hi all, i have a squier for many years, i use it for practice, and happens that i have never wonder about the "wood", while i was looking the guitar the other days i realize that in fact there its no wood, its maded with MDF, and makes me think why, i had a japanese squier before and sound much better than the standard i have, maybe that was maded with real wood??
The wood is irreverent to the tone of an electric guitar. I'd say the most likely culprit for a difference in tone between the two guitars is the pickups.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 20, 2014, 03:16:29 AM
The wood is irreverent to the tone of an electric guitar. I'd say the most likely culprit for a difference in tone between the two guitars is the pickups.
That's actually not true. Wood matters, and construction techniques matter a lot in both acoustic and electric guitars.
An 'electric' guitar is still considered an acoustic instrument, because the reaction is the string resonating with the instrument itself. There's a reason why some guitars are made with Mahogany, and some with Alder.
Play an Alder Tele and a Swamp Ash Tele with the same hardware, pickups, and neck (I have done so) and you can hear a difference (I have).
Jacob
I'm of the same opinion as Jacob. In fact, you can have two guitars made out of the exact same materials with the exact same electronics, and they can sound different. I have two SC250s which had (I've changed the pups now) the exact same configuration and they did not sound the same. Now, they didn't sounds worlds different, but you could tell the difference between the two.
Typically, the better an electric guitar sounds acoustically, the better it will sound electrically. If the body is not resonant (and plywood is not resonant), it will dampen the vibration of the strings, which will in turn change the characteristic of the disturbance of the magnetic field created by the pickups, and this carries down the tone chain. Same reasoning applies to why you want a solid/tight neck joint, preferably wood on wood.
Pickups are the quickest and easiest way to change the tone of the guitar, but you can't place pickup X into two different guitars and expect them to sound the same. A JB in the bridge of a Les Paul sounds different than a JB in the bridge of a RG or strat or tele.
It's definitely cheaper for Gibson to make Les Paul bodies out of basswood (cheaper to source, can be found domestically, easier to machine, less prone to tearouts, not on any CITES lists, etc) than mahogany, but the reason they don't (and if they could cut corners they would) is because it doesn't sound the same. They tried the "sustainable wood" series of Les Pauls for a couple of years. Didn't catch on, primarily because it didn't sound enough like a Les Paul.
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
I've never seen a squier made of MDF, and I'd doubt its real to be honest. How do you know it's MDF?
Jacob
I thought most of the Squires were pine?
MDF would be really heavy; that would surprise me.
I do know that Squire uses Basswood. The Vintage Modified Cabronita I looked at a while back has a Basswood body. I think I'd want a more traditional wood for that type of guitar, although Basswood has been used in plenty of nice guitars over the years.
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
I've never seen a squier made of MDF, and I'd doubt its real to be honest. How do you know it's MDF?
Jacob
i know its MDF cos on day the guitar got damaged by some guy who drop it, and for my suprise it was MDF same as my palmer guitar
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
I've never seen a squier made of MDF, and I'd doubt its real to be honest. How do you know it's MDF?
Jacob
i know its MDF cos on day the guitar got damaged by some guy who drop it, and for my suprise it was MDF same as my palmer guitar
How much does it weigh? MDF is pretty heavy stuff.
I've read a few posts online that claim some of the old MIJ Squires used MDF, but I haven't heard of the current ones using it.
Quote from: pickdropper on November 20, 2014, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
I've never seen a squier made of MDF, and I'd doubt its real to be honest. How do you know it's MDF?
Jacob
i know its MDF cos on day the guitar got damaged by some guy who drop it, and for my suprise it was MDF same as my palmer guitar
How much does it weigh? MDF is pretty heavy stuff.
I've read a few posts online that claim some of the old MIJ Squires used MDF, but I haven't heard of the current ones using it.
its an old one about 10 punds, its heavy
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on November 20, 2014, 08:23:31 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 08:13:51 PM
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 07:31:01 PM
Quote from: copachino on November 20, 2014, 07:08:16 PM
but for a squier maded with mdf, man that cheap, i thought that my only guitar maded with MF, was my first guitar in my life, a palmer strat, which i still have for setimental reasons, but my squier japan its maded with maple, but the standard its MDF.... that crap jejeje ::) ::), but i wonder why fender its so cheap, mahogany its not that expensive at least not where i live, i can get real natural growth mahogany for 3USd square feet, that cheap, but still, fender its doing bad with MDF
I've never seen a squier made of MDF, and I'd doubt its real to be honest. How do you know it's MDF?
Jacob
i know its MDF cos on day the guitar got damaged by some guy who drop it, and for my suprise it was MDF same as my palmer guitar
How much does it weigh? MDF is pretty heavy stuff.
I've read a few posts online that claim some of the old MIJ Squires used MDF, but I haven't heard of the current ones using it.
its an old one about 10 punds, its heavy
A 10 lb strat or tele would make a good argument for MDF. And if it's older, Japan would be more likely as well.
The good news is that I don't think you'll get stuck with MDF on a newer one.
A believe the Affinity / Bullet guitars are made of agathis, which is actually pretty nice wood for guitars. It's light as a feather and surprisingly resonant.
A lot of the cheaper Chinese guitars also use agathis. It's cheap and widely available and not endangered.
i know its a heavy guitar, but it stay at home on my testing rig always,
Quote from: culturejam on November 20, 2014, 08:46:21 PM
A believe the Affinity / Bullet guitars are made of agathis, which is actually pretty nice wood for guitars. It's light as a feather and surprisingly resonant.
A lot of the cheaper Chinese guitars also use agathis. It's cheap and widely available and not endangered.
A lot of the Chinese guitars also use Nato wood (not sure about Fender/Squire).
There is also "Asian Mystery Wood." Ancient Chinese secret.
Yeah, I don't think it's actually MDF, I'm going to guess it it would be basswood if anything. Basswood has hardly any grain to it and could easily be mistaken for MDF on a ding or a cutaway. Though 10 lbs is way too heavy to be a basswood guitar, max it would be 7 - 7.5. Granted, the early Korean squiers (like the Squier II series) were all over the place with building materials, cut specs, hardware, etc, so it's not completely out of the range of possibilities. Nato and agathis are also possibilities, as mentioned.
Your Japanese squier is likely alder, I can't ever remember Fender using maple on guitar bodies, only solid body (maples pretty popular in semi hollows) production guitar I can think of with a maple body would be the ESP George Lynch stuff. A maple body tele would be really bright on the bridge pickup.
As far as mahogany goes, if you can get it for $3 a square, I'm guessing you live in South America. It's a lot more expensive once it crosses the border.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 20, 2014, 08:53:50 PM
Yeah, I don't think it's actually MDF, I'm going to guess it it would be basswood if anything. Basswood has hardly any grain to it and could easily be mistaken for MDF on a ding or a cutaway. Though 10 lbs is way too heavy to be a basswood guitar, max it would be 7 - 7.5. Granted, the early Korean squiers (like the Squier II series) were all over the place with building materials, cut specs, hardware, etc, so it's not completely out of the range of possibilities. Nato and agathis are also possibilities, as mentioned.
Your Japanese squier is likely alder, I can't ever remember Fender using maple on guitar bodies, only solid body (maples pretty popular in semi hollows) production guitar I can think of with a maple body would be the ESP George Lynch stuff. A maple body tele would be really bright on the bridge pickup.
As far as mahogany goes, if you can get it for $3 a square, I'm guessing you live in South America. It's a lot more expensive once it crosses the border.
central america in fact, Honduras mahogany its the one, really cool and i planning my tele on that wood
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-XNLGWpRSi4Q/VG5d2nygNnI/AAAAAAAAFFs/yZZXOpbSgYQ/w506-h675/IMG_20141119_150342%5B1%5D.jpg)
that my timber, so at least i want it to sound like my palmer, since its my first build
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 20, 2014, 03:16:29 AM
The wood is irreverent to the tone of an electric guitar. I'd say the most likely culprit for a difference in tone between the two guitars is the pickups.
That's actually not true. Wood matters, and construction techniques matter a lot in both acoustic and electric guitars.
An 'electric' guitar is still considered an acoustic instrument, because the reaction is the string resonating with the instrument itself. There's a reason why some guitars are made with Mahogany, and some with Alder.
I used to be of that opinion until I saw the results of some empirical tests (ie: ones not influenced by the human ear).
Placebo effect/confirmation bias can be a very powerful thing.
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 05:53:42 PMPlay an Alder Tele and a Swamp Ash Tele with the same hardware, pickups, and neck (I have done so) and you can hear a difference (I have).
Again, human perception of sound is incredibly subject to outside influence but what do you think the tolerances on those pickups are? How consistent are the setups? Did they have the same kind/gauge strings with the same amount of wear?
With electric guitars pickups matter, strings matter, scale length matters, bridge hardware matters; most everything else... not so much.
Now if you've got something more concrete than some guy saying
"X definitely sounds different from Y because tone woods" I'd love to see it. I definitely
appreciate a guitar made of fancy wood much more than I do one made of plywood and I'd like there to be something more to it than my perception of the instrument.
What I will
definitely say is that if I'm playing a bass or guitar and I can
feel it resonating against me that absolutely influences the way that I respond to the instrument and how I play it. It's the only way I got through having the terrible stock pickups in my Peavey Grind NTB for like seven or eight years.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 20, 2014, 06:25:30 PM
I'm of the same opinion as Jacob. In fact, you can have two guitars made out of the exact same materials with the exact same electronics, and they can sound different. I have two SC250s which had (I've changed the pups now) the exact same configuration and they did not sound the same. Now, they didn't sounds worlds different, but you could tell the difference between the two.
I've experienced the exact same thing but again; human perception, factory tolerances in the electronics, and minor differences in the setup/pickup adjustments can more than account for that.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 20, 2014, 06:25:30 PMA JB in the bridge of a Les Paul sounds different than a JB in the bridge of a RG or strat or tele.
Short scale vs. long scale, Tune-O-Matic vs. Floyd Rose vs. Strat-style vibrato vs. Fender-style hardtail. There's
a lot more going on there than what those guitars are made out of.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 21, 2014, 03:32:54 AM
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 05:53:42 PM
I used to be of that opinion until I saw the results of some empirical tests (ie: ones not influenced by the human ear).
Placebo effect/confirmation bias can be a very powerful thing.
Quote from: jkokura on November 20, 2014, 05:53:42 PMPlay an Alder Tele and a Swamp Ash Tele with the same hardware, pickups, and neck (I have done so) and you can hear a difference (I have).
Again, human perception of sound is incredibly subject to outside influence but what do you think the tolerances on those pickups are? How consistent are the setups? Did they have the same kind/gauge strings with the same amount of wear?
Same pickups, same setup, same strings, same everything in fact - except the body. Made by the same company with the same template with the same finish techniques, identical in everything as possible except the wood used. Literally, the only difference was the body, and the two guitars sounded very different. I didn't believe it myself until it was shown me, which would make it not confirmation bias, but rather persuasive evidence. I believed as you did, that alder and swamp ash wouldn't sound much different, but they did.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 21, 2014, 03:32:54 AMWith electric guitars pickups matter, strings matter, scale length matters, bridge hardware matters; most everything else... not so much.
Now if you've got something more concrete than some guy saying "X definitely sounds different from Y because tone woods" I'd love to see it. I definitely appreciate a guitar made of fancy wood much more than I do one made of plywood and I'd like there to be something more to it than my perception of the instrument.
I think the onus is more on you to show your empirical data than it is on me to prove what I've heard with my own ears. Without the science to back up what you're saying, its just you saying things contrary to what the general consensus for at least a hundred years has said. Not that I don't believe that you have it, but rather that I can't show you what you're asking for, as you're asking for something that's generally believed and practiced by the great majority of the guitar builders of the past century, whereas the evidence for what you're saying is generally not backed up with practical experience. Emperical evidence can only occasionally prove something like this, and may not fully represent the proper measurements needed.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 21, 2014, 03:32:54 AMWhat I will definitely say is that if I'm playing a bass or guitar and I can feel it resonating against me that absolutely influences the way that I respond to the instrument and how I play it. It's the only way I got through having the terrible stock pickups in my Peavey Grind NTB for like seven or eight years.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 20, 2014, 06:25:30 PM
I'm of the same opinion as Jacob. In fact, you can have two guitars made out of the exact same materials with the exact same electronics, and they can sound different. I have two SC250s which had (I've changed the pups now) the exact same configuration and they did not sound the same. Now, they didn't sounds worlds different, but you could tell the difference between the two.
I've experienced the exact same thing but again; human perception, factory tolerances in the electronics, and minor differences in the setup/pickup adjustments can more than account for that.
With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments. I would again say that the onus is on you to say that the difference in wood does not contribute to two different electric instruments sounding different rather than pickup and electronic tolerances alone.
Two pieces of the same tone wood can be different both in terms of resonance, weight, and density, which contributes to them sounding different in identical guitars. Different species of wood will naturally have different resonance, weight and density, so it follows that they will also affect an identical instrument. To suggest that electronics and the path of the string are the only elements that matter isn't a foregone conclusion.
Jacob
If nothing else, the body affects the sustain. Soft wood will absorb more vibration through the bridge end of the strings.
Quote from: jkokura on November 21, 2014, 03:52:54 AM
With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments.
You know, when you say it like that, I just sound crazy. It's nowhere near 1,000, if I had to guess, it's kissing the bottom end of 700.
I had a rather lengthy debate (argument) with an old bandmate about the body having an effect on tone. His argument was its all in the pickups, bridge, blah blah and not the body, i mentioned the Dan Armstrong acrylic guitars..... needless to say the argument was over.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 21, 2014, 02:41:09 PM
Quote from: jkokura on November 21, 2014, 03:52:54 AM
With respect, I'd caution you when contradicting a guy who has literally had hundreds (perhaps 1000+?) of guitars go through his door. Curtis is one of the most experienced guys I know in terms of playing and knowing electric instruments.
You know, when you say it like that, I just sound crazy. It's nowhere near 1,000, if I had to guess, it's kissing the bottom end of 700.
I think your explanation actually sounds worse than Jacob's. :)
This is turning into a really interesting discussion.
Do I believe that body wood makes a difference? Yeah, actually I do. Maybe a bit less with certain pickups (like really hot actives) that appear to minimize any differences that appear in the body. Playing guitar over the last 25 years, I've come to the believe that it does make a difference. I don't, however, have any scientific evidence to back that up.
But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.
- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them. Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people. Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance. I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.
- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons. Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood. Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc. I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.
- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars. That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed. And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate. There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them. Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds. On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years. George Gruhn is a good example. He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built. I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.
So basically, while I do believe I've perceived a difference in body woods, I think the scientific debate thus far has been largely devoid of actual science. "It's there because I heard it" is not any more relevant to scientific proof than "ghosts are real because I've seen them." It may be true, but it's not proof.
I'm also prepared to concede that maybe I gravitate to certain woods because I like the way they look and they still sound good. :-)
Quote from: alanp on November 21, 2014, 03:59:16 AM
If nothing else, the body affects the sustain. Soft wood will absorb more vibration through the bridge end of the strings.
This seems very reasonable and should be easily quantifiable.
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 05:24:57 PM
But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.
- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them. Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people. Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance. I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.
- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons. Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood. Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc. I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.
- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars. That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed. And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate. There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them. Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds. On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years. George Gruhn is a good example. He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built. I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.
I'd add that you actually need a statistically relevant data set. You can't just post audio and graph frequency response of two identical guitars, one with alder and one with ash, and expect an experiment to hold weight. You have to replicate it many time in order to weed out the inconsistencies. And by then, the magic is all gone! :)
Quote from: Morgan on November 21, 2014, 05:34:47 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 05:24:57 PM
But the more interesting portion is the discussion of scientific method that has come up.
- Burden of proof: If one claims that there IS a difference, then I would really consider the onus to be on them. Human ears are notoriously unreliable for most people. Saying "I can hear the difference" is really all the justification one needs to buy guitars and enjoy them, but that is a far cry from any scientific relevance. I've dealt with a lot of situations where people have heard differences that weren't there and vice verse.
- Control of variables: It is really important to control the variables when making direct comparisons. Two identical guitars with identical hardware can vary for a variety of reasons, not just the wood. Known variables are: wood species, weight of the wood, pickup winding, how the nut is cut, how the guitar is setup, mounting position of the bridge, etc. I totally agree that the same model of guitar with identical hardware can vary greatly, but there is more to it than just the wood.
- Value of experience/expertise: With all respect to Curtis, I wouldn't take somebody's viewpoint at their word simply because they have purchased 700-1000 guitars. That person may or may not have extensive knowledge of the instruments, but that cannot be assumed. And it's not a good argument within the context of a scientific debate. There are plenty of Blues Lawyers that own piles of guitars and know nothing about them. Curtis isn't one of them, but the point holds. On the other hand, there are people that are clearly established experts that have become so because they have handled so many instruments over the years. George Gruhn is a good example. He's a known expert because he's taken the time to study the minute differences between instruments and knows exactly how things were built. I've also met other dealers that push a ton of guitars through their stores, but don't really study the instruments; it's just a commodity to them.
I'd add that you actually need a statistically relevant data set. You can't just post audio and graph frequency response of two identical guitars, one with alder and one with ash, and expect an experiment to hold weight. You have to replicate it many time in order to weed out the inconsistencies. And by then, the magic is all gone! :)
Agree 100%.
My boss says one of the most common mistakes scientists make is that they stop as soon as they see the results they are expecting.
As Richard Feyman said: "The first rule of science is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest one to fool."
The biggest difference I've noticed between body/neck wood types on an electric guitar is when it is unplugged. Some guitars just have a lot of volume and sustain unplugged.
I've been mentioned in the same paragraph as George Gruhn. 8)
In no way do I claim to be an expert in the matter. I am not a blues lawyer, as previously mentioned, I am clearly a hair metal engineer. I don't have tan pants, I have designer spandex (bet you can't get that image out of your mind).
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and personally, in regards to this subject, it's essentially inconsequential in the grand scheme of first world issues.
My point behind my comment about two SC250s sounding different was to point out that a guitar is in fact a sum of its components. Perhaps a better comparison would be so say run the rack of any major guitar store for every MIM strat. They will sound different, because they are the sum of their parts, which include the pickups, the bridge, the nut, the body, the neck, etc, etc. It's actually easier to control the specs on the pickups then on the bodies and necks, because a CNC winder can put exactly the same number of winds on a pickup and the wire is produced in mass batches. Clearly their can be some differentiation between the magnets. Bobbins, spacers, covers, etc, are all manufactured in the same fashion and are likely not to deviate greatly. Same thing applies for bridges, and tuners, it's easier to get the metallurgy right because you have to physically create it. It's more difficult to manage the body and neck properties, as you can be dealing with a range of densities, wood anamolies, multiple laminations, etc, etc.
If we were to accept that the materials of construction have no affect on guitar tone (and, again, I don't really care either way), then we must accept the fact that the quantity of material in the build, once it meets the basic structural requirements of the guitar, also doesn't matter. If that were the case, then a production Gibson Les Paul and a production Gibson SG should sound identical. For comparable models, they have the same scale, the same tuners, the same nut material, same fret material, same bridge, same tail piece, same pickups, same pot values. I've done the test, I have had a bunch of each over the years and I still have two of each. They don't sound the same. This test could also be extended to Flying Vs, Explorers, and 335s (because if the wood is solely a structural element, it should not matter if the body is solid, semi hollow, or hollow).
And I've taken it a step further. My first guitar was an Ibanez X-Series. It was the best guitar that I could afford at the time. It looked hideous. When my collection reached the point where I didn't need it any more (four guitars, I was king of the world), I didn't really want to sell it, but I couldn't stand to look at it any more. So I threw it on the table saw and cut the wings off. Yup, sounded different, and worse. So, I was past the point of no return, so I tried to make it a home made Steinberger by cutting more wood off. Even more of a sonic disaster. Bought an RG body for it and scavenged all the components to built a partshredder. Wayyyy more treble than my dog could handle. Eventually it made for some very bad smelling firewood.
So from this experiment, I derived that the quantity of material used to construct a guitar body did in fact have an effect on the tone of the guitar. And, since the X-series was a basswood body and the RG was a plywood body, I concluded that materials of manufacture also had an effect on tone.
Another experiment I tried was taking loaded Texas Special pickguard (a notoriously bright pickup) from an alder body/rosewood board strat (typically a darker sounding strat in the combination) into a Lite Ash strat with a maple board (the typical brighter sounding strat combination). "Take me down to Ice Pick city, where my ears are bleeding and my tone is shitty" was the result.
I have three nearly identical G&L ASAT blackguards, all swamp ash bodies, same pickups, same bridges, same tuners, same nuts, same neck shaft material, same body material. They have different neck profiles, one of them is a swamp ash with a modern c neck and a maple board, one of them's a heavy swamp ash body with a heavy V neck and maple board, and one of them's a thinline (no f-hole) swamp ash body with a modern c neck rosewood board. They also don't sound the same. The heavy swamp ash one is the brightest, followed by the medium c solid, followed by the rosewood.
Anyway, those are just a few of the things I've tried, and the basis for my opinion. Like I said, to each his own.
I've had alder, swamp ash, mahogany, basswood, pine and korina bodies but they have all been on different styles of guitars and I don't have a strong preference. I also had an acrylic body for a while but it was way too heavy for me.
I'm not sure where I fall on where the burden of proof lies, though. Common sense tells me different material types would cause some measurable difference in outcomes so it seems that one would want to prove that this is not the case.
I guess the problem I see with providing a baseline to test is that I don't know if you can make the same body out of different woods come out to the same exact weight. I think that would be crucial to analyzing the results. You also have to account for the moisture content in each wood type, I think.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 21, 2014, 06:37:59 PM
I've been mentioned in the same paragraph as George Gruhn. 8)
In no way do I claim to be an expert in the matter. I am not a blues lawyer, as previously mentioned, I am clearly a hair metal engineer. I don't have tan pants, I have designer spandex (bet you can't get that image out of your mind).
Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, and personally, in regards to this subject, it's essentially inconsequential in the grand scheme of first world issues.
My point behind my comment about two SC250s sounding different was to point out that a guitar is in fact a sum of its components. Perhaps a better comparison would be so say run the rack of any major guitar store for every MIM strat. They will sound different, because they are the sum of their parts, which include the pickups, the bridge, the nut, the body, the neck, etc, etc. It's actually easier to control the specs on the pickups then on the bodies and necks, because a CNC winder can put exactly the same number of winds on a pickup and the wire is produced in mass batches. Clearly their can be some differentiation between the magnets. Bobbins, spacers, covers, etc, are all manufactured in the same fashion and are likely not to deviate greatly. Same thing applies for bridges, and tuners, it's easier to get the metallurgy right because you have to physically create it. It's more difficult to manage the body and neck properties, as you can be dealing with a range of densities, wood anamolies, multiple laminations, etc, etc.
If we were to accept that the materials of construction have no affect on guitar tone (and, again, I don't really care either way), then we must accept the fact that the quantity of material in the build, once it meets the basic structural requirements of the guitar, also doesn't matter. If that were the case, then a production Gibson Les Paul and a production Gibson SG should sound identical. For comparable models, they have the same scale, the same tuners, the same nut material, same fret material, same bridge, same tail piece, same pickups, same pot values. I've done the test, I have had a bunch of each over the years and I still have two of each. They don't sound the same. This test could also be extended to Flying Vs, Explorers, and 335s (because if the wood is solely a structural element, it should not matter if the body is solid, semi hollow, or hollow).
And I've taken it a step further. My first guitar was an Ibanez X-Series. It was the best guitar that I could afford at the time. It looked hideous. When my collection reached the point where I didn't need it any more (four guitars, I was king of the world), I didn't really want to sell it, but I couldn't stand to look at it any more. So I threw it on the table saw and cut the wings off. Yup, sounded different, and worse. So, I was past the point of no return, so I tried to make it a home made Steinberger by cutting more wood off. Even more of a sonic disaster. Bought an RG body for it and scavenged all the components to built a partshredder. Wayyyy more treble than my dog could handle. Eventually it made for some very bad smelling firewood.
So from this experiment, I derived that the quantity of material used to construct a guitar body did in fact have an effect on the tone of the guitar. And, since the X-series was a basswood body and the RG was a plywood body, I concluded that materials of manufacture also had an effect on tone.
Another experiment I tried was taking loaded Texas Special pickguard (a notoriously bright pickup) from an alder body/rosewood board strat (typically a darker sounding strat in the combination) into a Lite Ash strat with a maple board (the typical brighter sounding strat combination). "Take me down to Ice Pick city, where my ears are bleeding and my tone is shitty" was the result.
I have three nearly identical G&L ASAT blackguards, all swamp ash bodies, same pickups, same bridges, same tuners, same nuts, same neck shaft material, same body material. They have different neck profiles, one of them is a swamp ash with a modern c neck and a maple board, one of them's a heavy swamp ash body with a heavy V neck and maple board, and one of them's a thinline (no f-hole) swamp ash body with a modern c neck rosewood board. They also don't sound the same. The heavy swamp ash one is the brightest, followed by the medium c solid, followed by the rosewood.
Anyway, those are just a few of the things I've tried, and the basis for my opinion. Like I said, to each his own.
I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way. I mentioned you by name, but only because you came up as one who owns a third of Canada's guitars. ;D
I don't actually care all that much either, I just find the discussion interesting. I find that some of the claims of "scientific fact" aren't very scientific, but overall I just enjoy the hashing through an interesting subject. Again, I fall in the camp of believing that the wood does make a difference, this is more of a discussion on how that might be quantified.
Assuming one took the exact same hardware (not just same model) and installed it on an SG, Les Paul, 335, strat, etc... I think one could expect it would sound very different, even if there wasn't a difference in wood. The construction techniques and the body mass are significantly different.
As far as magnets go, I've got some experience with them. The charge tolerances can vary quite a bit. I've spent some time working with Neodymium magnets and they can be interesting. I was working with a vendor on a transducer design and we were trying to increase the sensitivity of the driver. As we increased the charge level, the standard deviation of the charge increased dramatically. So much so that manufacturing consistency would've been difficult. Does this apply to the magnets in guitar pickups? Hell if I know. Maybe Timbo has some thoughts on magnet consistency.
For the hardware itself, yeah I would expect very little change from unit to unit within the same identical model. Bridge placement (even with CNC) will vary a little bit and how the nuts are cut can vary drastically. Ask any Gibson owner. ;-)
I think all of your testing has value and is interesting. What this discussion has really reminded me of is how many variables there to consider.
Quote from: madbean on November 21, 2014, 06:45:41 PM
I've had alder, swamp ash, mahogany, basswood, pine and korina bodies but they have all been on different styles of guitars and I don't have a strong preference. I also had an acrylic body for a while but it was way too heavy for me.
I'm not sure where I fall on where the burden of proof lies, though. Common sense tells me different material types would cause some measurable difference in outcomes so it seems that one would want to prove that this is not the case.
I guess the problem I see with providing a baseline to test is that I don't know if you can make the same body out of different woods come out to the same exact weight. I think that would be crucial to analyzing the results. You also have to account for the moisture content in each wood type, I think.
I think the burden of proof is somewhat a matter of perspective. If one believes one thing and somebody is trying to convince them otherwise, I suppose they will always put the burden of proof on whomever is trying to convince them their belief is incorrect. Most likely, the burden of proof will ultimately fall on whoever holds the minority opinion. The burden of proof fell on scientists many years ago to prove that the world was indeed not flat.
I think it's possible that some of the common sense that guitarists apply to electric instruments comes from known accepted beliefs from acoustic instruments, where wood species would clearly have an affect. And since you can hear differences in the resonance of an electric guitar played acoustically, it would seem likely that it factors in somehow. How much effect that resonance has on the vibration that ultimately is transmitted to the pickup is the unquantified part.
Yes, it makes perfect sense that weight and water content would be significant factors in the overall sound of an instrument, and it would make direct comparison difficult.
I think it kind of boils down to Morgan's earlier post. To really quantify the differences, you'd have to setup an experiment that controlled the variables as much as possible. Because those variables would be difficult to completely lock down, you'd need an awful lot of data points and check for patterns. I've looked online and seen a couple of studies that concluded that wood type didn't make a difference, but they were both done by university students and weren't all that comprehensive.
I don't believe anybody needs any justification to buy the guitar they want and it doesn't really hurt anybody if the established beliefs are true or not. But it is fun to talk about. :-)
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 08:10:54 PM
I think it kind of boils down to Morgan's earlier post. To really quantify the differences, you'd have to setup an experiment that controlled the variables as much as possible. Because those variables would be difficult to completely lock down, you'd need an awful lot of data points and check for patterns. I've looked online and seen a couple of studies that concluded that wood type didn't make a difference, but they were both done by university students and weren't all that comprehensive.
Locking and identifying variables isn't the only problem, you would need to stablish a proper method for measuring and consider thresholds, errors, etc.
How to measure the different variables is another thing too, you need a proper instrument and, since we are talking about sound and sound perception, you cannot rely on the human ear as an objetive measuring device.
With our hearing sensitivity and accuracy is hard to tell if we could perceive the difference between two guitars built with the same exact elements, but history tell us that even varnishes and laquers used by violin makers affect the quality of the sound produced by the instrument and our perception of it.
Quote from: micromegas on November 21, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 08:10:54 PM
I think it kind of boils down to Morgan's earlier post. To really quantify the differences, you'd have to setup an experiment that controlled the variables as much as possible. Because those variables would be difficult to completely lock down, you'd need an awful lot of data points and check for patterns. I've looked online and seen a couple of studies that concluded that wood type didn't make a difference, but they were both done by university students and weren't all that comprehensive.
Locking and identifying variables isn't the only problem, you would need to stablish a proper method for measuring and consider thresholds, errors, etc.
How to measure the different variables is another thing too, you need a proper instrument and, since we are talking about sound and sound perception, you cannot rely on the human ear as an objetive measuring device.
With our hearing sensitivity and accuracy is hard to tell if we could perceive the difference between two guitars built with the same exact elements, but history tell us that even varnishes and laquers used by violin makers affect the quality of the sound produced by the instrument and our perception of it.
Yep, I've had to conduct blind listening tests as a means of validation and it can be really challenging. I've found that real-time listening tests are very difficult to control. Often, I'll do a binaural recording with an acoustic mannequin and present recorded sound samples to test subjects. Usually the samples are short in length and presented in an A-B, A-B-A or A-B-C manner to maximize differences (I usually prefer A-B-A). If the samples are too long, it can affect peoples' ability to discern differences. Aural memory is fairly short.
There's been a ton of research on the value of lacquers in violins and a lot of debate on why they are important. There are also a lot of theories on why wood on the older violins sounds like it does. Really interesting stuff, actually.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 21, 2014, 03:32:54 AM
I used to be of that opinion until I saw the results of some empirical tests (ie: ones not influenced by the human ear).
... im joining in here. I would like to see that test. Can i ask you for a link to the report?
***
Not sure i have followed all details in the discussion, but if i read you right, i have to say that you are wrong. Wood makes difference. If that difference is big or small (and worth the effort to run for better woods) may be a bit of healthy discussion, but that there is at least some difference is indeed quite obvious.
Of course the other gear (hardware etc) makes some difference too. Everything does. But basically we have a resonating thing - the guitar - and the thing that resonates is the wood (neck and body) together with plucked strings.
I had a friend who a few years back completely killed his instrument by spraypainting it with wrong quality color. It affected - the resonance of the wood parts.
Proof, compare the sound of two guitar necks with different wood:
http://www.frudua.com/suoni/alti/hpimo853.mp3
http://www.frudua.com/suoni/bassi/hpim883.mp3
..you dont need instruments to measure the difference. Im not really a sound gury myself but this one is obvious. And if those necks sound different when tapped, they will sound different when stringed.
... then, of course, different pickups makes huge difference too. So do choice of microphones when you record singers. But then, we have to agree that there are - in the first place - different quality in singers.
Cheerio
Tone is in the fingers. ;D
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 07:58:05 PM
I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way. I mentioned you by name, but only because you came up as one who owns a third of Canada's guitars. ;D
I just took it for granted that you had annoited me the George Gruhn of Canada :D. I accept that. No, wait, I don't, give me another 10 years or when I hit 1,000, whichever comes first.
As far as the Blues Lawyer thing goes, that was more a tongue in cheek response to when that comment gets made on TGP, and the inference that usually accompanies it that those of my ilk who have a preference for a specific brand (PRS) buy them only for prestige/looks and have little to no concept of tone or playability. I buy them because they play and sound great, and they are hands down the best bang for the buck on the used market. None of that was aimed at you.
Quote from: GermanCdn on November 21, 2014, 09:22:57 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on November 21, 2014, 07:58:05 PM
I hope you didn't take my post the wrong way. I mentioned you by name, but only because you came up as one who owns a third of Canada's guitars. ;D
I just took it for granted that you had annoited me the George Gruhn of Canada :D. I accept that. No, wait, I don't, give me another 10 years or when I hit 1,000, whichever comes first.
As far as the Blues Lawyer thing goes, that was more a tongue in cheek response to when that comment gets made on TGP, and the inference that usually accompanies it that those of my ilk who have a preference for a specific brand (PRS) buy them only for prestige/looks and have little to no concept of tone or playability. I buy them because they play and sound great, and they are hands down the best bang for the buck on the used market. None of that was aimed at you.
The written word can be a funny thing. I actually didn't perceive any of your post as a shot at me; I was just making sure that my original post was clear; sometimes when you specifically mention somebody by name it can seem light a slight, which obviously wasn't the case this time, Mr. Gruhn.
It's clear from your posts that you play and enjoy your guitars a lot. You also seem to have a good sense of humor about owning so many instruments. Hell, I own more guitars than I need but I can't sell them because I need them. Makes perfect sense to me. :-)
NGD coming soon, btw. Finally getting a buddy's R7. His R7 was part of the reason I sold my old R7. Mine was good, his is great. Stupid light, too. I am sure the wood has more resonance and sounds different. :-) Now I just need to move my old '99 Standard.
I know where a Standard might find a good home....
Just to keep this going. ;)
I thought I had read something about an attempt at a scientific study into this debate. After a liitle googling I found this: http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2012/article/does-$10,000-guitar-sound-better-than-$300 (http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2012/article/does-$10,000-guitar-sound-better-than-$300) It is not the actual study, but a very brief overview. If I understand this correctly, his claim is that the wood does make a difference when not amplified, but when amplified it ceases to make any difference.
Don't really have a dog in this fight. The tone my fingers sucks, so it doesn't matter what guitar I play. ;D
@ crashguitar; The link is to a short artcle from -12, and states that a study is goin on.
"Mr Angove hopes to complete his research by the end of the year."
.. Is There a finnished report?
... Im on cellphone, can hardly copynpaste... Maybe i can find something by searchin myself. Ill be back!
This is an interesting conversation.. I really have nothing to add since I am unsure what side of the fence I am on. I did find this document just for info.
http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf (http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf)
I am also looking to see if there was any outcome with this
https://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J1220.pdf (https://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J1220.pdf)
Cody
Interesting article. Kinda fitting that it's from Toledo in Spain, even if Toledo is legendary for steel, not music.
The two lines on the graphs looked to have quite a bit of variance, but I'm no statistician.
@Vallhagen
I realize that it was not the full study. I thought it read something more in depth, but I haven't found it again. :(
This is a Long debate.
I've found this video, which is a bit long, but the guy shows the physics equations and what really affects the guitar frequencies.
Just to spicy it up a bit ;)! In the end, he compares experimentally 3 diff woods types.
I know there is a lot of Voodoo out there but I will stick with this untill someone proves otherwise!
http://youtu.be/svmOQuNC1Uw (http://youtu.be/svmOQuNC1Uw)
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 02:30:24 PM
This is a Long debate.
I've found this video, which is a bit long, but the guy shows the physics equations and what really affects the guitar frequencies.
Just to spicy it up a bit ;)! In the end, he compares experimentally 3 diff woods types.
I know there is a lot of Voodoo out there but I will stick with this untill someone proves otherwise!
http://youtu.be/svmOQuNC1Uw (http://youtu.be/svmOQuNC1Uw)
Crap. i wrote a fairly long reply and then computer froze in the middle of it! so... starting over...
I watched the video. a bit tiring long hour, but im through it. Im not sure which is worse; the scientific playground or the voodoo kindergarden, though i spend more time in the first mentioned. This guy has read some course about wave propagation and stuff but i assume he didnt take the second course. He shows us the math for the string, but not for the wood. We may assume that he finds such math is a bit complex, and its easier to just skip. By skipping this he simplifies the wood of the guitar to some matter that is 100% undynamic and stiff. And tree is not (we can bend a neck, right). We always do simplifications when we make theory of reality, but we gotta be careful about what to simplify. So; Watch him as a voodooist dressed up as a math teacher, thats a good starting point. By false math you can "prove" a lot. I actually go a bit provoked by him claiming "this is pure science", when he misses so much.
A few examples of things that makes him wrong:
He actually claims that theres no such thing as cancellation of waves (or rather, he claims that the cancellation of waves does not have any impact when it comes to sound). It is funny becouse he really showes one effect of wave cancellation early in the video. I mean: When destructive interference (cancellation) occur, of course there is an impact of sound. This can be useful: There are sound systems based on destructive interference in some civil aircraft out there, designed for cancellation of cabin noise, and they indeed do their job. He's own example about two ppl on the beach not cancelling (no shit!) out the spoken word is most stupid.
He completely ignore to talk about the resonance of the body and neck. If the body-neck resonance is close to the played note's resonance they are most likely to partly cancel out. This happens, but the risk is higher for lower notes and may be more actual for electric basses than guitars. Fact: Every piece of matter (in this case, a guitar body and neck) that responds with sound when you tap it, indeed does have a resonance.
Then he claims that there really are difference (notice that!) between the woods: When it comes to note decay (sustain). But his conclusion is that the wood doesn't make any difference? I'm like... wtf?? Then he shows sound examples, but he does NOT let the tone ring out, because then the audience will hear the difference(!!!)... But hey, this means that he says there is a difference, right? Contradiction anyone??? Who is he fooling?
On the other end of sustain, there is attack. he doesnt adress that either.
He does not adress the frequency dependency of decay either. That is timbre for sure.
He's "guitar dummys" could be a good starting point for a more serious experiment. But from what i can see, they are 1) thicker than a common electric guitar body, and 2) they have no neck. So they should be closer to eachother soundwise than three "real guitars" of different wood.
Another contradiction: He states clearly that he does NOT talk about hollow-body guitars. But hey: Assume he is correct, then his conclusion should also prove that there is no difference between hollow-bodied guitars and solid guitars either, as (he's argument) the pickup really picks up electromagnetic waves (which of course is true) and is not affected by acoustic sound.
I could go on...
***
Its funny, before i read this thread, i really wasn't aware that there is an infected debate about this out there. But as i now look around (ive had nothing better to do, being stuck at home with a cold for some days), i have still NOT found anything that seriously shows or supports the idea that "there is no difference between soundwoods". There is a lot of "voodoo-mythical arguments" out there of course, but there are likewise pretty much semi-skilled "anti-voodooism" goin on as well. Throwing 3-4 simple physician formulas on a whiteboard doesnt impress me much more than the voodooists.
*****
Hey Gledison! Time to change foot again, right!!!
Cheerio!
Quote from: crashguitar on November 22, 2014, 01:27:08 PM
@Vallhagen
I realize that it was not the full study. I thought it read something more in depth, but I haven't found it again. :(
No worries. I have searched too, and didnt find it either. Not every student report makes "google daylight".
Cheerio.
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 23, 2014, 06:40:37 PM
Hey Gledison! Time to change foot again, right!!!
Cheerio!
Hey Vallhagen,
I do agree with some of your points as well, and i dont want to defend the guy on the video. I agree with ur comment that wood is not a totally homogeneos material but I agree as well that the frequency back from the wood would be an integral of all the different points and in the end has to be equal to the initial frequency (mostly from the bridge).
There is another interesting video where some guy apply diff frequencies and check which point will resonate accordingly using salt to show where is happening :S
I'm too far away to be able to discuss this point with my little experience, but as I said before, if you can just prove somehow, I would love to go for the Voodoo side of the force ;)
Cheers mate!
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
I would love to go for the Voodoo side of the force ;)
Yay! Did I just become a voodoooist?! ;D
I think there is enough evidence allready. I posted two short soundclips earlier showing different resonance for different woods. And the guy in your video unproof himself by showing that a heavier wood gives longer decay. What more do we need?
Another thing about the video; the guy sais that the material of the bridge makes difference. yes. of course it does. There is an interface where the string meets the bridge which is important. Then, in next interface the bridge meets....the body! Now, how can that interface be of no importance? It might be less, but not none. No, it does not make sense. In a SCIENTIFIC perspective ;).
Cheerio
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 23, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
I would love to go for the Voodoo side of the force ;)
Yay! Did I just become a voodoooist?! ;D
I think there is enough evidence allready. I posted two short soundclips earlier showing different resonance for different woods. And the guy in your video unproof himself by showing that a heavier wood gives longer decay. What more do we need?
Another thing about the video; the guy sais that the material of the bridge makes difference. yes. of course it does. There is an interface where the string meets the bridge which is important. Then, in next interface the bridge meets....the body! Now, how can that interface be of no importance? It might be less, but not none. No, it does not make sense. In a SCIENTIFIC perspective ;).
Cheerio
Hey voodoo child! ;)
I think the guy said that there will be diff in decays and this will alter the sustain, but not the tone.
Man, there are really a lot of discussions out there( u tube r the best ones). Please check it out a video of a guy (DKGCustom). He build a strat in MDF and he compares with a solid body strat showing the signal using a software. No really differences.
A good point for the discussion would be why 3D printed guitars or acrylic sound quite nice?
To be honest it need to see comparing the signals.because my ears are not sensitive enough ( tone dead? :( )
Cheers
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 08:03:33 PM
I think the guy said that there will be diff in decays and this will alter the sustain, but not the tone.
Yes. Difference in sustain is difference in sound response. We have to agree on that.
.. and i dont see any contradiction in that synthetic guitars may sound good as well. I'm not read up much on them though. Does all synthetic guitars sound exactly the same, or are there differences among them too? With todays techniques i guess its all possible to make some kind of "perfect soundwood" of composite.
Bedtime! Ill be back! Cheerio! Tjing!
/VöödööBëngt
I'll chime in, if for no other reason than to illustrate my own ignorance ;D
I've always been skeptical about the claims of tone woods imparting characteristic timbres to an electric guitar. It seems like the wood itself would have to add or subtract energy from the vibrating strings in a specific way. ie maple would enhance overtones we perceive as "bright", while mahogany would enhance overtones that seem "warm" to us. Or, more likely, maple damps the "warm" overtones, while mahogany damps "bright" overtones. And that overtone damping would be universally consistent.
That makes sense for an acoustic instrument, but for a thing that only picks up electromagnetic waves generated by the energy of the strings I'm not so sure.
However, I have yelled into my pickups and heard my voice coming through the amp. So, if my voice could create sympathetic vibrations in the strings, it stands to reason a resonating guitar could do the same.
So, I'm confused :D
What I do know is that I've never picked up a guitar that played beautifully but sounded bad. That leads me to believe tone is mostly in the construction and setup.
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 23, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
I would love to go for the Voodoo side of the force ;)
Yay! Did I just become a voodoooist?! ;D
I think there is enough evidence allready. I posted two short soundclips earlier showing different resonance for different woods. And the guy in your video unproof himself by showing that a heavier wood gives longer decay. What more do we need?
Another thing about the video; the guy sais that the material of the bridge makes difference. yes. of course it does. There is an interface where the string meets the bridge which is important. Then, in next interface the bridge meets....the body! Now, how can that interface be of no importance? It might be less, but not none. No, it does not make sense. In a SCIENTIFIC perspective ;).
Cheerio
Hey voodoo child! ;)
I think the guy said that there will be diff in decays and this will alter the sustain, but not the tone.
Man, there are really a lot of discussions out there( u tube r the best ones). Please check it out a video of a guy (DKGCustom). He build a strat in MDF and he compares with a solid body strat showing the signal using a software. No really differences.
A good point for the discussion would be why 3D printed guitars or acrylic sound quite nice?
To be honest it need to see comparing the signals.because my ears are not sensitive enough ( tone dead? :( )
Cheers
Hehe, i'm back. and i'm out... For three days i got a bit dedicated... read through the earlier posted reports and found som 50 wrongs to pick on ... then i watched that first guy's video and got a bit pissed (posted above). Then i watched 40 minutes DKGCustom making a guitar body of a dinner table in particleboard, and read 10-15 comments. And... i just got deadly bored of the whole discussion 8) ... is "jejune" a good word to use here?
It's like two guys discussing coca cola vs coca cola zero.
1: This sugared one taste so much better!
2: Nope, they taste the same, no difference at all!
1: Hell no! Use your taste buds fgs! Its like heaven and hell!
2: They taste absolutely the same. I can prove it! By SCIENCE! Look! Both are BLACK and have the same DENSITY!
1: Hermehhh.. no, they look and maybe smell the same but one of them taste SHIT!
2: the carbon composition of aspartame is the same as in SUGAR! I can prove it by MEASUREMENTS!
1: now wait a minute, i can do a chemical analysis and show that they are DIFFFERENT!
2: No, you can't prove it! Look at my results! Yea some ppl live their myth. I'm the SCIENTIST!
1: I don't need your measured results to convince my taste...
......... nope i'm out.
**********
It's been said earlier, can be said again: What a great forum this is; where theres no intention at all to let a subject like this - which obviously has caused heavy slanging matches out there - pass the dirty line (now if that makes sense in english? you get what i mean) :)
And hey Gledison! No offence at all (but your didn't read it that way huh?)
...and hope i didnt offend anyone either. If so, please tell me and i will apologize!
Now back dreaming of my upcoming build with a body in BLACK KORINA!
Cheerio!
Quote from: jkokura on November 21, 2014, 03:52:54 AMI think the onus is more on you to show your empirical data than it is on me to prove what I've heard with my own ears.
Sorry for the late reply; I have one of those jobs where you're either bored out of your mind or you're running around like a madman for eight hours straight and lately it's been the latter. I'd be happy to accommodate but it appears that everything I'd seen (and more) has already been dredged up by other people so it seems redundant. As of yet, I've seen no empirical evidence that body wood effects the tone of a typical solid body electric guitar.
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 21, 2014, 08:45:45 PMProof, compare the sound of two guitar necks with different wood:
http://www.frudua.com/suoni/alti/hpimo853.mp3
http://www.frudua.com/suoni/bassi/hpim883.mp3
..you dont need instruments to measure the difference. Im not really a sound gury myself but this one is obvious. And if those necks sound different when tapped, they will sound different when stringed.
Proving that body wood has a resonant frequency is only proof that body wood has a resonant frequency (which, as far as I know, nobody is arguing); it's not proof of body wood affecting the tone of a solid body electric guitar. You're just saying that it
has to make a difference without any evidence that it actually does.
Now, do I
want a guitar made out of sawdust and glue vs. something made out of real wood? Hell, no. I'm just not going to get wrapped around the axle about exactly what species of tree it's made out of.
Each tree is different! I managed a music store in a different life. The van would pull up behind the store and we would unload 30-40 fenders or another brand. I would play each one. All different. Some would sing and some would not. Every guitar has a unique piece of wood from a unique tree.
Daniel
Quote from: Frag Magnet on November 26, 2014, 12:55:08 AM
Proving that body wood has a resonant frequency is only proof that body wood has a resonant frequency (which, as far as I know, nobody is arguing); it's not proof of body wood affecting the tone of a solid body electric guitar. You're just saying that it has to make a difference without any evidence that it actually does.
Hi and thanx for reply. From my point of view, sorry but yes, you are a bit late tot the party, i have allready left (see post above)! But i can reply to your meta-comment quoted in-parenthesis above:
No, on the contrary it seems like quite many is arguing about that. In the report earlier linked (the only university report seen in this thread so far, and its quite poor) one of the statements really are "a solid guitar body has no resonance at all". Wrong. Also, the guy in the video (Gledisons link) really need unresonating guitarwood if the formulas he's showing as "proof" shallnot run amok. So, its good that you have no problem accept that solid guitarwood (necks, bodies) really does resonate. From there, the following question should be: "What happens if a piece of matter with a given resonance frequencey meets a string vibrating with the same frequency?" There is answers to that question, but again, sorry, im out!
And please don't tell me i am running out of evidence; i dont need that.
Cheers and happy playing!
/Bengt
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 25, 2014, 07:44:04 PM
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: Vallhagen on November 23, 2014, 07:51:22 PM
Quote from: Gledison on November 23, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
I would love to go for the Voodoo side of the force ;)
Yay! Did I just become a voodoooist?! ;D
I think there is enough evidence allready. I posted two short soundclips earlier showing different resonance for different woods. And the guy in your video unproof himself by showing that a heavier wood gives longer decay. What more do we need?
Another thing about the video; the guy sais that the material of the bridge makes difference. yes. of course it does. There is an interface where the string meets the bridge which is important. Then, in next interface the bridge meets....the body! Now, how can that interface be of no importance? It might be less, but not none. No, it does not make sense. In a SCIENTIFIC perspective ;).
Cheerio
Hey voodoo child! ;)
I think the guy said that there will be diff in decays and this will alter the sustain, but not the tone.
Man, there are really a lot of discussions out there( u tube r the best ones). Please check it out a video of a guy (DKGCustom). He build a strat in MDF and he compares with a solid body strat showing the signal using a software. No really differences.
A good point for the discussion would be why 3D printed guitars or acrylic sound quite nice?
To be honest it need to see comparing the signals.because my ears are not sensitive enough ( tone dead? :( )
Cheers
Hehe, i'm back. and i'm out... For three days i got a bit dedicated... read through the earlier posted reports and found som 50 wrongs to pick on ... then i watched that first guy's video and got a bit pissed (posted above). Then i watched 40 minutes DKGCustom making a guitar body of a dinner table in particleboard, and read 10-15 comments. And... i just got deadly bored of the whole discussion 8) ... is "jejune" a good word to use here?
It's like two guys discussing coca cola vs coca cola zero.
1: This sugared one taste so much better!
2: Nope, they taste the same, no difference at all!
1: Hell no! Use your taste buds fgs! Its like heaven and hell!
2: They taste absolutely the same. I can prove it! By SCIENCE! Look! Both are BLACK and have the same DENSITY!
1: Hermehhh.. no, they look and maybe smell the same but one of them taste SHIT!
2: the carbon composition of aspartame is the same as in SUGAR! I can prove it by MEASUREMENTS!
1: now wait a minute, i can do a chemical analysis and show that they are DIFFFERENT!
2: No, you can't prove it! Look at my results! Yea some ppl live their myth. I'm the SCIENTIST!
1: I don't need your measured results to convince my taste...
......... nope i'm out.
**********
It's been said earlier, can be said again: What a great forum this is; where theres no intention at all to let a subject like this - which obviously has caused heavy slanging matches out there - pass the dirty line (now if that makes sense in english? you get what i mean) :)
And hey Gledison! No offence at all (but your didn't read it that way huh?)
...and hope i didnt offend anyone either. If so, please tell me and i will apologize!
Now back dreaming of my upcoming build with a body in BLACK KORINA!
Cheerio!
Hey Bengt, no worries.
I think se all could go for ages discussing this. We could start bring string theory to show how all different wood particles behave like strings vibrating in diff atomic frequencies .... Heheheeh.
I would like to be a voodoist too but somehow still need to see the prove of concepts...and that was my point: there are people trying to show that tone wood is voodoo, wheatear the tone wood believers are not doing...
Cheers