Body wood affects tone

Jez6345789

For all the debate here nothing takes me away from wood matters and affects tonality to some degree or other.

in the real world simply miking the amp differently or changing strings or using a pedal will make far more difference.

but i am drawn back to what PRS has said it's just part of the equation and you need to look at all of the variables then you narrow the window for success and have greater chance of making a good guitar and some of those will be magic guitars but it's a sum of the parts not just ash or alder v mahogany v walnut whatever.

octatonic

crunchman said:

EricTheWeary said:

For recorded sound the number of variables is huge, in those days things like the mastering was hugely important and then there's what you listen back to it on and a hundred other things. I struggle to imagine the difference between two pieces of wood used to build guitars making a difference to the end listener even in a more direct environment like a concert. Whatever difference it's pretty much only for the benefit of the player. Which is fine if you prefer the sound, get the response you want,etc, as that ultimately helps you play better. But nobody is going ' listen to the mahogany in that.'

I get what you are saying, but the guitar definitely makes a difference.  Sultans of Swing on Les Paul just wouldn't work.

I disagree.

Kalimna

Nice vid Guess he's using one of those alder-bodied Les Pauls

Cirrus

Re; that violin study linked, it made me chuckle a little when it was published.

The violins were evaluated solo, up close, and in a room with relatively dry acoustics. Which kind of misses the point, because in much the same way as it doesn't matter what my Vox AC30 sounds like in the downstairs toilet in my house, who cares what violins sound good in some little room somewhere? It only matters what they sound like out in the audience in a concert hall, and how they sit among the sounds of a full orchestra.

And guess what? Much like in the world of guitars, the things people didn't like about the valuable old Stradivarius were the same things that make guitars sit well in ensembles - lack of body, strident upper mids, harsh treble - alone it's no good, but stand back 20 meters, surround and support that tone with 100 other musicians and suddenly the Stradivarius sounds lively, detailed, floats over the orchestra...

Which leads me to the only serious point I think I have to make in this thread.

Almost all guitar forum science arguments end up totally missing the point.

Sound is just vibrations hitting your ear that your brain turns into a whole imagined sensory world - evolution could have been lazy and just made us experience the vibrations through our sense of touch. Because it's the sense where the subjective experience has the most tenuous link to the physical reality of what's happening, what our brain chooses to present to us as sound is very, very influenced by our expectations.

If you believe a certain guitar sounds better because of the wood, then it does. It's as simple as that. The sound only exists in your subjective internal reality.

And that's so important, because again, here's a truth that forum science arguments very quickly begin to shit in the face of: Music is an art. If you believe in the guitar in your hands being a magic mojo thingy, and it makes you inspired so you play better, then you sound better and you do better things with the instrument. That's real. If someone else holding the same guitar sits there deciding to be rational and reading up physics theories about the propagation of waves, decide that they don't believe the guitar in their hand is actually somehow a mojo filled tonewood wonder... well, theyve just killed their inspiration.

Or not, maybe getting analytical inspires them to do something brilliant.

But what's the point in those two people arguing about who's right?

Three-ColourSunburst

Cirrus said:

...what our brain chooses to present to us as sound is very, very influenced by our expectations.

If you believe a certain guitar sounds better because of the wood, then it does. It's as simple as that. The sound only exists in your subjective internal reality.

Great post!

Just to focus on the above points, I have effectively said the same thing numerous times in this thread. Understanding why people believe in solid body electric guitar 'tone wood' may never be answered by physics, simply because it is not a perceptible physical reality. (Or rather, as good empiricists and scientists let us say that it does not appear to be, or has not yet been proven to be a physical reality.) This is why no one - so far - seems to have come up with an academically rigorous explanation of 'tone wood' any more then they have come up with an academically rigorous explanation of 'directionality' in expensive audio cables, despite all the forum discussions and manufacturers spin concerning such topics.

For the real answer we probably need to look to psychology, or maybe even religion - another area where the lack of physical evidence, or even proof showing people that their beliefs are false, does not stop them from 'knowing' that what they believe is true.

Three-ColourSunburst

octatonic said:

crunchman said:

I get what you are saying, but the guitar definitely makes a difference.  Sultans of Swing on Les Paul just wouldn't work.

I disagree.

That doesn't sound good because of the tone wood, it's because of the hide glue and nitro finish!

octatonic

For fuck's sake!

Three-ColourSunburst

I understand that this guy is a bit controversial, and I would not put forward what he says as being credible proof of anything,  but he does seem to have cottoned on the the fact that many 'tone wood' believers, either deliberately or unconsciously, change their picking position to create the sound they expect to hear.



Edit: Just watched this all the way through and he really talks a lot of sense here.

Three-ColourSunburst

andyp said:

What I am reading through this thread is that @Three-ColourSunburst appears to be saying all electric guitars sound the same regardless of body construction. Is that correct? (Assume electronics, pickup type etc. are all a control here, so they are not part of my query).

Not quite. As I said earlier, I think this sort of thing is entirely nonsense, and does not seem to be backed up by any science whatsoever.

Solid basswood bodies have a fat, but well-balanced tonality. There’s a muscular midrange, but also a certain softness and breathiness. On a well-made guitar, basswood can yield good dynamics and definition with enough grind to give the sound some oomph.

http://www.guitarplayer.com/miscellaneous/1139/all-about-tonewoods/14591

FFS this sort of thing is practically a duplication of the insanity of the audiophiles! Even the woolly, essentially meaningless language is the same.

As I have highlighted, the claim that the different species of wood used to build a solid body guitar can selectively and predictably influence the balance of the various harmonics on a vibrating steel string to a degree that can be perceived above and beyond all the things that also influence those harmonics seems, from what I have read so far, to also be unsupportable.

However, this is not to say that 'all electric guitars sound the same', even given the same pickups and so on. For example, differences in construction and hardware can alter the sustain of an instrument, and it seems probable that factors such as the attack of the note - which is a component of the timbre - can vary from guitar to guitar due to constructional differences. Quite possibly factors such as the density or resonant frequency of a particular piece of wood might well also play a role. (Although, as I said earlier, the resonant frequency of a given piece of wood is unlikely to actually benefit tone, most likely creating wolf tones and / or dead spots instead.)

Fundamentally the role the actual species of wood of the guitar (the focus of the tone wood believers, as highlighted in the link above) plays in all this seems to be minimal or irrelevant. Also, as I pointed out earlier, even with an acoustic instrument, where the majority of what you actually hear is the body of the instrument resonating (plus the air inside it) the wood is of secondary importance to the construction of the instrument, as Taylor showed with their guitars made out of old pallets full of nails.

Of course, all of the above is still open to challenge, as it is just based on everything I have been able to find on this topic over the last few days. As I said, I would love to read anything anyone has which throws further light on this debate.

Danielsguitars

Guitars are emotive instruments made with natural materials and something which can't get a scientific definitive imo

It's all personal, it boils down to the nonbelievers who should be playing the shittiest thing they can get there hands on as it makes no difference accordingto them

The rest will go by feel, tone and playability, in other words the guitar that speaks to them

This scientific shit gets on my nerves, same as a guy clamping wood on a body or plank or fucking pallet wood, doesn't work in a real world guitar imo

If it did thats what they'd play in the real world, I haven't seen many tone planks being played out live either

dindude

customkits said:

Guitars are emotive instruments made with natural materials and something which can't get a scientific definitive imo

It's all personal, it boils down to the nonbelievers who should be playing the shittiest thing they can get there hands on as it makes no difference accordingto them

The rest will go by feel, tone and playability, in other words the guitar that speaks to them

This scientific shit gets on my nerves, same as a guy clamping wood on a body or plank or fucking pallet wood, doesn't work in a real world guitar imo

If it did thats what they'd play in the real world, I haven't seen many tone planks being played out live either

Totally. Use your fucking ears, even if they're lying to you, is my motto.

Kalimna

'Fucking pallet wood doesnt work' - do tell that to Taylor and Benedetto, they may disagree.

Roland

Cirrus said:

... who cares what violins sound good in some little room somewhere? It only matters what they sound like out in the audience in a concert hall, and how they sit among the sounds of a full orchestra.

There was a research project on reverb, where they recorded a string section in a small room, and then processed it with different reverbs. When they played the recordings back the string players said that they sounded wrong because they played their instruments differently depending on how much natural reverb there was in a room.

GSPBASSES

Three-ColourSunburst said:

crunchman said:

It isn't just whether they are bright or dark sounding - something that could be EQ'ed out.  Some guitars seem to sound more 'alive' than others for want of a better word.  Almost always, these ones also sound a lot more lively unplugged.

And for centuries people said similar things about the qualities of old Stradivarius violins, until recent research showed it was all a product of self-deception.

Perhaps you are right about some guitars being more 'alive' (for want of a better word) and sounding a lot more 'lively' (whatever that might mean).  All I am asking for is some rational explanation that is consistent with the laws of physics as to why that might be, not anecdotes, folk lore, rubbish YouTube demonstrations and so on, just a rational explanation with reference to proper research.

If this were a real phenomenon I can't imagine why there seems to be such a lack of academic papers on the topic. There are certainly endless papers on numerous related topics, ranging from the resonance of acoustic guitar bodies through to psychophysical studies of the perception of timbre. I have now spent days trying to research this whole 'tone wood' thing and I am no closer to finding an answer, which make me think there isn't one and it has more to do with the sort of factors that led people to believe old Strads were somehow magical than anything physical.

To be honest, and with the greatest of respect, the fact that this debate is framed by such woolly, ill-defined terms as 'lively sounding' itself suggest that the real answer is more likely to be found in the realm of psychology than physics!

So classical violinists who spend millions of pounds on a Stradivarius have been conned?

It now seems quite clear that one of the participants in this debate will say anything to keep it going, even if what he says is totally irrelevant and a load of bullshit! Also making statements contradicting something they said earlier just to wind you up!

The great thing about rock 'n' roll music is that the people who play the guitars really don't give a shit what academics say about the science or physics of what makes a guitar sound different to another guitar. Guitarists know what they need, and don't really care if it's made of mahogany or whatever so long as it gives them the sound that they want. I'm quite sure that back in the fifties, when rock 'n' roll first started and the musicians used solid guitars I doubt if they bothered what they were made of. The only thing they were interested in was how it sounded. I hope I'm not being presumptuous, but I'm quite sure that most of the guitarists on this forum, when buying a guitar, it’s the sound, feel, how it plays, the quality of the build etc which will determine if they buy it or not. I don't think I know anyone who is going to shop for a guitar and say to their self “I must go and find a science paper to make sure that this guitar has been built according to the physics of solid guitar building”.

I don’t think there was a debate about tone wood when the electric guitar was first invented, but most likely started with the internet forums. I personally think there was no discussion about this. I believe Fender chose woods that were cheap and very available, so the choice of ash, alder or pine fitted the bill for bodies, although pine was dropped. Maple being the choice for necks. Gibson, on the other hand, because they were already manufacturing acoustic guitars etc were already using mahogany so it followed that this was their choice. I know that's a very simplistic way of looking at it, but the people involved in this at the beginning were not academics, physicists who spent years in research, writing papers on how it should or shouldn't be done, they just got on, done it, and made some of the best guitars ever. 
I find it quite ironic that after all the years that the solid guitar has been made, some people now seem to think you need a university degree in guitar making or a science degree in physics before you can make guitars and know how they work. 

When I was a bass player back in the early sixties, it never even crossed my mind when I bought my first P-Bass what it was made of. I just went into Selma, played as many basses as there were hanging on the wall, and picked one I felt most comfortable with. I can honestly say I don't know if it was made of Ash or Alder.

My conclusion on this debate about tone wood is that most guitarists do not care what the wood is so long as the guitar plays and sounds to suit their needs. I would say that the customers I make guitars for split about 50-50 on whether they ask for advice on wood and those who have very definite ideas of what wood they want.

As a further conclusion I would suggest any academics amongst you should go and write a 5000 word paper on the physics of vibrating strings, how wood reacts to vibration, how magnetic force of the pickups changes the vibration of the strings etc etc. Use toilet paper to write it on, then flush it down the toilet where bullshit belongs. 

Apologies to the moderators.

I don't have very strong feelings about tone woods, but I do have very strong feelings on people who write bullshit and try to complicate a very simple process of making solid guitars. Having got all that off my chest, I will go down my workshop and make some solid guitars out of wood that guitarists expect them to be made of. Strats and Teles out of Ash or Alder with Maple necks and Rosewood or Maple finger boards, and Les Paul Juniors out of Mahogany.  

The question is as guitar maker, repairer, and doing setups since the early sixties, do I have an opinion on whether the wood used for guitars affects the tone?

 I can say quite categorically “Yes it does”.

 I can say quite categorically “No it doesn't”

Maybe I should write a 5000 word paper on how tone wood has a massive effect on the tone of a guitar. Then go and write a 5000 word paper on how tone wood has no effect on the tone of a guitar. Maybe not. I might do a post on the workings of GSPBASSES on how and why I use different woods on different guitars. I promise I will not fill it with bullshit physics and vibrating strings. I won't mention hyde glue or Terry Morgan.

 

Roland

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Just to focus on the above points, I have effectively said the same thing numerous times in this thread. Understanding why people believe in solid body electric guitar 'tone wood' may never be answered by physics, simply because it is not a perceptible physical reality.

You've said it several times, and a number of people have disagreed with you. What's not disputed is that:
1. Wood can affect tone.
2. Wood is not a uniform material, and so it's not possible to say definitively that wood type X always has effect Y. However generalisations can be drawn, such as maple being brighter than mahogany.
3. Other components can have a much greater impact than wood.
4. Psychology plays a part in what we hear.
5. People who troll Internet forums, and think they are scoring points by mis-quoting or wilfully misinterpreting other contributors, don't realise how silly they look to everyone else.

As evidence:

@andyp ;said:

This thread is like watching an argument between Flat Earthers and Everyone Else.

@WezV ; said:

You are selectively quoting and changing your argument.

@impmann ; said:

I think you are just being awkward for the sake of it now.

@Sporky ; said:

You've ignored, dismissed or misquoted every explanation thus far. 

octatonic said:

For fuck's sake!

In conclusion: Please don't feed the trolls.

WezV

GSPBASSES said:

 I can say quite categorically “Yes it does”.

 I can say quite categorically “No it doesn't”

Maybe I should write a 5000 word paper on how tone wood has a massive effect on the tone of a guitar. Then go and write a 5000 word paper on how tone wood has no effect on the tone of a guitar. Maybe not. I might do a post on the workings of GSPBASSES on how and why I use different woods on different guitars. I promise I will not fill it with bullshit physics and vibrating strings. I won't mention hyde glue or Terry Morgan.

I think its a subject worthy of discussion in a BS free way - just a shame that doesn't seem to be possible on this forum.

Many seem unable to separate the real subject of the affect of body material and structure from the guitar shop mythology that mahogany is always one way and maple is always another. Just because there is a lot of bullshit out there, it doesn;t mean its not worthy of discussion

I don't use the term tonewood for electrics for this very reason  - its all just wood.  some works for guitars and some doesn't, species has little to do with it.  The individual piece does.


I am going to go out on a limb and assume I am one of a small group of people here who have made and played guitars with more than 10 distinct species of wood or materials not traditionally used in guitars (I may need to count from past builds at some point, its a lot!).  Very few ever step out the mahogany, alder, ash triangle for body wood.    I should confess i have tried a lot and come back to the classics.

Sadly that doesn't count for anything in these debates when people want pure scientific results.  I didn't do it for science, i did it for fun!

I am told my brain is fooling me.  Its possible, i understand the concept (my "scientific" background is psychology).  It doesn't explain why i have been surprised by the final sound from some woods.  If it all came down to my preconceived ideas I am sure i would never be wrong -  I definitely have been wrong!  I keep tapping wood, building with wood and learning from experience.

It would be nice if we could have a discussion about wood selection, design and build theory without the ridiculousness. My attempts to do so here with people who do build tend to fall flat because its often taken as criticism - maybe that's my approach and i should stop expecting people want to talk about it

 I have blocked the troll.  Shame his posts still show when someone quotes them

richardhomer

WezV said:
I think its a subject worthy of discussion in a BS free way - just a shame that doesn't seem to be possible on this forum.

Many seem unable to separate the real subject of the affect of body material and structure from the guitar shop mythology that mahogany is always one way and maple is always another. Just because there is a lot of bullshit out there, it doesn;t mean its not worthy of discussion

I don't use the term tonewood for electrics for this very reason  - its all just wood.  some works for guitars and some doesn't, species has little to do with it.  The individual piece does.


I am going to go out on a limb and assume I am one of a small group of people here who have made and played guitars with more than 10 distinct species of wood or materials not traditionally used in guitars (I may need to count from past builds at some point, its a lot!).  Very few ever step out the mahogany, alder, ash triangle for body wood.    I should confess i have tried a lot and come back to the classics.

Sadly that doesn't count for anything in these debates when people want pure scientific results.  I didn't do it for science, i did it for fun!

I am told my brain is fooling me.  Its possible, i understand the concept (my "scientific" background is psychology).  It doesn't explain why i have been surprised by the final sound from some woods.  If it all came down to my preconceived ideas I am sure i would never be wrong -  I definitely have been wrong!  I keep tapping wood, building with wood and learning from experience.

It would be nice if we could have a discussion about wood selection, design and build theory without the ridiculousness. My attempts to do so here with people who do build tend to fall flat because its often taken as criticism - maybe that's my approach and i should stop expecting people want to talk about it

 I have blocked the troll.  Shame his posts still show when someone quotes them

As always @WezV - a great post.

Your take on this stuff is always interesting - I hope you carry on sharing your knowledge with us.

Kalimna

WezV - perhaps it is time to start a new thread on a more grown-up discussion of different wood.
It is a shame that so many on here dismiss an attempt at science and deeper understanding as BS - because a greater understanding of what makes particular species (and individual billets) useful in the production of great playing instruments, can only lead to more consistency in the construction of guitars and utilisation of novel timbers.
Anyway, my build history is limted to mahogany, afromosia and padauk for electrics and mac ebony and maple for acoustics.....

Adam

koneguitarist

To me there is two parts to this. 
Does body wood make a difference, yes,I think. Due to tightness of grain and stiffness.
But species or type of wood not really that I can tell.
A tele made of Ash, Alder, Pine, Rosewood etc still sounds like a tele. So it can't be what the body is made of that decides the tone, but the build and pickups AND the way you play it does. 
People can hear a difference even if it's small when they have changed something on their guitar, but could they then tell that guitar blindfold out of a few others of the same make? In my opinion I don't think so.
My tele is a classic example I am on 3rd neck, 2nd body and countless pickups and control variations. It still sounds like a tele, but only on last neck change did I really notice a significant difference unplugged. The sustain and even ness of notes improved quite dramatically. Reason I think is that it's a much thicker neck. It's really fat and flat along back from heel to headstock. 
This leads me to think that the key here is 80-90% of sound of a solid body plugged in is generally from pickups wiring and controls. But sustain and depth of sound is influenced by how stiff neck and body is and how well they resonate together, so a guitar that works fine when suddenly changed with a different neck or body can be worse or better down to changing a part. 
Thats not rocket science that's just common sense. If someone tried to tell me this Honduras Mahogany sounds better than that West Indian Mahogany, I would ask them to prove it and I know that they couldn't. 
We pay more money for the pretty grain or colour on woods and also more importantly because it's what Gibson or Fender used in their heyday. 
If wood mattered that much, can we tell the difference between a Telecaster a strat and a Les Paul special in the hands of top player even played clean because I can't and I have owned over 25-30 strats and tele's and loads of Gibson's. 

GSPBASSES

Excuse my ignorance are we talking about BS free as bullshit free or as a bachelor of science or bachelor of arts discussion?