Body wood affects tone

NelsonP

Three-ColourSunburst said:

scientific generalizations can be conclusively falsified by a single disconfirming observation. Thus, science progresses primarily through falsification.

Only if that observation is fully explained. E.g. Gravity pulls things down towards the earth. But rockets go up. Obviously this single observation does not mean that gravity is an incorrect theory.

Sobre o acoplamento corda-corpo em guitarras elétricas e sua relação com o timbre do instrumento. Physicæ 9, 2010, pp. 24 - 29.

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.

Several folks have proposed and conducted experiments on here (tuner, ear, window) which suggest that there is more than a 'negligible amount of energy' returned.

The overall findings from this experiment are interesting. However, there is another similar experiment that suggests that these differences can be detected with a microphone, rather than using the pickup output. Therefore it is possible that the human ear can detect them.

If plugged into an amp then it's also possible that interactions between the speaker and guitar wood could change the tone. This was not tested in the experiment above.

WezV

koneguitarist said:

NelsonP said:

WezV said:

If anyone doubts the body of an electric resonates with string energy (despite being able to feel it), try attaching a clip on tuner to various parts where you can't normally feel it.

you can tune from the switch tip, scratchplate, strap button - anything else you can attach it to.  You will get a reading of all of them.   With my stroboflip tuner I can tune almost as accurately from the switch tip as I can normal headstock location

Such a simple experiment. Nice thinking!

To summarise:

Fender, Gibson, Suhr and Jackson all say that the wood the guitar body is made from makes a difference to the tone.

Its easy to prove that vibration is transferred from the string to the body and neck (as evidenced by the tuner experiment above or simply putting your ear against the body, or using the nearest window  as an acoustic amplifier).

It's quite possible that vibrations are also passed from the speaker back via the guitar body and neck and into the strings.

In response to energy from the strings (and speaker?), the guitar body and neck will resonate at certain frequencies depending on it's density and stiffness. 

Some of that resonance will be passed back to the strings.

It seems that the string/neck/body interaction alone may not be sufficient to change the electrical signal generated by the pickup.

But it does appear to be large enough to be picked up by a microphone.

Therefore it is likely that guitars made from different woods will produce different tones, provided that the system allows transfer of energy between each of its components.

This fits with what the manor manufacturers say and what many guitarists appear to intuitively know.

It's possible that the human senses (hearing and touch) are able to discern these differences.

I'd like to see a proper study into a lot of the points above, but that might never happen.

Yes all guitar manufacturers want to sell guitars and saying their wood makes a difference is not a lie, what's unclear right from the start and still is, what is the difference? 
I have seen guitars made from granite, plexiglass, brass and steel not resonance friendly materials. All sound like regular guitars. 
The difference between a granite telecaster with a graphite neck to a standard telecaster is no bigger than one telecaster to another, so wood species is not important? 
It can't be can it?

I agree with the points, just not the conclusion... have you ever played a guitar you couldn't make sound nice with any pickup?

I have used a lot of alternative woods and found myself in this situation.  Iroko is a good example, I made one for a mate who didnt mind the brightness it gave, but we still chambered to soften what we could.... not very efficiently.

The point I have been making is that the signal from an electric guitar should be understood in terms of a metal string and a magnetic field.  You can change the characteristics of the signal only by changing factors which affect the string, or the magnetic field which is sensing it.

 I am sure we all agree changing a pickup changes the signal (by changing the magnetic field)in a significant way.  Shall we agree the argument "they all sound like guitars" is irrelevant when discussing pickup design?   Why is it acceptable when discussing body material?

NelsonP

I had a look at what Gibson Fender and Suhr had to say about the qualities of different tone woods.

Quite a lot of consensus although the terms used are a little woolly

	Fender	Gibson	Suhr
Alder	Resonant, balanced tone brighter than other hardwoods, with a little more emphasis in the upper midrange	More resonant in both the high and low ends.	Strong in the lower midrange
Swamp ash	Remarkably resonant and sweet sounding, with clearly chiming highs, defined midrange and strong low end	Exceptionally resonant wood, with great highs plus strong mids and lows	Bright and sweet at the same time
Basswood	-	Has bright high-mids	Strong in the midrange
Mahogany	-	Compresses midrange tones a bit, offering what’s perceived as a thicker sound, but with good lows and highs that are more sculpted in single-note runs than alder, ash or maple.	Strong in the mid-mids with a good high-midrange bark

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

Several folks have proposed and conducted experiments on here (tuner, ear, window) which suggest that there is more than a 'negligible amount of energy' returned.

The overall findings from this experiment are interesting. However, there is another similar experiment that suggests that these differences can be detected with a microphone, rather than using the pickup output. Therefore it is possible that the human ear can detect them.

If plugged into an amp then it's also possible that interactions between the speaker and guitar wood could change the tone. This was not tested in the experiment above.

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but it seems people are raising points that have already been covered, so I might as well repeat them here.

No one is denying that the neck and body don't vibrate to some degree in response to notes being played. As to how much energy is transferred to the body, well first we have the informed opinion of researcher such as Fleischer, who notes that very little energy is transferred from the string to the body due to the high impedance of the bridge / body interface - which is why an electric guitar has better sustain than an acoustic.

A consideration of the masses involved and so on will highlight whilst this must be true. For example, it has been pointed out that it is possible to tune the high E string by attaching a tuner to the body. However, the vibrating length of that string will weigh 0.24g, as opposed to a typical 3.4 kg for the 'system' of the body, neck and so on - that is the string's mass is 0.000074% of the whole system. That string will lose most of its energy to damping by the air, friction at the end points and internal losses, and yet it will still sustain well, which shows just how little energy is involved in forcing the body to vibrate. In turn, given the way that small amount of energy from the string is distributed over the entire body of the guitar, even down to the strap buttons (which therefore could be used to tune the guitar) along with the high impedance of the body / bridge interface, it should be clear just how little energy is likely to return to the string. 

True, despite the small amount of energy involved the vibration of the body can be heard acoustically when using an external microphone. However, electromagnetic pickups don't detect such vibrations, only the strings moving. In fact the (undergraduate) study you refer to showed that although different body woods so give different acoustic spectra, it also showed when the pickup signals are compared these differences pretty much disappear.

I think introducing an amp into the equation is a red herring. OK, so the claim is that if the body vibrates due to the amplified signal exciting the air around the instrument, then the fact the body is vibrating will change the tone. Well, everyone agrees that a guitar body also vibrates in response to the strings been played, even when not plugged in. However, the study I cited above has already showed that this body vibration has no effect on the timbre of the instrument, as heard via the pickups, so taking us back to square one.

Also, as I posted earlier, one of the main claims of those who believe in 'tone wood' is that the acoustic differences that can be heard between different guitars are also reflected in the way the guitar will sound when amplified. I.e. a guitar that is made largely of maple will sound 'brighter' than one made of mahogany both acoustically and when amplified. This claim becomes untenable if we need to bring an amp into the equation.

In fact, if you resort to bringing an amp into the equation to 'explain' how tone wood works, the whole argument appears to become incoherent and self-contradictory. For example, If a mahogany guitar only sounds like a mahogany guitar when you turn the amp up to 11, what does it sound like when played quietly? A maple one, or maybe basswood?

Volume certainly affects tone as the valves of the amp are driven harder, but I have yet to hear of anyone setting their volume whist listening to their guitar going "No, the body is not vibrating enough it sounds like bass wood, turn it up louder. No, now it sounds like alder, louder still. Yes that's it, now we have the mahogany tone"!

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

I had a look at what Gibson Fender and Suhr had to say about the qualities of different tone woods.

This ex-Fender 'expert' recons '80%' of the sound of an electric guitar is attributable to the wood it is made of.

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

I had a look at what Gibson Fender and Suhr had to say about the qualities of different tone woods.

Quite a lot of consensus although the terms used are a little woolly

As woolly as this load of nonsense!

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

dindude

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

I had a look at what Gibson Fender and Suhr had to say about the qualities of different tone woods.

Quite a lot of consensus although the terms used are a little woolly

As woolly as this load of nonsense!

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

Not as woolly as your ears though...

impmann

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

I had a look at what Gibson Fender and Suhr had to say about the qualities of different tone woods.

This ex-Fender 'expert' recons '80%' of the sound of an electric guitar is attributable to the wood it is made of.

Do you know what... I'd trust someone's opinion who worked for a guitar company to know something about how guitars are made. Because do you know what, guitar companies... and you may find this hard to believe... are experts in making guitars.

Three-ColourSunburst

impmann said:

Do you know what... I'd trust someone's opinion who worked for a guitar company to know something about how guitars are made. Because do you know what, guitar companies... and you may find this hard to believe... are experts in making money.

Fixed that for you.

impmann

Three-ColourSunburst said:

impmann said:

Do you know what... I'd trust someone's opinion who worked for a guitar company to know something about how guitars are made. Because do you know what, guitar companies... and you may find this hard to believe... are experts in making money.

Fixed that for you.

Fuck off.

Actually, Chris Flemming is a world reknowned luthier so yes he is an expert. And Fender make money? Where have you been for the past 20 years?

NelsonP

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

Several folks have proposed and conducted experiments on here (tuner, ear, window) which suggest that there is more than a 'negligible amount of energy' returned.

The overall findings from this experiment are interesting. However, there is another similar experiment that suggests that these differences can be detected with a microphone, rather than using the pickup output. Therefore it is possible that the human ear can detect them.

If plugged into an amp then it's also possible that interactions between the speaker and guitar wood could change the tone. This was not tested in the experiment above.

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but it seems people are raising points that have already been covered, so I might as well repeat them here.

No one is denying that the neck and body don't vibrate to some degree in response to notes being played. As to how much energy is transferred to the body, well first we have the informed opinion of researcher such as Fleischer, who notes that very little energy is transferred from the string to the body due to the high impedance of the bridge / body interface - which is why an electric guitar has better sustain than an acoustic.

A consideration of the masses involved and so on will highlight whilst this must be true. For example, it has been pointed out that it is possible to tune the high E string by attaching a tuner to the body. However, the vibrating length of that string will weigh 0.24g, as opposed to a typical 3.4 kg for the 'system' of the body, neck and so on - that is the string's mass is 0.000074% of the whole system. That string will lose most of its energy to damping by the air, friction at the end points and internal losses, and yet it will still sustain well, which shows just how little energy is involved in forcing the body to vibrate. In turn, given the way that small amount of energy from the string is distributed over the entire body of the guitar, even down to the strap buttons (which therefore could be used to tune the guitar) along with the high impedance of the body / bridge interface, it should be clear just how little energy is likely to return to the string. 

True, despite the small amount of energy involved the vibration of the body can be heard acoustically when using an external microphone. However, electromagnetic pickups don't detect such vibrations, only the strings moving. In fact the (undergraduate) study you refer to showed that although different body woods so give different acoustic spectra, it also showed when the pickup signals are compared these differences pretty much disappear.

I think introducing an amp into the equation is a red herring. OK, so the claim is that if the body vibrates due to the amplified signal exciting the air around the instrument, then the fact the body is vibrating will change the tone. Well, everyone agrees that a guitar body also vibrates in response to the strings been played, even when not plugged in. However, the study I cited above has already showed that this body vibration has no effect on the timbre of the instrument, as heard via the pickups, so taking us back to square one.

Also, as I posted earlier, one of the main claims of those who believe in 'tone wood' is that the acoustic differences that can be heard between different guitars are also reflected in the way the guitar will sound when amplified. I.e. a guitar that is made largely of maple will sound 'brighter' than one made of mahogany both acoustically and when amplified. This claim becomes untenable if we need to bring an amp into the equation.

In fact, if you resort to bringing an amp into the equation to 'explain' how tone wood works, the whole argument appears to become incoherent and self-contradictory. For example, If a mahogany guitar only sounds like a mahogany guitar when you turn the amp up to 11, what does it sound like when played quietly? A maple one, or maybe basswood?

Volume certainly affects tone as the valves of the amp are driven harder, but I have yet to hear of anyone setting their volume whist listening to their guitar going "No, the body is not vibrating enough it sounds like bass wood, turn it up louder. No, now it sounds like alder, louder still. Yes that's it, now we have the mahogany tone"!

For what it's worth I share your sense of frustration. I think you may be seeking certainty where there is still quite a high level of ambiguity. In response to your comments:

"very little energy is transferred from the string to the body due to the high impedance of the bridge / body interface"
However, its enough to be picked up by a tuner, or an ear pressed to the body. You can even feel it with your hand.

"A consideration of the masses involved....."
Your maths is spot on, however, as mentioned it is clear that enough energy is transferred for a tuner to pick it up, or an ear, or a hand.

"I think introducing an amp into the equation is a red herring"
This is your opinion, to which you are entitled. However, the following is from the Scientific American article I previously referred to, "A similar mechanism occurs when amplifying the output of an electric guitar. Structural vibrations induced by acoustic feedback can magnify the signal generated by the sensors embedded in the guitar to "pick up" its sound, which leads to instability.". Full article here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-feedback-in-a/

"If a mahogany guitar only sounds like a mahogany guitar when you turn the amp up to 11, what does it sound like when played quietly?"
At high volume - don't yet know the impact, its just a hypothesis at this stage.
At no/low volume - it would appear to depend on whether you are listening to the acoustic vibration with a microphone / your ears or the electrically generated oscillation via the pickups using a spectrum analyser. I prefer to listen with my ears.


Some other thoughts:

The perceived tone or a guitar may also be influenced by other senses - i.e. touch. Since you feel the vibration of the instrument via the body and neck then, perhaps this plays a part in our perception of 'tone'?

We've talked a lot about resonance, but not so much about damping and the transient response (others have mentioned both of these points). They may need further discussion.

I think it is clear that the overall impact of the body wood is low, and there are many other elements involved. That is not the same as saying that the wood makes no difference at all.

Perceived wisdom from well known guitar makers suggests that the body wood does make a difference to the tone. It is possible that this is just marketing BS to drive higher margins, but it is equally possible that it is in fact, true.


Finally, I'm asking myself why i can't just let this lie. There's plenty of stuff I don't know about and can't explain, but I'm not worrying about any of that!

NelsonP

PS I just noticed that the Scientific American article was written by the dean of the "Pratt" school of engineering.

<sniggers>

Sassafras

Three-ColourSunburst said:

impmann said:

Do you know what... I'd trust someone's opinion who worked for a guitar company to know something about how guitars are made. Because do you know what, guitar companies... and you may find this hard to believe... are experts in making money.

Fixed that for you.

Gibson wouldn't agree with you.

professorben

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

Several folks have proposed and conducted experiments on here (tuner, ear, window) which suggest that there is more than a 'negligible amount of energy' returned.

The overall findings from this experiment are interesting. However, there is another similar experiment that suggests that these differences can be detected with a microphone, rather than using the pickup output. Therefore it is possible that the human ear can detect them.

If plugged into an amp then it's also possible that interactions between the speaker and guitar wood could change the tone. This was not tested in the experiment above.

I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but it seems people are raising points that have already been covered, so I might as well repeat them here.

No one is denying that the neck and body don't vibrate to some degree in response to notes being played. As to how much energy is transferred to the body, well first we have the informed opinion of researcher such as Fleischer, who notes that very little energy is transferred from the string to the body due to the high impedance of the bridge / body interface - which is why an electric guitar has better sustain than an acoustic.

A consideration of the masses involved and so on will highlight whilst this must be true. For example, it has been pointed out that it is possible to tune the high E string by attaching a tuner to the body. However, the vibrating length of that string will weigh 0.24g, as opposed to a typical 3.4 kg for the 'system' of the body, neck and so on - that is the string's mass is 0.000074% of the whole system. That string will lose most of its energy to damping by the air, friction at the end points and internal losses, and yet it will still sustain well, which shows just how little energy is involved in forcing the body to vibrate. In turn, given the way that small amount of energy from the string is distributed over the entire body of the guitar, even down to the strap buttons (which therefore could be used to tune the guitar) along with the high impedance of the body / bridge interface, it should be clear just how little energy is likely to return to the string. 

True, despite the small amount of energy involved the vibration of the body can be heard acoustically when using an external microphone. However, electromagnetic pickups don't detect such vibrations, only the strings moving. In fact the (undergraduate) study you refer to showed that although different body woods so give different acoustic spectra, it also showed when the pickup signals are compared these differences pretty much disappear.

I think introducing an amp into the equation is a red herring. OK, so the claim is that if the body vibrates due to the amplified signal exciting the air around the instrument, then the fact the body is vibrating will change the tone. Well, everyone agrees that a guitar body also vibrates in response to the strings been played, even when not plugged in. However, the study I cited above has already showed that this body vibration has no effect on the timbre of the instrument, as heard via the pickups, so taking us back to square one.

Also, as I posted earlier, one of the main claims of those who believe in 'tone wood' is that the acoustic differences that can be heard between different guitars are also reflected in the way the guitar will sound when amplified. I.e. a guitar that is made largely of maple will sound 'brighter' than one made of mahogany both acoustically and when amplified. This claim becomes untenable if we need to bring an amp into the equation.

In fact, if you resort to bringing an amp into the equation to 'explain' how tone wood works, the whole argument appears to become incoherent and self-contradictory. For example, If a mahogany guitar only sounds like a mahogany guitar when you turn the amp up to 11, what does it sound like when played quietly? A maple one, or maybe basswood?

Volume certainly affects tone as the valves of the amp are driven harder, but I have yet to hear of anyone setting their volume whist listening to their guitar going "No, the body is not vibrating enough it sounds like bass wood, turn it up louder. No, now it sounds like alder, louder still. Yes that's it, now we have the mahogany tone"!

I agree with this. 

Cabicular

That explains why my Trussart Steelcaster sounds amazing plugged in but dreadful acoustically 

Cirrus

And yet, I made a guitar out of Pringles and it was only good for one kind of music. I picked it up, started playing pop, and couldn't stop.

Bridgehouse

Cirrus said:

And yet, I made a guitar out of Pringles and it was only good for one kind of music. I picked it up, started playing pop, and couldn't stop.

How long have you waited for a thread to come along to offload this one then?

GSPBASSES

Cirrus said:

And yet, I made a guitar out of Pringles and it was only good for one kind of music. I picked it up, started playing pop, and couldn't stop.

I like it!
Do you know what type of wood the cardboard  the  tube was made out of  as this will make a big difference to how loud the pop will be, and of course each time you pop a Pirngle out,  The overall weight of the tube will go down marginally plus the volume of air in the tube would increase that's giving you a  deeper sounding pop.  I have tried this experiment several times but failed miserably as I kept eating the Pringles.

 By the way it's a lovely sunny day in Eastbourne, I'm sitting in my garden having a cappuccino and a chocolate hobnob, I  wonder what a guitar would sound like made out of hobnobs. 

impmann

Trouble is... the more you pop, the more stale it becomes...

NelsonP

Hmmm. Still sounds like a tele....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZDWNZmT3c