It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Perhaps you are right about some guitars being more 'alive' (for want of a better word) and sounding a lot more 'lively' (whatever that might mean). All I am asking for is some rational explanation that is consistent with the laws of physics as to why that might be, not anecdotes, folk lore, rubbish YouTube demonstrations and so on, just a rational explanation with reference to proper research.
If this were a real phenomenon I can't imagine why there seems to be such a lack of academic papers on the topic. There are certainly endless papers on numerous related topics, ranging from the resonance of acoustic guitar bodies through to psychophysical studies of the perception of timbre. I have now spent days trying to research this whole 'tone wood' thing and I am no closer to finding an answer, which make me think there isn't one and it has more to do with the sort of factors that led people to believe old Strads were somehow magical than anything physical.
To be honest, and with the greatest of respect, the fact that this debate is framed by such woolly, ill-defined terms as 'lively sounding' itself suggest that the real answer is more likely to be found in the realm of psychology than physics!
I recall a chat with the late Bill Collings about building the i35LC based on a great dot 335 - they built close to 40 prototypes before they signed it off - various laminates both number and mix of material - what wood for the centre block and solid v 'chambered' etc etc - many differences wee marginal but they wanted to nail it as against having some based on 'that will do' - I'm sure a cad/cam design could be accomplished quickly but what works on a screen might not transform to the desired results once played
A slight curve ball - My daughter is studying business at school and asks me about various topics and quotes the text book name/approach for a certain subject/principle - I don't know the technical name, but when we get talking about it I know exactly what it is, but I learnt by error and hands on experience and many errors - Unknowingly competent I call it which is far better than knowingly incompetent
Are you sure you're not googling the wrong stuff? Do you have any science qualifications? (All I have is a couple of engineering degrees, which isn't quite science.)
But the biggest problem I see here is your tone - you come across as very assertive and certain of your views, so there's not much point linking what I did find. (For example your acceptance of those recent violin papers as some sort of total proof - that seems a bit premature. I haven't read those papers but I did hear interviews of some of the researchers at the time and their findings were not so one-sided.)
I'm rapidly losing the will to live, here.
As to those papers you haven't read, but still know more about than those who have read them. They were just a selection and there are more recent studies whose design took into account the criticisms made of those earlier ones, which nonetheless came to the same conclusion. I linked to the ones I did because they have full-texts available, whilst many of the more recent ones are abstract-only. For example,
http://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5395
If you pluck the string, you are applying a force to the mount points. This means that the material will flex. Google Hooke's Law and Young's Modulus - which you seem to have no understanding of.
There are a lot of people in this thread with backgrounds in physical sciences and engineering (I am one of them), yet you are discounting everything that they say. It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that you are a troll.
The Strad study doesn't say that modern violins and Strads sound the same. It says that in blind tests people tend to prefer the modern ones.
It's a fascinating study, and yes, it does help demolish some of the bullshit around vintage instruments---but it doesn't support the idea that wood makes no difference to the sound of a violin. What that particular study tells you is that there is no magic in old wood, not that wood doesn't make a difference.
I have a PhD in musical acoustics and I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the discussions about instrument material. Nobody has really bothered studying electric guitar wood for two reasons, that I can see: one, there are so many other variables involved that it's very, very hard to do a properly fair comparison that would actually have any rigour to it, and two, that because of all those other variables the effect of the wood is a probably a secondary one at best.
My own (relatively qualified) opinion is that the body wood of an electric guitar probably makes an audible difference to the sound but that it's not enough of a difference to care about. The difference between two pieces of ash is probably on the same order as the difference between ash and maple.
So I disagree with a lot of the tone wood bullshit that people use to market instruments (normally using flawed "experimental proof") but equally I disagree with the people who say that it makes no difference at all (normally using flawed gcse physics). As usual the real answer probably lies in the middle.
As an aside---brass instruments. Brass players swear the material makes a massive difference. Proper blind studies suggest that there may be differences, but they're subtle at best. Once your brain knows there's a difference you can't always trust your ears.
If there are academic papers showing that this is not the case, and that the different woods used to make the body and neck of a solid body guitar actually cause a perceptible difference in the harmonics produced by a steel guitar string, I would love to read them.
I would certainly not 'discount' anything on this topic out of hand, on the one condition that it is relevant. For example, if body woods do support certain harmonics better than others, this would still not be relevant if that difference is swamped by other determinants of the harmonics, or the difference cannot be perceived by the human ear.
Ta!
If all you want is academic papers, and to continue to ignore all the real-world experiences of people here, and are unable to actually discern differences for yourself, you'd be better spent going here than waffling on this thread.
The study Uncle Psychosis refers to found that their group of listeners tend to prefer the sound of modern violins to the Stradavarious in a blind test. If a lot of the value attached to the old Cremonese violins is in our perception of their cultural and historical importance rather than anything concrete about how the instruments function, that still feeds into the experience of going to hear somebody perform on one. It's useful to recognise that for what it is, but I would not call it self-deception. I think I'd still get a kick out of hearing a great player on the Green/Moore Les Paul even if I'm fully aware I might not tell it from a modern copy in a blind test.
I also suspect that it's very difficult to accurately assess the sound of an instrument while playing it. The sound of my guitar on recordings is often quite different to how I felt it sounded at the time. If two instruments sound indistinguishable to the listener in a blind test, but the people playing them consistently regard one as better sounding, there may be something else about the playing experience that they prefer. Could there be some sort of tactile feedback from the body and neck vibration that affects how the player feels about the sound of a guitar whilst making less difference to the amplified sound than might be expected? If so, I would still say that the players preference is valid.
If I chopped down the bay tree in my garden and got a violin made from that, I suspect that it would be very easy to tell the difference.
What I am reading through this thread is that @Three-ColourSunburst appears to be saying all electric guitars sound the same regardless of body construction. Is that correct? (Assume electronics, pickup type etc. are all a control here, so they are not part of my query).
I'm not going to offer an opinion, but that's what it sounds like I am reading to me.
First is - does wood make a difference to the tone of an electric guitar. The second topic is something like - does it make a noticeable difference in a real world situation. Indeed, is the difference predictable.
I think (may be wrong) that many people agree that the wood used to make a guitar contributes to the tone, but it may not be predictable, and - in a real world situation with pedals, amps and the guitar players toneful fingers taken into account - the contribution that the wood makes to the tone may or may not be significant.
Even if you have two "identical" guitars, apart from the wood used, they won't be identical.
The one thing I think is that no two guitars are exactly the same due to all the inherent variables that are involved in building one, as described through this thread. Wood is one of those variables and being a natural material is one of the less controllable variables. So in my view the reason guitars sound different is partly to do with the wood used, whether it's the same species as the one you're comparing to or not.
I'm completely "unqualified" to justify this view, but that's what I reckon anyway...
For recorded sound the number of variables is huge, in those days things like the mastering was hugely important and then there's what you listen back to it on and a hundred other things. I struggle to imagine the difference between two pieces of wood used to build guitars making a difference to the end listener even in a more direct environment like a concert. Whatever difference it's pretty much only for the benefit of the player. Which is fine if you prefer the sound, get the response you want,etc, as that ultimately helps you play better. But nobody is going ' listen to the mahogany in that.'