Guitar 'truths" that you believe are myths

"This excitation makes it through the body to the strings, and whatever they do in response, must be captured in the sound."
Well not really Rob, just because something seems intuitively true doesn't make it so. Making cables out of Silver MUST make them better than Copper? I think we all know the answer to that!
For one thing, how are the body vibrations fed back into the strings? Surely not at the bridge since that is a "node" a point of zero velocity like a sound hitting a brick wall.

I think the "feedback" situation is a red herring and a different mechanism (if there is one!) The speaker directly excites the strings which excites the pickups which goes back into the amp....Yes, an acoustic guitar will feedback earlier and at a lower level than a Tele but then an acoustic is a "resonant system" and is louder than the solid guitar to start with. All else being equal, a mic with high sensitivity will feedback earlier than one of lower sensitivity.

My son has a Tele clone and a Ricky 330 (a proper one!) They are he tells me both about the same for feedback onset. The 330 is of course a 'semi-sold' design and WOULD be more susceptible except that it has weedier pickups than the Tele.

I can't find that YT about the 'air guitar' but he sent me the link so I shall ask him for it.

Another related factoid? I needed a simulated pickup (sans strings) to terminate amps for tests. I put a single coil in a diecast box and filled it with wax. Given enough gain* that bugger would STILL take off 2m from a speaker!

*HT-5, lorra lorra gain in OD mode.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
I think the "feedback" situation is a red herring and a different mechanism (if there is one!) The speaker directly excites the strings which excites the pickups which goes back into the amp....Yes, an acoustic guitar will feedback earlier and at a lower level than a Tele but then an acoustic is a "resonant system" and is louder than the solid guitar to start with. All else being equal, a mic with high sensitivity will feedback earlier than one of lower sensitivity.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's true that it's only the excitation of the strings that is contributing to the feedback. The primary difference between the ES-330 and ES-335 body is the maple centerblock which reduces the susceptibility to feedback.

I have heard two guitars (Heritage H-530 and H-535 which are similar to the Gibsons), but both with the same model humbuckers. The 530, which is hollow, would feedback and sustain a note much more readily. If it was just the strings being affected by the sound, they should have been essentially the same. You could sustain a note, and feel the air coming out of the f-holes.

This is distinctly different that something the the Fernandez Sustainer pickup, which magnetically vibrates the string to make it sustain continually.
 
TalismanRich said:
I don't think it's true that it's only the excitation of the strings that is contributing to the feedback. The primary difference between the ES-330 and ES-335 body is the maple centerblock which reduces the susceptibility to feedback.

I have heard two guitars (Heritage H-530 and H-535 which are similar to the Gibsons), but both with the same model humbuckers. The 530, which is hollow, would feedback and sustain a note much more readily. If it was just the strings being affected by the sound, they should have been essentially the same. You could sustain a note, and feel the air coming out of the f-holes.

This is distinctly different that something the the Fernandez Sustainer pickup, which magnetically vibrates the string to make it sustain continually.
Click to expand...
I am not saying Rich that the body construction of a guitar does not affect the type and sensitivity to feedback. Of course it does, that's why I cited the Ricky, it SHOULD be worse for feedback than the slabsided Tele because of the body cavity but it isn't because of the lower sensitivity pups. (it will however 'take off' at a different frequency from the Tele. Must ask son.)

What I AM saying is that feedback is a limiting condition and totally different from whether the body construction of a nominally solid guitar affects its tone.
I suspect not but maybe fairer to say "not proven"? Proving it however will involve quite a bit of work... making a skeletonised guitar for one thing. Endless unsubstantiated opinions won't cut it.

Then, if proper tests show that the wood does have an effect we can move on to asking "how"? My gut feeling is we won't need to.

Dave.
 
ecc83 said:
I am not saying Rich that the body construction of a guitar does not affect the type and sensitivity to feedback. Of course it does, that's why I cited the Ricky, it SHOULD be worse for feedback than the slabsided Tele because of the body cavity but it isn't because of the lower sensitivity pups. (it will however 'take off' at a different frequency from the Tele. Must ask son.)

What I AM saying is that feedback is a limiting condition and totally different from whether the body construction of a nominally solid guitar affects its tone.
I suspect not but maybe fairer to say "not proven"? Proving it however will involve quite a bit of work... making a skeletonised guitar for one thing. Endless unsubstantiated opinions won't cut it.

Then, if proper tests show that the wood does have an effect we can move on to asking "how"? My gut feeling is we won't need to.

Dave.
Click to expand...
There are vids of the 'skelotonized' thing being done and there was no/minimal tonal difference. It may also be anecdotal for me to say, but 'all' the quotes I have read about the effect of mass on a solid body guitar have been, in fact , anecdotal. NO test results of those claims were provided.

I have seen and heard actual tests done. All of those where blind testing was done resulted in an inability for testers to hear a difference or to see a difference in a visual analysis.

I personally 'feel' like the density of a solid body could affect the sustain somewhat, though it appears sustain may be more down to the bridge mounting, material and mass, though, again, hollow body is another animal.



I couldn't find the original video but this one shows what was done to the guitar
 
TalismanRich said:
I don't think it's true that it's only the excitation of the strings that is contributing to the feedback. The primary difference between the ES-330 and ES-335 body is the maple centerblock which reduces the susceptibility to feedback.
Click to expand...
The other major difference is where the neck joins the body. I have both and they are entirely different guitars other than the body shape. The 330 is hollow and the 335 is semi hollow. The 330 is much better balanced weight wise. The guitar I mostly play is a Silvertone 1446 which is different than both of the Gibson models because it is hollow but it has a sound block under the bridge that directly couples the top and back. This is the magic secret that makes the 1446 the feedback king in that you have this very musical ability to control feedback especially when used with the Bigsby.
 
Scott Baxendale said:
The 330 is hollow and the 335 is semi hollow.
Click to expand...
I think what I said when I mentioned the maple center block.

As for the better balance, I prefer the semi hollow, it's my favorite guitar style. I've got a DeArmond Starfire IV (long wanted a real Guild Starfire IV) and a Heritage 535. I've played both the ES330 and H530, and I like the way the semihollow hangs better.

I've never played a Harmony built Silvertone. My Danelectro built Silvertone left such a bad taste in my mouth that I never wanted another. Of course, the fact that I was 12 at the time probably left a permanent scar on my psyche!
 
Odi said:
Bass players are just frustrated guitar players... :cautious:
Click to expand...
BULL squirt! My son plays bass in a trio (and does most of the music arranging) but he has nearly 40 years of guitar chops under his belt. He can play just about any song from Beatles, Stones, AC DC, Quo including the solos. He also plays Bach transcriptions on classical guitar. Not bad keyboard player if the need arises and pretty good on clarinet, trumpet and trombone.

Macca is decent guitarist. Seen him take a standard sixer, turn it upside down and bash out Yesterday!

Dave.
 
Odi said:
Bass players are just frustrated guitar players...
Click to expand...
That was almost the case in the early days of the bass guitar. If you look at all the bass players that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, virtually every one of them started out on another instrument, with many starting on double bass or guitar. Dave cites Paul McCartney as a decent guitarist. That's because he was one of the original guitarists in the band. He took up the bass when Stuart Sutcliffe left the band and John as the leader of the band wasn't going to play bass and George refused. Paul himself said that the bass guitar was regarded as the instrument for "the fat boy at the back" and no one wanted to play it but it was a way to get a mate in the band. That's how Sutcliffe originally came to be in John's band. He was John's mate, he won £60, John wanted his mate in the band after his other mate Pete left and John said "buy a bass with your sixty quid." Sutcliffe wasn't even musical and had shown no interest in being in a band.
Jack Bruce started off on double bass as did James Jamerson and Ron Carter. John Entwistle started off on, I think, the French horn. John Paul Jones started on organ. Bill Wyman started on guitar. Greg Lake doubled as a guitarist. Noel Redding was a guitarist. Look at most bassists before 1970 and you'll find they didn't begin on bass guitar.

But then, a strange thing happened. As the lead singer and the lead guitarist vied for the attention of the girls or the punters, the guy playing the bass guitar discovered the way in which the bass could control and steer the music and by 1970, bass guitars were no longer looked down upon and that's when you really started getting young people who picked up the bass without having started out on something else.
There's some truth in the bassist being a frustrated guitarist {Lemmy described himself in similar terms, as did Geezer Butler}......until they discovered the power inherent in the bass and the previous 300 years of the moving bass line in Western music.
ecc83 said:
My son plays Bach transcriptions on classical guitar. Not bad keyboard player if the need arises and pretty good on clarinet, trumpet and trombone
Click to expand...
Can I have his address ! :LOL:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Odi
John Entwistle. Chris Squire. Players who defined the role in modern rock. Add John Paul Jones for all around musicianship, Sting for putting different genre bass figures into pure melody. I won't even mention Wrecklng Crew 'member's, and I can go on and on of bassists who were not frustrated guitar players

I am primarily a guitarist but I have always held that really 'great' songs have great bass lines and most of those have been created by great bass players who chose bass over guitar in the end.

As far as the video of the 'body' less guitar, I wouldn't call it bogus as there were no claims made, only an experiment done. The mass and density of the table make it extremely unlikely for it to resonate at any frequencies that electric guitars play in. The experiment was a good example of not making assumptions IMHO.

I suggest picking up a Physics 101 text for anyone interested in more than You Tube or forum opinions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Odi
Gtoboy said:
As far as the video of the 'body' less guitar, I wouldn't call it bogus as there were no claims made, only an experiment done. The mass and density of the table make it extremely unlikely for it to resonate at any frequencies that electric guitars play in. The experiment was a good example of not making assumptions IMHO.
Click to expand...
It’s a fact that this video implies there is no body that resonates, but in fact it is the table which will resonate at a resonance frequency which makes it the same as the body. Same thing with the toilet seat guitars we saw on Hee Haw in 1967. It’s actually more likely that the table will resonate closer to a typical body than you think. You can plug an electric guitar into an amp and crank it up until it’s about to feedback then put the butt or headstock of the guitar onto a table and totally hear what the table adds to the sound.

Whatever the bridge or nut is directly coupled to will then become part of the resonance that amplifies the sound.

The original Diddly Bow used the side of a house as the body.
 
Scott Baxendale said:
You do know this video is bogus, because there is a body on his test guitar which is the table the bridge is mounted on.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, think of all the things that people claim make massive differences in the sound of their guitars, how tight the neck pocket fits, set neck vs bolt on, rosewood vs maple vs ebony vs pau ferro fretboards, alder vs maple vs mahogany body, bone vs plastic nut. The table doesn't have any of those aspects, just two screws holding the bridge, and the pickup itself essentially hanging out on a piece of metal, a piece of metal for a nut. Yet there's no "massive change" in the tone.

You can claim it's bogus, but the differences between his Anderson and his table is MASSIVE! If putting a slab of rosewood on a maple neck completely transforms a guitar, don't you think having NO neck would do much more?

Most of the things that I like in a particular guitar have less to do with shaping the tone than in changing the feel in my hands. That affects my playing, which greatly affects the "tone".
 
grimtraveller said:
That was almost the case in the early days of the bass guitar. If you look at all the bass players that emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, virtually every one of them started out on another instrument, with many starting on double bass or guitar. Dave cites Paul McCartney as a decent guitarist. That's because he was one of the original guitarists in the band. He took up the bass when Stuart Sutcliffe left the band and John as the leader of the band wasn't going to play bass and George refused. Paul himself said that the bass guitar was regarded as the instrument for "the fat boy at the back" and no one wanted to play it but it was a way to get a mate in the band. That's how Sutcliffe originally came to be in John's band. He was John's mate, he won £60, John wanted his mate in the band after his other mate Pete left and John said "buy a bass with your sixty quid." Sutcliffe wasn't even musical and had shown no interest in being in a band.
Jack Bruce started off on double bass as did James Jamerson and Ron Carter. John Entwistle started off on, I think, the French horn. John Paul Jones started on organ. Bill Wyman started on guitar. Greg Lake doubled as a guitarist. Noel Redding was a guitarist. Look at most bassists before 1970 and you'll find they didn't begin on bass guitar.

But then, a strange thing happened. As the lead singer and the lead guitarist vied for the attention of the girls or the punters, the guy playing the bass guitar discovered the way in which the bass could control and steer the music and by 1970, bass guitars were no longer looked down upon and that's when you really started getting young people who picked up the bass without having started out on something else.
There's some truth in the bassist being a frustrated guitarist {Lemmy described himself in similar terms, as did Geezer Butler}......until they discovered the power inherent in the bass and the previous 300 years of the moving bass line in Western music.

Can I have his address ! :LOL:
Click to expand...
Fretless upright "SWING"!
 
TalismanRich said:
On the other hand, think of all the things that people claim make massive differences in the sound of their guitars, how tight the neck pocket fits, set neck vs bolt on, rosewood vs maple vs ebony vs pau ferro fretboards, alder vs maple vs mahogany body, bone vs plastic nut. The table doesn't have any of those aspects, just two screws holding the bridge, and the pickup itself essentially hanging out on a piece of metal, a piece of metal for a nut. Yet there's no "massive change" in the tone.

You can claim it's bogus, but the differences between his Anderson and his table is MASSIVE! If putting a slab of rosewood on a maple neck completely transforms a guitar, don't you think having NO neck would do much more?

Most of the things that I like in a particular guitar have less to do with shaping the tone than in changing the feel in my hands. That affects my playing, which greatly affects the "tone".
Click to expand...
All the things you mention are variables, but no matter what variable you are trying to isolate whatever the bridge is directly coupled to becomes the ‘body’. Whether it’s the side of a house with a Diddly Bow, an alder Strat body, toilet seat, oil can or a table it’s still the body of the guitar.

In this dumb clickbait video he makes claims that he has eliminated the body which is a false claim. The table has mass and the bridge is directly coupled to it.

When I make Luther Dickinson’s ‘Canjo’s’ which is basically a stick attached to a coffee can that has two strings and a Tele pickup mounted on it. One thing is doesn’t sound like is a Tele. The can is the body.

 
I'm guessing that the scale length, string tension and pickup type and placement aren't anywhere close to the positioning of a tele, either. I wouldn't expect it to sound anything like a tele, any more than I would expect a resonator, electric violin or bass guitar to sound like a tele.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top