-
I see what you're saying but you're incorrect. It's an indisputable fact that the acoustic properties of electric guitars affect the amplified sound. That's why hollowbodies sound differently than solidbodies. Physics doesn't go yeah I'll honor the effect of this chamber but completely disregard the resonant qualities of the materials. How idiotic can you get?
Originally Posted by BreckerFan
Further, I teched heavily for years where I was always swapping out parts and the sound of the guitar would always change when I changed neck and body parts or hardware. The one which seriously proved it was when I had a strat and changed the body only from alder to poplar. The result was a mid swamp that I've never heard in all my years as a musician and would never be caused by the variation within common guitar woods.
That is cool about what you do for your job tho. You of all people should be able to understand why wood species affects amp'd guitar tone.
-
06-05-2024 07:42 PM
-
1. I didn't say it doesn't matter, I said it's a question of degrees. A hollow body interacts with the string vibration significantly more than a solid body does (although I would argue that there are a lot of variables that can be changing the sound in addition to the hollowness). But not every variable makes a significant difference. There is some energy transfer that happens when you place a guitar against your body, but it doesn't change the tone of the guitar. Not everything that makes a difference makes a big or even noticeable difference. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
2. Did you isolate every variable when you changed the body? Were they the same weight? Was the neck pocket geometry the same so the neck joint contact didn't change? Paint? And could you see the difference in sound on a frequency analyzer? And did you repeat the test with 5-10 other bodies to be sure it wasn't a fluke? Without properly controlling all variables you can't be sure which variable is causing the difference. And I've never seen a test where those variables are properly controlled.
3. I explained why, based on the principles I use to understand how things vibrate, I don't think species specifically makes a difference, or at least we don't have a reason to believe that. My intuitions are calibrated to concrete, not electric guitars, so I freely admit I could be wrong. I have no vested interest one way or another, and I'm not gonna make this personal. What I can say with confidence tho is that I am not aware of any actual studies or tests that give real evidence that wood species specifically causes a difference. The YouTube comparisons and anecdotes all fall way short of using a conclusive method.
-
Again, I think you're being illogical admitting that the acoustic properties of electric guitars shape the overall tone, but for some reason the wood, the chief material doesn't. And also you don't have an opinion either way. Sounds like a red herring.
-
I was reading one of these discussions once and out of curiosity I took the chest piece off of a stethoscope and used the bare tubing end to listen all over my strummed guitar, to discover what parts of the guitar (Stratocaster) vibrated enough to hear.
I expected to hear sound from the saddles, bridge, bridge plate, and bridge block, but heard nothing. Also heard nothing from anywhere on the body or the neck, back or top. I did hear sound from the nut, more from the head stock, much more from the tuning machines, and the most from the tuning keys themselves. Then I checked the vibrato bar and the end of that was almost as loud as the tuning keys.
This was all unexpected; I suppose there are vibrations throughout the instrument, but it appears the vibrations are loudest (at least acoustically detectable this way) from parts of the guitar that are "distal terminations" or whatever you call the ends of the parts most extended from the body.
For our purposes in this discussion, the head stock is part of the neck assembly, and the head stock produced or allowed to be emitted almost all the detectable sound using this method.
The nature of the sounds I heard were very chimey and high frequency, maybe almost all harmonics.Last edited by pauln; 06-07-2024 at 10:44 PM.
-
I'm not surprised. String instruments are about converting string vibrations into sound, and an ideal instrument will convert 100% of the input energy into an output signal. In the case of an e-guitar that means that that mechanical energy must not dissipate into other vibrations that the pickup(s) cannot pick up. Originally Posted by pauln
There's an awful lot of voodoo around the way instruments actually work, much of it supported by the facts that it's almost impossible to build 2 truly identical instruments and that few of the people doing the comparing seem to be aware of the psychophysics behind that particular art (and the importance of double-blind testing in controlled circumstances in particular).
Who was that country guitarist again who showed a self-built "nobody" e-guitar that sounds just like his expensive, big-name solidbody e-guitar? ("nobody" as in literally without body, just strings strung between two heavy workbenches.)
Anyone here capable of setting up a website with a quiz? We could have fun with one consisting of a good-sized number of audio samples taken from various recordings of different kinds of e-guitar. Present them in random, anonymised form and let respondent guess what kind they're hearing.
In a properly designed psychophysics experiment you'd present random pairs and let people guess which is the guitar of a single particular type (which doesn't have to be in the selected pair). In just a for-fun quiz you could simply present 1 or even more multiple-choice questions (including "dunno") about single samples: with enough participants that should already give a pretty good idea about just how reliably identifiable body types, fretboard materials (etc) are.
-
I tentatively decided to stop wondering about fretboard materials a few years ago, based on this theory:
(A) What we hear while playing is different from what we hear while eating doughnuts.
(B) There is no arguing with personal preferences while playing (de gustibus non etc. etc.)
(C) Why would anyone eating doughnuts care about a difference that, by all accounts, may or may not exist?
-
Or that, like with donuts, is just icing on the cake Originally Posted by palindrome
(an insult to the cake if you ask me, comparing it to donuts
)
-
Well again that's not what I said. The materials affect the sound to the degree that they change how the strings resonate. In solid body guitars especially, which are purposefully less resonant to prevent feedback, I doubt that there is a difference that can be specifically tied to the different species rather than wood density/stiffness. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
And I didn't say I don't have an opinion, I said I don't have a vested interest. I'm not selling guitars. I like how all my guitars sound whether it's because of the wood, the pickups, or the alignment of the planets.
-
Each species has characteristic density, stiffness, and grain pattern.. It's the exact same thing as changing hardware materials. You're being ridiculous, and purporting your hypothesis with zero testing.. while accusing me of not testing when I have extensively. Originally Posted by BreckerFan
-
But again, woods do not have fixed values of density and stiffness, they have a range of values depending on the specimen. Let's say that the range for mahogany and maple overlap, and you have examples of each with the same values. They should sound the same, correct? Which means it's not the species which is causing the difference, it's the more fundamental material properties. If you want to say they would still sound different, what is causing the difference? I know for a fact, because I've done the math, that if you have two objects of the same shape, density, and stiffness, the frequency response will be the same. So what is the unique property of wood that exempts it from this reality? Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
If I drive a blue Toyota and a red Ferrari and notice that the Ferrari is faster, do I have reason to say it's faster because it's red? Obviously not, because all the other variables are different as well. Without controlling for the specific variable you're testing, you have no reason to claim that it is what's making the difference. This is the most basic component of the scientific method that allows us to understand all sorts of physical phenomena. Again, there's no reason guitar should be treated differently.
But hey man, if you feel convinced, do whatever you want. I have never seen anyone try and objectively study the question, only use personal anecdotes, and I've explained several times now why that isn't convincing, and I haven't heard any answers to those reasons. But at the end of the day, if it sounds good it is good.
-
All due respect, but Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
is not testing. It could be, but working as a tech probably means you didn't have the leasure to test properly, varying only 1 known quantity at the time and with sufficient sampling to obtain statistically significant results. At best it can be called anecdotic evidence, supporting the idea that Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
[quote]The one which seriously proved it was when I had a strat and changed the body only from alder to poplar. The result was a mid swamp that I've never heard in all my years as a musician [/quotethe sound of the guitar would always change when I changed neck and body parts or hardware.
There is no such things as proof of an hypothesis in empiral testing. All you can do is disprove things, invalidate hypotheses by showing that a prediction isn't met, and even that is subject to "with the current approach" kind of caveat emptors.
Esp. this part:
How can you even begin to support that claim? Even if you rephrase it as that I never heard as a result of the variation within the samples of common guitar woods that I have worked with you're still left with a single observation.and would never be caused by the variation within common guitar woods.
I'm a trained scientific research in biology, with the accompanying experience in setting up empirical studies on biological subjects and materials and analysing the resulting data. One of the professors who taught me in this domain told about a physicist she used to work with, who was very envious about the fact that "us biologists" could look at a bundle of data, draw some boundaries and declare everything outside to be outliers (= more than just measurements erros). Physicists can't do that as easily most of the time.
Wood is a dead (sic) material and as such very much subject to this and I strongly suspect you have to take that into account when you build guitars out of thick planks of solid wood. A lot can be going on inside that you can't see from the grain on the surface.
-
If one argues wood doesn't affect tone on electric guitar I'm ok with that. As long as they are not in guitar making business. If somebody out there builds guitars and thinks like that I want to be warned, thanks!
-
The question is not so much "does it affect" but "does it have to affect and can you predict how". I don't see why you'd care about what an e-guitar builder thinks as long as there's no formal answer to those questions (or he doesn't claim the opposite). You either like his instruments or you don't... or rather, either they provide an output you can post-process into the sound you want or they don't. Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
Different wood species but also trees harvested from different areas could have measurably different quantities of ferromagnetic "contamination" for instance, which could influence the way magnetic PUs work (the last bit is pure guessing based on claims I've read about metal guitars).
Somebody should really set up that quiz I described...
-
The main difference in sound between jazz guitars and solid wood guitars, comes from the difference in the way they are fundamentally designed. Not whether they are solid or hollow. Originally Posted by Bobby Timmons
Hollow bodies usually have a floating bridge which totally changes the attack and decay. Otherwise amplified, there is likely no difference at all. Certainly not one you could reliably discern (imo)
There is likely no reliable difference between ash and alder that you could correctly tell in a blind test. Scale length would likely throw you off more than the wood of the body.
Again imo
-
Hold my beer! Originally Posted by Hep To The Jive
-
I'd say solid vs hollow is a fundamental design factor. Originally Posted by Archie
-
Agreed but whether an ‘electric’ guitar has the strings pulling on the top or pushing down on the top, is a greater fundamental difference, regarding amplified sound. Originally Posted by Tal_175
-
Les Pauls have ABR bridges with a less steep back angle than Fenders. They are really not too far off from trapeze bridges in a way. But are you saying that if you installed a trapeze tailpiece on a Les Paul, it'd sound like an ES 175? Originally Posted by Archie
-
The scale lengths are different between fender and Les Pauls, which I think plays more of a role in shaping the amplified tone, than the wood, on a solid body guitar. Originally Posted by Tal_175
Regarding the difference between a floating bridge LP and a 175, well, the amplified sound would likely be a lot closer.
You could argue that amplified, you may struggle to tell the difference. I suspect though that the solid body, would have more sustain and that would allow one to potentially tell, a reliable difference.
What I’m saying is, there is almost no difference in sound between woods when you amplify a guitar. The biggest difference one can detect in sound, is whether a guitar has quick or slow attack and decay because those are the things, that get picked up through amplification.
If the body is made from bass wood compared to maple, you may get a difference in sustain, which you may detect as tone but when amplified, I do not believe other than density vs sustain, the wood makes any difference to the actual tone. You cannot hear a maple body on a guitar when amplified. If you had a guitar body that was 70% mahogany and 20% Maple, you could not tell the ratio.
What likely makes a les Paul sound the way it does, is the mass of the body (size) and the scale length.
Shorter scale lengths tend to give a darker less articulate tone and humbucking pickups give a darker tone.Last edited by Archie; 06-07-2024 at 08:31 PM.
-
My answer is entirely anecdotal from having owned about a dozen strats over the years. I think there is a small but appreciable difference between the tone and attack of a maple vs a rosewood board. I also think it's a difference that completely wash out in any real world musical situation.
-
Why would that change the amplified sound of an e-guitar - assuming we're talking about a solid-body? All I can really think of that might be different is the break angle behind the saddle. Originally Posted by Archie
-
I can definitely hear the difference between, say, an all-mahogany LP Special and a “real” Originally Posted by Archie
LP with a maple cap (substantial recent experience with that comparison). But I could not detect the ratio, plus there other differences blurring the experiment (e.g., total mass, neck and break angle). True ceteris paribus comparisons are very difficult to do.
-
Longer scale lengths produce a richer more detailed note. Originally Posted by RJVB
That is what you will hear and perhaps confuse with ‘tone’.
I suppose we need to define what tone is?
Of course all of this is just my current opinion.
I like most people think maple fretboards sound brighter and snappier than rosewood but I’m also aware that this could be completely untrue.
I’m happy to be my own devils advocate in the tone wood debate.
I for one do not like what I think is the dead plank sound, you get from solid mahogany guitars. SG’s all mahogany archtops (a Heritage Eagle comes to mind) and the Guild SFii red versions.
But I’m also happy to entertain that it might have nothing to do with the wood.
What I do detect in the debate is a lot of bias, and cognitive bias, false positives etc.. I’m trying to remain objective and there have been tests done, that seem to prove, all of this is mostly all of the above.
And again, given we can change our preference based on the colour around something, who are we to know what it is, that determines what we think we know?
This is all above my pay grade in philosophy but I can sense there’s an important point there somewhere lol
There is no such thing as free will but most people would disagree.
-
I do agree, although more in terms of a skepticism (plus one needs to remain skeptical about one's skepticisms), and my own take on tone woods would be that body and neck (i.e. shaft) materials do matter, but perhaps only as a broad average. Fretboard materials, to me, appears to be more of an esoteric issue, even though I may be biased by Warmoth videos. Originally Posted by Archie
It might be useful to consider lumberjacks' experiences with regional/topographic variations, winds, or lunar phases.
Anyway, if I bought a guitar sight unseen, I would definitively factor in my prejudices regarding wood species, notably when the words poplar or basswod come up.
A constructional feature, in my world of prejudices more important than scale length, would be screw-retained versus set necks.
-
That's a generally accepted "truth" provided there's "all other things being equal" in there *). However, my question was about strings pulling an vs. pushing down on the top (which I think must be interpreted as "pulling plus pushing on the top" (as with a standard bridge in standard acoustics) vs. "only pushing down on" (as with floating saddles). Originally Posted by Archie
It's easy to think the latter have a longer scale length because they typically require longer strings ... but that's a misconception. Scale length is the sounding length; that part of the strings between saddle and tailpiece does nothing to determine pitch nor tension of the strings. It may have a minor effect on attack supposing the strings can slide freely enough over the saddle. But that would be a bit like argueing that the 2 E strings have better attack than the other strings because of the smaller distance between the nut and the tuners (then again, maybe that is in fact true) ...
*) My favourite exampe is the Ramirez 1a concert classical with IIRC a whopping 670mm scale length. Yet if you hear them in a comparison with more normal scale length classicals they can sound dark and muffled (in a way I perceive as nasal), very spanish I'm told. That's largely because the scale length obliges the bridge to be pushed south so much that the bass register gets an enormous boost.
(How so, not very relevant for a discussion about e-guitars? )
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos