Body wood affects tone

Megii

TheGuitarWeasel said:And if you believe another argument, then high priced pickups are a waste of time as your average ... insert name of favorite  cheap brand here ... are just as good. This argument is put very vociferously in some quarters. Actually I'm a believer that there is a brice above which you don't get better pickups, just prettier ones with more bells and whistles and more 'mojo' if you like. They are just wire and magnets in the end ... and compared to measuring what's going on with 'tonewoods' measuring the tone spectrum of a pickup is both child's play, and repeatable and predictable. The 'art' of pickup making is in being prepared to experiment, make notes and analyse ... so to me, it is really more science than art.  Oh, and I am son of an engineer and grandson of an engineer ... I see what I do as science backed up with good engineering!

Absolutely @TheGuitarWeasel - I totally agree it comes down to science, but of course there's quite a lot to it - lots of variables - so I like to think of it as an art, in a way. I have enough experience of my own now to know that new pickups can make a very big difference to a guitar's tone - and eagerly looking forward to trying some of yours!

NelsonP

NelsonP said:

I think most rock music is built around the same base notes and intervals e.g. G, C, D and or E, A, B.

Found this. Pretty interesting....
https://insights.spotify.com/us/2015/05/06/most-popular-keys-on-spotify/

MartinB

TheGuitarWeasel said:

And if you believe another argument, then high priced pickups are a waste of time as your average ... insert name of favorite  cheap brand here ... are just as good. This argument is put very vociferously in some quarters.

There's a lot of that on TDPRI at the moment, often from people who have figured out how to take frequency response measurements and got a little carried away with the idea.  I think the measurements probably do tell us something useful about the basic tone of a pickup, but there are a few posters who like to assert that the graph tells us everything and all else must be lies and marketing. 
I enjoyed this example, where someone measured a cheap set of Belcat humbuckers and declared them to be comparable to high-end replacements and original classic pickups.  Then a few weeks later they installed said pickups in a guitar and found them to be unusable due to excess microphony, a property which their measurements did not cover.  Somehow this did not lead them to reflect on whether the graph really did tell us all there was to know.  http://www.tdpri.com/threads/belcat-alnico-v-humbucker-pickup-set-test.746000/

Three-ColourSunburst

Sporky said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

For resonance to selectively preserve or enhance certain harmonic frequencies in a way that consistently affects the timbre of the sound, it would have to resonate in a way that affects all frequencies / notes in the same way.

An object cannot resonate at all frequencies equally - that's not resonance. Look up formants.

I know, in the selective quote you posted I was giving a hypothetical situation that would have to be true - but isn't - if many of the claims made by the wood sniffers about 'resonance' were true. In the bit you snipped I made this clear.

For resonance to selectively preserve or enhance certain harmonic frequencies in a way that consistently affects the timbre of the sound, it would have to resonate in a way that affects all frequencies / notes in the same way. However, the body and neck of an electric guitar resonate at specific frequencies, which might not even correspond to any single tuned note, let alone the whole chromatic scale.

Where resonance does show an effect, this is usually in the way it creates undesirable 'wolf tones' (if one keeps adding energy to the system, as with a bowed instrument) or 'dead spots'.

Rabs

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Rabs said:

Well their debunking is just as dodgy as any of the so called tests to prove it.. He may seem like hes talking sense but that doesn't make it so. This is the issue.  Theres no real proof either way...

Just take a look at the academic research I linked to. Here are the academic and research records of the lead author and supervisor, who work at the federal university of Parana in Brazil, which has a specialist school of luthiery.

https://www.escavador.com/sobre/8006405/rodrigo-mateus-pereira

https://www.escavador.com/sobre/5917495/thiago-correa-de-freitas

http://www.luteria.ufpr.br/portal/

Perhaps Homer should have the last word?

Well the issue here I think is that theres two big things going on.. And I believe in both of them.

I do think the wood has an effect..  I can hear it, not all guitars sound the same....  Now this is due to my own experience and taste.. What I have listened too over the years and what I expect to hear and from building guitars that I have expected to sound a certain way and don't always (and its not always obvious)... And that's the thing none of these tests can effect or predict, the individuals hearing and personal experience which I think to an individual is what counts...

I do absolutely agree that the a players style and how they play is THE most important factor here..  How a person  attacks the strings and the position of where they play and their technique... But I also know that the type of wood absolutely makes a difference too.. The thing with it is these differences are fairly small and that's why we have controls on our guitars and amps and pedals....  To compensate for those differences and change the sound to what ever you want.

So while I do think there is a difference, I don't think it actually makes much difference I the real world... if you see what I mean. Its only us guitar nerd who even care..  The average person (probably 98% of the rest of the world) couldn't give two shits about all of this.

And this is why I say its all good..  Play what ever makes you happy and inspires you to play more, I think that's all that really matters...

Or again we could be like Homer...  Just give up and play Bass 

GSPBASSES

Sporky

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I know, in the selective quote you posted I was giving a hypothetical situation that would have to be true - but isn't - if many of the claims made by the wood sniffers about 'resonance' were true. In the bit you snipped I made this clear.

Annoying when people snip just one bit of your post, ignoring all the rest, isn't it?

YOU DO IT ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

richardhomer

GSPBASSES said:

Yep - that's proof. Hopefully this thread can now sink into obscurity....

Roland

GSPBASSES said:

Yes. That's the video I was thinking of. 

xchrisv

"a properly made, non-microphonic electromagnetic pickup"

What about a properly made, microphonic electromagnetic pickup? Y'know, like pretty much all of the most revered vintage pickup designs. 

Three-ColourSunburst

richardhomer said:

GSPBASSES said:

Yep - that's proof. Hopefully this thread can now sink into obscurity....

Probably the biggest single determinant of the tone of an electric guitar is how and where the string is picked, with even small variations in position altering which higher harmonics that will sound. (This is why picking near the bridge gives a totally different sound to picking near the neck.) The angle of the pick, the force used and so on also determine just what harmonics will sound.

In this video there is absolutely zero control over the picking, so any variations in sound  are likely to be due to this, especially when someone expects to hear a certain sound and so can - perhaps unconsciously - subtly alter their playing in order to get that sound.

The two guitars are also two entirely different instruments, with different pots, pickups up and so on, so differences in the wood used are just one factor. Given the natural manufacturing variances in pot resistance and so on, and the significant impact such differences can have on the resultant tone, again any differences that might be heard cannot be reliably attributed to the wood used.

Anyone who puts that video forward as 'proof' that 'tone wood' has en effect is either trolling or grasping at straws. Anyone holding that video to be more valid than a rigorous scientific study where even the moisture content of the wood was controlled, is being about as rational as a creationist, climate change denier or flat-Earther!

Three-ColourSunburst

chrisv said:

"a properly made, non-microphonic electromagnetic pickup"

What about a properly made, microphonic electromagnetic pickup? Y'know, like pretty much all of the most revered vintage pickup designs. 

So, do the wood sniffers claim that 'tone wood' doesn't work with modern pickups, potted pickups and so on?

Even with vintage pickups, becoming microphonic is a sign that they breaking down. Guitar pickups are expressly designed to not be microphonic!

Megii

Thanks for responding to my posts @Three-ColourSunburst , great mate, cheers!

Drew_TNBD

Y'know... as someone who owns four electrics, one acoustic, and two basses... and also as someone who only plays one of the basses, and one of the electrics...

These discussions are about as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Does any of this help anyone make music?

Three-ColourSunburst

Megii said:

Thanks for responding to my posts @Three-ColourSunburst , great mate, cheers!

Sorry, but it feels like I am trying to play a tennis match with half a dozen people throwing serves at me!

I am still collecting research on this topic in the hope that I can give some more definitive answers to the points raised, including what you posted.

Cheers!

Megii

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Megii said:

Thanks for responding to my posts @Three-ColourSunburst , great mate, cheers!

Sorry, but it feels like I am trying to play a tennis match with half a dozen people throwing serves at me!

I am still collecting research on this topic in the hope that I can give some more definitive answers to the points raised, including what you posted.

Cheers!

Ok, and I do apologise for my sarcasm. It was you who started the thread though...

Sassafras

Unlike this thread, I've lost the will to live.

Three-ColourSunburst

Megii said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Megii said:

Thanks for responding to my posts @Three-ColourSunburst , great mate, cheers!

Sorry, but it feels like I am trying to play a tennis match with half a dozen people throwing serves at me!

I am still collecting research on this topic in the hope that I can give some more definitive answers to the points raised, including what you posted.

Cheers!

Ok, and I do apologise for my sarcasm. It was you who started the thread though...

I have just tried to post a quick response but it was blocked awaiting approval. This has happened with a number of my replies on this thread, some of which never appeared. Hope this one does and I will try again.

Three-ColourSunburst

Megii said:

I could take a treasured 1962 strat ("amazing responsive instrument, fabulous tone, just sings" etc.) and replace the body with anything of the same dimensions (a cheap copy off ebay? plywood?) and the guitar would sound just the same. Also, as a side note: issues about thick poly finishes vanish, since this is just part of a guitar body that can have no influence anyhow.

And then I think, what about the neck/fingerboard? Does this matter? - since the string attaches to the wooden body at one end, and the wooden neck at the other, either via fret or nut. Body and neck - both solid bits of wood - are perhaps analogous/similar in respect of influence on tone, or lack of it. I can't see why they wouldn't be anyhow. So maybe I could swap the '62 strat's neck for any other of the same dimensions, and still do nothing to degrade the tone.

At which point we're basicaly left with the guitar's hardware, and the pickups - hardware can easily be upgraded these days, and there are fine pickup makers around, able to replicate vintage pickup specs, or produce designs of their own. So this implies to me that someone with a sensibly upgraded Squier strat, or other copy, is no worse off than the owner of the '62 strat... I suppose quite a liberating thought for the more cash-strapped among us.

And also, that pickup makers are hugely important people - even more so than we might already believe, and the cost of quality pickups is utterly justified, as this is one of the few things on the guitar itself, that can influence the tone.

As it happens, I'm a fan of upgrading pickups anyhow, and to be clear, I'm not convinced at all that body (or neck) wood has no discernible influence - but I would genuinely be interested to know how far you agree with the reasoning above TCS.

Just a quick response. Sorry about the delay.

Yup that's about 'the long and the short' of it. Each guitar might have a different 'feel' and maybe even sound differently acoustically, their sustain could also differ (as I pointed out in an earlier post). However, when it comes to the timbre of the sound coming through the pickups, it is the pickups and electronics that matter.

For one thing, electric guitars work on very different principles to those of an acoustic instrument, and what might be true in relation to the production of sound on an acoustic guitar is likely to have little or no relevance when it comes to the construction of a solid body electric. Also, as the research points out -

    the variations of timbre of electric guitars, according to the results obtained here, depend on other factors than the wood of the body itself, a fact that arises from the absence of a significant coupling between the string and the body of the instrument. Also proposed is a modelling of the string-body coupling, which shows that only a negligible amount of energy from the vibrating string reaches the body of the instrument and that a smaller amount still returns up the string.

http://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/index.php/physicae/article/view/physicae.9.5/116   ;

When it comes to vintage guitars, the belief that they are somehow 'special' for more than their history and /or association with renowned players is just another example of the irrational, essentially magical thinking that surrounds guitars as a fetish object. The popular term for such magic is 'mojo'.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karen_Fernandez/publication/227630822_Making_Magic_Fetishes_in_Contemporary_Consumption/links/0fcfd50ef5c10be654000000/Making-Magic-Fetishes-in-Contemporary-Consumption.pdf

Megii

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Megii said:

I could take a treasured 1962 strat ("amazing responsive instrument, fabulous tone, just sings" etc.) and replace the body with anything of the same dimensions (a cheap copy off ebay? plywood?) and the guitar would sound just the same. Also, as a side note: issues about thick poly finishes vanish, since this is just part of a guitar body that can have no influence anyhow.

And then I think, what about the neck/fingerboard? Does this matter? - since the string attaches to the wooden body at one end, and the wooden neck at the other, either via fret or nut. Body and neck - both solid bits of wood - are perhaps analogous/similar in respect of influence on tone, or lack of it. I can't see why they wouldn't be anyhow. So maybe I could swap the '62 strat's neck for any other of the same dimensions, and still do nothing to degrade the tone.

At which point we're basicaly left with the guitar's hardware, and the pickups - hardware can easily be upgraded these days, and there are fine pickup makers around, able to replicate vintage pickup specs, or produce designs of their own. So this implies to me that someone with a sensibly upgraded Squier strat, or other copy, is no worse off than the owner of the '62 strat... I suppose quite a liberating thought for the more cash-strapped among us.

And also, that pickup makers are hugely important people - even more so than we might already believe, and the cost of quality pickups is utterly justified, as this is one of the few things on the guitar itself, that can influence the tone.

As it happens, I'm a fan of upgrading pickups anyhow, and to be clear, I'm not convinced at all that body (or neck) wood has no discernible influence - but I would genuinely be interested to know how far you agree with the reasoning above TCS.

Just a quick response. Sorry about the delay.

Yup that's about 'the long and the short' of it. Each guitar might have a different 'feel' and maybe even sound differently acoustically, their sustain could also differ (as I pointed out in an earlier post). However, when it comes to the timbre of the sound coming through the pickups, it is the pickups and electronics that matter.

For one thing, electric guitars work on very different principles to those of an acoustic instrument, and what might be true in relation to the production of sound on an acoustic guitar is likely to have little or no relevance when it comes to the construction of a solid body electric. Also, as the research points out -

    the variations of timbre of electric guitars, according to the results obtained here, depend on other factors than the wood of the body itself, a fact that arises from the absence of a significant coupling between the string and the body of the instrument. Also proposed is a modelling of the string-body coupling, which shows that only a negligible amount of energy from the vibrating string reaches the body of the instrument and that a smaller amount still returns up the string.

http://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/index.php/physicae/article/view/physicae.9.5/116   ;

When it comes to vintage guitars, the belief that they are somehow 'special' for more than their history and /or association with renowned players is just another example of the irrational, essentially magical thinking that surrounds guitars as a fetish object. The popular term for such magic is 'mojo'.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karen_Fernandez/publication/227630822_Making_Magic_Fetishes_in_Contemporary_Consumption/links/0fcfd50ef5c10be654000000/Making-Magic-Fetishes-in-Contemporary-Consumption.pdf

Appreciate this thanks FWIW I tend to agree regarding some of the hallowed reverence around vintage guitars - it was just an example I chose to use, I suppose I could have substituted any high-ranking/expensive model of guitar, modern or otherwise. I do understand your position now though, I think - I can't say I agree but thank you for clarifying.