Mike_J
New member
Some good stuff regarding guitar tone and EQ here:
http://www.amptone.com/
http://www.amptone.com/
3
32-20-Blues
New member
They have a new baritone model that has just been released, as far as I know. It's under 300 bucks, too.
Are you mainly focussing on newly released gear? If not, then a round-up of Danelectro's cheap pedals might be worthwhile - they have a couple of great pieces of kit, such as the Fish and Chips EQ for 20 dollars. Can't get more frugal than that.
muttley600
Banned
OK, you asked for it,
You start by saying this
You then proceed to fall into exactly that trap, because it is patantly obvious that your information has been gleaned in just such a manner. You state things such as
If you are going to show that you are nothing more than someone who has gained you experience in more than an afternoon you should reference any comment made as the "truth". Ask around here, I may be blunt sometimes with people but the answers I give are generally, a) based on 30 years of experience making and repairing guitars, studying material properties, and researching acoustics. b) always backed up by reliable links when possible, or references to support or prove the information is sound. c) When I state an opinion I qualify it as such, when it is a statement of fact or scientific evidence that is not my work I point that out as well. I think you'll find that is why people put up with me here and hopefully attach a little credibility to the posts I make. You need to try and do the same. It is no good just putting down a few lines that make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims. At least let people know where you got them form.
Your understanding of the nature of tonewood and the role is plays in musical instrument construction is flawed and quite badly too. For starters the selection criteria for what makes a good tonewood is based on more than potential tone. The little you have put up on your site is virtually worthless at best without a LOT more information about why certain woods are used and what properties they need. At worst it is downright wrong.
You seem to place quite a bit of regard on opinions of John Calkin, thats fine but be careful because as a GAL member I know exactly what his standpoint is and how his views are regarded in the wider luthier community. I clicked through the link to Bruce's comments and I agree with him. I also know many many other luthiers who would be happy to come down and join the party if you want to maintain your line.
In the meantime I'm afraid I would have to warn people off your site as a "best guitar site"(the claim you make when posting here) as much of the information on your site that I am directly experienced in is dubious. How am I to know that the information it contains that I am not familiar with is any better?
Once again, I applaud your efforts. You now have two experienced luthiers saying the same things to you. Your attitude is not going to win you any favours when it comes to getting proper content on your site. In fact I withdraw my offer for now until you take some steps to understand the wider subject. Any editor draws on experts to provide good reliable content, from that he can then write a decent editorial. I suggest you think on that.
JTC111
Active member
OK, you asked for it,
Ask around here, I may be blunt sometimes with people but the answers I give are generally, a) based on 30 years of experience making and repairing guitars, studying material properties, and researching acoustics. b) always backed up by reliable links when possible, or references to support or prove the information is sound. c) When I state an opinion I qualify it as such, when it is a statement of fact or scientific evidence that is not my work I point that out as well.
Your understanding of the nature of tonewood and the role is plays in musical instrument construction is flawed and quite badly too. For starters the selection criteria for what makes a good tonewood is based on more than potential tone. The little you have put up on your site is virtually worthless at best without a LOT more information about why certain woods are used and what properties they need. At worst it is downright wrong.
There's a difference between being "blunt" and being obnoxious. You're not blunt. You've hammered this guy for his article but you never offered a counter to anything he's said; all you offer is your credentials. You did this with him, you did the exact same thing with me in a different thread, and clearly you're not interested in adding to the conversation as much as you are tearing people down.
If you don't like the generalities many people make regarding tonewoods (traditional or not), then put the information that you deem important out there. Talk about density, talk about tightness of grain or lack thereof, talk about whatever you think is important and left out of the discussion, but to sit there and write paragraphs that are just longer versions of "I know something you don't know" is the epitome of obnoxiousness. It's what you did with me and it's what you're doing with this guy.
So here's your opportunity to prove me right or wrong about you. You can now make this about me or you can actually add something meaningful to the criticism you've engaged in. Your choice.
muttley600
Banned
Here are some things I have said to "this guy".
He hasn't shown any inclination to take me up on it, instead he just defends his position.
If you want a bit of info on tonewoods from me use the search button there is loads there.
I have also before and since the incident you refer to, replied willing to questions you have raised. If you want me to stop responding to you just say so. No skin off my nose believe me. If your unhappy that I called you out at some time in the the past just raise the issue again and I'll point out why.
My only concern in all this is to get the facts on this stuff right. You state something wrong I'm going to put it right. I'm not interested in dancing round fragile ego's or sensitive little souls. I don't consider my posts here as part of a popularity contest. I have learned a lot about home recording thats why I came here. I am just putting a little back. If you and the rest of the guys want me gone I'm history as of now. Your choice. Once again this isn't a popularity contest, but if you'd rather I wasn't here just get a possie up and I'm gone.
wbcsound
New member
They have a new baritone model that has just been released, as far as I know. It's under 300 bucks, too.
Are you mainly focussing on newly released gear? If not, then a round-up of Danelectro's cheap pedals might be worthwhile - they have a couple of great pieces of kit, such as the Fish and Chips EQ for 20 dollars. Can't get more frugal than that.
Yes, that new bari looks sweet. I'm not focusing on only new gear. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll put it in queue!
wbcsound
New member
OK, you asked for it,
You start by saying this
You then proceed to fall into exactly that trap, because it is patantly obvious that your information has been gleaned in just such a manner. You state things such as If you are going to show that you are nothing more than someone who has gained you experience in more than an afternoon you should reference any comment made as the "truth". Ask around here, I may be blunt sometimes with people but the answers I give are generally, a) based on 30 years of experience making and repairing guitars, studying material properties, and researching acoustics. b) always backed up by reliable links when possible, or references to support or prove the information is sound. c) When I state an opinion I qualify it as such, when it is a statement of fact or scientific evidence that is not my work I point that out as well. I think you'll find that is why people put up with me here and hopefully attach a little credibility to the posts I make. You need to try and do the same. It is no good just putting down a few lines that make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims. At least let people know where you got them form.
Your understanding of the nature of tonewood and the role is plays in musical instrument construction is flawed and quite badly too. For starters the selection criteria for what makes a good tonewood is based on more than potential tone. The little you have put up on your site is virtually worthless at best without a LOT more information about why certain woods are used and what properties they need. At worst it is downright wrong.
You seem to place quite a bit of regard on opinions of John Calkin, thats fine but be careful because as a GAL member I know exactly what his standpoint is and how his views are regarded in the wider luthier community. I clicked through the link to Bruce's comments and I agree with him. I also know many many other luthiers who would be happy to come down and join the party if you want to maintain your line.
In the meantime I'm afraid I would have to warn people off your site as a "best guitar site"(the claim you make when posting here) as much of the information on your site that I am directly experienced in is dubious. How am I to know that the information it contains that I am not familiar with is any better?
Once again, I applaud your efforts. You now have two experienced luthiers saying the same things to you. Your attitude is not going to win you any favours when it comes to getting proper content on your site. In fact I withdraw my offer for now until you take some steps to understand the wider subject. Any editor draws on experts to provide good reliable content, from that he can then write a decent editorial. I suggest you think on that.
Wow! Thanks for visiting and putting so much thought into providing feedback. I'll put a link up to this thread as well. Sorry if I have offended you, I certainly did not mean to stir any controversy. Simply to provide some information on a topic of which there is very little available (the alternative tonewood article).
As I stated in my response to Bruce, I'm not a luthier. Though I have been playing for 20+ years and have played guitars made from everything I can get a hold of. What I've found through the years is a strat generally sounds like a strat and a Les Paul like a Les Paul and so on.
You're correct; I did research on the internet. I also consulted the local library as well as my personal experience. I believe editorials by definition represent the opinion of the author and while I have no desire to spread misinformation, I stand by my opinion. Leo Fender and Antonio Torres had some radical ideas regarding guitar construction for their time.
Next issue I will be posting an open invitation to anyone willing to take a blind challenge identifying the tonewood of 2 guitars of the exact same build and electronics into the same rig built of different wood construction. I'll post the results on my site and anyone who's willing to lay their reputation on the line is welcome to try.
wbcsound
New member
That's not really fair, my first response was "As I offered to Bruce, I would be happy to post anyone's expert opinion on the subject."
Whoa, no need to be so defensive! The beauty of forums such as these is to provide a rich bed of people's experienced opinions. I think where we differ is I do not believe anything organic in nature used to build an instrument can be discussed in factual terms as sound is completely subjective.
Last edited:
antichef
pornk rock
I'm a big fan of the Gibson SG, and so I like:
http://www.everythingsg.com
It has a great forum, too.
http://www.everythingsg.com
It has a great forum, too.
JTC111
Active member
You say that and then offer nothing nothing but your arguments that because you have some degree of knowledge on the subject it's justification for your obnoxious tone.
You said to that guy, [I]"Your understanding of the nature of tonewood and the role is plays in musical instrument construction is flawed and quite badly too."[/I]
And you still haven't put anything in that thread.... not ONE thing ....explaining that.
Then you say that you offered information but "He hasn't shown any inclination to take me up on it." Why didn't you just put your vast knowledge out there in the same post in which you criticized him? Why does he have to request it from you? You certainly weren't hesitant about throwing your two cents in there when you wanted to let him know about his "flawed understanding."
There's nothing wrong with trying pass along knowledge, especially if someone actually is an expert on something and others can benefit from his/her viewpoint. But there's absolutely no reason for one to be as arrogant and insulting as you have been.
What you could have done is simply said to him that there's more about wood that influences tone than he's included in his article and, if you didn't feel like typing it all out, directed him to an article or a previous post of yours where he could've learned more. If you were really interested in clearing up what you perceive as misinformation, you'd have made the effort to get the correct information out there. You didn't. You were more interested in telling him he was wrong than in putting what you think is the correct information out there. The correct information was secondary to the insult, therefore it never appeared in your post. So this isn't really about correcting misinformation as you made claim; this is about feeding your ego.
Just because you work with tools doesn't mean you have to be a tool.
muttley600
Banned
There is actually quite a bit of good information available. When I'm next at my workshop computer I'll point a few good links out to you. Basically and I'm being very concise here, tonewood selection and suitability can be summed by looking at several distinct categories. There are also big differences between types of guitar, electric, acoustic, semi, archtop, etc. The main category would be strength to weight ratio, and with that mass to stiffness which largely dictates the resonance of the material although that is a gross oversimplification. It is this that gives the timbers ability to transmit sound waves. The various spruces for example have a high stiffness to mass ratio which is why they are perfect for soundbaords. Spruce is also popular in the aircraft industry for the same reason. There are other timbers that have higher stiffness to mass ratio but other material properties make them unsuitable, Balsa for example. When selecting a timber for use in instrument making you first find one that will physically do the jpb, then one that will do it and has acoustic properties that will act to enhance or maximise the strings vibration and the way it is transfered around the instrument.
The types of timbers used for backs and sides also need to exhibit specific mass to stiffness ratio's as well as other properties, some not so important to function or tone, such as aesthetic appeal. Neck material also is selected in the same way. Each family of timbers, mahogany, rosewood, maples, fruitwoods such as cherry or walnut have distinct properties that DO give them generic qualities despite what you may have been led to believe. True each timber within that species is different again and also within timbers of the same tree. I'm always pointing that one out myself. But they do allow you as a maker or player to home in on a particular sound. Everything else comes into play including body size, how the instrument is voiced, thickness and bracing etc. but there is no getting away from the fact that a rosewood guitar and a mahogany guitar will be two different beasts as a rule and that allows me as a builder to close in on the tone and articulation that a player wants. To dismiss the effect of different timbers tonal capabilities is just foolhardy. You might as well say that turkey tastes like chicken which tastes like duck, etc. We all know that just isn't so and we know why. We also know that some chickens taste better than others but they still don't taste like turkey. Sure you can swap them them about in a recipe with no problem but you can't get away from the fact that what you have is a chicken or a duck, you get the sense of what I'm saying here.
As far as the subject as a whole is concerned I was just pointing out that you need to qualify carefully any sweeping claims you make.
There are reasons for that and a lot of it comes down to timbers. Less so on solid bodies but it is still a very important factor.
Go ahead but before you do contact GAL, CAS and numerous other interested bodies. It's been done many times. I would still suggest you investigate the actual reasons why certain timbers are used and what properties they have.
I'm not being defensive by the way, I have nothing to defend. My understanding of the use and science of tonewoods is pretty much mainstream. As I said earlier in the thread I've been doing this stuff a long time and I've don't feel the need justify what I know and what experience I have. Anyone is welcome to make judgments about it, it really doesn't bother me. You can take it or leave it.
I also am a big fan of "alternative tonewood" and have used and experimented with many, I still do.
muttley600
Banned
I have to say he is taking this a lot better than you seem to be. Go away your just getting in the way of the debate now. Theres a good chap.
JTC111
Active member
Yet again, you offer nothing. You're George W. Muttley, all bravado, no details.
muttley600
Banned
You have some serious issues or you can't read pal. Not sure which. Have a nice day your history as I'm not likely to ever need your advice.
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Have a nice day your history as I'm not likely to ever need your advice.
Miaow!!!!!!!!!
muttley600
Banned
Woof!!!!!!
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Don't you mean 'tee-hee-hee-hee'?
muttley600
Banned
Not at all mate, as you know I've had a few spats here and in ALL cases I leave it at the back button. In this case however, I'm sorely tempted to make an exception. Now go study, I'm looking forward to a virtual beer when your done.
wbcsound
New member
As far as the subject as a whole is concerned I was just pointing out that you need to qualify carefully any sweeping claims you make. There are reasons for that and a lot of it comes down to timbers. Less so on solid bodies but it is still a very important factor. Go ahead but before you do contact GAL, CAS and numerous other interested bodies. It's been done many times. I would still suggest you investigate the actual reasons why certain timbers are used and what properties they have...I'm not being defensive by the way, I have nothing to defend. My understanding of the use and science of tonewoods is pretty much mainstream. As I said earlier in the thread I've been doing this stuff a long time and I've don't feel the need justify what I know and what experience I have. Anyone is welcome to make judgments about it, it really doesn't bother me. You can take it or leave it.
I also am a big fan of "alternative tonewood" and have used and experimented with many, I still do.
Thanks again! So I guess this is the quote which has upset you:
"There are clear and well documented tonal characteristics of different types of wood. But these are very general guidelines and do not make any one species of wood absolutely superior to any other wood in a given application; especially when referring to an electric guitar played though a medium to high gain amp. "
I guess I should have been more clear in what I was saying. I'm more than familiar with the traditional tonewoods and the associated tonal claims. I understand the properties of some wood make it more preferable for certain applications, just not absolutely superior. Your example of balsa being a primary example, even if somehow it provided a unique sound it's much to soft to be viable. However, if one wood was absolutely the best why use anything else? At one point, alder was considered an alternative tone wood.
Asking people to pick out guitar models on a recording is often impossible much less the wood it was made out of as there are there is so much manipulation of an electric guitars sound. And any extra oomph or snap can be completely eliminated using a single tone control. As far as "being careful" about presenting a challenge, why? I'm not afraid of being wrong. I also don't see why yourself or anybody else whould claim that I am trying to present myself as the be-all-end-all expert on guitar. Just another voice.
The title of the editorial is "Challenge the Norm and Form Your Own Opinion", and that's exactly what I try to encourage people to do. If we sat back and accepted tradition, there would be no innovation.
The whole idea of the article was inspired from the following article:
http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazine/Issue/2007/Jul/Going_Green_The_Guitar_Industry_Plans_for_the_Future.aspx
Thanks again for your input. This will my last post on this topic in this thread.
BTW - "That Guy" is me, Will Chen. I guess I never formally introduced myself. Internet pseudonyms are becoming a pet peeve of mine and I’m trying to change all my tags to my real name.
TelePaul
J to the R O C
Not at all mate, as you know I've had a few spats here and in ALL cases I leave it at the back button. In this case however, I'm sorely tempted to make an exception. Now go study, I'm looking forward to a virtual beer when your done.
Okay, I'll catch a ride with this guy
