Laminate top vs maple or spruce?

[Rob22315]

I think what you're getting at is that spectrum analysis will tell you the numbers - what frequencies are attenuated and what frequencies are reenforced. It won't tell you what that means in terms of what we hear and what we prefer - what conditions cause the guitar to sound warm or shrill etc.

I got a frequency guide for tuning PA systems that aligned spectrum bands to human perceptions e.g., which frequencies created vocal clarity. I've never seen one for instruments.

[JBGM]

Note that this is not against JBGM at all.

Thanks. I never take it personal... unless it is

What precisely does spectrum analysis cover? Everything? I mean, if have two largely identical guitars, one being subtly "sweeter" and the other subtly “drier” sounding (subtly, but clearly perceptible at least to me), how precisely is this supposed to be reflected in those charts? Accurate pointers would be welcome.

Spectrum analysis is based on the principle that a sound signal can be decomposed as a sum of simple frequencies. The Plot Spectrum take the audio in blocks of 'Size' samples, and performs an operation called the Fourier Transform to determine the contribution of each frequency; then, it averages all the blocks together.

To learn about Fourier Transform, please watch this

,

and read this Wikipedia article (the video is significantly more didactic).

In the simplest terms: pluck a string on a guitar. You hear ALL existing frequencies (1 Hz, 2 Hz, 3 Hz, ..., 440 Hz, ... 20,000 Hz, ...), but some of them are louder than others. The specific combination of loudness of all these frequencies gives the "sonic personality" to an instrument. Otherwise, the A at 440 Hz would sound the same on a piano and a violin.

Guitar 2 has louder frequencies in the range 200 to 300 Hz as compared to guitar 1. In turn, guitar 1 has louder frequencies in the range 400 to 600 Hz. A more detailed analysis can be conducted, but I do not have the time now to do it.

Assuming for a moment that differences of this type are identifiably reflected, wouldn't that also mean that we are just a step away from some software filling us in on whether Wes Montgomery or Tal Farlow was an “objectively better” guitarist? In terms of timing or harmonic content at least, conclusions of this type should be within reach.

That is not inferred in any way form what I posted. The goal of this exercise is to demonstrate that there are measurable and audible differences between a cedar top hollow body and maple top solid body, and that you cannot emulate one with the other without eliminating a lot of frequencies.

Since I do not have a maple top hollow body, I could not offer a comparison between the cedar and maple hollows, which was the original question on this thread. I speculate that the differences are small, and that other factors such as bridge material and pickups result in a bigger influence in sound, hence cedar an maple might be similar... or not. Any opinion in this matter is just a fruitless debate until we show measurable and reproducible proof (for example of the sort I showed in the previous post). If anyone had access to two such guitars, we might be able to measure the difference.

My theory: I guess you can get some interesting results by way of objective analysis—whether about sound or even about timing or harmonic content—but things will instantly fall apart once we are talking about “narrative”.

Perhaps you could elaborate? I am unable to follow your argument. I have never proposed this sort of spectral analysis for anything else than baseline comparisons.

I’d be interested in hearing reports about people who may have found their favorite guitar based on a spectrum chart.

It would be interesting to do that, but it is something I would not do because nobody has identified the sonic signature of great guitars. BTWI never said or suggested that course of action.

[JBGM]

I think what you're getting at is that spectrum analysis will tell you the numbers - what frequencies are attenuated and what frequencies are reenforced. It won't tell you what that means in terms of what we hear and what we prefer - what conditions cause the guitar to sound warm or shrill etc.

I never suggested that spectral analysis can inform preferences. Palindrome questioned it as if I had said it, and is a profound error in logic. What we believe is different from what we know. The first is part of ethics (morals, religions, etc), the latter is part of science (reproducible, measurable). Epistemology 101. Any attempt to deviate the discussion in terms of "a number does not have feelings" is a disingenuous form of distraction.

[JBGM]

Hmmmm -- was I asking whether any two spectrum charts generated by the same guitarist might tell us more about the player than about the guitars?

You can try. In my experience, the same instrument produces very similar spectral charts when played on the same range. If you know otherwise, please post your findings.

[JBGM]

I can't guess which is the Les Paul and which is the Joe Pass. To my ears, they sound very close.

But, can you tell they are different? That is half of the point. The other half is that I can detect the quacky signature of solid body guitars as long as the tone has not been completely rolled down, because in that case many frequencies are eliminated, thus solid body and hollow body guitars start sounding very similarly.

[vinlander]

Les Paul has a carved maple top, and the Epi JP has a carved cedar top.

Great comparison but an Epiphone Joe Pass has a laminated Spruce top!

[JBGM]

Great comparison but an Epiphone Joe Pass has a laminated Spruce top!

Aww snapper doodle!!! I thought it was solid!!! Oh, well, thanks for the correction. What's your source?

[Archie]

Aww snapper doodle!!! I thought it was solid!!! Oh, well, thanks for the correction. What's your source?

He's right.

Source is the Epiphone website.

When they don't say solid, it means laminate. You can drop a pickup out, if you wanted to check. They always have been laminate but I think now they have a 3 piece neck, instead of the scarf joint, although I could be wrong.

Sorry mate

[339 in june]

Fourier transform !
Lord !
I have not seen that for 30years.

But you know what : everything is in the fingers, and that statement makes Fourier go back to his studies.

Taking Cauchy-Schwarz into consideration, my vote is LP for n°1, JP for n°2.

Trollol !

[JBGM]

Lord

It's OK, you can call me JBGM sorry, could not resist it )

But you know what : everything is in the fingers, and that statement makes Fourier go back to his studies.

Not everything is in the fingers. A great player playing a cardboard guitar will sound like a great player... but playing a cardboard guitar. But I agree with the spirit of your comment.

... my vote is LP for n°1, JP for n°2.

That is right!!! I think that the differences are evident. Thanks for talking the time to guess it. The Fourier Transform is just an attempt to understand why they sound different.

[palindrome]

I made a mistake yesterday posting something that was bound to get misconstrued as a response to JBGM’s comparison w/ charts. Now I am forced to admit that I posted without actually having read his post, which was unfair because I realize full well the effort going into posting a comparison of this kind.

Slow as I am, I was really still arguing a different poster's point that the notion of different wood species having different sound characteristics even in electric guitars can be dismissed by spectrum analysis. I am assuming that nobody else here subscribes to that view anyway, so I may gladly put my case to rest, although my fingers are itching to elaborate a little on “context” and “potential”.

I imagine that spectrum analysis is perfectly serviceable for “baseline comparison”, as JBGM puts it, so there’s no need on my part to continue talking at cross purposes here.

[JBGM]

Palindrome, I have to commend you for your honesty. Thanks! The world would be a much better place with more people admitting to their mistakes, and correcting them.

[dannyhill]

My two penny's worth:
The guitar in Test2 has more bass and lower mids, making sound like it has less upper mids and highs than that of Test1, which conversely sounds like it has more upper mids and highs.
More bass and lower mids, or 'airiness' as it is known, is typical or airier guitars, i.e. semi or hollowbodies. This is due to the resonance of the sounds waves in the 'air pocket' (solid bodies just have the small pores left after the wood is cured and so less resonance), which are at the lower frequencies as the speed of sound is lower in air than in wood (porous or not), that add to the original string vibrations arriving at the pickups. Similarly, the difference in speed of sound through dense to light materials: Maple, ebony, rosewood, Hard ash, walnut, mahogany, alder, swamp ash, basswood, polar, birch, spruce......air affects
resonance from less to greater,
tone from bright/trebly to warm,
sustain from greater to less,
attack from greater to less,
and volume from less to greater.

[ah.clem]

Here is a soundcloud clip of me using the Peavey Rockingham with the band at a rehearsal. Doesn't sound too bad. I want something that will be quite a bit richer in tone.

Overall the band sounds good and this might be completely out of left field, but have you considered dropping this tune (and probably others) to a lower key? The singer sounds like she's really topping out on a few occasions, getting high, thin and a bit off-key (to my ears, in any case) - she sounds like she might be much more sultry in the lower keys. I say this because I worked with a singer for a couple of years that insisted on high keys and she sounded a lot like this. I wanted to bounce her but the piano player convinced her to try singing a lot lower and surprise! A sultry torch singer emerged with a much bigger, richer voice, and we got a lot more gigs. Just sayin'. I know from jazz and wedding band experience how tough it can be to get a singer to listen to creative criticism, or try new keys; there seems to be something with singers and going for the high notes... just my experience.

[Rob22315]

I never suggested that spectral analysis can inform preferences. Palindrome questioned it as if I had said it, and is a profound error in logic. What we believe is different from what we know. The first is part of ethics (morals, religions, etc), the latter is part of science (reproducible, measurable). Epistemology 101. Any attempt to deviate the discussion in terms of "a number does not have feelings" is a disingenuous form of distraction.

This was directed at palindrome's post just above, not anything you posted and I don't agree that such a discussion is disingenuous or distracting.

After listening to the clips and looking at the spectrum plots, I don't think those are sufficient to sort this out in a number of ways:

1. the spectrum plot is an aggregation of behaviors over time and lots of different notes. While differences can be seen, there's no way to tie them to any specific element of the guitar or technique

2. a static plot doesn't show how the frequencies change over time - it's not just about how quickly a note dies, it's how the spectrum plot also changes as the energy is dissipated. There's no guarantee that the guitar behaves linearly in the sense that frequency response probably changes with volume.

3. as I said earlier, I've never seen a rosetta stone for instruments that ties human descriptions like warm or thumpy to specific frequencies or to behaviors on a dynamic spectrum plot. The one I have for vocals is quite useful at the soundboard but it doesn't translate well to a guitar.

It might be interesting to play a slow sequence of the same notes on each guitar with a small sampling of spectrum plots for each note to get a better sense for underlying dynamics to see if there's better differentiation between guitars. That info still wouldn't allow any discernment of the contribution any individual element of the guitar (top vs brigde etc.) as there's no way to isolate any one of those with just guitars of significantly different construction.

[tdearn]

QUOTE=ah.clem;467896]Overall the band sounds good and this might be completely out of left field, but have you considered dropping this tune (and probably others) to a lower key? The singer sounds like she's really topping out on a few occasions, getting high, thin and a bit off-key (to my ears, in any case) - she sounds like she might be much more sultry in the lower keys. I say this because I worked with a singer for a couple of years that insisted on high keys and she sounded a lot like this. I wanted to bounce her but the piano player convinced her to try singing a lot lower and surprise! A sultry torch singer emerged with a much bigger, richer voice, and we got a lot more gigs. Just sayin'. I know from jazz and wedding band experience how tough it can be to get a singer to listen to creative criticism, or try new keys; there seems to be something with singers and going for the high notes... just my experience.[/QUOTE]



Thanks. There are a few other recordings on our sound cloud with some different vocal keys I think sound better.

[JBGM]

This was directed at palindrome's post just above, not anything you posted and I don't agree that such a discussion is disingenuous or distracting.

I could have been more elegant in that comment. I agree with your disagreement... that is, I disagree with my own comment. Palindrome was not trying to be disingenuous or distracting, but I thought he meant something he did not.

1. the spectrum plot is an aggregation of behaviors over time and lots of different notes. While differences can be seen, there's no way to tie them to any specific element of the guitar or technique

As a counter-example, look at the following plot:

These recordings are part of my personal library of sound comparisons from years ago.

The semi-transparent blueish areas on both plots represents the spectrum of the same piece as compared to the violet background, but with the tone rolled down (summary: violet, full tone control, blueish color is zero tone control). From the plots I can infer immediately (because it seems to be a consistent behavior) that the guitar on the left has orange capacitors because mid frequencies are increased as the tone goes down (see around 300Hz), whereas the guitar on the right has regular ceramic capacitors. So, it IS possible in some cases to determine specific attributes. Again, this sort of analysis can be most effectively used for comparison purposes.

The plots are intended, in general, to be used as baseline comparisons, that is, choose one as the baseline and then see how the other deviates from it.

2. a static plot doesn't show how the frequencies change over time - it's not just about how quickly a note dies, it's how the spectrum plot also changes as the energy is dissipated. There's no guarantee that the guitar behaves linearly in the sense that frequency response probably changes with volume.

Partially true.

In regards of changes in time: A spectral analysis of the type I showed is dependent of the piece you play. A valid comparison requires the same range and tempo. Provided that range is controlled (e.g. A- scale on the 5th fret), and that tempo is approx. the same, and that the piece interpreted is the same, then this graphic will be a function of how frequencies change over time, but they do not show tempo. These plots serve well their purpose as qualitative (not quantitative) comparison devices. I HAVE NOT CLAIMED ANYTHING BEYOND THIS POINT. That is why the two recordings I showed early are as similar as I could make them.

In regards to change with volume: It depends on how the volume is setup in a given electric guitar. If you have a pass filter (e.g. 0.001 pf in the volume pot), then changing the volume levels will not affect significantly the qualities of the spectrum.

3. as I said earlier, I've never seen a rosetta stone for instruments that ties human descriptions like warm or thumpy to specific frequencies or to behaviors on a dynamic spectrum plot. The one I have for vocals is quite useful at the soundboard but it doesn't translate well to a guitar.

We agree on that. There is a broad range in idiosyncratic descriptions such as warm, muddy, etc. The only thing we can conclude from spectral analysis is that instruments are different, and perhaps infer why.

It might be interesting to play a slow sequence of the same notes on each guitar with a small sampling of spectrum plots for each note to get a better sense for underlying dynamics to see if there's better differentiation between guitars. That info still wouldn't allow any discernment of the contribution any individual element of the guitar (top vs brigde etc.) as there's no way to isolate any one of those with just guitars of significantly different construction.

See answer to your point #1.

Out of respect for tdearn, who initiated this thread, allow me to tie in the past ideas into the original question: tdearn, If you want a richer sound, buy any half-decent hollow body you feel comfortable with, put a classic 57 pickup (or your favorite) on the neck, get 0.22 µF orange drops capacitors, 300K linear and 500K audio potentiometers for volume and tone respectively, and you will get a killer tone. Why? Because as you roll down the tone, your low and mid frequencies will increase a little bit and the hollow body will give you attributes such as those described by dannyhill on post 165 of this thread. I speculate that at that point differentiating between cedar and maple would require exquisitely trained ears.

[oldane]

As a counter-example, look at the following plot:

These charts are interesting. However, it's my guess (correct me if I'm wrong) that they record the sustained sound - that is the sound coming from the guitar AFTER the pick or the fingers have left the string. IMHO the percieved sound consists of two elements: 1) The sound of the attack and 2) The sound after the string has been attacked. I believe that the sound of the attack plays a big role in what has been described as "woody sound", "percussive sound", "thud" and the like. That way these charts only pick up half of the percieved sound. The sound of the attack may be determined by a lot of different factors - say, the guitar in question, pick, strings, picking technique and position, picking strength, string action ("slap" sound or not) - most of which, but not all, are independent of the chosen guitar.

That said, I readily admit that it is very difficult (impossible?) to destinguish between a hollow and a solid body guitar in tests. Such blindfold tests have been posted on this forum from time to time, and I was never able to tell which guitar was what. Often I could hear a slight difference in sound, but it was surpricingly little, and I coudn't attribute it to the guitars being hollow/solid. I remember once when I was sure that a particularly lush tone I heard must have come from an L5. It didn't. It was a Strat with stock PUs and a non-blocked tremolo. Some may say that this tells more about my hearing than it does about the similarity of the sounds. But others were just as much fooled as I was.

Thus it is my belief that with sensible use of the tone controls on the guitar and the amp - maybe with the help from an external EQ unit - one can dial in almost the same sound with a lot of different guitars (of course provided they are set up, stringed and played the same way).

[medblues]

"......These charts are interesting.
.........

That said, I readily admit that it is very difficult (impossible?) to destinguish between a hollow and a solid body guitar in tests. Such blindfold tests have been posted on this forum from time to time, and I was never able to tell which guitar was what. Often I could hear a slight difference in sound, but it was surpricingly little, and I coudn't attribute it to the guitars being hollow/solid. I remember once when I was sure that a particularly lush tone I heard must have come from an L5. It didn't. It was a Strat with stock PUs and a non-blocked tremolo. Some may say that this tells more about my hearing than it does about the similarity of the sounds. But others were just as much fooled as I was.

Thus it is my belief that with sensible use of the tone controls on the guitar and the amp - maybe with the help from an external EQ unit - one can dial in almost the same sound with a lot of different guitars (of course provided they are set up, stringed and played the same way).........

And this realization would help with global warming ( decreased GAS :-) (says the guy with 14 guitars).

[palindrome]

That said, I readily admit that it is very difficult (impossible?) to destinguish between a hollow and a solid body guitar in tests. Such blindfold tests have been posted on this forum from time to time, and I was never able to tell which guitar was what.

Doesn't it all depend on what you want accomplish with charts of this type? I assume they may serve you well in pinning down elusive differences (although interpreting these is probably another matter), but any ideas of refuting differences on this basis would seem fundamentally flawed to me.

I do remember having read repeatedly on this forum that a difference between a 1k and a 3k guitar may be minor in absolute terms but nevertheless worth the extra outlay (e.g. considering that this minor difference adds up to a major one if you plan on exposing yourself to either one several hours a day for a while to come).

BUT: I DON’T REMEMBER anyone claiming that the respective potentials of any two guitars cannot be made to overlap to the point of of nobody noticing a difference, and that, in a sense, is the whole point about creating standardized conditions for testing (or, for that matter, blindfold testing intended to confuse others). Doing so will require you to make the sound of any two guitars overlap as much as possible in the first place, without anyone really having denied that this can be accomplished. But the point of owning two different guitars runs counter to that--i.e. you want to take advantage of their different potentials rather than confining their use to the range where they overlap.

[oldane]

Doesn't it all depend on what you want accomplish with charts of this type? I assume they may serve you well in pinning down elusive differences (although interpreting these is probably another matter), but any ideas of refuting differences on this basis would seem fundamentally flawed to me.

I do remember having read repeatedly on this forum that a difference between a 1k and a 3k guitar may be minor in absolute terms but nevertheless worth the extra outlay (e.g. considering that this minor difference adds up to a major one if you plan on exposing yourself to either one several hours a day for a while to come).

BUT: I DON’T REMEMBER anyone claiming that the respective potentials of any two guitars cannot be made to overlap to the point of of nobody noticing a difference, and that, in a sense, is the whole point about creating standardized conditions for testing (or, for that matter, blindfold testing intended to confuse others). Doing so will require you to make the sound of any two guitars overlap as much as possible in the first place, without anyone really having denied that this can be accomplished. But the point of owning two different guitars runs counter to that--i.e. you want to take advantage of their different potentials rather than confining their use to the range where they overlap.

Actually, I agree with you. If I want the glassy sound of a typical Strat with the bridge PU engaged, I wouldn't get far with my Painter which has only a neck PU and is set up with 15-56 flatwounds. The interesting thing is of course how close I could come with my Painter. FWIW, I can actually get a Strat like quack with the Painter if I use a pointed pick and pick midway between the neck PU and an imaginary mid PU - so much that it once fooled a friend to believe I used my Strat.

Of course we choose the tools which leads us to our goal with the least fuss. But if you want to use two different guitars for two different kinds of sound you would likely also set them up and play them differently. If I want to sound like Joe Pass in one tune and like Mark Knopfler in the next, I'd certainly use my Painter with the fat flatwounds for the first and a Strat set up with thinner roundwound strings for the second.

However, that was not what this discussion has been about as I have understood it. It's about whether one can use a solidbody for jazz and get a sound close enough to a hollow body that almost nobody can tell the difference - with apropiate setup and EQ settings of course. There are in fact many people who say that they will always be able to hear that difference - that you can't make a solid body sound like a hollow body, no matter what you do.

[medblues]

Doesn't it all depend on what you want accomplish with charts of this type? I assume they may serve you well in pinning down elusive differences (although interpreting these is probably another matter), but any ideas of refuting differences on this basis would seem fundamentally flawed to me.

I do remember having read repeatedly on this forum that a difference between a 1k and a 3k guitar may be minor in absolute terms but nevertheless worth the extra outlay (e.g. considering that this minor difference adds up to a major one if you plan on exposing yourself to either one several hours a day for a while to come).

BUT: I DON’T REMEMBER anyone claiming that the respective potentials of any two guitars cannot be made to overlap to the point of of nobody noticing a difference, and that, in a sense, is the whole point about creating standardized conditions for testing (or, for that matter, blindfold testing intended to confuse others). Doing so will require you to make the sound of any two guitars overlap as much as possible in the first place, without anyone really having denied that this can be accomplished. But the point of owning two different guitars runs counter to that--i.e. you want to take advantage of their different potentials rather than confining their use to the range where they overlap.

It also depends on what your goal is in music and how you want to prioritize your time spent towards that. These discussions and simplifications help me focus more on learning and practicing the intricacies of harmony, melody, rhythm, technical skills as opposed to the nuances of "tone" (from the synth perspective "the envelope"). Jumping analogies here, marketing companies try to make you open junk mail enveloped in many different creative ways but most of us are not fooled because we can sense the content is worthless.

[oldane]

And this realization would help with global warming ( decreased GAS :-) (says the guy with 14 guitars).

Indeed. I don't own an L5 but if I ever get one, it's because I think that the 17" L5 is visually the most pretty guitar ever made. Everything clicks in place - dimensions, shape, ornamentation. I'm sure I would find it very pleasing just to sit and look at it - while I play my Painter.

[palindrome]

However, that was not what this discussion has been about as I have understood it. It's about whether one can use a solidbody for jazz and get a sound close enough to a hollow body that almost nobody can tell the difference - with apropiate setup and EQ settings of course. There are in fact many people who say that they will always be able to hear that difference - that you can't make a solid body sound like a hollow body, no matter what you do.

Ah, I see.

My Yamaha 1511MS never fails to surprise me in this respect. I couldn't really say that I'd challenge anyone in terms of hollowbody confusability (also because I fail to see the point), but I can definitely say that that guitar has a ridiculously snappy-woody-clean-warm-jazzy kind of sound.

[JBGM]

If you cannot tell that tdearn is using a solid body from his recordings, then it's a moot point. IMHO it is evident. If you a solid body and you are happy with the sound, there is no need to do anything else. If you are not (and tdearn seems to be in this category), then you need to keep looking as it becomes an itch while playing. I have been there, sympathize with his quest, and that is why I have been feeding this and only this thread. I have solved my own tone quest. Now I spend my time studying harmony and answering THIS thread

Let me repeat once more : Spectral analysis is most useful to COMPARE. C O M P A R E ! ! ! It feels like some of the comments try to refute something that has not been said. If you think you can make a hollow body sound like a solid body, then COMPARE it against a hollow body and see where the differences are. Listen to the two in a blind test... and most likely you will be able to tell which is which. All the half-decent hollow body guitars I have tried have a richer frequency response than all the solid body guitars I have tried. I have not tried them all, but I have tried quite a few.