Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 241.7K All Categories
- 22 >> Start Here <<
- 12 New Members
- 8 FAQs
- 86.7K Gear
- 39.5K Guitar
- 3.4K Acoustics
- 1.3K Bass
- 14.6K Amps
- 17.2K FX
- 270 Digital & Modelling
- 765 Other Instruments
- 8.3K Making & Modding
- 421 Gear Reviews
- 107 Guitar Reviews
- 73 Amp Reviews
- 119 FX Reviews
- 87 Other Reviews
- 749 Made in the UK
- 974 Theory
- 1.8K Technique
- 2.1K Live
- 3.2K Studio & Recording
- 2.1K Making Music
- 219 Events
- 15 Guitar Show 2018
- 830 Plug My Stuff
- 105.2K Classifieds
- 41.1K Guitars £
- 2.8K Acoustics £
- 138 LH Guitars £
- 899 Basses £
- 10.5K Parts £
- 18.3K Amps £
- 34.1K FX £
- 2.8K Studio & Rec £
- 6.1K Misc £
- 465 Personnel
- 54.7K Chat
- 36.5K Off Topic
- 1.1K Tributes
- 6.6K Music
In this Discussion
Become a Subscriber!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Guitar Weight and tone,,plus of course Compromise / usability..Not Tonewood..
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
There is science to draw reasonable, testable conclusions, but guitarists hate science.
I have not detected any tonal changes based on weight, and while different instruments of the same model do sound very slightly different I've not detected anything that I couldn't adjust to my satisfaction with standard amp tone controls.
However, as I have not owned, say 1500 supposedly identical instruments at the same time to ensure I had a useful sample size, and I haven't identified what an objective definition of "better tone" would be in a way that would allow any experiments to be repeatable by others I don't have any evidentially valid opinions either way.
What I can say is that I have owned solid body guitars and basses with a weight range of 5.7lb to 12lb and I bought all of them because I thought they sounded good and played nicely.
The ones I no longer own I mostly sold either because I just wanted something different or because of the excessive weight. Nothing to do with the subjective tonal qualities of the instruments.
That being said - this is something that could be tested to a degree as long as the sample size was big enough AND the setup of each guitar was as identical as possible. Probably needing the same pickups / pots to be moved from guitar to guitar. Some sort of robot arm to strum identically too. Then 'scope traces of the output could be compared to see if there was a trend for lighter instruments to have a slightly different curve.
At this point we'd have to figure out if those differences are actually within normal human hearing range, both for younger ears and for the quite significantly reduced abilities once the age of 30 is passed. Then we'd have to see if that curve difference could be heard in non-lab conditions. Even in a quiet lounge there is background noise and changes in air density.
Of course that still wouldn't have any relevance to the subjective liking or disliking any particular tone.
The response to the results would actually be far more entertaining than the results themselves. Like hi-fi people who claim they can hear a difference when an IEC cable is changed even though the trace on a scope stays identical. There would be so many arguments! I can already predict that my favourite would be the people who claim their ears can hear more than any other human ear in history, while at the same time mentioning they have been gigging for 30 years with proper valve amps, and not even considering that their hearing might be damaged more than the average for their age.
Bring it on. It would be hilarious.
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
The you reveal that they were all the same recording, but with 1-5% background noise added, and up to 1dB of level difference.
The the real fight starts.
He hasn't done one for over six months so really looking forward to seeing what he comes up with next?
This was his excellent tone wood video.
https://youtu.be/n02tImce3AE?si=hw99IVqrT_GLcacu
From having a book called the guitar handbook..
Some of the Yamaha SG series have an implant under the bridge made of metal designed to increase sustain..
Don't know if this does make a difference,but the 2000 and above I think were neck through bodies,
this may effect sustain..
Weight matters to me because of my health and heart problems..
Why I started caring about it..
The semi acoustics have hollow sides..Could it be that those areas don't affect sustain..Or could it be the opposite that the sides are in vibration keeping the strings going..
I don't hate Science,although I do admit an emotional bond with some of my guitars..
Science is constantly developing,we are learning new things all the times..
So Science is not absolute..Science cannot explain everything,,but some people see and use science like faith
as a weapon against people who don't agree with them,but Science is not static and faith based..
If there is a reason for different sustain that you know and it is a scientific answer,,any answer would genuinely interest me..??
I should count myself lucky it seems, I have 3 Fenders under 8 lb...
All Alder...I have experienced some boat anchors..Mostly Alder..
Although 1970's Ash can be hefty..probably late 70's..
I know about Swamp Ash not being a Species,but growing condition..
So a Ten ton Ash guitar can be marketed as Swamp Ash..
My hearing has gone once it hits 13 k now..However many folk that don't wear ear protection in practice rooms are much worse off..I'm 55 and they still make comments about me being a wimp etc..I love music and Hifi and want to enjoy it..
The only time I have heard power cables sound different was DNM with the distribution unit..
It sounded awful..It is basically that spaced solid core cable I think..Not sure it even has proper screening.
.I have heard slight differences in cables,but they were radically differently constructed and the more expensive and exotic the worse they sounded in general..If a cable sounds slightly better in a set up..
I think it is something not understood by the people who use pseudo science to market them,
but I have heard bits of information that I didn't hear with others and slightly better matches .
Silver plated OFC is not supposed to sound different,but I have heard it..
I'm convinced anyone else could have..Sometimes horribly grainy and bright,,sometimes it has pepped up dull sounding gear..
Meters may read different But I am convinced anyone in the room could hear it..
Definitely not related to financial outlay though..
The results don't match up with the claimed science..
I think the industry and brands are mostly a rip off..
I could go into full detail of my experiences,but it only really affects me and is boring to anyone else..
I agree about the Golden eared that are my age and claim they can hear above 22 khz..
It doesn't mean we don't all hear differently though,,I guess no one is claiming that..
The problem with the "science can't explain everything" trope is that it's almost invariably extended to "so science can't explain anything".
I've posted here several times that the best indicator of a materials suitability for use in musical instruments is the ratio of its stiffness to the speed that sound propogates through it. Not once has anyone expressed any interest in reading about the concept, so in the end I deleted the research paper from my PC as clearly everyone preferred superstition to tested conclusions and it wasn't worth wasting my time.
There's a reason why scientific testing is done blind. Anything else is far too prone to unconscious bias.
I think your first post was rude, people should be able to talk about their experience of musical instruments subjectively without needing to pretend they are scientists. You came into this thread trying to belittle that, and us having the discussion, with a pointless appeal to scientific reason which didn't actually help anyone reading or contribute to the discussion other than to try to shut it down.
Why did you bother? Since you didn't help anyone else, I guess it was just to make yourself feel good at the expense of others. This isn't a matter for the modmins to weigh in on, people can make their own judgements.
This place used to be good, but it really isn't any more and it's contributions like yours above that contribute to the unwelcome, unfriendly vibe this forum now has.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
I would have read that. The concept makes sense in my head. I once read something by an old guitar builder who suggested that one of the reasons for the shape of an acoustic instrument like a guitar developed as it has done was that the sound travelled faster along the grain of the wood and slower across. So although builders didn't have a way of explaining why a guitar with a narrower mid section sounded better, they did know that it seemed to. The sound reaching the edges of the instrument within a smaller time window to account for the grain of the wood. It was a lot later that such a thing could be measured.
It was only a short interview in a guitar mag but I've thought about it ever since. I cannot for the life of me remember who it was though.
______________________
As for the science limitation bit, I do find it amazing that a lot of people seem to think that just because they personally cannot plan an experiment to explain something that nobody can. The good old "argument from incredulity fallacy."
It's a very human but very bizarre stance. It's right up there with claiming that Usain Bolt cannot run 100m in 9.58s because I can't personally do it.
Science has never claimed to know everything YET, but it will keep looking. And more to the point science has always revealed far more than any naysayer ever imagines at the time they are naysaying. That's not a surprise - most people don't study any of the sciences beyond GCSE level, or keep up with advances in general, let alone studying and researching to advanced levels where human knowledge is pushed forward and actually advanced the subject.
Nobody who has ever studied an empirical subject at degree level or beyond ever claims that science is like faith.
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
Being part of a Turntable Forum, people use Science as a put down...And quote the Laws of Physics,,just the aforementioned words,although I doubt they understand the actual laws...It is a very established form of trolling on Hi Fi related forums..
One example is as a phono cartridge is ran more the rubber suspension runs in,therefore the compliance changes..This can both improve tracking and bring up volume a bit..A cartridge can become louder while in use,the higher the compliance,the faster it happens..Manufacturers acknowledge this..People come on and call it pseudoscience when it is provable using a test disc.. Then say physics are on their side.
Everything is Audiophoolery..Even if there are lots of research papers..All of that is apparently pseudo science and phantom perception / expectation bias....So people are bullied into not being allowed a discussion..
Like the Cable thing..If you think you can hear a difference..It doesn't affect another person's life one bit..
Yet to the Troll It means you have bought 5'000 Dollar cables and you think they sound better because you have to,or you will feel ripped off..
So you are experiencing expectation Bias and being a mug..
Nope I just heard a difference in two cables I already had and they were both under £30 at the time..
You still are allsorts..It's easy trolling for bullies..They love it..
They just continue to attack, now you are trying to defend yourself..
So I spend quite a lot of time being told I am a deaf delusional idiot who is not allowed to like listening to my own Hifi because I am in the wrong in some way or other..It doesn't matter what I prefer the sound of..
I very much doubt these people have studied Science,but on the Internet you can be anyone you want to be..
This doesn't represent anyone here by the way..This is just my experience of being online for 14 years..
You look up advice and you get these self proclaimed experts..They are only experts in their fictional writings..
Brain Surgeon for 200 years..99th Dan in Karate and Feng Shui.
Everyone knows everything on the internet..
I think to myself,but these people aren't as abundant in real life..
Then I realise maybe they are,,but I don't think of them as experts on anything..
I think of them as something quite different..
It becomes about winning an argument that they start.They can't possibly be in the wrong..
It is bullying and looking for a victim..Say the wrong thing and they appear..
They are Trolls looking for Weaknesses in people to attack...
So somebody who genuinely does understand Science / Physics may get completely ignored as so many use it as a way to look superior,,bully and troll..I imagine most experts will be insulted most of all,,unless they are established..
Why people lie about being an Aircraft designer etc..They want to establish themselves,,so they can bully and be big wigs on forums etc..I know they ruin forums for me and I bet many others......You get scared to ask a question..You will be in the wrong,,you will be an idiot etc..Someone could chime in..Maybe they are right...
I would rather be me than someone who has to bully..
Meanwhile,,I'm just a guy wondering what makes a difference in the sound I am experiencing..
I am not claiming superhuman abilities or to be a professor..
I am not the only one who experiences some quite strong differences in things..
Yet I am told I am delusional by people who pretend to be something they are not..
That line I have just typed sums it all up..Maybe I could have condensed it down to this..
You do get genuinely knowledgeable people..
I've found most of them to be patient,calm and understanding and able to break down explaining things to a simple level
that I can understand..They don't tell me that I am an idiot because I haven't got a degree in metallurgy,,a degree in baking and I wasn't a Kick Boxing champion at the same time,,..
.
If you are after sustain you can approach it two ways.
Build it stiff and/or heavy. Maybe it's a laminated neck with CF bars, maybe it's Les Paul's log. Maybe it's a 70's SG2000.
This method gives the purest string tone. Less energy is lost to the body so the string keeps on ringing. The structures job here isn't to colour the tone, it's to keep that string ringing. You get a fast attack to the note with a slow even decay. It might sound quiet unplugged, but will still sound great when plugged in and certainly works well for many styles where that clarity is useful.
Or you can build it light and resonant. Maybe it's a neck with a bit of flex, a Swamp Ash body, a semi hollow construction.
This method loses string energy to the body a bit quicker, but once that structure gets moving its going to drive a bit back into the string and pickups. It still sustains, but the tone is more coloured by the structure and the life cycle of the note isn't so even in its decay. These will sound richer if you like them, or more muddy if you don't.
Necks play a bigger role than bodies in this idea as that's where stiffness can vary the most... not just because of species, but construction choices such as grain alignment, lamination, carve thickness/shape.
I know many will disagree, but having built a lot of guitars with a lot of different construction styles and unusual woods this seems to be consistently true to my ears. I've purposely done all combinations of light/heavy, stiff/flexible across the body and neck
It's useful to talk wood species as a builder, as long as you accept it only gets you to the right ballpark and you still need to judge the individual piece.
Instagram
I've no idea why my extremely heavy '59 Les Paul Standard VOS custom shop copy sounds so good on the bridge pickup (neck pickup is a bit wooly, TBH) as I've never compared it to anything other than my mates Norlin-era Les Paul Custom (which wasn't very nice).
@KevS I don't use the LP much now and never take it out of the house. My main gigging guitar is a Strandberg Boden NX6 . If you can get over the way it looks, you might like the tones, weight and playability.
Unplugged the cabronita sounds better probably because of the chambers (Def because of the chambers) there is so much talk about tone woods for electric guitars, some are heavier woods some are lighter woods. Some could even be made of ply wood , still sound good.
I think the neck is a huge part of the sustain thing...
FWIW I generally prefer lighter guitars but that could simply be selection bias - I don't like heavy guitars AND I don't like guitars that aren't particularly resonant, so I only end up with lightweight resonant ones.
I don't think weight itself has any effect on the "tone" of a guitar, but weight goes hand-in-hand with density, which also may contribute to the stiffness Wez talked about. I know there are materials which are stiff and lightweight, but since we're talking about timber, mostly, a piece of hard, dense timber is probably stiffer than a piece of softer, less dense timber, generally speaking. But the latter's probably more resonant... until you go too soft, too non-dense, and then you end up with a guitar that sounds like a sponge (whatever the hell a sponge sounds like).
some say we don’t know enough science yet or it’s been proven wrong. maybe but some things are true. we know that a stiffer system has a different frequency response (and hence for us, sound and maybe tone, whatever that is). I know that because when I design mechanical/ structural foundations (for example) I have to play with mass usually to control vibrations and frequencies in comparison to those that the mechanical equipment (in our case strings mainly) .
so, for the same guitar, with same construction quality and tolerances etc, a heavier guitar will vibrate and presumably therefore sound and feel different to the player. I am guessing that the former is usually outweighed by many other variables, wheras the feel of the guitar and string response is probably much more able to be felt by the guitarist, even if the listener can’t hear it ?
Edit, oh yeah and Shear Wave Velocity of the guitar, which is substantially weight (strictly mass and it’s density)