# Best wood for an 8 string?



## nyck (Jun 2, 2006)

I might be getting an 8 string built and I'm trying to find the best wood that won't kill my budget. I have alder in my mind, but I'm not sure. Anyone know what the Meshuggah 8s are made of?


----------



## Shannon (Jun 2, 2006)

I have my old 8-string using swamp ash. It is very similiar to alder tonally, but with more pronounced wood grains. That said, I think it's a bad choice. The Low F# was pretty twangy sounding. Meshuggah uses mahogany bodies & I believe I'd go with that if I had another one built.


----------



## Desecrated (Jun 2, 2006)

"Hello all!
After lurking here for awhile, I just couldn't resist this thread, and felt I had something to offer.

I recently had the great pleasure to play Marten Hagstrom's newest (his second) Ibanez 8 when they were in town recently. This was one of the most unbelievable axes I've ever come across.
The neck width felt pretty much the same as my other friend's Warwick 6 bass, and the body was the standard RG size, and only a bit heavier than my UV actually. I was surprised. Details were:

5 piece maple/walnut neck-through (soooo comfy!), Alder wings
30" scale I believe he said
jet black stained rosewood f/b, no inlays
med-sized frets
Lundgren M8 pickup
custom fixed, pseudo-Edge that appeared to be split from two units, with two large adjustable bolts for action height adjustments
extended ( 4 doubles) lock nut
lower ratio, Sperzel open gear tuners (odd to see, actually)
single vol & tone
finished in an almost flat, stained, satin black - much the same as Gibby's 'Faded' Ebony.
Chrome Ibanez logo.

Played like butter, and sounded, well, fucking incredible. I can only describe the sound of it through his rig as "crushing springs".

Anyway, I hope to be able to participate in these forums occasionally- this is really a great place!

Allen"


----------



## nyck (Jun 2, 2006)

Desecrated said:


> "Hello all!
> After lurking here for awhile, I just couldn't resist this thread, and felt I had something to offer.
> 
> I recently had the great pleasure to play Marten Hagstrom's newest (his second) Ibanez 8 when they were in town recently. This was one of the most unbelievable axes I've ever come across.
> ...


Thank you for that! I had a hard time finding it.



Shannon said:


> I have my old 8-string using swamp ash. It is very similiar to alder tonally, but with more pronounced wood grains. That said, I think it's a bad choice. The Low F# was pretty twangy sounding. Meshuggah uses mahogany bodies & I believe I'd go with that if I had another one built.


Well I don't want the F# to be all farty and flat sounding. I'm thinking twang is the only way to go. One thing I don't want it to be is muddy. I think I can control the twang someway. Was swamp ash muddy?


----------



## rogue (Jun 2, 2006)

mahogony as much as i love it, i think that might make the F a bit too muddy. have you thought about a neck thru with maple center and mahogony wings i think iv heard of that being done before. and then cap it with flame maple or something so it looks normal.

i have a question: on 8's why do they normaly only have one pup? any particular reason for this


----------



## nyck (Jun 2, 2006)

That's what I thought about mahogany. 

About the single pickup, It's mainly because I wouldn't use the neck pickup, and because I might be getting a Lungren M8, which is $255 for a single pickup.


----------



## bulb (Jun 2, 2006)

I had a hard time picking a body wood for my 8, i was very tempted to go for swamp ash since it made my 7 sound huge, but the low end can sometimes be a little TOO much with the wrong pickup, so i decided to go for maple. Its bright for the twang and "djent" sounds, clear but not overbearing mids, and very precise and tight low end, not as bassy as the swamp ash, but definitely a lot tighter response and more controlled as a body wood. I am still waiting on it to be finished and i will let you guys know how it sounds when i get it, but my luthier agrees that for my style of music it would probably be the best choice. (the only real downside being that its a dense wood, so it will weigh quite a bit, but he is building me a thinner body style to compensate).


----------



## nyck (Jun 2, 2006)

bulb said:


> I had a hard time picking a body wood for my 8, i was very tempted to go for swamp ash since it made my 7 sound huge, but the low end can sometimes be a little TOO much with the wrong pickup, so i decided to go for maple. Its bright for the twang and "djent" sounds, clear but not overbearing mids, and very precise and tight low end, not as bassy as the swamp ash, but definitely a lot tighter response and more controlled as a body wood. I am still waiting on it to be finished and i will let you guys know how it sounds when i get it, but my luthier agrees that for my style of music it would probably be the best choice. (the only real downside being that its a dense wood, so it will weigh quite a bit, but he is building me a thinner body style to compensate).


Ah, so what pickups are going in it?


----------



## AVH (Jun 2, 2006)

Thanks, Desecrated, you saved me the trouble of digging out my original old post.....yes those are the specs.


----------



## bulb (Jun 3, 2006)

nyck said:


> Ah, so what pickups are going in it?



dual lundgren m8 pickups! 
i cant wait!!
and after the whole "inharmonicity" thread it seems like with a 70 gauge string the f# should sound amazingly clear too!


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

bulb said:


> dual lundgren m8 pickups!
> i cant wait!!
> and after the whole "inharmonicity" thread it seems like with a 70 gauge string the f# should sound amazingly clear too!


Sounds great. I'm still deciding if I want to chunk out $250 for a pickup...



nyck said:


> Thank you for that! I had a hard time finding it.
> 
> 
> Well I don't want the F# to be all farty and flat sounding. I'm thinking twang is the only way to go. One thing I don't want it to be is muddy. I think I can control the twang someway. Was swamp ash muddy?


Shannon!


----------



## Shannon (Jun 3, 2006)

nyck said:


> Thank you for that! I had a hard time finding it.
> 
> 
> Well I don't want the F# to be all farty and flat sounding. I'm thinking twang is the only way to go. One thing I don't want it to be is muddy. I think I can control the twang someway. Was swamp ash muddy?



Nah, there was no muddiness. The F# just didn't have enough CHUNK to it. There was a definately lack of bass response. The only way I can describe the response is like if you were to take a bass guitar & turn the bass EQ on the amp all the way to zero. Although my 8-string sounded good for clean settings, it was pretty lifeless at high gain settings. Again, really twangy sounding. 

But then again, I was using a custom EMG with a single volume & the EMG Afterburner installed. There was no tone knob. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.

But anyway, I think mahogany and a good set of passive pups would bring some life to that low end. You can always cater your amp's EQ to get the sound you want. I use to hate mahogany, but the tones I'm getting from my S7420 in drop A is just godly. Seems to me that mahogany would love a low F#.


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Nah, there was no muddiness. The F# just didn't have enough CHUNK to it. There was a definately lack of bass response. The only way I can describe the response is like if you were to take a bass guitar & turn the bass EQ on the amp all the way to zero. Although my 8-string sounded good for clean settings, it was pretty lifeless at high gain settings. Again, really twangy sounding.
> 
> But then again, I was using a custom EMG with a single volume & the EMG Afterburner installed. There was no tone knob. I wonder if that had anything to do with it.
> 
> But anyway, I think mahogany and a good set of passive pups would bring some life to that low end. You can always cater your amp's EQ to get the sound you want. I use to hate mahogany, but the tones I'm getting from my S7420 in drop A is just godly. Seems to me that mahogany would love a low F#.


I'm thinking the main problem might have been the EMG itself. It wasn't a bass pickup was it?

I might be getting a Lungren M8, which has yielded good results with alder/ash in the past.


----------



## rogue (Jun 3, 2006)

you could use a mix i really don't know how it would work but say a mahogony body and then a pretty thick maple cap to compliment it. and then EMGs to bring it to life i think would work but i mean i have little experience with 8's


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

In my experience, mahogany doesn't work well in keeping lows clear. It's not exactly tight on the low mids...


----------



## Shannon (Jun 3, 2006)

nyck said:


> I'm thinking the main problem might have been the EMG itself. It wasn't a bass pickup was it?
> 
> I might be getting a Lungren M8, which has yielded good results with alder/ash in the past.



It was an 8-string version of an EMG707. I REALLY want a Lundgren, but Conklin will only sell them in pairs. I only need one. If I build another 8, I'm not using EMGs this time. 



nyck said:


> In my experience, mahogany doesn't work well in keeping lows clear. It's not exactly tight on the low mids...


With the couple of Les Pauls I've owned, I'd agree with ya. However, the sound of my S7420 has given me a new respect for mahogany. It's got tons of clarity + low end. Maybe it has a better tonal balance since the S7's body is so much thinner than a LP. I dunno.

In the past, I was a die hard maple guy.


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

Shannon said:


> It was an 8-string version of an EMG707. I REALLY want a Lundgren, but Conklin will only sell them in pairs. I only need one. If I build another 8, I'm not using EMGs this time.
> 
> 
> With the couple of Les Pauls I've owned, I'd agree with ya. However, the sound of my S7420 has given me a new respect for mahogany. It's got tons of clarity + low end. Maybe it has a better tonal balance since the S7's body is so much thinner than a LP. I dunno.
> ...


I'm really trying to stay away from EMG bass pickups(45DC). You said yours was custom and not the 45DC right? I wonder why LGM uses them as the standard pickup.


I just emailed conklin and asked them if they could just gimme the bridge pup, hopefully they will...


----------



## Shannon (Jun 3, 2006)

nyck said:


> I'm really trying to stay away from EMG bass pickups(45DC). You said yours was custom and not the 45DC right? I wonder why LGM uses them as the standard pickup.


Ok, let me clarify that. He's referring to the 45DC HOUSING, not the guts inside.

EMG707 = 5-string bass 35DC housing with EMG85 guts
8-string EMG = 6-string bass 45DC housing with EMG85 guts


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Ok, let me clarify that. He's referring to the 45DC HOUSING, not the guts inside.
> 
> EMG707 = 5-string bass 35DC housing with EMG85 guts
> 8-string EMG = 6-string bass 45DC housing with EMG85 guts


Ohhhhh damn. I thought they were actually using bass pickups.

Well damn, I don't know what to do now...


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

Alright, so the EMG 45DC is basically a 8 string version of the emg 85. I think I'll end up with that...


----------



## Shannon (Jun 3, 2006)

nyck said:


> Alright, so the EMG 45DC is basically a 8 string version of the emg 85. I think I'll end up with that...


Yep. You just have to tell them it's for an 8-string guitar. They'll know what to do from there.


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

Shannon said:


> Yep. You just have to tell them it's for an 8-string guitar. They'll know what to do from there.


Tell who?


----------



## dpm (Jun 3, 2006)

I'm going to email EMG about this again, cos I've lost the reply they gave me last year - the one asking $20000. Conklin also have said EMG don't make an 8 string pickup, so I'm assuming that's what EMG told them. Expect an update in a couple of days.


----------



## nyck (Jun 3, 2006)

dpm said:


> I'm going to email EMG about this again, cos I've lost the reply they gave me last year - the one asking $20000. Conklin also have said EMG don't make an 8 string pickup, so I'm assuming that's what EMG told them. Expect an update in a couple of days.


Cool thanks.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 4, 2006)

30" scale and an .070" should work out well.  I'd like to hear how it turns out.

Ash would be okay, I think, but there are other options as well. Basswood is under-rated because it's cheap, Maple is tight but heavy, Alder is decent as well, but not the best for everyone. Mahogany is actually not terribly muddy in low tunings, but I never went down to F#. Actually, on a 30" scale, Swamp Ash sounds pretty awesome to my ears with a low F#.


----------



## nyck (Jun 4, 2006)

bostjan said:



> 30" scale and an .070" should work out well.  I'd like to hear how it turns out.
> 
> Ash would be okay, I think, but there are other options as well. Basswood is under-rated because it's cheap, Maple is tight but heavy, Alder is decent as well, but not the best for everyone. Mahogany is actually not terribly muddy in low tunings, but I never went down to F#. Actually, on a 30" scale, Swamp Ash sounds pretty awesome to my ears with a low F#.


I had 26" in my mind. I want to keep it 'shredable' but still good for the bass side. It's been done on an LGM, and it turned out fine. Do you think a 74 or somethin like that would be decently tight for a 26" tuned to F#?


----------



## bostjan (Jun 4, 2006)

26" is too short for me for a low F# at any gauge. But what matters is if you like the feel and tone of it.


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

I agree with bostjan, though TMM's got his 23.6" - 26" Oni tuned to F# and loves it.


----------



## nyck (Jun 4, 2006)

bostjan said:


> 26" is too short for me for a low F# at any gauge. But what matters is if you like the feel and tone of it.


Well Shannon had a 25.5" scale with a 74, but I'm not sure how it felt...



dpm said:


> I agree with bostjan, though TMM's got his 23.6" - 26" Oni tuned to F# and loves it.


Do you by any chance know the gauge the F# had?


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

No idea, he might be keeping an eye on this thread.


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

No idea, he might be keeping an eye on this thread.


----------



## nyck (Jun 4, 2006)

dpm said:


> No idea, he might be keeping an eye on this thread.


Well you did build it  

Do you remember what gauge you had put originally?


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

When it left here for Papa Shank it had a .070 tuned to B.
btw, wood-wise I'd go for stuff like maple, ash, padauk, etc., something with some punch that won't absorb the F#. Basswood is what I think of as a tone sponge.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 4, 2006)

Hmm, padauk? Isn't that similar to Ash, tonally?


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

Yeah, a little, it's got this real nice 'tonk' about it when tapped. Warmoth describe it as tonally similar to maple, though the stuff I have is lighter than I expected and to me sounds like it's going to have a touch more ring to it. It's in that 'bright and clear' ballpark though.
Been thinking of doing some 50/50 padauk/ash bodies. Ash on top, padauk on back, which would give nice contrast and look more interesting than either alone.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 4, 2006)

I've only played six stringers with padauk. I played a tele that was padauk with a bloodwood/maple/purpleheart neckthrough and blank ebony fretboard that looked really cool, but it sounded just like a plain old tele, even though it felt really waxy and smooth.


----------



## nyck (Jun 4, 2006)

dpm said:


> When it left here for Papa Shank it had a .070 tuned to B.
> btw, wood-wise I'd go for stuff like maple, ash, padauk, etc., something with some punch that won't absorb the F#. Basswood is what I think of as a tone sponge.


A .070 tuned to B? So it had a high A?


----------



## dpm (Jun 4, 2006)

yep


----------



## nyck (Jun 5, 2006)

Cool news! 

Conklin does sell Lundgrens individually!!


----------



## dpm (Jun 5, 2006)

Response from EMG's Rick Hunt. I linked him to this thread.



EMG's Rick Hunt said:


> Hello;
> 
> We have a new machinist now, so the cost for new tooling is down to around
> 12 grand. ;-)
> ...


----------



## nyck (Jun 5, 2006)

dpm said:


> Response from EMG's Rick Hunt. I linked him to this thread.


Well, basically, EMG doesn't have 8 string guitar pickups, but they have 6 string bass pickups which cover the correct spectrum of an 8 string guitar. I'm not sure how close to an emg 85 they sound though...


----------



## BrianCarroll (Jun 5, 2006)

dpm said:


> Response from EMG's Rick Hunt. I linked him to this thread.



Uhmm, then what about Rusty Cooley and Dino Cazares custom RG8 ???


----------



## nyck (Jun 5, 2006)

BrianCarroll said:


> Uhmm, then what about Rusty Cooley and Dino Cazares custom RG8 ???


Yeah I wonder if they're using the 45DC bass pup or an actual custom.

I wish there was someway to get in contact with them...


----------



## nyck (Jun 6, 2006)

Alright, Rusty cooley uses EMG bass pickups on his Ibanez 8(F#). I'm finding out exactly which model and what body wood he uses.


----------



## jacksonknox27 (Jun 6, 2006)

i think meshuggah knows best. please do not disappoint them by choosing the maple/walnut neck thru with alder wings


----------



## bostjan (Jun 6, 2006)

Maple  Walnut  Alder 



EMG  Bass pickups in a guitar


----------



## nyck (Jun 7, 2006)

bostjan said:


> Maple  Walnut  Alder
> 
> 
> 
> EMG  Bass pickups in a guitar


The bass pickup actually has the same stuff inside it that the regular guitar pickups have, apparently.


----------



## starsnuffer (Jun 7, 2006)

Wood combinations on a neck-thru will sound much different then wood combinations on a bolt neck. The reason being is that neck-thru designs will get the vast majority of their tone from the neck material. This is because every attachment point for the strings attaches to that material.

For instance, getting a maple neck with a mahogany body on a bolt guitar will get you a good, well rounded sound, whereas mahogany body wings on a maple neck won't do nearly as much to "deepen" your tone.

Also, before you think that laminated necks might be the way to go, remember that glue is very bright sounding (more so then maple), so a laminated neck might not get the effect you're going for. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that you need to consider all the materials involved and how the tone vibrations tend to traverse glue-joints before making up your mind.

The simple rule of thumb is that your tone is going to come mostly from the body for a bolt on neck guitar, but mostly from the neck wood for a neck-thru design.

-W


----------



## nyck (Jun 7, 2006)

starsnuffer said:


> Wood combinations on a neck-thru will sound much different then wood combinations on a bolt neck. The reason being is that neck-thru designs will get the vast majority of their tone from the neck material. This is because every attachment point for the strings attaches to that material.
> 
> For instance, getting a maple neck with a mahogany body on a bolt guitar will get you a good, well rounded sound, whereas mahogany body wings on a maple neck won't do nearly as much to "deepen" your tone.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. I'm gonna be doing a Bolt on neck.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 7, 2006)

I don't think it's the glue that brightens the sound so much as it is the geometry. When sound waves transfer from one medium to another, they split. Some of the wave is reflected, and some is transmitted. If the change is gradual, like natural wood grain, the tone warms up, as most of the wave is either dissipated or transmitted, but laminating two vastly different grains gives a high acoustic impedence to the wave. More dissipation and more reflection, it brightens the sound.

There is nothing tonally wrong with a bright sound, and nothing tonally wrong with a warm sound, but some woods work better together than others, or so we're told.


----------



## TaronKeim (Jun 21, 2006)

Ummm... just my two cents... but I always thought Korina would be the perfect wood for extended range instruments.

It is tighter, a bit brighter and has more lows than Mahogany. It also weighs less than Mahogany does but still has the aggressive, present mids. It really seems like a no-compromise type wood... but it is also very expensive.

-TJK


----------



## Roland777 (Jul 4, 2006)

nyck said:


> In my experience, mahogany doesn't work well in keeping lows clear. It's not exactly tight on the low mids...



I disagree - my Ibanez BTB555 bass is a setneck with a mahogany body (although sandwiched with maple top and back). Lowend authority and sustain is ludicrously huge.


----------



## skinhead (Sep 23, 2006)

do you think about purpleheart? dino's guitar is purpleheart...


----------



## All_¥our_Bass (Sep 23, 2006)

What about basswood, it's really even, doesn't make any one set of freqs ridiculously accented at all. This may sound kind of "cheap" in a sense, but my bass has basswood with a maple top, which sounds really nice, both amped and unplugged. The reason specs for a bass would actually be revelant is that the F# on an eight is just a step above a low E on a bass.



TaronKeim said:


> *very expensive*.


 
It does have a compromise, and *^THAT^* is it!!


----------

