Body wood affects tone

Three-ColourSunburst · September 2017

Kalimna said:

Whether there is a *need* or not for string energy to be transmitted is utterly immaterial. Energy transfer will take place. The only question is by how much.

As little as is possible. The whole point of the design of a sold body electric guitar is to prevent the body from resonating. A solid body guitar is also formed of a huge lump of wood compared to the thin soundboard of an acoustic, so the strings don't possess enough energy to make the body resonate much in any case, and if the body does resonate the sustain will be killed stone dead. It follows that selecting the timber for the body of an electric guitar on the basis of its supposed resonant / tonal properties is, pretty much, a nonsense.

WezV · September 2017

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Kalimna said:

Whether there is a *need* or not for string energy to be transmitted is utterly immaterial. Energy transfer will take place. The only question is by how much.

As little as is possible. The whole point of the design of a sold body electric guitar is to prevent the body from resonating. A solid body guitar is also formed of a huge lump of wood compared to the thin soundboard of an acoustic, so the strings don't possess enough energy to make the body resonate much in any case, and if the body does resonate the sustain will be killed stone dead. It follows that selecting the timber for the body of an electric guitar on the basis of its supposed resonant / tonal properties is, pretty much, a nonsense.

Are you honestly suggesting solid body guitars do not resonate?

have you held one?

Three-ColourSunburst · September 2017

TheGuitarWeasel said:

It is worth pointing out here that all guitar pickups are to a lesser or greater degree microphonic ... unless you pot them in a completely rigid medium like casting epoxy ... therefore there is a certain amount of radiating that a solid guitar does of it's own natural sound and the acoustic sound of the strings ... this is totally independant of the sound produced by the string's magnetic interaction with the pickup. This is why unpotted pickups sound more 'live' than potted ones.

Here's an idea. Why not fit a set of non-magnetic (nylon) acoustic strings to a solid body guitar and then report what it sounds like through an amp. That way you will get an idea of what the microphonics actually contribute to the overall sound. I have feeling the most likely result will be the 'sound of silence'.

Roland · September 2017

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Roland said:

In order to vibrate the string must stretch under tension. It will get longer when you pluck it hard. That's why the note goes sharp and/or flat when plucked hard. Some energy is lost as the string stretches and contracts. Over time the note will decay as the string loses energy.

Imagine also that the string is not made of a uniformly solid material. Unlike our theoretical GCSE string it will not vibrate evenly. Some frequencies will be absorbed more readily than others by the material of the string. You can hear this in the difference between wound and unwound G strings.

Agreed, but those factors are still dependent on the nature of the string, not the species of wood that the guitar is made from!

Yes. It's in reply to your request (below) for an explanation of additional factors affecting string vibration.

Three-ColourSunburst said:

From my understanding a vibrating string is a vibrating string, the characteristics of its vibration being determined entirely by its tension, length, mass and the exact way in which it is picked. If anyone knows any physics showing otherwise I would love to read it.

OilCityPickups · September 2017

Three-ColourSunburst said:

TheGuitarWeasel said:

It is worth pointing out here that all guitar pickups are to a lesser or greater degree microphonic ... unless you pot them in a completely rigid medium like casting epoxy ... therefore there is a certain amount of radiating that a solid guitar does of it's own natural sound and the acoustic sound of the strings ... this is totally independant of the sound produced by the string's magnetic interaction with the pickup. This is why unpotted pickups sound more 'live' than potted ones.

Here's an idea. Why not fit a set of non-magnetic (nylon) acoustic strings to a solid body guitar and then report what it sounds like through an amp. That way you will get an idea of what the microphonics actually contribute to the overall sound. I have feeling the most likely result will be the 'sound of silence'.

I did that a long time ago ... and yes ... you get sound ... very weak sound ... but you do. Try it for yourself. 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.

AustrianJohn · September 2017

Does wood influence how a guitar sounds? Probably.

Does wood influence how a guitar sounds in a meaningful way? Hmmm.

What if I record three guitars straight into a desk. No pedals, no amp. I have £100 that says that you can't say what wood is used for the bodies on these three guitars.I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - get two right and I'll pay up. Get two or more wrong, you pay me.

Any takers?

GSPBASSES · September 2017

octatonic said:

Chalky said:

I don't get the tonewood-haters argument. If they sincerely believe it makes no difference they why not just play their cheaper guitars and be happy that they don't need the more expensive guitars? Why such strong feelings?

You are correct, it appears you haven't understood what people are saying.

And if you think that the cost of the wood is directly related to the final cost of the guitar then I have some bad news for you.

I have read some bullocks in this post, but that statement takes the can for the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum.

Example, a customer wants Les Paul made from Brazilian Mahogany with a 5A quilted maple cap, ebony fingerboard. Approximate costs based on David Dykes prices, body blank £125, neck blank £40, ebony fingerboard £25 and a 5A quilted maple cap £200. Total cost wood £390

Next customer wants Les Paul made from Korina with plain cap and rosewood fingerboard. Approximate costs from David Dykes, Karina body blank £40, neck blank £15, rosewood fingerboard £12 and a plain maple cap £20. Total cost of wood £87.

So do you honestly expect us to believe a guitar built with wood costing £390 would sell for the same price as the guitar made of wood with a total cost of £87 dream on.

AustrianJohn · September 2017

GSPBASSES said:

octatonic said:

Chalky said:

I don't get the tonewood-haters argument. If they sincerely believe it makes no difference they why not just play their cheaper guitars and be happy that they don't need the more expensive guitars? Why such strong feelings?

You are correct, it appears you haven't understood what people are saying.

And if you think that the cost of the wood is directly related to the final cost of the guitar then I have some bad news for you.

I have read some bullocks in this post, but that statement takes the can for the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum.

Example, a customer wants Les Paul made from Brazilian Mahogany with a 5A quilted maple cap, ebony fingerboard. Approximate costs based on David Dykes prices, body blank £125, neck blank £40, ebony fingerboard £25 and a 5A quilted maple cap £200. Total cost wood £390

Next customer wants Les Paul made from Korina with plain cap and rosewood fingerboard. Approximate costs from David Dykes, Karina body blank £40, neck blank £15, rosewood fingerboard £12 and a plain maple cap £20. Total cost of wood £87.

So do you honestly expect us to believe a guitar built with wood costing £390 would sell for the same price as the guitar made of wood with a total cost of £87 dream on.

Do people buy quilted maple caps for the sound, or the look?

octatonic · September 2017

GSPBASSES said:

octatonic said:

Chalky said:

I don't get the tonewood-haters argument. If they sincerely believe it makes no difference they why not just play their cheaper guitars and be happy that they don't need the more expensive guitars? Why such strong feelings?

You are correct, it appears you haven't understood what people are saying.

And if you think that the cost of the wood is directly related to the final cost of the guitar then I have some bad news for you.

I have read some bullocks in this post, but that statement takes the can for the most stupid thing I've ever read on this forum.

Example, a customer wants Les Paul made from Brazilian Mahogany with a 5A quilted maple cap, ebony fingerboard. Approximate costs based on David Dykes prices, body blank £125, neck blank £40, ebony fingerboard £25 and a 5A quilted maple cap £200. Total cost wood £390

Next customer wants Les Paul made from Korina with plain cap and rosewood fingerboard. Approximate costs from David Dykes, Karina body blank £40, neck blank £15, rosewood fingerboard £12 and a plain maple cap £20. Total cost of wood £87.

So do you honestly expect us to believe a guitar built with wood costing £390 would sell for the same price as the guitar made of wood with a total cost of £87 dream on.

You didn't read what I said, or at least you didn't understand it.
You've quoted some prices that you, as a small builder, pay for and you are small fry compared to a corporation, as am I.
You are looking this through the tiny lens of your own experience and whilst that might be true for you- the rest of the industry, which is about a billion times bigger than you, doesn't work that way.

Large corporations buy wood in bulk- they pay much less for 'tone woods' than you or I do.
They leverage the wood suppliers and buy in bulk bringing the cost of the wood down much lower than you or I can dream of paying.
If you compare the price of a £2000 guitar to a £500 guitar the difference between cost of the raw wood will be much less than the difference of cost of the final guitars.
I know this for a fact after having studied lutherie at university and also having spoken with some of the people at several multinational builders as part of doing my dissertation.
I'm surprised you don't already know this.

OilCityPickups · September 2017

Come on guys ... this is a debate ... let's not do handbags at ten paces and let's keep things civil ...

octatonic · September 2017

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Come on guys ... this is a debate ... let's not do handbags at ten paces and let's keep things civil ...

I'm more than willing to be reasonable- but I'm not going to be called stupid by someone who thinks he has the right to say so when he completely misunderstood my point and is only willing to look through his own tiny lens and extrapolate out from there.

Frankly, I think I'm owed an apology.

OilCityPickups · September 2017

octatonic said:

TheGuitarWeasel said:

Come on guys ... this is a debate ... let's not do handbags at ten paces and let's keep things civil ...

I'm more than willing to be reasonable- but I'm not going to be called stupid by someone who thinks he has the right to say so when he completely misunderstood my point and is only willing to look through his own tiny lens and extrapolate out from there.

Frankly, I think I'm owed an apology.

This is entirely why I said this thread is like 'does my arse look big in this'.
It's emotive far and above it's factual content ...
Lets all take a healthy swig of calm the fuck down ... and realise it's only a forum.

Three-ColourSunburst · September 2017

WezV said:

Are you honestly suggesting solid body guitars do not resonate?

Of course not. However, such resonance does not appear to make a significant contribution to the sound produced via the pickups unless, perhaps, we want to believe that microphonic feedback is a normal and significant component of solid body guitar tone.

I have just tried my acoustic and the soundboard seems to resonate equally strongly whatever note I play. No surprise really given that the soundboard of an acoustic is carefully designed to be as neutral as possible in its response, with no 'wolf tones' or dead spots.

However, on picking up one my of my electrics the resonance of the body seems to be nowhere near as consistent. For example, especially on the higher strings, certain notes note certainly do cause the neck to resonate noticeably. However, a note a semi-tone higher might not be 'felt' at all. Also, the body only seems to resonate noticeably when playing certain bass notes.

This suggests to me that, if resonance was an important factor in the tone of a solid body electric guitar, a solid body instruments would be likely to have a very unbalanced sound, with some notes being much louder and possibly having a different tonal quality to notes only a semi-tone away on the same string. In reality I don't find this, indicating that the resonant qualities of the neck and body make very little contribution to the sound and (as the research I linked to earlier notes) such resonance only being significant in so much as it can reduce the sustain of certain notes.

OilCityPickups · September 2017

Three-ColourSunburst said:

WezV said:

Are you honestly suggesting solid body guitars do not resonate?

Of course not. However, such resonance does not appear to make a significant contribution to the sound produced via the pickups unless, perhaps, we want to believe that microphonic feedback is a normal and significant component of solid body guitar tone.

Have you never turned into your amp and 'boosted' a note into feedback?

koneguitarist · September 2017

The point with this debate is everything makes a difference, and I think we can all agree with that. The awkward thing is, what difference and how can it be quantified. Two telecasters made of Ash with all things the same sound different. Yet two telecasters one ash one Alder, one rw board one maple board, different pickup wire and magnets, yet they can still sound the same, like a telecaster!

OilCityPickups · September 2017

koneguitarist said:

The point with this debate is everything makes a difference, and I think we can all agree with that. The awkward thing is, what difference and how can it be quantified. Two telecasters made of Ash with all things the same sound different. Yet two telecasters one ash one Alder, one rw board one maple board, different pickup wire and magnets, yet they can still sound the same, like a telecaster!

People don't make telecasters out of me ... I hope ... if they do I want my left leg to be a 'Black Guard'. :-)

crunchman · September 2017

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Kalimna said:

Whether there is a *need* or not for string energy to be transmitted is utterly immaterial. Energy transfer will take place. The only question is by how much.

As little as is possible. The whole point of the design of a sold body electric guitar is to prevent the body from resonating. A solid body guitar is also formed of a huge lump of wood compared to the thin soundboard of an acoustic, so the strings don't possess enough energy to make the body resonate much in any case, and if the body does resonate the sustain will be killed stone dead. It follows that selecting the timber for the body of an electric guitar on the basis of its supposed resonant / tonal properties is, pretty much, a nonsense.

You need to learn some basic Physics.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - Isaac Newton

When the string is plucked it puts a force on the boday, and the body puts a force on the string. Energy will be transferred to the body.

This will result in vibration of the body, and very small movement of the pickups, which will have some effect on the signal the pickup generates.

I suspect that the bigger effect is that the body damps certain frequencies, and then the vibrations of the body feedback into the strings, which is picked up by the pickup.

It's already been said, but if it was only the string and the pickups without any effect from the body, a 335 with 57 Classics would sound the same as an SG with 57 Classics, which would also sound the same as a Les Paul with 57 Classics. That is definitely not the case. They all sound different. None of them sounds like a Strat - there is a family resemblance if you like, but while the differences aren't huge, they definitely exist, and are noticeable.

koneguitarist · September 2017

Strum a Gibson ( note a Gibson not just a Les Paul or SG) and a fender (be that strat or tele) acoustically and they will still sound like a Gibson or Fender, not so much due to woods but way they are constructed.
Materials play a part of the sound but only so much construction I feel makes the main difference.
Hence a steel Trussart tele sounds like a tele!
Anybody remember Modulus Graphite guitars not wood but still sounded like a tele.
hands make the biggest difference so just play them.

Gassage · September 2017

Here's the thing.

Inevitably in my experience the players that refuse to accept that tonewood makes a difference play HB guitars through higher gain amps and the ones that argue that tonewood does make a difference generally play country or blues with a single coil through a clean amp, which tells you why there's always a heated debate about it.

Very simply, an acoustic is totally unprocessed and the further you process the signal, ending with a high output HB with a floyd, the less the wood matters (IMO).

guitars4you · September 2017

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

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Become a Subscriber!

Body wood affects tone

Comments