This Tonewood Bollocks on Electric Guitars

JDOD

JDOD

therecordingrebels.com
Been listening to a few debates lately about whether it wood actually makes a difference to the tone of electric guitars... yes, its so boring I can just have it in my ears as background while working.

I've seen a few things where guys say it makes a massive difference and things where guys say it makes no difference at all - some of them have even transferred all of the components between two guitars of different woods to prove that it makes no difference. Although, on the demonstration that it made no difference, I was convinced I could hear a slight difference.

Tonewise, I think the effect must be minimal. What do you guys think?
Although the sound of certain guitars does just seem to feel different depending on their wood and I'm not sure why. Do you think this could be more to do with differing sustain affecting the way you're playing? Has anyone done any tests on whether differing wood cause a difference in sustain? Maybe a difference in sustain is being perceived as a difference in tone to the player. I don't know!
 
I'm not a believer in wood. I think more of it depends on your electronics, amp, guitar construction, and how you play it.
 
Greg_L said:
I'm not a believer in wood. I think more of it depends on your electronics, amp, guitar construction, and how you play it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm surprised you say that. I thought one of the reasons you like Les Pauls so much is 'cos they are heavy slabs of wood.
 
JDOD said:
Oh, I'm surprised you say that. I thought one of the reasons you like Les Pauls so much is 'cos they are heavy slabs of wood.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. For me, their heaviness and slabiness is a wonderful part of the construction, but I couldn't care less that they're mahogany. They also have a maple top. None of that really matters. They sound the way they do because they're so hefty and the bodies/neck tend to not absorb vibration. They reject resonance. The power stays in the vibrating string. This is why vintage solid LPs are well known for their sustain. This is also why Les Paul enthusiasts typically don't like the chambered Les Pauls. A resonating body is taking energy away from the string. This is my layman's understanding of it. Is the mahogany that important to all of this? The maple cap? I don't know. Maybe. SGs are mahogany and they don't really sound like solid Les Pauls. They're also much thinner and lighter...and more resonant.

But none of this matters because pickups and amps and speakers have WAY more to do with your finished tone than a tree does.
 
JDOD said:
Oh, I'm surprised you say that. I thought one of the reasons you like Les Pauls so much is 'cos they are heavy slabs of wood.
Click to expand...

I like heavy woods in guitars. I'm a biggish bloke and I hate namby-pamby balsa-wood toys. Whether they contribute to tone a lot is moot, IMO. Except for the reason that Greg says and I wholeheartedly agree with his explanation from a physics point of view.

Posh, heavy, woods certainly contribute greatly to final cost, when really they shouldn't - it's not much more expensive to use a nice hardwood than it is to use alder or some other wood to make the body. The stability of the timber counts a lot when making necks but tone? I don't think so.
 
Greg_L said:
Not necessarily. For me, their heaviness and slabiness is a wonderful part of the construction, but I couldn't care less that they're mahogany. They also have a maple top. None of that really matters. They sound the way they do because they're so hefty and the bodies/neck tend to not absorb vibration. They reject resonance. The power stays in the vibrating string. This is why vintage solid LPs are well known for their sustain. This is also why Les Paul enthusiasts typically don't like the chambered Les Pauls. A resonating body is taking energy away from the string. This is my layman's understanding of it. Is the mahogany that important to all of this? The maple cap? I don't know. Maybe. SGs are mahogany and they don't really sound like solid Les Pauls. They're also much thinner and lighter...and more resonant.

But none of this matters because pickups and amps and speakers have WAY more to do with your finished tone than a tree does.
Click to expand...

I agree that the combination of the electronics has a much bigger effect than the wood.

I had assumed that the mass of the wood and how much it does or doesn't resonate was what the tonewood debate was about. I didn't realise that some people think the actual species of tree made a difference! I assumed that even real tonewood fanatics would be accepting that if you had two slabs of wood that are the same size, density and mass they would be the same regardless of species. But the anti-tonewood crowd think that chambered bodies and balsa wood would make no difference at all.
 
JDOD said:
I agree that the combination of the electronics has a much bigger effect than the wood.

I had assumed that the mass of the wood and how much it does or doesn't resonate was what the tonewood debate was about. I didn't realise that some people think the actual species of tree made a difference! I assumed that even real tonewood fanatics would be accepting that if you had two slabs of wood that are the same size, density and mass they would be the same regardless of species. But the anti-tonewood crowd think that chambered bodies and balsa wood would make no difference at all.
Click to expand...

I'm anti-tonewood, but a chambered body makes a difference. Again, that's construction. It could be any kind of wood, but if you hollow it out, it will sound different. And the wood debate has to be kept within reason. Balsa wood guitars are not reasonable.

This same debate rages on in the drum world. Maple shells, birch shells, oak, ash, walnut, acrylic, what the fuck ever. The head style, construction, and tuning have significantly more impact than the stupid wood does.
 
Greg_L said:
I'm anti-tonewood, but a chambered body makes a difference. Again, that's construction. It could be any kind of wood, but if you hollow it out, it will sound different. And the wood debate has to be kept within reason. Balsa wood guitars are not reasonable.

This same debate rages on in the drum world. Maple shells, birch shells, oak, ash, walnut, acrylic, what the fuck ever. The head style, construction, and tuning have significantly more impact than the stupid wood does.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think the species of wood makes a difference or anything like that but I think total mass and density probably do. The body of my guitar is as solid as possible tiny chambers for the electronics etc.

The anti-tonewood arguments seem to suggest that not even chambers make a difference to how a guitar sounds when its amplified though and that its all down to the pickups - which I don't think I agree with as I would assume that a body which is particularly low density would absorb the vibrations of the strings more readily and lessen sustain.
 
JDOD said:
Yeah, I don't think the species of wood makes a difference or anything like that but I think total mass and density probably do. The body of my guitar is as solid as possible tiny chambers for the electronics etc.

The anti-tonewood arguments seem to suggest that not even chambers make a difference to how a guitar sounds when its amplified though and that its all down to the pickups - which I don't think I agree with as I would assume that a body which is particularly low density would absorb the vibrations of the strings more readily and lessen sustain.
Click to expand...

The anti-tonewood people are wrong about chambering. Everything matters to a degree. Even wood. I just think wood is way down the list. If pickups are all that matters, then why aren't those guys bolting pickups into any old damn thing? But do pickups matter more than wood? I think so, by a lot.

Another variable is what you play and how you play. These things that affect tone get minimized when you're cranking gain and/or volume. Does a Gibson 57 Classic pickup sound that much different in an SG than it does in an LP when you're plugged into a dimed Plexi? No, they'll both sound like glorious death from above. Would that same 57 Classic sound much different than a Duncan JB? Nope. But back everything down into a cleaner amp at lower volume, and the differences become pretty obvious.

Does a JB humbucker in a Strat sound that much different than a JB humbucker in a Les Paul for shred wanking? Totally different guitars, right? Not really. They'll sound pretty similar because of the gain and effects for shred wanking. One might prefer either guitar for playability, but for tone in that kind of musical setting, they won't sound that different.
 
I might do some tone comparisons across my different guitars next week actually, just to satisfy my curiosity. I hope to fuck that my new guitar sounds the best!
 
Solid-body wood differences on tone are minor. I think for the neck, it's more obvious, but feel is part of that, not just the actual tone.

The guitar's electronics are more in play AFA tone, especially when you compare single coils to HBs to P90s...but I think the amp is really the most key for your overall tone.
 
Bubba po said:
This bloke says all that I think needs to be said on the subject. :)

Click to expand...


Notice how he defines tone? Cut to the very end. Why does he cut off the clips to conceal the differences in sustain between his wood samples? Sustain is a big part of what we perceive as the tonal characteristics of a guitar. This cat's gaming the argument.

I keep coming back to this basic truth: The voice of my ash/maple Telecaster is brighter than any alder/rosewood Tele I've ever played, ever.
 
Nola said:
I feel like maple does sound brighter to me than rosewood on a fretboard. Maybe it's an auditory illusion of some kind, but that's how it sounds to me.
Click to expand...

You've just reminded me - I used to have both a maple-necked and a rosewood Tele. In all other respects, as far as I know, they were identical. Both USA, one a '96 (rosewood) the other an '05. Same bridges, same finishes. But I always preferred the sound of the rosewood. I could really tell the difference, blind. It's possible that one had different pups to the other, I wouldn't know as they were both used when I got them. I sold the maple and kept the rosewood when I no longer needed two Teles.
 
Robus said:
Notice how he defines tone? Cut to the very end. Why does he cut off the clips to conceal the differences in sustain between his wood samples? Sustain is a big part of what we perceive as the tonal characteristics of a guitar. This cat's gaming the argument.

I keep coming back to this basic truth: The voice of my ash/maple Telecaster is brighter than any alder/rosewood Tele I've ever played, ever.
Click to expand...

That's not the clip I meant to post - the one I meant to post was about the myth of "tonewoods". I'll try to find it.

I suspect the neck material MAY affect tone. I doubt the body material does, much.
 
Robus said:
Why does he cut off the clips to conceal the differences in sustain between his wood samples? Sustain is a big part of what we perceive as the tonal characteristics of a guitar.
Click to expand...




"The sustain...listen to it."

:laughings: Still priceless after all these years.
 
There's neck and there's fretboard - both may "inform" the way you play the instrument, resulting in tonal differences of a sort. I'm in the "way down the list of variables" camp on electric guitars.

All other things being equal, I'd tend to think a heavier guitar would sustain better than a lighter guitar, but when are all other things ever equal in guitarworld?

But my best guitar for (unamplified) sustain is my Burns, easily - maple neck and fretboard (I assume), 11 pounds, brass nut and saddle pieces. Way better than my LP, similar weight - maybe a touch lighter - I assume a plastic nut and chromed metal saddle pieces. No surprise there, really.


Acoustics, different equation - good tone wood will burn much longer on the campfire... :D (had to beat Greg to that one...)
 
Sorry to tell you this but all you guys that think tonewood doesn't matter are wrong. It matters. Different woods, different densities, and even age are contributing factors to a guitars tone.

The again, glues used, construction techniques, parts, finishes, finish thickness, and electronics, even down to the capacitors used in the wiring harness, all make a difference.

A good guitar is just a sum if all its parts and how its put together.

Now, an other part of the package. The method of amplification. Tube, solid state, virtual ? The effcts chain?

What about the player? Ah! The magic touch.....or..... the kiss of death.

A great player can make shitty gear sound good, and a shitty player can make great gear sound like ass.

So overall, there are a million factors involved, but good wood is a starting point. It does matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top