Body wood affects tone

Gassage

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 1964 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck for a week whilst it was at Jaydee being sorted out (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

richardhomer

Gassage said:

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 64 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

I put a 'real' '63 neck on to a '62 reissue body some years ago, in place of the factory neck.

The tonal difference was marked.

Any one who argues with this has either never done it or has very poor hearing....

JD50

Gassage said:

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 64 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

That's not tone that's Mojo the 64 neck had Mojo and the 62 CS didn't.... don't confuse Mojo with tone

Sassafras

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Sassafras said:

It's not just a question of a string vibrating. Of course any string will vibrate when stretched over any material.
It's the shape of the note that's influenced differently by different materials.
The attack, the type of sustain and how the note decays. 

But the whole 'tone wood' argument depends on far more than the observation that different systems will have different decay rates due to the inherent damping in the system and so on. (Something I have acknowledged several times.) For the tone-wood argument to be true, each type of wood used in guitar construction would have to selectively damp, in a consistent way across all notes, certain specific and characteristic harmonic frequencies.

Assuming for a moment that this is correct, could someone please put me out of my misery and post to some credible links explaining the physics of how this happens. Given that the whole 'tone wood' debate seems to be never-ending, I have a feeling that such evidence won't be forthcoming. Please prove me wrong!

There you go again, selecting and misquoting the parts of people's comment to suit your own purpose.
I said the whole shape of the note, not just the decay.
You seem to be skimming through these comments determined to prove your own single minded opinion.

Gassage

Another simple trick to try to prove that the idea it makes no diff is utter garbage, LP tail stud. Screw it high, not touching the body. Screw it flat onto body. Huge difference in sustain and ooomph.

The reason- more energy transferred into wood which then resonates more.

Je repose ma valise pour la poursuite.

Gassage

JD50 said:

Gassage said:

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 64 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

That's not tone that's Mojo the 64 neck had Mojo and the 62 CS didn't.... don't confuse Mojo with tone

Tone is a moderator on here; Mojo isn't. Simple.

WezV

guitars4you said:

So a little extra to add to the debate - what are your thoughts when you now add a chambered body or indeed a weight relieved body into the equation

Weight relief- the structure stays mostly the same with only a small change in resonance.  The sound is only changed a little

fully chambered- the structure is greatly affected and there is a large change in n resonance.  You notice the difference

Sassafras

Apart from the colour, a courgette looks just like a banana.
So if you're ever making a banana split and you realise you don't have any bananas, use a courgette instead. No-one will notice the difference.

octatonic

WezV said:

guitars4you said:

So a little extra to add to the debate - what are your thoughts when you now add a chambered body or indeed a weight relieved body into the equation

Weight relief- the structure stays mostly the same with only a small change in resonance.  The sound is only changed a little

fully chambered- the structure is greatly affected and there is a large change in n resonance.  You notice the difference

Agree.

crunchman

richardhomer said:

Gassage said:

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 64 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

I put a 'real' '63 neck on to a '62 reissue body some years ago, in place of the factory neck.

The tonal difference was marked.

Any one who argues with this has either never done it or has very poor hearing....

It doesn't even have to be old ones.  I've heard similar stories with people swapping modern Strat necks around.

I'm sure I've read some comments by knowledgeable people that the neck is a very big part of the tone.  It makes sense.

It's a different construction of guitar, but I had a rosewood necked PRS McCarty for a while.  That definitely sounded different to the regular mahogany necked version.  I've played a few of them over the years, and they all had a similar tone that I've never heard from a mahogany necked PRS.

guitars4you

crunchman said: 

It's a different construction of guitar, but I had a rosewood necked PRS McCarty for a while.  That definitely sounded different to the regular mahogany necked version.  I've played a few of them over the years, and they all had a similar tone that I've never heard from a mahogany necked PRS.

Yes a PRS with rosewod neck is almost sweeter with softer highs - almost warmer - and yes different tone to a mahogany neck

guitars4you

crunchman said:

richardhomer said:

Gassage said:

OK, I have a question; my sonic blue 64 strat had a complete neck refret and refinish as it was in a right old state. I put on it a Fender stock 62 RI neck (both necks roundlam, both C shape, more or less the same shape) and the strat sounded entirely different (brighter and less oomph) with the CS neck on to the original - it was really noticable.

Only wood diff was the fact that one was Indian Rose, the original is Brazillian.

(I sold the spare neck on here last August).

Why would this happen if tonewood has no bearing?

I put a 'real' '63 neck on to a '62 reissue body some years ago, in place of the factory neck.

The tonal difference was marked.

Any one who argues with this has either never done it or has very poor hearing....

I've heard similar stories from Fender Masterbuilders - they don't have one guitar on the go at anyone time, more a case of 'different projects' in various stages - they can select one neck for one body and find it works or doesn't and exchange accordingly - Think it is to do with pitch, tone and resonance and how that works with the similar criteria of the body - As such you match the body/neck accordingly - It is not a case that one neck is bad, just finding the body that works better with it - Maybe that is what both Richard and James noticed when they did this - Similar story to the Clapton Blackie - effectively maximizing the guitars natural assets 

Gassage

@crunchman @richardhomer

A neck is effectively a trussed cantilever.

Anyone who claims that a cantilever is not capable of huge acoustic resonance knows absolutely fuck all about physics- structurally, they've more sine wave resonance than virtually any form of structure. An acoustic wave has been known to destroy cantlilevered cable tied bridge supports in minutes.

But no, according to @threenotesunburst, this is impossible.

I really have rarely read such a load of bollocks on here as the frantic pseudo intellectual arguments purported thus far on several threads. (unless of course I typed it about Gilmour, Cricket or Rugby.)

impmann

Bottom line is  - yes it does affect the tone. If it didn't, Gibson and Fender would just be using the cheapest woods they could possibly find, sourced from anywhere in the world of any species.

We've all played guitars that are a bit 'meh' or that don't sound great - even stuff that is supposed to be great, made of great "tonewood". I've even played a very famous guitar (one of the most famous in the world) that frankly didn't sound as great in my hands as it did on those classic recordings. I guess thats more to do with the connection of the the player to the instrument than the actual construction. However, what made that Les Paul sound 'meh' to me and another (my own) that inspires me to play - and in fact sometimes inspires me to play beyond my perceived limitations - due to its incredible sound? The pickups? The hardware? Or the woods? Or all the above? If it was just about a string vibrating freely then surely all Les Pauls would sound the same or react the same to the dynamics of your playing... but they *don't*.

So - many variables. And those that bang the drum that it doesn't make any difference are welcome to their opinions - they won't change mine. :-)

Three-ColourSunburst

TheGuitarWeasel said:

This is the rig I used for testing pickup potting techniques. 
wind a pickup under fairly low tension, leave it unpotted, remove the strings entirely ... then shout into the pickup ... it will work as a microphone ... a quiet one ... but it will amplify your voice.

But how about a properly wound and potted pickup? Yes, guitar pickups can be or can become microphonic, but isn't this generally seen as being a bad thing and a sign of a faulty pickup, with pickups being designed to avoid them being microphonic?

It seems that the fact that magnetic pickups can become microphonic is jumped on by those who believe that 'tone wood' makes a significant contribution to the sound of an electric guitar as it appear to offer a mechanism by which the vibration of the body can influence the signal. Thing is, for this to be true all pickups would have to be microphonic to a significant degree and I don't think that this is the case.

I have looked at some of the supposed 'proofs' that all pickups are microphonic on YouTube and so on and they are a bit of  a joke. For example someone shouting at their guitar body and noting that this (maybe...) produces a small amount of sound through their amp. However, the guitar used has strings fitted so any sound produced is most likely do to these resonating slightly, not the pickup itself.

Adam_MD

@Three-ColourSunburst welcome back Moon it's been a while.  

Sassafras

@Three-ColourSunburst has taught me a valuable lesson. I'm selling all my wooden guitars and only buying ones made of concrete.

Adam_MD

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst has taught me a valuable lesson. I'm selling all my wooden guitars and only buying ones made of concrete.

I'm waiting for him to start calling everyone woodlickers.  

Megii

If I can tentatively wade in with another argument in favour of the wood affecting the tone - I admit I have no proof, but I tend to believe that at least significant part of the tone character we perceive from a guitar is as a direct result of the way in which a string is vibrating - i.e. in terms of the proportions of the various overtones/modes of vibration. It's my belief that these proportions vary as a result of the construction of the guitar - given that the length of string is anchored at two points i.e. fingerboard/fret and bridge, and both of these points are generally not held perfectly still. So even on a solid guitar, the type of wood used for the body will have some influence on the way in which the string vibrates - and in turn, the specific mix/proportions of overtones is amplified by the pickup.

What I'm saying is that a large part of the tone we hear from a guitar is effectively encoded in the specific way the strings vibrate. However, that is not to discount some of the other reasons for tone differences already put forward in the thread.

Ravenous

Sassafras said:

@Three-ColourSunburst has taught me a valuable lesson. I'm selling all my wooden guitars and only buying ones made of concrete.

Actually I like the idea of alternate materials so I'd be up to try one of these.  (My only objection to this thread is the assertion that materials make no difference.)

Yesterday I was looking for stuff on resonances of various different materials - elastic or fourier response etc.  There are published papers, but I haven't found anything like an authoritative table of data yet....