Fretboard woods: can anyone genuinely FEEL the difference?

octatonic

Sassafras said:

Confirmation bias or not, I can still tell the difference between mahogany and ash and I'd bet money on any blind test you can conceive. Mahogany has even got a softer attack than ash or alder whatever the industry hype says.

It stands to reason that woods of different densities will absorb string vibrations in different ways.

johnonguitar

Sambostar;1033198" said:

Definitely yes and I hate lacquered maple boards with a passion to the point I find them almost unplayable.  If you can't feel the difference between a rosewood, bare maple and lacquered maple board you are a tool or play guitar like a girl.

Did you type that post with your nose? There's no way your big fat sausage fingers could do much more than paw aimlessly at the keyboard, like a drunken French mime trying to find his way out of an invisible box

kaisos

Baked maple was the worst for me.

Sporky

Sassafras said:

It stands to reason that woods of different densities will absorb string vibrations in different ways.

It stands to reason that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads five times in a row, it's more likely to come up tails the next.

I've got enough bits of wood in the workshop that if I pick a few up and thunk 'em they make different sounds. That doesn't necessarily mean that guitars made from those bits of wood will make a different sound when the strings are strummed - you're not imparting nearly as much energy to the bit of wood any more, almost all of it is contained in the strings, so the impact of the timber will be much less than the impact of different string factors (eg nylon vs steel, scale length, tension, rigidity of the bridge and so on).

I am not saying that different timbers will not sound different, I am saying that I've yet to see any comparison that excluded all other factors so that valid conclusions could be made. The one Octatonic's mentioned sounds like it may have useful data and conclusions.

WezV

Sporky;1033974" said:

Sassafras said:



It stands to reason that woods of different densities will absorb string vibrations in different ways.





It stands to reason that if you flip a coin and it comes up heads five times in a row, it's more likely to come up tails the next.



I've got enough bits of wood in the workshop that if I pick a few up and thunk 'em they make different sounds. That doesn't necessarily mean that guitars made from those bits of wood will make a different sound when the strings are strummed - you're not imparting nearly as much energy to the bit of wood any more, almost all of it is contained in the strings, so the impact of the timber will be much less than the impact of different string factors (eg nylon vs steel, scale length, tension, rigidity of the bridge and so on).



I am not saying that different timbers will not sound different, I am saying that I've yet to see any comparison that excluded all other factors so that valid conclusions could be made. The one Octatonic's mentioned sounds like it may have useful data and conclusions.

You only have to hold a guitar to know a significant amount of energy makes its way into the body.


I agree string is the most important factor in any of this though.

Did you ever get around to using that macasser ebony neck blank? Its at the extreme end of the neck wood spectrum, it might change your mind

Sporky

WezV said:

You only have to hold a guitar to know a significant amount of energy makes its way into the body.

But far less than stays in the strings. If you damp the body by holding it the strings will still ring for pretty much as long as if the guitar was on a stand (or a wall hanger).

If the wood really was a huge factor (and I'm not suggesting you said it was - I saw your next line) then we wouldn't recognise the sound of a guitar as a thing shared by LPs and SGs and Teles and Strats - they'd sound as different as do a harp and a lute. Fundamentally pretty much all electric guitars sound like electric guitars, and I don't mean that in a circular way. You wouldn't mistake an electric guitar (barring the real oddities) for a harp or a trombone or an accordian.

I agree string is the most important factor in any of this though.

Did you ever get around to using that macasser ebony neck blank? Its at the extreme end of the neck wood spectrum, it might change your mind

Not yet. I was hoping to get half-decent at building guitars before risking turning that into firewood! Also I never quite decided between trying for a solid neck or resawing it into 3 or even 4 fretboards.

WezV

Sporky said:

If the wood really was a huge factor (and I'm not suggesting you said it was - I saw your next line) then we wouldn't recognise the sound of a guitar as a thing shared by LPs and SGs and Teles and Strats - they'd sound as different as do a harp and a lute. Fundamentally pretty much all electric guitars sound like electric guitars, and I don't mean that in a circular way. You wouldn't mistake an electric guitar (barring the real oddities) for a harp or a trombone or an accordian.

If your argument is that "wood doesn't make a difference because they all sound like a guitar" then surely the natural conclusion is "The strings don't make a difference because they all sound like a  guitar". 

But those guitars do sound different, part of that is technique, part is string, part is scale, part is constructions, and part is wood.    ERG's and alternative tuning change the strings vibrational energy in a  massive way - but they still sound like guitars to most people.

The sound of "a guitar" covers a massive range on sounds, more so than most other traditional instruments.   wood is one factor within that

Sporky said:

Not yet. I was hoping to get half-decent at building guitars before risking turning that into firewood! Also I never quite decided between trying for a solid neck or resawing it into 3 or even 4 fretboards.

I did with the other one.   The blank had a tap tone  like a steel bar, the guitar itself was noticeably bright with a fast attack.    Its not the first time I have found tap tones translate into a finished build.  It might be better suited to fretboards instead,  it would balance out a mahogany neck really well

It may all be my brain tricking me, but my brain tricks me into liking fatty  foods over the healthy equivalent, and tells me which music I like.   At the end of the day, if I want to enjoy life, I have to trust my brain to tell me what I do and don't like.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't welcome a proper study - until that comes I will continue to trust my brain.

I do have a psychology degree, so I am fully aware of how often our brains do trick us.

Sporky

Just in case it isn't clear, I am most certainly not saying that everyone but me is a thicko. The opposite is more likely true.

Similarly you've got far more experience with this than I have, so even if I disagree on some things it's not that I think you're wrong. And I'm wary of backing myself into a ridiculous corner - far too easy to do that on the inferweb.

As an aside, I think it'd probably be sensible to pull all the hardware off a couple of my builds and cut them up for firewood. As they are they're not quite good enough, but they're taking up space that means I'm loathe to finish anything else. I'm only going to get better at building these if I actually build more...

Sassafras

Try building one out of balsa wood, see what that sounds like.

WezV

Sassafras;1034038" said:

Try building one out of balsa wood, see what that sounds like.

You should always choose for structural integrity first.

But balsa does work. The Yamaha A.I.R bodies were a balsa like wood capped front and back with a couple of mm of maple and the bridge mounted from the back.

Yes. They still sounded like a guitar, but they had a noticeable hollow tone, almost thin. Perfectly usable though, and great for people with back trouble

ICBM

And remarkably, a Trussart sounds quite like a normal electric guitar, when amplified. Although it does sound like a tin banjo unplugged .

At the end of the day any electric guitar sounds like an electric guitar if you put it through a fair amount of overdrive and a middy EQ, but that's not really what we're talking about.

There's "sounds like an electric guitar to an average person" and there's "sounds like a particular type of electric guitar to someone who is intimately familiar with many different types of guitars". And I know that some of it is feel rather than sound so it's more obvious to the player than to a listener.

But going back to where we came in, I'm very sure that I could tell guitars with ebony fingerboards apart from ones with rosewood or maple boards (unlacquered, to avoid that making it obvious), if I was playing them blindfold - both from the feel and the difference in response.

olafgarten

I think the issue is that people are focusing too much on whether it is scientifically correct. If it sounds better to you, you've achieved your goal.

stickyfiddle

If we extend the "different resonance of different wood doesn't necessarily make a difference" argument aren't we back at the idea that a Gibson Les Paul (with mahogany top), SG, Explorer and Flying V would all sound  exactly the same? Which they clearly don't. 

Completely agree that most electric guitars sound very similar, but that doesn't mean they all sound the same. 

I'd be very interested in reading proper double-blind studies based on proper scientific method, because I'm cool... But in the meantime I agree with @ICBM

Dave_Mc

Yeah I think I can tell fretboards apart by feel.

ICBM said:

I know all about confirmation bias and I'm quite interested to test this sort of thing, as you'll have seen in various posts about amps and cables.

This is one where I think there is a real difference - which I agree can be outweighed by other factors in individual cases - and I'm sure it would show up in a properly-conducted large-sample test.

Mythbusting is good, but be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater… as you do if you start to claim that the wood doesn't make a difference in an electric guitar.

+1

Also if everyone is prone to confirmation bias, doesn't that mean octatonic is too? Pretty much the Bulverism fallacy, really. Plus being biased doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong- I'm biased against anyone who thinks the sun revolves around the earth, for example.

octatonic said:

Sassafras said:

Confirmation bias or not, I can still tell the difference between mahogany and ash and I'd bet money on any blind test you can conceive. Mahogany has even got a softer attack than ash or alder whatever the industry hype says.

It stands to reason that woods of different densities will absorb string vibrations in different ways.

Don't forget about the nocebo effect.

guitars4you

If you feel that  tone woods are not important to the tone of the guitar then why not suport the carbon fibre, poxy resin, plastic based route and stop chopping down trees - I'm fully in favour of the tone wood approach - From Stradivarius to today luthiers, they have always tapped the wood to listen to its resonance - 2 pieces of mahogany can both ring and be resonant - but they can be resonant at different frequencies, hence 2 similar guitars can sound different

Bottom line is that a good guitar with good tone woods generally sounds good unplugged and that is were your tone starts  The pick ups amplify this natural source

No sampler/Synth captures the true sound of a piano - the same goes for all the modern various 'digital' amps - Granted they are better now then in the past - But the finer nuances, soul and expression is missing - Same goes for a plastic clarinet v a good wood clarinet 

I agree with ICBM that somehow And remarkably, a Trussart sounds quite like a normal electric guitar, when amplified

octatonic

guitars4you said:

If you feel that  tone woods are not important to the tone of the guitar then why not suport the carbon fibre, poxy resin, plastic based route and stop chopping down trees - I'm fully in favour of the tone wood approach - From Stradivarius to today luthiers, they have always tapped the wood to listen to its resonance - 2 pieces of mahogany can both ring and be resonant - but they can be resonant at different frequencies, hence 2 similar guitars can sound different

Bottom line is that a good guitar with good tone woods generally sounds good unplugged and that is were your tone starts  The pick ups amplify this natural source

No sampler/Synth captures the true sound of a piano - the same goes for all the modern various 'digital' amps - Granted they are better now then in the past - But the finer nuances, soul and expression is missing - Same goes for a plastic clarinet v a good wood clarinet 

I agree with ICBM that somehow And remarkably, a Trussart sounds quite like a normal electric guitar, when amplified

You've described acoustic instruments here (in bold).

I don't think anyone has disputed wood choice in acoustic guitars having a large impact on tone.

That is a pretty logical thing as the sound of the acoustic guitar is essentially unfiltered from producing its sound to being heard.

As to the cutting down of trees- well, wood is easy to work and pretty cheap.

I can easily shape a neck with a couple of rasps.

I don't really have the ability to work in epoxy here (and I build acoustic instruments anyway).

Sporky

guitars4you said:

If you feel that  tone woods are not important to the tone of the guitar then why not suport the carbon fibre, poxy resin, plastic based route and stop chopping down trees

Because trees are more sustainable than CF and plastic.

That said, my Talman (which remains my favourite guitar I've ever played) is essentially moulded MDF. And still sounds like a guitar.

No sampler/Synth captures the true sound of a piano

There are a goodly number of professional pianists who disagree when it comes to the new Roland stuff, though technically that's modelling rather than sampling or synthesis. They've reportedly also captured the feel of a grand in an upright format - same key action and same resonance through the "chassis".

stratman3142

I don't think I'd be able to tell a real difference. All of my current guitars have rosewood fretboards, apart from my bass, so I can't do a direct comparison. But I'm not one who notices the subtleties.

I'm not keen on recently cleaned fretboards because they feel a bit sticky.

WezV

I have never avoided alternative woods and materials, but I wont deny I love working with wood more than anything else, and mahogany is a very nice wood to work with. I am lucky I have found so much old stock free

I have said before that I think it comes down to the builders approach. You can factor wood choice out of it by focusing strongly on all the other factors.

I often remember the guitar projects that didn't work, and in almost all cases I can put it down to the wood choice. Its usually where I have been using a questionable wood, overly heavy sapelli or English ash both spring to mind as I built fairly high spec guitars with both that sounded pretty unusual in different ways. The English ash junior with wenge neck and BKP90 could out spank a Tele, but was acoustically pretty quiet. The heavy sapelli just sounded totally dull in every way

Catthan

I can tell the diff. Between my lacquered maple board and RW ones; the latter feel a bit more squishy which I like.

Same frets and all other varables I'd probably struggle to tell them apart feel-wise tbh

I remember I really liked the kokobolo board in my old Suhr GG modern with whatever frets those were.