing.
Science isn't about just presenting evidence and saying "that proves that". Its subject to peer review, but then it sounds like this is just degree level research so really its just about showing how well you can apply the scientific process and understanding what you could do better rather than providing ground breaking answers to THE questions. At least he will have plenty to write about in his discussion
-
This was what Tim Mills had to say on the subject:
I don’t want to upset all of the guitar makers, but this reliance on the body timber as being the whole source of the tone is a complete misnomer. My understanding of it, which is based on my own investigations and also having worked with some of the better luthiers in the country, is that the guitar’s voice comes from the pickup. The feel and the resonance and the sustain are a combination of body timber and body construction.
“With pickups, I believe that if you can find the right voice with your guitar pickup, then you will really bring out the best in your guitar. After all, an electric guitar without a pickup doesn’t work. The pickup is the guitar’s mouthpiece; the pickup hears the sound of the strings, but equally the strings are reliant on factors like the timber and the construction as to how resonant they are going to be. That’s when the importance of timber comes into it, but the ‘voicing’ is down to the pickup and how carefully you choose the materials. As with all of these things, it’s a combination of the whole.”
-
This was what Tim Mills had to say on the subject:
I don’t want to upset all of the guitar makers, but this reliance on the body timber as being the whole source of the tone is a complete misnomer. My understanding of it, which is based on my own investigations and also having worked with some of the better luthiers in the country, is that the guitar’s voice comes from the pickup. The feel and the resonance and the sustain are a combination of body timber and body construction.
“With pickups, I believe that if you can find the right voice with your guitar pickup, then you will really bring out the best in your guitar. After all, an electric guitar without a pickup doesn’t work. The pickup is the guitar’s mouthpiece; the pickup hears the sound of the strings, but equally the strings are reliant on factors like the timber and the construction as to how resonant they are going to be. That’s when the importance of timber comes into it, but the ‘voicing’ is down to the pickup and how carefully you choose the materials. As with all of these things, it’s a combination of the whole.”
i agree with all of that actually.
but there is a big difference between saying "wood is not the main factor towards amplified tone" and "wood makes no difference to amplified tone".
-
I remember a few years ago an amp manufacturer claiming that their solid state amp produced the same tonal characteristics as a valve amp. They had images of the signal being analysed on oscilloscopes and other gizmos to prove their point. Just goes to show there are some things you can't analyse with a gizmo.
-
He didn't use his ears, he used scientific equipment so he could show fact based evidence rather than opinion. I think that was his point. (i'm not having a go at anyone here, that's really why he did the test)
As WezV correctly pointed out there was surprisingly little detail about the equipment used to put anyone in a position to evaluate whether the set up was indeed up to scientific standards.
Regarding the crawlers, maybe the tone would be identical if you tested the same set of crawlers in both guitars with the same pickup height etc.
I did not measure the exact height on both guitars but even if there are different height settings there is no way that these alone could account for the vastly different tones of the guitars. And BTW they have different scale lengths and different bridges so that of course does factor in. But a scale length alone does not make a sound. A bridge alone does not make a sound, either. Not even a guitar alone makes a sound until somebody plays it. I fully agree with Tim that it's the sum of the whole parts.
This is a highly charged topic because we've all been taught from an early age to believe that woods have a huge effect on the tone of our Electric instruments...but has anyone seen real testable evidence proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt?
But I was also taught the rule " I before E except after C " and that's been proven to be incorrect most of the time :-)
You would not believe how much I would want to agree with the results - you could save a lot on the guitar itself and spend the money entirely on quality pickups and a quality amp set up. Yet I have played enough guitars in my life that could not have been brought to life with any BKP. They were simply dogs. Whether it was the wood, the hardware or the combination thereof - no idea, except that these planks sounded flat and dead regardless of the pickup used. That wood should have never made into a guitar but should have been used as firewood - the only way to get any warmth from it :D
We dont have to like the results, in fact I hate that it could be true, and it means that I've paid way too much for some of my guitars, but he has evidence and all we have to argue against it is our highly charged opinion
As said above, before we don't have the exact details of the test set up which includes guitars used, pickups used, pickup position, scale length, pickup height, amp, cab and recording set up we don't have any proof whatsoever.
I am not saying body wood is the main factor. A luthier I know well says the neck wood strongly overrides the body wood, and having had two replacement necks from him I have to agree. Each time the guitar sounded miles better than with the old neck - everything else unchanged.
Cheers Stephan
-
Anyone here got sound clips of the exact same pickup (as in the actual physical same pickup and not just the same model) used in different guitars through the same amp on the same settings?
there must be guys here who have recordings that could help add weight to either side of the argument. I've seen posts where people have said a pickup was to bright for a particular guitar but perfect for another...
Interesting discussion. I think part of this is that in recent years the standard of guitar making in the cheap factories has improved considerably...probably the standard of machinery used to mass produce guitars?
-
Anyone here got sound clips of the exact same pickup (as in the actual physical same pickup and not just the same model) used in different guitars through the same amp on the same settings?
there must be guys here who have recordings that could help add weight to either side of the argument. I've seen posts where people have said a pickup was to bright for a particular guitar but perfect for another...
Interesting discussion. I think part of this is that in recent years the standard of guitar making in the cheap factories has improved considerably...probably the standard of machinery used to mass produce guitars?
Very good point here. If this study is true, does that mean all our recommendations are trash? Does it mean that you could just pick your favorite pickup from the line and it automatically work? In that case, why have more than one pickup to offer? I'm probably misinterpreting something here, but it all still seems a bit fishy to me.
-
Very good point here. If this study is true, does that mean all our recommendations are trash? Does it mean that you could just pick your favorite pickup from the line and it automatically work? In that case, why have more than one pickup to offer? I'm probably misinterpreting something here, but it all still seems a bit fishy to me.
It would, on the face of it, mean just that.
But we all know if you put - say - a Crawler in an SG it will sound muddy, if you put it in a Les Paul it probably won't, if you put it in a Strat it definitely won't.
I really can't be bothered to say much more than that.
-
^^ well put Philly
-
But, to be fair, science can teach us a great deal of useful stuff about guitars and amps:
The difference comes down to this... umm, the more fragile harmonics can survive in a vacuum tube; where they seem to be, ah, eliminated or squashed in a solid state crystal lattice. I think it comes down to that. The physics of it... electrons can survive in a free space vacuum where they have trouble in a crystal lattice. I think that's the best and simplest I can put it.
-
Yes, in my opinion if you pick your favorite pickup from the line it should automatically work if you are modeling your sound on the official clips...but if you intend to modify your tone then you would need recommendations as you cant be sure how a pickup handles extra drive or low turnings etc.
I'm being devils advocate hear, i swear I'm not this pedantic normally, its just that I haven't actually heard clips proving the wood makes a difference...and you think the internet would be littered with tone junkies proving such a commonly held belief...you'd think it would be real easy to prove right???
-
I'm being devils advocate hear, i swear I'm not this pedantic normally, its just that I haven't actually heard clips proving the wood makes a difference...and you think the internet would be littered with tone junkies proving such a commonly held belief...you'd think it would be real easy to prove right???
too many other variables
-
I'm not sure what 'scientific equipment' was used to 'hear' the guitars. It's a good idea not to poo poo ears though as a means of listening, they can be very subtle in what they hear.
As an aside, when touring an old cognac 'house' (Otard) the guide explained how they spent a fortune on 'scientific equipment' to smell the mixtures of spirit making the final blend, to ensure consistency. Alas, they gave up as the humble nose of a master taster/blender was more accurate which is how it's been done for 250 years or so.
-
This was what Tim Mills had to say on the subject:
I don’t want to upset all of the guitar makers, but this reliance on the body timber as being the whole source of the tone is a complete misnomer. My understanding of it, which is based on my own investigations and also having worked with some of the better luthiers in the country, is that the guitar’s voice comes from the pickup. The feel and the resonance and the sustain are a combination of body timber and body construction.
“With pickups, I believe that if you can find the right voice with your guitar pickup, then you will really bring out the best in your guitar. After all, an electric guitar without a pickup doesn’t work. The pickup is the guitar’s mouthpiece; the pickup hears the sound of the strings, but equally the strings are reliant on factors like the timber and the construction as to how resonant they are going to be. That’s when the importance of timber comes into it, but the ‘voicing’ is down to the pickup and how carefully you choose the materials. As with all of these things, it’s a combination of the whole.”
i agree with all of that actually.
but there is a big difference between saying "wood is not the main factor towards amplified tone" and "wood makes no difference to amplified tone".
I disagree in as much as I feel wood can have a huge effect on what I hear
I can hear the difference between an ash bodied strat and an alder or mahogany one
I can hear the difference between a mahogany neck and a maple one on a Les Paul
and I might choose different pickups for each based on how the combination of the timbers , hardware and all the other factors add up towards the overall sound
Some guitars sound awful with a Nailbomb in my opinion whilst others are totally well suited in my opinion
Same is true with an Aftermath...and it may be a personal preference, and a casual listener might never know or sense what the player does.
Both of these examples I tend to love in an ash bodied guitar but not in a Les Paul - your mileage may vary.
-
Ignore whether wood makes a difference for a minute. because if he cant detect the difference caused by scale length then i dont trust he has any chance of picking up the differences caused by wood.
This. I wonder if anyone has brought this physical fact to his attention?
I have (and most people here probably too) had guitars I just never fully connected with. Had them set up, had different pickups. Played OK, but still there was always the thing that was not right. What he's basically saying is that my mind is tricking me, all I need is the right pickup and hardware for that guitar. And if I still had a problem with it, it's all in my mind. Well, at this point I would give up on him and that guitar, and just grab the guitar that's actually does what I want it to :lol:
I agree that the guitar is a sum of it's parts. Providing that the hardware and all the electronics are good quality, you're going to get a good sound providing that the woods are not horrid. But good and right (for you) woods make the difference between good tone and great tone.
-Zaned
-
I disagree in as much as I feel wood can have a huge effect on what I hear
I can hear the difference between an ash bodied strat and an alder or mahogany one
I can hear the difference between a mahogany neck and a maple one on a Les Paul
but i don't see that as disagreeing with Tim's quote.... you would be disagreeing if you said "body timber is the whole source of the tone".
I can also hear the differences between woods and from the guitar builder perspective it makes sense to focus on those factors as the foundation to everything else we do. So like him, you are also saying its a combination of those factors - but you are both coming at the same point from different perspectives.
If someone comes to you with a telecaster and a set of tonal requirements it does not currently meet I would assume you would focus on pickups first before wanting to swap the body. but I also assume you would provide a realistic viewpoint that that pickups wont counteract everything else about the construction that goes towards the whole sound. This is the essence of what I read in Tim's quote
I have a few examples I am working with recently.
*I made a guitar with a solid macasser ebony neck. everything else is pretty standard stuff, it has a mahog body but with a trem and i beleive this makes neck wood more important than body wood. Its very bright and the pickups i originally chose (emeralds) were completely wrong. with mule/manhattan set its usable but I am still not quite happy as it has an overriding brightness that I don't find pleasing. its now controlable, but not as instantly great as i expect
*Those emeralds in another mahogany bodied guitar are great. This one has a maple neck, hardtail bridge and 1/2" shorter scale. its certainly not pickup height that accounts for the difference in tone as I set up all guitars teh same way and tweak from there
*My John Birch is 100% maple (well, 99% maple and 1% body filler ;) ). It sounds pretty awesome with its dimarzios. well balanced, I can hear the maple, but its not anything like most people would expect from a solid maple guitar. Its about to receive a pickup change for a pair of John Birch Hyperflux's so I am very interested to see how that affects things. I believe some woods like basswood, and possibly in this case the maple to a certain degree, are more tonally transparent and in these situations the body wood effect becomes less noticeable
-
Fascinating stuff here.
I have listened to the "wood talk" over the many years, and bought into it as a kind of "yardstick" for searching out what I want.
But now, when it comes down to it, tonewise, I realise don't give a bugger what the wood is :lol:. I either like the guitar or I don't. And a lot of those that I don't, I find I can learn to like - just play it for a few hours and find out what it can do for me, I'll soon end up liking it after all.
What it (the wood) feels like, though, and how it looks, and its "mojo" - those are very important to me. I've got an "aha! mahogany" vibe going on... or an "ooh, that feels like a nice solid lump of alder"... wotever...
That's what I value, I guess. And I leave it up to the builders to stick a decent plank together that I fancy.
How this guy could measure this stuff, I've no idea!!
And, like Wez, I'm not entirely sure he's measuring the other stuff in a totally believable way...
(But I must admit I've only read what's said in this thread - I haven't read one word of what this poor guy has typed or said himself! :lol:)
-
I remember a few years ago an amp manufacturer claiming that their solid state amp produced the same tonal characteristics as a valve amp. They had images of the signal being analysed on oscilloscopes and other gizmos to prove their point. Just goes to show there are some things you can't analyse with a gizmo.
Actually, no!
It goes to show that the things you analyse with the gizmo aren't necessarily the things you think you're analysing.
This is why in all of science, we have controls. Controls in an experiment are the data points that indicate you're measuring what you expect to be, and that you can't measure it when it's absent.
I haven't read the document, but as a PhD supervisor for several years, I know that the first thing I would ask is "what are your controls?"
Roo
-
Way too many issues with his 'research':
1) No details on the guitars and pickups used
2) No details of the machine(s) used to record the "harmonic content"
3) Were the guitars DI'd or played through an amp?
4) No definition of his interpretation of "significant difference"
5) As Roo says, no defined baseline or control for the comparisons
etc
I'd like to see the full paper when it's written, until then he's just giving his opinion. Which I disagree with.
-
This was what Tim Mills had to say on the subject:
I don’t want to upset all of the guitar makers, but this reliance on the body timber as being the whole source of the tone is a complete misnomer. My understanding of it, which is based on my own investigations and also having worked with some of the better luthiers in the country, is that the guitar’s voice comes from the pickup. The feel and the resonance and the sustain are a combination of body timber and body construction.
“With pickups, I believe that if you can find the right voice with your guitar pickup, then you will really bring out the best in your guitar. After all, an electric guitar without a pickup doesn’t work. The pickup is the guitar’s mouthpiece; the pickup hears the sound of the strings, but equally the strings are reliant on factors like the timber and the construction as to how resonant they are going to be. That’s when the importance of timber comes into it, but the ‘voicing’ is down to the pickup and how carefully you choose the materials. As with all of these things, it’s a combination of the whole.”
I also disagree with Tim here. I have two identical guitars, with the exception of the neck wood - one is mahogany and the other is pernambuco. My wife, a non-guitarist, can hear the difference between the two when played by me back-to-back through the same rig.
Based on my "research", guitar wood DOES affect the voice of the instrument. Paul Reed Smith agrees with me too, and he likes to use the following example.
"Guitar pickups are like microphones, they transfer the voice of the guitar. No matter what microphone you put on Barbra Streisand, she's not going to sound like Paul Rodgers, right?”
-
" No matter what microphone you put on Barbra Streisand, she's not going to sound like Paul Rodgers, right?”
Definite candidate for quote of the year.
Cheers Stephan
-
:lol:
Paul uses that quote a lot, and I like it! 8)
-
I also disagree with Tim here. I have two identical guitars, with the exception of the neck wood - one is mahogany and the other is pernambuco. My wife, a non-guitarist, can hear the difference between the two when played by me back-to-back through the same rig.
I dont think the quote from Tim rules that out - certainly the second paragraph allows for wood influencing the sound. He is saying wood is not the whole source of the sound, not that it isnt even a factor.
Based on my "research", guitar wood DOES affect the voice of the instrument. Paul Reed Smith agrees with me too, and he likes to use the following example.
"Guitar pickups are like microphones, they transfer the voice of the guitar. No matter what microphone you put on Barbra Streisand, she's not going to sound like Paul Rodgers, right?”
Well i also agree with you both, and with tim - because i dont think the points are mutually exclusive
but the analogy falls down (sorry Mr Smith) because a pickup is probably the least transparent 'microphone' possible. If it wasn't PRS wouldn't need to offer more than one model of pickup and he could be totally reliant on the construction elements of the guitar to get the sounds people want.
a closer analogy would be to have Babs and paul sing through a dalek voice converter. There will be elements of their own voice that cause differences to the final sound due to the construction differences between Babs and Paul. But there will also be the properties of the non-transparent microphone (dalek voice converter) forcing their imprint on the final sound too
-
a closer analogy would be to have Babs and paul sing through a dalek voice converter. There will be elements of their own voice that cause differences to the final sound due to the construction differences between Babs and Paul. But there will also be the properties of the non-transparent microphone (dalek voice converter) forcing their imprint on the final sound too
As a happy side effect, it would vastly improve the voice of at least one of them, too. :)
-
Way too many issues with his 'research':
1) No details on the guitars and pickups used
2) No details of the machine(s) used to record the "harmonic content"
3) Were the guitars DI'd or played through an amp?
4) No definition of his interpretation of "significant difference"
5) As Roo says, no defined baseline or control for the comparisons
etc
I'd like to see the full paper when it's written, until then he's just giving his opinion. Which I disagree with.
I agree that their would need to be a strict set of controls in order to prove the theory, but in fairness, you have to assume that his research will need to be more detailed than the article on a guitar website, at least 10,000 words more detailed and fully referenced...as would any Thesis.
Would anyone here take a pepsi challange??? I can record a couple of sound clips and you could try to guess the woods? What variables/controls would I need to eliminate to make the challenge fair??? (with the exception of telling you what guitars I use)
(may take a few days to get this together but might be worth attempting)
-
According to him, all we need to do is hear a difference - which is what he says doesn't exist....
-
Well i also agree with you both, and with tim - because i dont think the points are mutually exclusive
but the analogy falls down (sorry Mr Smith) because a pickup is probably the least transparent 'microphone' possible. If it wasn't PRS wouldn't need to offer more than one model of pickup and he could be totally reliant on the construction elements of the guitar to get the sounds people want.
a closer analogy would be to have Babs and paul sing through a dalek voice converter. There will be elements of their own voice that cause differences to the final sound due to the construction differences between Babs and Paul. But there will also be the properties of the non-transparent microphone (dalek voice converter) forcing their imprint on the final sound too
All microphones influence the sound, but they're not blankets Wez ( unlike the Dalek machine! :lol: ). I would say a vintage PAF is reasonably transparent - put one in a Tele neck vs a Les Paul neck and you'll certainly hear a difference.
We seem to read Tim's quote differently. He only mentions sustain, feel and resonance - not voice - so he may well side with the research...
-
I know it was a silly example - but so is pauls. the truth is probably somewhere in the middle
but i dont see how anyone can separate sustain and resonance from tone or voice which is probably why i read tims quote the way i do
Good sustain means you have an efficiently vibrating string which will have an immediate effect on what the pickup sees
Good resonance may mean the wood is absorbing more of the string vibrations, and possibly feeding it back into the pickup affecting tone or just taking it away from the string and filtering out certain frequencies
I have said before that I think its wrong to think of the pickup as an isolated element. most ignore that the pickup is vibrating along with the rest of the guitar (we know this because we know microphonic pickups happen). The pickup gets its vibrations from whatever it is connected to - ultimately the string. but it comes via and is filtered by the bridge/nut/neck/bodywood/pickup ring/screw/springs.
It makes sense to me that a vibrating magnetic field would sense a vibrating string differently to the way a static magnetic field would ??? I think you can hear this when direct mounting pickups- you get a much stronger body vibration straight to the pickup, and it sounds quite different to when the rings and springs are there (which still transmit vibration to the pickup)
-
Yep - I'm with you now Wez :)
-
Yeah, well said, Wez.
I was reading Tim's comment thinking that I couldn't really disagree with any specific thing he said, and yet feeling that I couldn't really agree with the comment as a whole!
-
Way too many issues with his 'research':
1) No details on the guitars and pickups used
2) No details of the machine(s) used to record the "harmonic content"
3) Were the guitars DI'd or played through an amp?
4) No definition of his interpretation of "significant difference"
5) As Roo says, no defined baseline or control for the comparisons
etc
I'd like to see the full paper when it's written, until then he's just giving his opinion. Which I disagree with.
I'd like to read it too. And if I don't see about 60 huge tables and graphs, with F-tests, linear regression and all that jazz to actually prove if there is a significant statistical difference, I'm not going to be impressed! :P
-
I'd like to read it too. And if I don't see about 60 huge tables and graphs, with F-tests, linear regression and all that jazz to actually prove if there is a significant statistical difference, I'm not going to be impressed! :P
If I do see about 60 huge tables and graphs, with F-tests, linear regression and all that jazz to actually prove if there is a significant statistical difference.... then my eyes will glaze over in about 2 seconds and I'll go and read something else. :|
Someone else can summarise for me, hopefully....
-
I'd like to read it too. And if I don't see about 60 huge tables and graphs, with F-tests, linear regression and all that jazz to actually prove if there is a significant statistical difference, I'm not going to be impressed! :P
If I do see about 60 huge tables and graphs, with F-tests, linear regression and all that jazz to actually prove if there is a significant statistical difference.... then my eyes will glaze over in about 2 seconds and I'll go and read something else. :|
Someone else can summarise for me, hopefully....
Fair enough. I'd just be sore over having to sit through statistics lecture, then finding out you can actually make claims without them. If we had to do it, so does he!
-
So would anyone take the pepsi challenge if I record a few basic sound clips...no effects, just clean tone through a tone port ux1 with no amp models selected.
I would record three different electric guitar sound clips clips and you can try to name the wood in either the neck or the body? without telling you the make or model of the guitar obviously... I could tell you the guage string and the pickup brand to reduce the variables... Anything else that would make the test fairer?
-
Experience and the pretty obvious mechanics of it:
Pickups pick up what happens on the string.
What happens on the string is determined by the materials, geometry and construction of the guitar. Its a resonant feedback loop: the string is a very broadband oscillator, the guitar is not. The string forces the guitar to resonate, but it can do so with a very limited spectrum and dynamic envelope compared to the string, so when the guitar resonates and forces the string to do so (the resonant feedback part), it forces the string to take on only vibrational modes and dynamic envelopes that the guitar can support.
Subjectively, I've heard many pickups in many guitars, and any given pickup in my possession has been in at least 2 guitars (probably more), and any guitar in my possession will have had much more than two pickup. Both play a part, both have signature characteristics, guitar and pickup. You start to learn what the pickup will take with it wherever it goes when you've had it in a few guitars, and you hear how the guitar sounds and behaves no matter what pickup is in it. With each combination, I've never heard the exact same sound twice. Every one is unique. The differences can be small, but there are always differences.
More experience, and comment on his video:
Observation 1: disappointingly incoherent and rambling. Not a good sign.
2: the first thing that even resembles an empirical argument: stienberger has saddles with more mass. Just before he said the mass/density of the wood doesnt have an effect. Its extremely well established (in physics, which I suspect he has little to no knowledge of) that a harmonic oscillators mass affects its resonance. A: Make up your mind. B: No, hes wrong.
3: The nut has little, even arguably nothing to do with the behaviour of a fretted note.
4: Sustain is hardly the sole measure of a guitars sonic behaviour. There are LOTS of other variables.
5. The wall is not in the vibration path of the strings. Its not part of the resonant feedback loop with the string. It will be, no doubt, sapping some sustain as it simply has to be sapping some energy out, but he doesnt bother to actually measure anything, let alone in a variable controlled way. This depresses me. I wanted a better fight.
6. Fortunately, cotton and blubber dont resonate readily or transmit vibration well. Qualitatively, low quality and area contact with them cant be expected to have a significant damping influence on the structurally transmitted vibration of the guitars resonance, and so doesnt affect the resonant feedback between the guitar and strings. Put the blubber on the strings, or completely encase the guitar in it
ewwww
Anyway, does this guy have anything else to say...
7. 6000 square foot house is irrelevant. The contact area as a proportion of the guitars surface is relevant.
So,
No. Nothing more to say.
Hes not wrong that the nut and bridge have a significant impact, but this is just a hick that doesnt understand what hes talking about.
I would love to have seen someone do something with some substance and sense to it. Take a few guitars and a few pickups and swap them around with dynamic and spectral analysis of a DI from the guitar. Its easily done. I could do it with all my guitars in a few hours. You would have to control picking strength and choose a wide variety of frequency distributions and modal superpositions (the physics kind, not the musical kind), and you would then, with constant gain on the DI, analyse the decay of the waveform of each sample and the frequency response. With large enough dataset for each guitar-pickup combination, if you saw no measurable difference in the fourier transforms of the DIs, and no difference in dynamic envelope (initial volume and note decay behaviour) then you would have a case.
You would still be able to argue against that case, subject to the resolution of the analysis: human ears are really very good at this stuff already, but you would at least have a starting point.
This in conjunction with a double-blind test and you might actually have a decent case. Or rather, a decent test.
But no. A hick that doesnt understand harmonic oscillators, resonance, vibration transmission or guitars.
In the mean time, until someone can make a case for or against this with some actual $%&#ing evidence, I have ears, and my ears told me the first stuff I said, and still believe.
-
do bare in mind the video on that page in not by the same guy who is doing the research. i think its rather unfair of the site author to link them together like that
-
do bare in mind the video on that page in not by the same guy who is doing the research. i think its rather unfair of the site author to link them together like that
I didnt realise that.
I'd like to see the actual research - did I miss the link?
-
So would anyone take the pepsi challenge if I record a few basic sound clips...no effects, just clean tone through a tone port ux1 with no amp models selected.
I would record three different electric guitar sound clips clips and you can try to name the wood in either the neck or the body? without telling you the make or model of the guitar obviously... I could tell you the guage string and the pickup brand to reduce the variables... Anything else that would make the test fairer?
if its completely different guitars its hard to do objectively - unless you happen to have lots of similar guitars made from different woods.
ideally you want to have the body wood to be the only difference
-
I didnt realise that.
I'd like to see the actual research - did I miss the link?
no, its not done yet. sounds like a BSc dissertation that he is a couple of weeks into with no significant differences found so far
-
Oh well.
You have to wonder how hes going about analysing it. I guess that'll come out when it comes out.
-
I had 3 Gibson SGs up until very recently:
1 x Ebony Neck + Mahogany Body 490/498
1 x Rosewood Neck + Mahogany Body 490/498
1 x Ebony Neck + Swamp Ash Body 496/502
the first two were indistinguishable in my opinion, both lovely... the ebony neck & swamp ash body with the 496/502 was muddy in comparison... My opinion is that it was the pickups and not the swamp ash but I guess that's the core of the grey area we've been discussing... nothing clinical has been produced by either side clearly demonstrating the woods impact...where as BK pickups turn average guitars in to legends ;-)
To add a little comedy to this thread, check this guitar out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SohWrnzYqAk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SohWrnzYqAk)
-
1 x Ebony Neck + Mahogany Body 490/498
1 x Rosewood Neck + Mahogany Body 490/498
1 x Ebony Neck + Swamp Ash Body 496/502
i guess they all have mahogany necks as i dont think gibson have ever done a solid rosewood or ebony neck.
but yeah. if you did a vid with those 3 guitars - putting the same pickups in each one, then we would be removing a lot of variables other than wood. still quite a few left but you cant have everything
-
That guy with the palette guitar just proved what I always thought - neo-classical shred sounds the same no matter what guitar it is played on or who plays it 8)
-
Sorry, meant ebony & rosewood fret boards... but yeah, I can honestly say that from what i heard, the ebony fret-board while nicer to play on makes no difference to the tone of the SG compared to the rosewood fret board and I did listen...but when I put a set of BKs in one it made a big difference... You may have to take my word on that as my Silverburst SG now has a mule and riff raff...and I sold my Voodoo SG because of the muddy pickups.
-
I have to be honest, as many said before here themselfs, I personally think this is BS. Woods have a large effect.
I also second the longing for a more scientific study with all the things asked for here before, because even though I am sure it would not prove woods to be useless, it might still yield some interresting results.
Also MDV: Great post! I would actually like YOU to do a small study on this, we might all learn something.
Then something which has not been said yet (thoug the metal compared to rubber body pretty much did, though in a less realistic way): Let us set aside how a LP with or without a maple top sounds in comparison, or even a LP to a strat. Acording to the claims we hear here a all mahahony LP will sounds the same as an all maple hollowbody (say something like a ES175) when the hardware, strings and PUs are the same and in the same position.
Even if I had a really open mind about this I would find that hard to believe.
-
Even if I had a really open mind about this I would find that hard to believe.
Yep, same here.
And GREAT post MDV :D
And I'm real glad Tim, Wez, and Twinfan are all in agreement now - my guitar world was coming apart there for a moment! :lol:
-
I think what's happened is that the electric guitar evolved from an acoustic instrument that depended purely on the body/neck material for its tone, and a myth evolved that electric guitars depend just as much on the wood...but the wood may be the least important element of an electric guitar...
Wood is certainly less important to the electric sound than intonation, tuning, pickups, working electrics, action... I'm beginning to believe that wood and body shape only play a part in the physical feel, shape, balance, weight and look of a guitar... (all important considerations when buying a guitar but not in terms of tone).
I think the lack of published research to date is shocking when you think about it...After almost a century of electric guitars, no one has proved beyond doubt that the wood makes a significant difference to tone, and instead the topic is left to speculation on a pickup forum...after almost 100 years of design and research, we are left putting forward personal impact statements.
Why dont Gibson/Fender have a page that shows "click here for mahogany tone with X pickup" "click here for basswood tone with X pickup"? etc... Pickup manufacturers like BK are able to produce distinguishable sound clips.
Taking out all speculation, we have zero evidence that wood makes a difference to tone of an electric guitar, just allot of people believing in the wood god.
I think buying a guitar is like buying a piece of art that also serves a practical function, and we tell ourselves that somehow the beauty of the instrument transcends the more modern elements.
-
I think the lack of published research to date is shocking when you think about it...After almost a century of electric guitars, no one has proved beyond doubt that the wood makes a significant difference to tone, and instead the topic is left to speculation on a pickup forum...after almost 100 years of design and research, we are left putting forward personal impact statements.
Taking out all speculation, we have zero evidence that wood makes a difference to tone of an electric guitar, just allot of people believing in the wood god.
most of us dont need the research to know wood makes a difference. Not saying it wouldnt be interesting to see more definitive proof. But i dont need research finding to tell me the sky is blue either, i experience it everyday
personal experiences is enough evidence for most of us - so i dont find it shocking that nobody has felt the need to research it properly. but i am sure we all also except this is not objective proof of aything
but if proper research was to be done you need a way to change teh structure of the body without changing anything else at all - not even retunign if you can get away with it. If someone buys me a tufnell birdfish i will set up a proper experiment on how the different wood blocks affect its tone
Why dont Gibson/Fender have a page that shows "click here for mahogany tone with X pickup" "click here for basswood tone with X pickup"?
because then you would complain when your mahogany bodied guitar sounded different to the clips. If you accept wood makes a difference, which most of us do. You also have to accept its a natural and incredibly variable resource. not all pieces of mahogany will sound the same, but their is a tonal range where most mahogany fits into, and this can actually overlap with the tonal range something like swamp ash fits into. You just cant make specific tonal claims when talking about the tone of certain woods because it can vary so much
-
i think one of the best examples to refute this is the "les Paul buying trip". i know that i personally sat in one single shop, with a Marshall combo and a tuner, and went through half a dozen Les Paul standards, all with the same woods and pickups, some were even the same colour! the only difference was that some had a '50s neck, and some a '60s. every guitar sounded different, usually just a slight difference, but a couple quite dramatically so.
i do feel that a pickup gives it's own distinct voice to a guitar, but i think the wood gives that voice it's timbre (no pun intended) and tone. a low output pickup in a Les Paul will have a girth and thump to it that the same pickup will not have in a Strat. i've found myself that fretboard wood seems to have the greatest single influence, followed by how big the neck is, and maybe then how thick the finish is.
-
Taking out all speculation, we have zero evidence that wood makes a difference to tone of an electric guitar, just allot of people believing in the wood god.
I don't need evidence of the wood making a difference in tone. Or evidence that this day is (lightwise) darker than yesterday :) I hear it and I see it.
EDIT: I was sloooooow.
-Zaned
-
I just think the conclusion that because an electric guitar does not have a significant air resonance (as an acoustic guitar has)its woods are neutral to the tone is flawed, unless conclusive proof to the contrary is presented. Guitar wood, hardware and construction all affect string movement, the absorption or non-absorption of specific frequency bands, the attack and the sustain. This string movement is then picked up by the pickup (no pun intended but accepted) which turns it into an electric voltage signal which is then further amplified.
One thing has not been discussed yet - unless I missed it. The electric guitar is only part of the instrument. The other part is the amplifier. The amplified sound waves get back to the guitar and strings, and you will find that different guitars react vastly different to such soundwaves. Take e.g. a guitar made of very dense and heavy wood. It will not nearly be affected as much by the amplified sound as a guitar made of light and resonant wood. This is confirmed by my personal experience, noting that some guitars feed back easier than others - even with the same pickups in them.
I must say though it speaks for the forum members here on this board that the discussion - which could easily turn into ugly emotional rants - stays civil and focussed.
Cheers Stephan
-
Guitar wood, hardware and construction all affect string movement, the absorption or non-absorption of specific frequency bands, the attack and the sustain. This string movement is then picked up by the pickup (no pun intended but accepted) which turns it into an electric voltage signal which is then further amplified.
That pretty much summarizes the electric guitar tone production in an easy to read form :) MDV's post was excellent, but some readers might not get through it alive, no offense though :lol:
A fun video giving audible differences between maple/rosewood fretboard material. Rosewood vs Мaple (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQffNqkx-mM#)
Identical electronics.
-
I must say though it speaks for the forum members here on this board that the discussion - which could easily turn into ugly emotional rants - stays civil and focussed.
Cheers Stephan
Agree with that :-) which is why I feel comfortable saying that this seems like the God debate to me...Its like you 'don't need any evidence' to believe in something, but unless someone comes along with irrefutable scientific test based evidence gained under in extremely controlled conditions which you have personally supervised, it wont be good enough...like this dude is the first person I've heard of attempting to measure the woods effect on guitar tone and the believers out there are already to stone him.
Are you guys saying that you don't think any big corp like Gibson have looked for scientific evidence under ideal conditions?
Or are you saying research was probably done but didn't come up with anything that would help sell more of their guitars...
Because if I was in the guitar making business and I could scientifically prove that a mahogany/ebony combo beats a agathis/plywood combo hands down I would be publishing that research and influencing people to buy my quality instruments rather than leaving it open to debate. :-)
That video of Maple Vs Rosewood is ok but newer strings or pickup height could easily account for the slight tonal differences.... but based on that sound clip I'd go with the cream strat as personal preference.
-
I think what's happened is that the electric guitar evolved from an acoustic instrument that depended purely on the body/neck material for its tone, and a myth evolved that electric guitars depend just as much on the wood...but the wood may be the least important element of an electric guitar...
Wood is certainly less important to the electric sound than intonation, tuning, pickups, working electrics, action... I'm beginning to believe that wood and body shape only play a part in the physical feel, shape, balance, weight and look of a guitar... (all important considerations when buying a guitar but not in terms of tone).
I think the lack of published research to date is shocking when you think about it...After almost a century of electric guitars, no one has proved beyond doubt that the wood makes a significant difference to tone, and instead the topic is left to speculation on a pickup forum...after almost 100 years of design and research, we are left putting forward personal impact statements.
Why dont Gibson/Fender have a page that shows "click here for mahogany tone with X pickup" "click here for basswood tone with X pickup"? etc... Pickup manufacturers like BK are able to produce distinguishable sound clips.
Taking out all speculation, we have zero evidence that wood makes a difference to tone of an electric guitar, just allot of people believing in the wood god.
I think buying a guitar is like buying a piece of art that also serves a practical function, and we tell ourselves that somehow the beauty of the instrument transcends the more modern elements.
I disagree hugely - the wood makes a big difference, but so does the hardware, the pickups, string gauge and type, scale length, construction style etc.
Acoustically guitars are a SUBTRACTIVE instrument
The wood absorbs part of the frequency spectrum based on it's own resonant characteristics.
What is left after the wood takes certain frequencies out is what you get to hear
Two pieces of the same species of wood can react differently, so it is hard to exactly say wood A will always sound like this and wood B will sound like that
Of course the hardware can play a part in that through it's own inefficiency too.
This is what many players call the character of the guitar, and the choice of pickup can be made that will add to the frequency filtering to give the desired effect
Carbon fibre guitars like the Steinberger tend to not cancel many frequencies as the resonant frequency of the composite is outside the audible range.
This means that you get to hear the full frequency range of the strings, with much less subtracted from the original sound.
A combination of that and the use of the original EMG - H humbucker which sounded more like a wide frequency response single coil resulted in a sound that some players referred to as sterile (whilst a more accurate term was probably uncoloured)
To say that the wood plays no part is a real wrong step, but I agree that a lot of other factors play their part too.
-
like this dude is the first person I've heard of attempting to measure the woods effect on guitar tone and the believers out there are already to stone him.
Anybody who does any kind of research has to be prepared for their work to be torn apart by others. That is as much part of the scientific process as the study itself. it serves an important purpose to ensure the findings of the research are both reliable and valid. Cant make any conclusions without that and i would expect the researcher to point out most of the things we have done, and hopefully show how they have eliminated them as variables its just how good science is done
I think gibson will have researched it, they have certainly tried alternative materials over the years. But i bet they spend more time researching 'what people want' than they do looking into 'what sounds best'. But talking about good science again, would you trust gibson to take a value-free approach to studying this issue?
anyway, I dont think he is the first person to study it but like others that have he seems to have some fundamental issues with his approach - too many uncontrolled variables
now i have never done an objective scientific study into it because i understand what a massive undertaking that would be to do properly - but i have made guitars from more types of wood than most people have ever played and i have also swapped pickups many times on many different instruments and this real life experience tells me the wood makes a difference. its not like a religious belief based purely on faith, its a practical belief based on experience
-
Anybody who does any kind of research has to be prepared for their work to be torn apart by others. That is as much part of the scientific process as the study itself. it serves an important purpose to ensure the findings of the research are both reliable and valid. Cant make any conclusions without that...
This is part of my point: according to you he cant make any conclusions without scientific study but the Wood side can make claims without any scientific conclusions... which is fine so long as you acknowledge that for the moment, without scientific study, your view remains opinion, and not fact.
-
which is fine so long as you acknowledge that for the moment, without scientific study, your view remains opinion, and not fact.
i do recognise my opinions as just that - but its a strong opinions based on experience. OK, that is not as strong as a conclusion based on scientific testing - but probably the next best thing.
also, be careful using woods like 'proven' or 'fact' around scientifically minded people. The good thing about proper science is it allows room for itself to be wrong. proof and truth are not the same thing. scientists present evidence to support hypothesis and make conclusions based on this, they allow room for later evidence which may alter those conclusions. They always work on the best possible theory with the evidence currently available.
No our observations are not very scientific. But they are the best evidence currently available, and support the theory that the materials used to make a guitar will affect the way it sounds
-
You make a fair point Davey, in that we have no conclusive scientific proof of either view.
What we're objecting to is that his own scientific research is flawed, and that it cannot be used to prove his assumption categorically. I would like to read his final findings when they're written up.
EDIT: beaten to it by Wez :)
-
This is getting silly.
Without giving the details of his study then what this guy is on about is pretty much his own opinion too.
I've had two les paul type guitars. Same timbers, slightly different hardware. Same scale length etc and I had nailbombs in both and i measure pickup height and adjustable pole height on both and set them up identically. Not only did they both feel different to play (not neck shape and playability but the feel of the string vibrating under the fingers) but they also sounded noticeably different. Same again with a nailbomb in an ash bodied maple necked strat and again with a nailbomb in a mahogany body maple neck rosewood board prs.
Also... this discussion about what is 'best' is also nonsense. I know what I prefer from all the guitars I've played. I know if I pick up a guitar and I have an idea of what woods it's made of then I have a good idea what the chances of me liking the sound will be. Other people might prefer alder bodies or basswood and think one or the other is 'better'. As has been said, there are so many variables in all kinds of bits of wood (probably even from within the same tree) that it's hard to suggest anything is better just based on it's list of timbers. I mean, does a £30,000 guitar made of rare woods sound £30,000 'better' than a guitar made of common materials? I kind of doubt it but I'll concede it would probably sound different.
I don't mind the guy doing the test and it's vaguely interesting but again, my personal experience says leads me to argue what is being suggested. I also believe water is wet. I haven't done a scientific test to prove this, but experience tells me it is.
-
Anybody who does any kind of research has to be prepared for their work to be torn apart by others. That is as much part of the scientific process as the study itself. it serves an important purpose to ensure the findings of the research are both reliable and valid. Cant make any conclusions without that...
This is part of my point: according to you he cant make any conclusions without scientific study but the Wood side can make claims without any scientific conclusions... which is fine so long as you acknowledge that for the moment, without scientific study, your view remains opinion, and not fact.
I think he will be with you on, I for one am, but the thing is that "woods make a difference" is the exepted law of the land kind of thing. It is widely exepted as fact and it will remain as (the as is important here) fact until disproven (our understanding of gravity is no fact but rather a threory too). Now supporters could cement this fact with research, but it is mainly up to the other crowd to disprove.
The supporters need to keep an open mind though, even if initial doubt is of course very acceptable and questions like the ones raised in this thread are, as said, essential to the scientific process, ensuring that a conclusive result is produced.
-
I am not adverse to questioning the accepted viewpoint.
see the recent discussion on tone capacitors in the tech section
-
I don't think there's a "sounds best" or "beats hands down" anyway.
It's all personal preference. In some cases, lots of people share the same preference, but it's still personal preference.
And those preferences will have been formed by a whole load of factors. Some of them might have been based on misconceptions, but it doesn't matter, they're still preferences.
And if a load of folks all have the same preference, and the material is rare, then the material is worth more.
EDIT: Ah, Dmoney was banging the same drum just before me :D
I've still not read the article or even followed the link - but as long as it's what's needed to get him his BSc or whatever, then fine. Otherwise, he's kind of wasting his time. If he does do a thorough job, he'll probably find vague indicators that point to supporting what many have "known" for years and years from practical experience. If he doesn't (especially if he's starting his work with a preferred conclusion - don't know whether that's the case), then he'll come up with some vague indicators that the whole world is wrong, some will listen to him, some will argue with him, most won't give a monkey's :lol:
EDIT: Love the gravity analogy.... nearly all facts we have are theories based on observation, theories that have yet to be proved wrong. I can't even prove to myself that I'm really here!
-
Taking out all speculation, we have zero evidence that wood makes a difference to tone of an electric guitar, just allot of people believing in the wood god.
There's not zero evidence, there's the evidence of our ears! The implication of this is that we're all idiots.
I feel comfortable saying that this seems like the God debate to me...Its like you 'don't need any evidence' to believe in something, but unless someone comes along with irrefutable scientific test based evidence gained under in extremely controlled conditions which you have personally supervised, it wont be good enough...like this dude is the first person I've heard of attempting to measure the woods effect on guitar tone and the believers out there are already to stone him.
If you're going to start about "God debates", implying we have nothing but "faith", then I'd say we're more in the position of Doubting Thomas (on the assumption that such a person ever existed) - he may not have had the benefit of endless scientific studies but it wasn't just faith, he had the evidence of his eyes and he got to touch the wounds!
-
Didn't Les Paul do some experiments with materials and construction? Like attaching a string to a section of railway track?
-
Didn't Les Paul do some experiments with materials and construction? Like attaching a string to a section of railway track?
I think that's how he originally formulated his ideas about solidbody guitars.
Then he made "The Log" which was basically a prototype neck-through, a single chunk of wood with strings, a bridge and a pickup, with "wings" attached to the sides to make it look more guitar-shaped.
-
Surely Philly Q has enough parts under his bed that combined with MDV's scientific knowledge could produce a very controlled test for this, ie get 3 or 4 strat bodies and swap a strat neck and pickups between all guitar bodies, could even swap the hardware, even better might be to try 3 different necks on the same body
-
I could certainly do different necks on the same body! Not much variety with body woods though, they're nearly all swamp ash (although some are solid and some are hollow or chambered).
-
The implication is not that you are all idiots, the implication is that you have a belief about the significance of the woods influence on a guitars tone that has not been proven and remains in the realm of speculation...a rigid belief that, when challenged, raises your defenses so much that you perceive a piece of what looks like a 'degree standard of unbiased research' as a threat which you attempt to undermine for its potential flaws rather than openly accept that the results may be valid... We all hear differently which is why simply telling people you've heard a difference between tone woods can not stand up as evidence, the same way another person simply telling people he hasn't heard a difference in tone woods will not stand up as evidence.
If this chap is doing his Thesis then he will have to define "tone" and the way in which tone is measured based on clear definitions from previous studies, including interviews with guitar players, and his tests will have to include the necessary controls and approach to stand up as proper research in the field. He cant just throw a Thesis together...(((I know because I'm right in the middle of doing a thesis on "Music Therapy" and every sentence I right has to be referenced to a previously published book or article so that none of my opinion spills in to the thesis)))
@ Philly Q - I would like to hear different necks on the same body with same strings, same pickups and totally clean amp settings, not even verb :-) but not if its hassle for you... cheers
-
@ Philly Q - I would like to hear different necks on the same body with same strings, same pickups and totally clean amp settings, not even verb :-) but not if its hassle for you... cheers
It would be massive hassle I'm afraid, as anyone who knows me will testify.... :lol:
Joking apart, even if I could get round to building these guitars and swapping necks etc, I have no way of recording the results (actually I do have - uninstalled - recording software, I think, but absolutely no idea how to use it)
-
Why would you even want to hear it through a clean amp? The amp is doing a lot of colouring.
When I swapped the trem block in my charvel from the little one to a large brass one I made a recording of the guitar directly into garageband totally dry. No amp, No FX. I could hear the difference between the two trem block by playing the recordings back to back. I even posted the results on here (not that I can find them right now dammit) and as I recall other people could hear a difference also, and that was from just swapping the block.
I wonder where those files went. You'd probably be interested in hearing those.
-
The implication is not that you are all idiots, the implication is that you have a belief about the significance of the woods influence on a guitars tone that has not been proven and remains in the realm of speculation...a rigid belief that, when challenged, raises your defenses so much that you perceive a piece of what looks like a 'degree standard of unbiased research' as a threat which you attempt to undermine for its potential flaws rather than openly accept that the results may be valid..
Well, I don't feel threatened at all by this study. Nor the results :)
But it does feel somewhat like this: you go see a movie and really like it. Then someone asks you whether you liked it or not. You answer that you liked it very much, yes. Then he enquires that to prove that to him and to yourself, you would have to somehow measure your hormone levels (or whatever) to actually have evidence that you liked it. Otherwise you might not have liked it, you just imagined so.
Sort of funny, a bit frustrating maybe. But threatening..no. Setting aside beliefs, there's real scientific knowledge on what makes an (electric) guitar sound the way it does. Feline's and MDV's posts as prime examples.
What IS frustrating, is the guy on the video. He really doesn't know what he's talking about. For example, he's claiming that fretboard material doesn't make a difference, and bases his claims on the fact that the fingers don't even touch the fretboard, we should hear abalone on the next fret and blabla..well, maybe if they gave him a guitar with the fretboard made of hard rubber, he would notice that it does. And after long consideration, realize that it's not about the finger touching or not touching the fretboard, it's about what kind of material the fret is seated on.
-Zaned
-
I have said before that I think its wrong to think of the pickup as an isolated element. most ignore that the pickup is vibrating along with the rest of the guitar (we know this because we know microphonic pickups happen). The pickup gets its vibrations from whatever it is connected to - ultimately the string. but it comes via and is filtered by the bridge/nut/neck/bodywood/pickup ring/screw/springs.
It makes sense to me that a vibrating magnetic field would sense a vibrating string differently to the way a static magnetic field would ??? I think you can hear this when direct mounting pickups- you get a much stronger body vibration straight to the pickup, and it sounds quite different to when the rings and springs are there (which still transmit vibration to the pickup)
Seems pretty logical to me. Would it be possible to mount the pickup under the strings without it being connected to the body? A comparison of that with the same pickup mounted in the body, same distance from the strings of course, would give you the differences between a vibrating pickup and a stationary one. If there is a difference then the vibrations in the body of the guitar would be the culprit? Different materials will vibrate differently, hence body material would play a part if this is the case...
-
OK, just read the article...
"He wanted to find out why manufacturers and sellers are charging more for guitars made of "rare" woods."
He could have used his bluddy brain to figure that one out.
They are charging more for "rare" woods because "rare" wood costs more... duh!
This reported research will not even answer the question as stated in the article!!!
Pillock... (or the guy reporting it - it sounds to me that it's possibly the author of the article who's at fault here... let the poor guy do his paper, get his degree, etc)
As a guitarist, I would find the following research far more useful:
Two strats, both alder body, maple neck, rosewood board, both have had the same pickups at some point or other.
One of them I struggle to get enough top end out of it (I originally bought it because it has a nice rounded sound - but I don't always want that, I sometimes want more bite).
The other one sings like a bar-steward, cuts and bites and snarls, warbles and whispers. How do I get strat one to do that? Pickups don't do it, it's had five different sets in it. Bridge doesn't do it - changes of bridge did not change much, and they both have bridges made of the same guff now.
I'm left with three possible (drastic) changes:
Change frets
Change neck
Change body
Would be nice to know which bit to throw away, wouldn't it?
Funnily enough, play the two acoustically, not plugged in at all, and strat one sounds warm and round, not much bite. Strat two sounds bright, bouncy and cutting... and that's exactly what comes out when you plug the buggers in!! And messing with the electrics (including lots of lovely BKPs) DOES NOT CHANGE THIS DIFFERENCE between the two that I have been known to struggle with over the years. Yes, changing pickups does change the character of the individual guitar - but NOT enough to close the gap between the two guitars, never has... (much to my bitter disappointment a few years back)
I am prepared to believe it's the frets, not the woods. But that's going to be an expensive experiment that I can't afford at the moment. The bottom line, though, is I'm not prepared to change the neck or body - to me, it wouldn't be the same guitar any more.
BUT - I don't really care nowadays. I just accept them as they are and use them to their strengths... Although strat one can't do strat two, I've also realised that strat two can't do strat one. I actually want both sounds, I've just accepted I can't get both from the same guitar. I just have to make sure I'm wearing the right one. To use the wonderful analogy from earlier, when you want Paul Rodgers on a track, you wouldn't book Babs for the session, would you?
Of course, it could be the guitar straps. The mellow one has a leather strap, and the bright one a webbing strap.
I'm with Wez and others - every single bit of the system affects what comes out of it. I strongly suspect that this chap is going to do fine work and get his degree. But I also suspect he won't have access to sensitive enough equipment and controlled enough environments to be able to measure some of the variables. My suspicion is that he won't have enough data to be able to make any claims one way or the other - certainly not strong enough claims to be able to bash any guitar manufacturers (like it felt to me the author of the article wants to be able to do).
-
I could certainly do different necks on the same body! Not much variety with body woods though, they're nearly all swamp ash (although some are solid and some are hollow or chambered).
I am rather fond of a nice bit of swamp ash, from what read (somewhere on the internet) the consistency of swamp ash is more varied than other woods although if I were to perform such a test I'd want some a cheap nasty basswood body to compare against a nice swamp ash body with maple top ala alot of custom shop guitars then I'd throw in an alder body for it's popularity and a cement body as a control
-
The implication is not that you are all idiots, the implication is that you have a belief about the significance of the woods influence on a guitars tone that has not been proven and remains in the realm of speculation... a rigid belief that, when challenged, raises your defenses so much that you perceive a piece of what looks like a 'degree standard of unbiased research'
(snip)
He didn't use his ears, he used scientific equipment so he could show fact based evidence rather than opinion
This is a highly charged topic because we've all been taught from an early age to believe that woods have a huge effect on the tone of our Electric instruments...but has anyone seen real testable evidence proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt?
Davey, sorry to have to say so but I think you're a troll - and this will be my very last contribution to this "discussion", since almost all the sensible arguments have no other effect than you coming back talking about "science", "evidence", "belief", "emotional charge", "being taught", "defense" etc - IOW seeking an emotional reaction. Hopefully this place lives up to it's reputation of a true gentlemen's club.
I suggest you try the same troll on TGP - and if you do please PM me so I can have fun too :mrgreen:
Of course, it could be the guitar straps. The mellow one has a leather strap, and the bright one a webbing strap.
And this has to be, as far as I'm concerned, the definitive answer - Thanks Mr Twinfan 8)
-
C'mon now BigB... You talk about sensible arguments and then call me a troll because I want to see some scientific evidence that proves wood has an effect on the tone, something that's worth paying extra money for.
I find it frustrating that there is none when its needed. For my two cents (based on 18 years playing, gigging and recording using electric guitars) I know that pickups, strings and amp are the key to good tone. If the wood has any effect it is virtually redundant, and varies so much from tree to tree that describing a guitar based on the type of wood used is no use to anyone because you cant really tell how much or how little it affects the rest of the guitar...
No trolling on my part, just a search for hard evidence and complete shock that none exists.
-
BigB - that was Andy R, not me!
Andy R - I think you should try a whole new/different neck on Strat #1. Frets will make little difference, same for a different body of the same wood, so the free vibrating neck would be my first thing to replace.
-
C'mon now BigB... You talk about sensible arguments and then call me a troll because I want to see some scientific evidence that proves wood has an effect on the tone, something that's worth paying extra money for.
As with many others here, I dont need scientific evidence for everything I think.
Theres enough cumulation of experience, both in general and in many cases (including mine) personally, that its redundant. I'm hardly opposed to an inquiry, but my first instinct if some actual supportive data came out would be to challenge it, as I think its wrong. I'd look for why. Thats a scientifically sensible thing to do. Just because data exists to support a hypothesis, doesnt mean that hypothesis is proved. They are extremely different propositions. Hell, just because theres data, doesnt even mean the data is right. And this hypothesis at the moment is nothing more than idle speculation and a little hype. 'Me and some mates had a look at it and we thought, based on a quick glance, with just our eyes, that they wasnt any difference'. ho ho $%&#ing ho. You seem very eager to cling to scientific evidence...okey dokey, fine, but that kind of cr@p aint it, and until the actual data is out, thats all it is. Supposition, and the reports, such that they are, are as subjective as anything can be.
My second instinct would be to attempt reproduction of the results, and then if promising with improvement of the methodology. Science doesnt take one answer as good enough. The answer has to be repeated, time and again.
Sorry but if youre going to hold on to 'no scientific evidence' as a crutch for your objection, then I fear you dont really know what that entails.
Meanwhile, the fact of the matter is human hearing is more complex and sophisticated than most analytical methods have been able to catch up with (theres plenty of data to support that). Its very possible that a rigid empirical analysis would fail to capture something that ears can identify effortlessly. OTOH, there are the myriad pitfalls of psychoacoustics (again, lots of data), so a serious attempt at analysis of the impact of woods should be given some credence; there is a vaguely plausible mechanism for our collective delusion. As ever, we could all be wrong, but its highly unlikely in my view.
And all this is utterly redundant until theres some real data to inspect. That is also just a starting point for someone else to see if they get the same answers, if we're actually being scientific ;)
And as to 'worth paying extra for'....huh? That, a fourier transform can never decide for you, and that is sort of the point. You go for what you like, end of.
-
I find it frustrating that there is none when its needed. For my two cents (based on 18 years playing, gigging and recording using electric guitars) I know that pickups, strings and amp are the key to good tone. If the wood has any effect it is virtually redundant, and varies so much from tree to tree that describing a guitar based on the type of wood used is no use to anyone because you cant really tell how much or how little it affects the rest of the guitar...
Is it needed?
If provided wouldn't it upset you that you've been completely confused for over 18 years playing, gigging and recording using electric guitars?
Maybe none of this is real and we are brains in jars?
Is this topic an eleborate Turing test?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvB5dQHvRSc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvB5dQHvRSc)
-
C'mon now BigB... You talk about sensible arguments and then call me a troll because I want to see some scientific evidence that proves wood has an effect on the tone, something that's worth paying extra money for.
I find it frustrating that there is none when its needed. For my two cents (based on 18 years playing, gigging and recording using electric guitars) I know that pickups, strings and amp are the key to good tone. If the wood has any effect it is virtually redundant, and varies so much from tree to tree that describing a guitar based on the type of wood used is no use to anyone because you cant really tell how much or how little it affects the rest of the guitar...
No trolling on my part, just a search for hard evidence and complete shock that none exists.
Still the 'if'. Maybe you have mentioned it and it has escaped my eyes, but are you searching the measured scientific info to somehow respond to this guys research, or are you searching for it to have it tell you whether the woods make a difference?
If the latter answer is the correct one (or are they both?), then maybe after 18 years of playing just trust you ears. If your ears don't tell a difference when all the other electronics are the same, then good for you. You'll save money as all you need is to find cheap guitars with good playability and maybe upgrade some parts :) Or better, buy used and someone already has done that.
I don't need that evidence. I have fought with guitars enough trying to get them to sound the way I have wanted them, it's irrelevant to me whether someone does a scientific study about the woods effect on electric guitars tone. I already know it has. And it isn't believing in myths, or wood god or anything like that. It's believing my ears, simple as that :)
You're right, it's hard to know exactly what a guitar will sound like, just based on the specs. E.g. an alder+maple+rosewood strat can be many things. Like has been said, there is a certain box that it pretty much stays in, but still the tone varies. Might have a spanky top, might not, etc. If you order pickups for a guitar you don't yet have, it's always a bit risky. Me and my brother both ordered strats (bit different wood specs) from the same custom guitar company. On the bridge of his strat, a Nailbomb works beautifully. On mine, it didn't. Aggressive edge on the top that grew to irritate me, now the guitar has a Holy Diver.
EDIT: I was again slooooow.
-Zaned
-
I agree with MDV here.
Just saying, I'm heavily atheist, so I would almost always back David's mindset but in my opinion he is using it in the wrong context.
This is not a case of 'wanting to believe' that wood effects the tone, I sure that everyone would be happy if all woods didn't effect the tone when plugged in because its save them a lot of money.
The point is that we can hear a difference and, most importantly, feel a difference and MDV has already given a very good reasoning.
The difference between my brother's MIM Strat with across wood board and my friends MIM Strat with a Maple fretboard is night and day... And that's with the stock pickups.
Furthermore, this study does not seem to have been carried out accurately and seems more like the sort of experiment that you'd do on a rainy Saturday morning with your mates.
Sorry, but this is hardly comparable with a religious debate and has very little to do with belief.
-
anyway, who says theses wood used by the electric guitar companies are expensive - I have just been given enough mahogany for at least 2 guitars for free. That is actually 6 guitars worth of free mahogany for me in the last year and one blank i paid for because i needed a cut one quickly. all reclaimed (even the one i paid for), all at least 30 years old and most likely honduran.
i will keep using it because its there, it works well and i can sleep well at night ;)
-
C'mon now BigB... You talk about sensible arguments and then call me a troll because I want to see some scientific evidence that proves wood has an effect on the tone, something that's worth paying extra money for.
As with many others here, I dont need scientific evidence for everything I think.
Hooray! Well said, MDV.
We're talking about musical instruments here. Musical instruments, not scientific instruments. Why all this insistence on hard evidence?
Instead of all this talk about different instruments, different timbers, supposedly being the same, try a different test:
Go and pick up five guitars which are supposed to be exactly the same. Five new Strats, five new Les Pauls. The hardware will be the same, the pickups will be the same (or near as dammit), the variable thing will be the wood - because wood is not consistent. That's the beauty of it. Now play those five new guitars - will they sound exactly the same? You know they won't.
Evidence schmevidence.
-
As they say in Finland... "Ribs is Ribs"
I'm just hear to break it down for y'all.
-
OK, Ok ok :-) so I'll stop being devils advocate and admit that I too believe that the woods has some effect on tone... I think my swamp ash gibson SG voodoo was a muddy slug when compared to my Silberburst or my natural burst, even with an ebony fretboard...although the voodoo was 10% lighter...I also think the hotter gibson pickups played a part in the muddy sound...the cleans really didn't cut it.
Also big respect to everyone here for not getting agro, in fairness it shows that people are considering their responses...
I do think more research is needed because knowing more about wood, would mean that guitar manufacturers could continue to improve the tones, or at least improve the accuracy of the type of guitar tones they are aiming to produce.
-
so the free vibrating neck would be my first thing to replace.
Who is giving away FREE vibrating necks? :lol:
-
OK, Ok ok :-) so I'll stop being devils advocate and admit that I too believe that the woods has some effect on tone... I think my swamp ash gibson SG voodoo was a muddy slug when compared to my Silberburst or my natural burst, even with an ebony fretboard...although the voodoo was 10% lighter...I also think the hotter gibson pickups played a part in the muddy sound...the cleans really didn't cut it.
Also big respect to everyone here for not getting agro, in fairness it shows that people are considering their responses...
I do think more research is needed because knowing more about wood, would mean that guitar manufacturers could continue to improve the tones, or at least improve the accuracy of the type of guitar tones they are aiming to produce.
Are you saying that because it's what you truly believe, or are you just saying that so people get off your case? If it is what you believe, why lead us on for 7 pages that you don't believe it anymore? I don't think anyone's intent on this forum is to shoot people down, forums are a place of opinion and you have an opinion. No need to go back and forth :D
Like Philly said, music is much different than science. I don't need a guy in a labcoat and goggles telling me that this guitar sounds better than that. I'll leave that to all the forumites out there!
-
BigB - that was Andy R, not me!
Andy R - I think you should try a whole new/different neck on Strat #1. Frets will make little difference, same for a different body of the same wood, so the free vibrating neck would be my first thing to replace.
:lol: Yep, I thought that as I was reading - hey that was me! I was quite proud of that one...
And I think you're right, if I ever was to do anything about it, my belief is that it will be the neck that changes things most (when I stripped the lacquer off the back of it a few years back, that had an amazing - and very surprising - effect, I wasn't expecting that to happen, I stripped it just for feel, but it did give me a little bit more top). I probably won't replace it though because I rather like it (and it's a guitar the missus bought me).
so the free vibrating neck would be my first thing to replace.
Who is giving away FREE vibrating necks? :lol:
YOU, hopefully, if I did decide to replace it! :lol:
I might be talking to you about refretting the existing one soon, though (again, for feel rather than anything else - I've pretty much grown to appreciate and love the rounder tone of this one anyway).
-
Are you saying that because it's what you truly believe, or are you just saying that so people get off your case? If it is what you believe, why lead us on for 7 pages that you don't believe it anymore?
I believe the wood makes a difference but that the difference is difficult to measure, unlike pickups or an amp or effects where there is a massive difference...and with heavier modern music the tone produced is probably 95% amp/pickup/effects and maybe 5% wood so that 5% is probably something we can live without...especially when we're talking about live sound and random PAs and their EQ. I also believe that most woods overlap in terms of the tone they can offer so what sounds like mahogany could be agathis or something else... and because of that overlap, considering a guitars wood when buying comes down to other factors such as feel (like smooth ebony fretboards vs rougher rosewood for example) and the look of the wood grain.
-
I saw some research a while back that claimed to prove that wood did in fact have an effect on tone.
Someone had done 2 sets of measurements with otherwise identical guitars - I think they were Teles, one with an ash body and one with alder.
There were some graphs (might have been fourier transforms, or whatever) that showed that while the basic waveforms produced by both guitars were the same (as you would expect, as they were both playing the same notes,) the detail in the small jaggedy bits of the waves were different.
This was used to "prove" that ash sounds like this, while alder sounds like something else. Of course it didn't really prove anything because with only one example of each wood it's impossible to say that all alder bodies would have the same kind of effect - they could have got similar results by using two different alder bodies or two different ash bodies.
All I can say from personal experience is that changing the material components of an electric guitar does alter the sound - though I only have direct experience of changing bridges and saddles as I don't have a whole load of different bodies and necks lying around.
As for making guitars I have to agree with those who say there is no "better" or "worse," only different. I have a plywood guitar that I love the sound of and I'm sure a lot of people have got great tones from Danelectros made from some kind of composite.
-
Are you saying that because it's what you truly believe, or are you just saying that so people get off your case? If it is what you believe, why lead us on for 7 pages that you don't believe it anymore?
I believe the wood makes a difference but that the difference is difficult to measure, unlike pickups or an amp or effects where there is a massive difference...and with heavier modern music the tone produced is probably 95% amp/pickup/effects and maybe 5% wood so that 5% is probably something we can live without...especially when we're talking about live sound and random PAs and their EQ. I also believe that most woods overlap in terms of the tone they can offer so what sounds like mahogany could be agathis or something else... and because of that overlap, considering a guitars wood when buying comes down to other factors such as feel (like smooth ebony fretboards vs rougher rosewood for example) and the look of the wood grain.
Yep, the more distortion you add, the more compressed the sound becomes and the less difference you hear between guitars. And when changing playing touch. What you have left eventually is the voice of the amp, heavily on top of the masked personality of the guitar.
That's why I tend to use only the amount of distortion that I feel I need, and have lately gravitated towards lower output pickups. They have a dynamic and woody tone, and allow (to my ears) more of the guitars own tone through. And I play hard rock most of the time, with bluesy stuff thrown in. That 5% for me is the difference between good and great 8) The guitars with the last 5% have what I call 'personality'. The thing that brings a smile to my face when playing PDT_002 The audience most probably couldn't tell the difference, but the happier I am, the happier they will be. Most of the time :lol:
The way I consider wood when buying a guitar is not 'this is mahogany and that's alder and..'. I go for the ones that sound and feel good. Simple as that. If it sounds like ass (not literally, hopefully) acoustically, I don't plug it in. Custom shop instruments usually feature woods that have been both aesthetically and sonically tested and approved to the best 5% or 10% by the luthiers. Still sometimes the guitar just doesn't sound as good as the price tag promises. And on the other hand, you might just get lucky with a cheaper one.
Because of this, I very rarely buy an instrument without trying it first.
-Zaned
-
BigB - that was Andy R, not me!
Err, actually, yes... My Bad :?
:lol: Yep, I thought that as I was reading - hey that was me! I was quite proud of that one...
You can indeed be proud of yourself, as that was - "from scientific evidence" - the most obvious explanation :mrgreen:
I believe the wood makes a difference but that the difference is difficult to measure, unlike pickups or an amp or effects where there is a massive difference...
Don't forget the strap, man 8)
-
So if wood type (what are we really talking about here - probably material density and consistency of density througout) is a key factor - or any factor - in a guitar's sound, this is because of something to do with the resonance of that material, yes?
In that case, I have the following questions:
- If fretboard makes a difference, why do people not give too much thought to laminate tops? Apparantly the 'laminate top' of the fretboard is important, but not the laminate top of the body, yet the body wood DOES somehow effect resonance? Seems odd.
- And in the same vein, if the laminate top DOES make a difference, or if we are to believe that layers of material can effect resonance, why don't people make a huge stink about pickguard materials or pickguards effect on sound? I would think there would just as many discussions on 'what pickguard should I choose to go with a Nailbomb'? as 'what pickup should I use with a maple fretboard?'.
- The amount of that wood should also be a factor if the type is, yet no one talks about tone when deciding on a guitar with a carved top, tummy cut etc.
- To go farther down the rabbit hole, if the resonance of the wood is a factor, then anything effecting that resonance should be taken into account. Anything touching the guitar will effect vibration - the leg it rests on, the shirt you are wearing, how hard you grip the neck, the humidity of the room you are playing in, etc etc.
I don't know. Personally I think that the way the guitar is put together is much more important than the wood it is made from when it comes to the sound it will produce, let alone the strings, pickups, amp etc. The extra money you are paying for a high end guitar can be justified more by the assembly process than the core materials.
-
Necro Thread! Protect your brains!! It wants them!
-
So if wood type (what are we really talking about here - probably material density and consistency of density througout) is a key factor - or any factor - in a guitar's sound, this is because of something to do with the resonance of that material, yes?
In that case, I have the following questions:
- If fretboard makes a difference, why do people not give too much thought to laminate tops? Apparantly the 'laminate top' of the fretboard is important, but not the laminate top of the body, yet the body wood DOES somehow effect resonance? Seems odd.
- And in the same vein, if the laminate top DOES make a difference, or if we are to believe that layers of material can effect resonance, why don't people make a huge stink about pickguard materials or pickguards effect on sound? I would think there would just as many discussions on 'what pickguard should I choose to go with a Nailbomb'? as 'what pickup should I use with a maple fretboard?'.
- The amount of that wood should also be a factor if the type is, yet no one talks about tone when deciding on a guitar with a carved top, tummy cut etc.
- To go farther down the rabbit hole, if the resonance of the wood is a factor, then anything effecting that resonance should be taken into account. Anything touching the guitar will effect vibration - the leg it rests on, the shirt you are wearing, how hard you grip the neck, the humidity of the room you are playing in, etc etc.
I don't know. Personally I think that the way the guitar is put together is much more important than the wood it is made from when it comes to the sound it will produce, let alone the strings, pickups, amp etc. The extra money you are paying for a high end guitar can be justified more by the assembly process than the core materials.
Not unfair or unintelligent questions, but the answers probably wont please you:
There are no clear answers.
With guitars we're talking about structurally transmitted vibration, and resonant feedback through coupling. Geometry (shape) also has a pretty significant effect, but imo/ime its structural transmission and coupling.
Take the case of the fretboard. Lets say you have a 2cm thick neck and 5mm of it is fretboard. Thats 1/4 of the neck. More, in fact, given that its pretty much rectangular in profile, whereas the rest of the neck is curved.
A veneer top takes up much less of the proportion of the body. It will be having an effect, but its hard to say how much other than 'less'. A full 18mm top will have a lot more effect, and thats were a good LP gets a lot of its tone from.
Heres another thing though; the mounting of the bridge. With the transmission through the whole neck youre getting the whole neck to vibrate, but if you have a bridge with deep posts, then you will get less resonance from the top, proportionately speaking, than you would if you have some sort of more-or-less surface mounted bridge. String through is as least thought to affect it similarly (but I'm not convinced. Maybe).
Then theres structural, as well. Even a veneer can change the tone quite a bit if its a very rigid wood like ebony. You can do the same thing with necks; a neck thats just a chunk of mahogany Vs one thats all mahogany but has been cut into 3 parts and the centre one flipped round. That is a much more rigid structure, it will sustain better and likely have better high end transmission even though the material is the same (more or less).
In your conclusion, youre onto something. My number one guitar (made by Legra Guitars' Bob Johnson, along with my number 2 guitar) is based heavily around both; we chose woods for their generic tonal characteristics, and then the guitar was designed so that its assembly/structure transmits vibration as well as possible. Worked too, utterly stunning instrument.
-
- If fretboard makes a difference, why do people not give too much thought to laminate tops? Apparantly the 'laminate top' of the fretboard is important, but not the laminate top of the body, yet the body wood DOES somehow effect resonance? Seems odd.
Not really. Can you tell the difference between a maple board and rosewood board strat? Hopefully yes. Can you tell the difference between 2 rosewood board strats, one with a maple cap on the body. Probably not.
- And in the same vein, if the laminate top DOES make a difference, or if we are to believe that layers of material can effect resonance, why don't people make a huge stink about pickguard materials or pickguards effect on sound? I would think there would just as many discussions on 'what pickguard should I choose to go with a Nailbomb'? as 'what pickup should I use with a maple fretboard?'.
Pickguard material doesn't make a discernible difference, so there's no point worrying about it. But if you've just got a nice chambered tele body, I can see why you'd go with no pickguard incase it dampens things.
- The amount of that wood should also be a factor if the type is, yet no one talks about tone when deciding on a guitar with a carved top, tummy cut etc.
They do, but people just ignore them because they are boring t*&ts! Carved tops and Tummy cuts are for comfort.
Saying that I can tell when a strat has a swimming pool route rather than a vintage route.
- To go farther down the rabbit hole, if the resonance of the wood is a factor, then anything effecting that resonance should be taken into account. Anything touching the guitar will effect vibration - the leg it rests on, the shirt you are wearing, how hard you grip the neck, the humidity of the room you are playing in, etc etc.
My acoustic sounds sh!t when I leave t in my outside hut. I assume it's becuase it's cold and the humidity is high because I don't have the same problem in the summer.
-
just found this thread and pardon me for saying so but life is too short to read all the posts right now. Shoot me down if you may 'cause someone has probably already said this, I would say the neck type has more bearing on tone than the body. I was thinking just the other day about bolting a neck to a paving slab and seeing what it sounded like. Ok maybe thats just stupid, I just fitted the neck,tuners and bridge on my american walnut handmade body and listened to it by placing my ear on the body to here the resonance, probably not possible with a paving slab.