Tonewoods....

I believe the wood effects tone on electric guitars somewhat but if anything effects it 60% or more I would agree with mutt and gerg that it's the pickups.

For instance...and this goes to the "if it sound good acoustically it will sound good plugged in" thinking...
Every les Paul I've ever picked up and played unplugged sounds thin, lifeless, and dosen't project much volume. When les Paul's are plugged into a tube amp and overdriven they sound really good....but not si good when played clean. Strats for the most part sound really good unplugged. Plugged in they sound very good clean and mildly overdriven... Not as good as a les Paul when highly overdriven.
I think that it's more a case of humbuckers sound the best when overdriven and single coils sound the best clean.
Also, I think the pickups play a key role in mahogany guitars having a warm thick tone and alder/swamp ash guitars having a brighter snappier tone.
Single coils sound brighter and snappier while humbuckers sound warmer and thicker.
A mahogany bodied strat with single coils will be plenty bright and snappy whole an alder bodies guitar with humbuckers will be plenty warm and thick.

Acoustically unplugged, lighter bodied guitars resonate better than heavy bodied guitars because a denser larger mass of wood is not resonated by guitar strings as a lighter smaller mass of wood is.

All that being said I believe type of wood does have an effect but on electric guitars it's more subtle.
 
I think density of the base plays more of a role than the actual wood. I agree the fret board wood as an affect as well. But sticking with the base, the density of the material where the pickups sit, has to play in the reaction of the pickups to the strings. So, I don't think the wood directly affects it, I do think the density of the material plays a role on electric.

Quick explanation, if I found two pieces of different wood (or man made material) with the same density, there would be slight/no difference (all other things being equal). A say this as a hollow body sounds different than a solid body. I play a hollow body guitar as (at least I think I do) I hear the difference between the hollow body and a solid body.
 
Acoustical properties has little or nothing to do with density. It is mass per unit volume in regard to stiffness that applies. The speed of sound can be and often is faster or slower in "denser" materials apposed to less "dense". Keep in mind also that wood is anistropic in nature in that its mechanical properties vary in all directions Seriously you can not explain the acoustic behavoir of wood (or any other material) in simple terms. It is way to complex.

A musical instrument is the sum of it's parts. Change one thing and you change all the others. There is a set of key principles that you can use to guide you but that is all they are, a set of key principles that will get you in to the ball park. How the game goes from there is anybodies guess. That is both the frustration and joy of it.
 
muttley600 said:
Acoustical properties has little or nothing to do with density. It is mass per unit volume in regard to stiffness that applies. The speed of sound can be and often is faster or slower in "denser" materials apposed to less "dense". Keep in mind also that wood is anistropic in nature in that its mechanical properties vary in all directions Seriously you can not explain the acoustic behavoir of wood (or any other material) in simple terms. It is way to complex.

A musical instrument is the sum of it's parts. Change one thing and you change all the others. There is a set of key principles that you can use to guide you but that is all they are, a set of key principles that will get you in to the ball park. How the game goes from there is anybodies guess. That is both the frustration and joy of it.
Click to expand...

We are talking electrical pickups and vibrations. Since it is not an acoustical question, I think density plays more than acoustical properties in the transfer of the vibrations to the pick ups. In this case, while the point may be valid, I think in what is actually heard, the wood type plays less a role than the density/hardness of the material.
 
DM60 said:
We are talking electrical pickups and vibrations. Since it is not an acoustical question, I think density plays more than acoustical properties in the transfer of the vibrations to the pick ups. In this case, while the point may be valid, I think in what is actually heard, the wood type plays less a role than the density/hardness of the material.
Click to expand...

I don't think you fully understand the definitions of the terms you are using. Density is a product off mass. Mass is key to the manner in which wave forms propagate through an object it is not dependent on density rather it's relationship to that materials stiffness.. It is dependent on the mass per unit length of the direction in which the wave form is traveling AND how stiff it is.

Everything pays a role in the amplitude, attack and delay of each and every harmonic frequency of a vibrating body. Pickups included and they in turn will be affected by the manner and material to which they are coupled.
 
muttley600 said:
I don't think you fully understand the definitions of the terms you are using. Density is a product off mass. Mass is key to the manner in which wave forms propagate through an object it is not dependent on density rather it's relationship to that materials stiffness.. It is dependent on the mass per unit length of the direction in which the wave form is traveling AND how stiff it is.

Everything pays a role in the amplitude, attack and delay of each and every harmonic frequency of a vibrating body. Pickups included and they in turn will be affected by the manner and material to which they are coupled.
Click to expand...

No, I think I do understand. "Density is a product off mass" by volume that is an important part.

But we are talking about how that is transferred. In this case, a pickup which I feel is less sensitive to those that you are talking about and density of a material does play into how it performs.
 
DM60 said:
No, I think I do understand. "Density is a product off mass" by volume that is an important part.

But we are talking about how that is transferred. In this case, a pickup which I feel is less sensitive to those that you are talking about and density of a material does play into how it performs.
Click to expand...

I would be more than happy to explain it more clearly to you but you do not appear ready to try and understand what I am describing and as a consequence why you are incorrect.

Again density is not the appropriate term or the guiding factor.
 
muttley600 said:
I would be more than happy to explain it more clearly to you but you do not appear ready to try and understand what I am describing and as a consequence why you are incorrect.

Again density is not the appropriate term or the guiding factor.
Click to expand...

While there is more to it than that I am sure. In this case, in simple terms, it does seem to appropriate.

Here is a quick excerpt:

"Wood is a hierarchically structured composite. The cell walls consist of cellulose microfibrils embedded in a lignin and hemicellulose matrix in which minor amounts (5–10%) of extraneous extractives (e.g., oils) are contained (Wood Handbook, 1999⇓; Dinwoodie, 2000⇓). Variations in the volume and chemistry of these ingredients, combined with differences in the amount and distribution of porosity, determine the structure and thus the density and mechanical properties of a wood. While the properties of a single wood species are constant within limits, the range of properties among species can be large. Worldwide, the density of wood ranges from about 100 kg/m3 for balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) to about 1400 kg/m3 for lignum vitae (Guaicum officinale) and snakewood (Brosimum guianense) (Wagenführ and Schreiber, 1989⇓), a value close to that of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP)"

Reference: Wood for sound

I am sure there are many points in which you are correct. Looking at it from a pure simple view and in context, the density (in this case, how porous a material is), I would think, plays a role in that simple context.
 
DM60 said:
While there is more to it than that I am sure. In this case, in simple terms, it does seem to appropriate.

Here is a quick excerpt:

"Wood is a hierarchically structured composite. The cell walls consist of cellulose microfibrils embedded in a lignin and hemicellulose matrix in which minor amounts (5–10%) of extraneous extractives (e.g., oils) are contained (Wood Handbook, 1999⇓; Dinwoodie, 2000⇓). Variations in the volume and chemistry of these ingredients, combined with differences in the amount and distribution of porosity, determine the structure and thus the density and mechanical properties of a wood. While the properties of a single wood species are constant within limits, the range of properties among species can be large. Worldwide, the density of wood ranges from about 100 kg/m3 for balsa (Ochroma pyramidale) to about 1400 kg/m3 for lignum vitae (Guaicum officinale) and snakewood (Brosimum guianense) (Wagenführ and Schreiber, 1989⇓), a value close to that of carbon-fiber-reinforced polymers (CFRP)"

Reference: Wood for sound

I am sure there are many points in which you are correct. Looking at it from a pure simple view and in context, the density (in this case, how porous a material is), I would think, plays a role in that simple context.
Click to expand...

Density is not a measure of how porous something is.

Look, I'll be kind.

You are incorrect and you can post qualifiers and google up as many excerpts from as many sites as you like, you will not change the fundamentals of musical acoustics. If you had read and understood anything that is published in that paper you would now know why you are incorrect and would not be trying to convince otherwise.

As I said I would have been happy to explain the basic concepts and elaborate on how they apply but you do not appear to be interested in anything other than proving your basic misunderstanding of the way materials behave. The question here really is do you want to understand? Are you prepared to examine the subject at hand in detail without preconceptions?

Just for the record. You are discussing this right now with a luthier of 30 years and a lecturer in musical acoustics with many useless letters in front and after his name.

Have a nice day
 
I guess "density" wasn't the right term to use in my last post.
Volume of wood is what I mean.
A set of ernie ball regular slinky strings will resonate a strat better than they would resonate a 800 lb alder tree trunk with a neck and bridge bolted to it.
The bigger heavier les Paul body dosen't resonate as good as a strat.

Someone might say "my les Paul sustains for days".
Well yeah...plugged in but what about unplugged?

I have never seen a Les Paul that sounded good acoustically.

Ed king, who used to play guitar for lynyrd skynyrd had a 1959 les Paul burst stolen in the late 70's and I read an article about him finally locating it and getting it back.
He said it was the best sounding guitar he ever played. When describing it he said that it didn't sound great unplugged...it sounded anemic and thin (like every LP I've ever played acoustically) but Ed went on to say that plugged in it was the holy grail of guitar tone.

So, even the '59 busts sound like chessy crap when not plugged in.

I think it's because of the weight and the size of the body.

The newer chambered bodies may sound better acoustically I dunno...I've never played one
 
Does it really matter what an electric guitar sounds like unplugged? I know, it's supposed to sound awesome both plugged and unplugged, but clearly it doesn't really matter. I personally don't find my Strat to be more resonant than my LP unplugged. The Strat is a little brighter, but more resonant? Not to me. I attribute that to the Strat simply being less wood and less mass, not the type of wood. The Strat does have a big ol cut-out in the back if it for the trem, my LP is a non-chambered chunk of timber. The big difference between the Strat and LP is simply the pickups, and obviously those only matter when they're plugged in. One's got screechy single coils, one's got fatty humbuckers. I also have in my possession an American Standard USA Strat that's been fitted with a Jeff Beck humbucker in the bridge. That guitar sounds much fatter and warmer than my LP. It's the pickup. I just can't help but to believe that if the wood actually matters, it's way on down the line. There are much more important factors at play before you get to the wood.
 
Greg_L said:
Does it really matter what an electric guitar sounds like unplugged? I know, it's supposed to sound awesome both plugged and unplugged, but clearly it doesn't really matter. I personally don't find my Strat to be more resonant than my LP unplugged. The Strat is a little brighter, but more resonant? Not to me. I attribute that to the Strat simply being less wood and less mass, not the type of wood. The Strat does have a big ol cut-out in the back if it for the trem, my LP is a non-chambered chunk of timber. The big difference between the Strat and LP is simply the pickups, and obviously those only matter when they're plugged in. One's got screechy single coils, one's got fatty humbuckers. I also have in my possession an American Standard USA Strat that's been fitted with a Jeff Beck humbucker in the bridge. That guitar sounds much fatter and warmer than my LP. It's the pickup. I just can't help but to believe that if the wood actually matters, it's way on down the line. There are much more important factors at play before you get to the wood.
Click to expand...
I agree in that. I had a poplar bodies Mexican made strat that I sold. It didn't sound that good unplugged while my vintage strat sounds really good unplugged. Not a lot of difference in the guitars...same bodie diminsions and similar hardware. Many would be quick to say "it's because ones a poplar body and the other is alder...alder sounds better.
Well I experimented with it and I found that it wasn't the body wood that made the most difference...it was the trem block. I swapped out the cheesy assed pewter looking excuse for a trem block in the mex strat for a full sized steel block and it made all the difference in the world.
Many things factor in
 
jimistone said:
I agree in that. I had a poplar bodies Mexican made strat that I sold. It didn't sound that good unplugged while my vintage strat sounds really good unplugged. Not a lot of difference in the guitars...same bodie diminsions and similar hardware. Many would be quick to say "it's because ones a poplar body and the other is alder...alder sounds better.
Well I experimented with it and I found that it wasn't the body wood that made the most difference...it was the trem block. I swapped out the cheesy assed pewter looking excuse for a trem block in the mex strat for a full sized steel block and it made all the difference in the world.
Many things factor in
Click to expand...
I think those trem block's are zinc, and yes they are crap.
 
That's the point I was trying to make with the Kramer T's. It doesn't matter about neck wood (these used aluminum) or fretboard wood (these used a plastic composite); what matters is what it sounds like plugged in... Alder vs pine vs koa doesn't make LARGE differences to the sound of an electric (which I believe was the original topic of this post) but the electronics and the quality thereof and the quality of the components (nut, bridge, tuners) are going to make the deal. I'm not advocating strapping your favorite hardware and electronics into a pressed cardboard body (hmmm, I wonder what that WOULD sound like).

I'm only pointing out that electric guitars are exactly that, electric. The woods (or lack thereof) can make a minor difference and can add to sustain slightly, but the differences are going to be minor. A good guitar builder (I can't spell luthier) knows his trade and knows how to make good guitars. But the difference between a $50 body hooked up to the same setup as a $1000 body is likely not that measurable in actual tone. It may sound different, but is the difference really better, or just perceived? I believe a blind test is in order. Let's call Mythbusters!
 
BroKen_H said:
That's the point I was trying to make with the Kramer T's. It doesn't matter about neck wood (these used aluminum) or fretboard wood (these used a plastic composite); what matters is what it sounds like plugged in... Alder vs pine vs koa doesn't make LARGE differences to the sound of an electric (which I believe was the original topic of this post) but the electronics and the quality thereof and the quality of the components (nut, bridge, tuners) are going to make the deal. I'm not advocating strapping your favorite hardware and electronics into a pressed cardboard body (hmmm, I wonder what that WOULD sound like).

I'm only pointing out that electric guitars are exactly that, electric. The woods (or lack thereof) can make a minor difference and can add to sustain slightly, but the differences are going to be minor. A good guitar builder (I can't spell luthier) knows his trade and knows how to make good guitars. But the difference between a $50 body hooked up to the same setup as a $1000 body is likely not that measurable in actual tone. It may sound different, but is the difference really better, or just perceived? I believe a blind test is in order. Let's call Mythbusters!
Click to expand...

No, EVERYTHING makes a difference. Just the other day I wound some pickups for a telecaster. They sound COMPLETELY different in my Tele compared to the customers tele..

Pickups have a lot to do with the tone but they are not the only significant factor. Sure, what you hear is the pickup interpreting string vibration but how that string vibrates and why is king. If it wasn't all pickups would just outpiut a sine wave at what ever frequency..
 
Of course everything makes a difference. Everything makes a difference in everything. No one is saying that wood makes no difference, but does it make as big a difference as manufacturers and cork-sniffers may want you to think? I don't think so. Is the big tonal difference between a Strat and a Les Paul more the pickups and construction, or just the wood? I'd bet it's the former. Would a mahogany bodied Strat with a mahogany set neck using standard Strat single coils and pots sound like a Les Paul? I don't think so.
 
Pickups make a big difference. I have never maintained anything else. What I caution against is that you can therefore ignore choice of timber, choice of hardware, body style, neck stiffness and mass etc. As I said above, a set up pickups I recently made for a customer sounded completely different in my telecaster as opposed to his. They are built very differently in terms of wood mainly...
 
We're essentially saying the same thing.

My point, in a nutshell, is that you can overcome wood very easily because it's not that significant in tone shaping. Wood has it's place in the tone spectrum, but is it a bigger and more important place than other variables? I think no. It's all subjective anyway, like anything else. Say you find a guitar that looks, feels, plays perfectly for you. But it's sound just isn't all that you want it to be. You gonna junk it because maybe it's the wrong wood? I wouldn't. I'd try to identify what I'm needing from it and act accordingly. Junking the guitar for something made of different wood would never enter my mind. That's just me though.
 
Greg_L said:
We're essentially saying the same thing.

My point, in a nutshell, is that you can overcome wood very easily because it's not that significant in tone shaping. Wood has it's place in the tone spectrum, but is it a bigger and more important place than other variables? I think no. It's all subjective anyway, like anything else. Say you find a guitar that looks, feels, plays perfectly for you. But it's sound just isn't all that you want it to be. You gonna junk it because maybe it's the wrong wood? I wouldn't. I'd try to identify what I'm needing from it and act accordingly. Junking the guitar for something made of different wood would never enter my mind. That's just me though.
Click to expand...

We are saying very different things...

My point, in a nutshell, is that you can overcome wood very easily because it's not that significant in tone shaping. Wood has it's place in the tone spectrum, but is it a bigger and more important place than other variables?
Click to expand...

This I do not agree with. You can not overcome the wood and the ball park tone that it puts you in. Al you can do is give it a single coil or a humbucker flavour or a p90 whatever.... The base tone comes from the materials that it is made of...

Its like trying to make a chicken curry taste like a beef curry by adding more chilies.... You might make it hotter but it's still gonna taste like a hotter chicken curry..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top