squier telecaster ummm makes me think

[pickdropper]

I've been mentioned in the same paragraph as George Gruhn.

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.   

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.

[pickdropper]

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.  :-)

[micromegas]

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.

[pickdropper]

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.

[Vallhagen]

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

[culturejam]

Tone is in the fingers. 

[GermanCdn]

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.   

I just took it for granted that you had annoited me the George Gruhn of Canada .  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.

[GermanCdn]

Tone is in the fingers. 

Yup.

[pickdropper]

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.   

I just took it for granted that you had annoited me the George Gruhn of Canada .  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.

[GermanCdn]

I know where a Standard might find a good home....

[madbean]

Tone is in the fingers. 

Shouldn't you be on TGP?

[crashguitar]

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 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. 

[Vallhagen]

@ 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!

[selfdestroyer]

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

I am also looking to see if there was any outcome with this
https://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J1220.pdf

Cody

[alanp]

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.