# 'Wood doesn't effect tone' science article...



## Polythoral (Aug 3, 2012)

http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/

I wish to see the discussion this creates... though lets keep it civil.

edit: I should have arguably put science in quotations, too.


----------



## bob123 (Aug 3, 2012)

Hmm considering notes vibrate at very specific frequencies to create these notes, Im not shocked that an "A4" on a les paul has the same frequency as an "A4" on telecaster.




This is stupid and proves nothing. It does not discuss timbre, projection, or pitch. Nothing more then intellectual meanderings from a bored engineer.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 3, 2012)

Well, I'm going to be flamed here... but...

Magnetic Pickups detect vibration of strings. They can only detect them because they are made of metal. Is the body of the guitar made of metal? Is it magnetic in any way? No. So, therefore can the particular kind of wood directly impact the tone? No.

Now, there is a little fuzziness to that hypothesis. The pickups are mounted in the body, so can the vibration of the body due to strumming the strings cause the pickups to vibrate slightly? Perhaps. That would slightly affect the tone.

Can the wood impact how much sustain a note has? Perhaps. However, the effect would be small, I think. The string vibrating at certain frequencies while the body vibrates may cause the note to sustain longer. Once again, I think the effect would be small.

So, I'm of the opinion that there is a small effect but it is almost negligible. I think a lot of the opinions about tone in certain woods are more related to the feeling of the guitar resonating while playing.

Just my opinion.


----------



## djpharoah (Aug 3, 2012)

In before lock


----------



## Fiction (Aug 3, 2012)

groverj3 said:


> Can the wood impact how much sustain a note has? Perhaps. However, the effect would be small, I think. The string vibrating at certain frequencies while the body vibrates may cause the note to sustain longer. Once again, I think the effect would be small.



Play an electric guitar acoustically, and then place the headstock on a wooden table or wooden wall or something large and wooden in your house, and you will notice the acoustic properties and the volume will change by a huge amount, not a subtle change, but probably like a 25-50% change in tone.


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 3, 2012)

Ive had two of the same exact guitar and they sounded different from one another. If I can hear a difference between two cuts of the same species of wood then I can surely hear the difference between two completely different species. I know from experience that woods play a huge role in a guitars tone. If anyone believes different then they need to have their ears checked


----------



## Polythoral (Aug 3, 2012)

groverj3 said:


> Well, I'm going to be flamed here... but...
> 
> Magnetic Pickups detect vibration of strings. They can only detect them because they are made of metal. Is the body of the guitar made of metal? Is it magnetic in any way? No. So, therefore can the particular kind of wood directly impact the tone? No.
> 
> ...


I actually agree pretty much. I really do feel wood has little to do with tone on an electric. I mean, a very small amount, yeah, 3-7% or so I'd give it vaguely. What you said moreorless clarifies my reasoning. I am by no means a luthier or knowledgeable person at science though, it's just what seems like common sense to me.



djpharoah said:


> In before lock


Yeaaah, unfortunately I expect it to happen eventually. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE YELLING BEGINS THOUGH.



Fiction said:


> Play an electric guitar acoustically, and then place the headstock on a wooden table or wooden wall or something large and wooden in your house, and you will notice the acoustic properties and the volume will change by a huge amount, not a subtle change, but probably like a 25-50% change in tone.


Eeeeh, this happens yeah, but I still question how much effect there'd be when plugged in. If I do such a thing and play a note while plugged in, even if I hear more resonance acoustically through what I'm touching, it won't effect how long the note sustains really on the electric output.

Obvious unplugged you could notice differences, because the wood and body is part of what is doing the mild amplification of the sound, but plugged in that wood isn't really where the sound is being picked up and amplified from....


----------



## Trespass (Aug 3, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Play an electric guitar acoustically, and then place the headstock on a wooden table or wooden wall or something large and wooden in your house, and you will notice the acoustic properties and the volume will change by a huge amount, not a subtle change, but probably like a 25-50% change in tone.



Err... So what?

If I put a magnetic pickup* in my $75 acoustic, then pop it in a $3000 dollar acoustic, it sounds the exact same. In fact, I did this at the Long & McQuade here in Toronto, AB'ing a $150 Epiphone with a similarly constructed $3000 Martin, both with the exact same strings on them, put through a Roland Acoustic Chorus and a few other amps.

Both had a plastic nut and saddle, which appeared to be of the same material material.

Basically *zero* difference between them.

In fact, it's gotten to the point where I take my pickup to jazz rehearsals rather than my jazz box. I just pop it in the soundhole of the guitar at my buddies place, which is indeed a cheap Yamaha, and it sounds great!


What difference does the wood in a solid body make?
I believe that the only part that really matters, is string construction, bridge construction and materials, as well as how tight everything is coupled together. The bridge style and materials can drastically change how the string vibrates, string construction is obvious.

*It's a handmade Kent Armstrong voiced for phosphor bronze with detachable soundhole mounts, originally purchased for an archtop guitar.


----------



## Quitty (Aug 3, 2012)

groverj3 said:


> Well, I'm going to be flamed here... but...
> 
> Magnetic Pickups detect vibration of strings. They can only detect them because they are made of metal. Is the body of the guitar made of metal? Is it magnetic in any way? No. So, therefore can the particular kind of wood directly impact the tone? No.
> 
> ...



You're missing out on the best part -
the strings are attached to the body wood.
Their vibration is dampened by the wood they're set in, both in the tuner end and at the bridge. That's what makes most of the difference, allegedly.

IMO, there's definitely an effect. Not because one can compare too identical guitars with different woods, but because the effect is predictable - 
chances are my mahogany guitar would make me think it's darker than my alder one and not vice versa, even without knowing what the woods 'should' do.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 3, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> I know from experience that woods play a huge role in a guitars tone. If anyone believes different then they need to have their ears checked



Yeah, but you weren't blinded to the guitars you're using. So you're highly biased (I mean that in a statistical way, not a jerky way). I'm definitely of the camp that it doesn't make any difference in electric guitars when amplified. It doesn't make any sense that it could have any bearing on the sound. The density of the wood and the quality of the anchor of the bridge and nut can affect sustain, as was said about putting the HS on a table, but there can be no affect on tone. 
But, there is simply no way everyone is going to believe this. Same way that everyone thinks shaving a lot increases beard growth and wearing magnetic bracelets helps your balance. 
For me, it just opens up a lot of possibilities for cool wood combinations because I go on looks and don't get hung up on tone. And then I worry about wood combos only for my acoustic instruments.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Aug 3, 2012)

I personally dont think different woods sound different. I think the differences in sound would come down to the density and mass of the wood more than the type as well as construction(bolt on, set neck ect.). But when you break over the nut and bridge, in dont think the wood will effect things much. 

I'm a FIRM believer that guitar players are a huge placebo group.

The fact remains that the guy did a small study using a scientific method, and to ignore facts that he came up with are ignorant.


----------



## Polythoral (Aug 3, 2012)

Trespass said:


> If I put a magnetic pickup in my $75 acoustic, then pop it in a $3000 dollar acoustic, it sounds the exact same.



Note, though I don't think body woods really effect an electric, this I would be willing to argue.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 3, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Err... So what?



I commented before reading the rest of his post 

And I have no knowledge about acoustics so i'm not going to comment on the rest of your post


----------



## Trespass (Aug 3, 2012)

I play several high end luthier made archtops with high end magnetic pickups (Armstrong, Bartolini etc.). I also work with a luthier who I speak to on pretty much a daily basis. I think about and experiment with this problem of wood not involved in magnetic sound production - a lot.

My solution was simple. I have an Audio Technica clip on lavalier mic that goes on the body of my archtop with goes to the board, and the mag goes to the amp chain.


----------



## Trespass (Aug 3, 2012)

Fiction said:


> I commented before reading the rest of his post
> 
> And I have no knowledge about acoustics so i'm not going to comment on the rest of your post



... I have acoustic guitars which are optimized in a scientifically sound way to produce volume and complex harmonic content.

I put a magnetic pickup on a $150 example, and a $3000 example. The wood content did not impact the magnetic tone at all.




Polythoral said:


> Note, though I don't think body woods really effect an electric, this I would be willing to argue.



I'm not arguing that wood choices in acoustics effect tone. It's obvious that the top plate, as a vibrating membrane and sound producer, must have a species of wood soft enough to vibrate efficiently (hence spruce and cedar). The side and back plates must be hard woods to act as reflectors and project the sound out (hence mahogany, koa whatever) and not absorb the sound.


----------



## Polythoral (Aug 3, 2012)

Trespass said:


> ... I have acoustic guitars which are optimized in a scientifically sound way to produce volume and complex harmonic content.
> 
> I put a magnetic pickup on a $150 example, and a $3000 example. The wood content did not impact the magnetic tone at all.



I see you didn't quote my post, but thinking about it, I guess I have never played an acoustic through an amp of any sort, so I actually can have no real opinion there. In trying to think of what my common sense would tell me, it would be somewhat noticeable, moreso than it'd ever be on an electric, but still in reality not too much.


----------



## Fiction (Aug 3, 2012)

Trespass said:


> ... I have acoustic guitars which are optimized in a scientifically sound way to produce volume and complex harmonic content.
> 
> I put a magnetic pickup on a $150 example, and a $3000 example. The wood content did not impact the magnetic tone at all.



By that I mean, I have nothing to add to your post regarding acoustics, I understand you put a magnetic pickup on a $150 example and a $3000 example, and no tone was changed. I was merely commenting in my original post that wood makes a difference acoustically.


----------



## rockstarazuri (Aug 3, 2012)

Ehh, I dunno, a lot metal bands sound the same to me with their guitars (with a variance in wood types) into a OD808/TS9 + PV5150 combo to me.

Or famous guitarists playing other people's gear and still sound like themselves. I've seen Guthrie go thru a Line 6 DT combo and an Axe FX and he sounds like himself..

I certainly can't recognize whether Periphery used a Daemoness/Ibanez/Blackmachine/Jackson on their songs.. the timbre of the instruments in their tracks sound the same to me too..

Must be that my ears are bad but that's what I hear


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 3, 2012)

rockstarazuri said:


> Ehh, I dunno, a lot metal bands sound the same to me with their guitars (with a variance in wood types) into a OD808/TS9 + PV5150 combo to me.
> 
> Or famous guitarists playing other people's gear and still sound like themselves. I've seen Guthrie go thru a Line 6 DT combo and an Axe FX and he sounds like himself..
> 
> ...



Post EQ can make different woods sound very similar


----------



## rockstarazuri (Aug 4, 2012)

Haha, I'm aware that post EQ is inevitable and necessary, but it defeats the whole 'tone woods' discussion IMO lol


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 4, 2012)

I just know that wood does affect tone. Post EQ affects tone, and so does wood.


----------



## mountainjam (Aug 4, 2012)

There is no doubt in my mind wood effects tone. Plug in your guitar and sing into the pickup, you will hear yourself in the amp. If my voice resonates on a string, I'm confident the wood does as well.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 4, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Play an electric guitar acoustically, and then place the headstock on a wooden table or wooden wall or something large and wooden in your house, and you will notice the acoustic properties and the volume will change by a huge amount, not a subtle change, but probably like a 25-50% change in tone.



This is the wood vibrating. Which the pickups do not "pick-up."



Quitty said:


> You're missing out on the best part -
> the strings are attached to the body wood.
> Their vibration is dampened by the wood they're set in, both in the tuner end and at the bridge. That's what makes most of the difference, allegedly.
> 
> ...



True, I didn't think about that. However, pretty much all electrics have strings terminating in metal at the bridge. The nut is either going to be metal (floyd nut), graphite, bone, or something similar. I can see perhaps a difference in a metal nut vs other materials, but will this be picked up by the pickups? That's a good question. The timbre of the string ringing out is basically the overtones being produced. Would these be different enough that the difference from each other survive the process of being turned into an electrical signal by the pickups? I don't know, I'm a biologist, not a physicist. I think it's unlikely to have a large impact, but that's just my opinion. Not ruling it out though.



leonardo7 said:


> Post EQ can make different woods sound very similar



Agreed, when you start adding effects into your signal I doubt ANYONE would be able to tell what you played through. Example: Go to Guitar Center, and plug a $200 Ibanez starter guitar into their massive pedal display and then switch to a JEM or Jackson Soloist, or really any other guitar. I guarantee you that you will sound pretty darn close as long as the wiring isn't f*cked up and the guitars are set up more or less the same in terms of pickup height, string height, etc.



leonardo7 said:


> I just know that wood does affect tone. Post EQ affects tone, and so does wood.



I'm not saying it doesn't, just wondering how large the effect is. I'm going with 10% or less of your tone being determined by the wood as a complete guess.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 4, 2012)

Just because people have always thought something doesn't make it true. People used to think the world was flat. People used to think the Earth was 3000 years old (ok, some people still do... not going there in this thread). People used to think that dinosaurs didn't have feathers . People used to think that the expansion of the universe was slowing down.

^ Trying to be funny, not trying to be dick.

I do agree that wood probably affects tone, just not as much as some people do. But hey, I'm probably full of shit. This is just my opinion. Just keep on .


----------



## Trespass (Aug 4, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> I just know that wood does affect tone. Post EQ affects tone, and so does wood.



Intuition does not equal reality.

A decent amount of old wives tales aren't actually true.


----------



## Randyrhoads123 (Aug 4, 2012)

What? I have the same set of EMGs in two guitars, one in my Schecter C series, and one in my Epi LP Custom. They're both mahogany bodies with mahogany necks, but the Schecter has a flame maple veneer. I can tell you that the added mass of the Les Paul it sounds much darker/bassier than my Schecter and I have to change the EQ on my amp to compensate. Actual wood type may not make a huge difference, I haven't been able to really test that, but mass and density definitely do.

edit: I'd also like to see the scientific write-up of this study, along with charts of the frequencies and wavelengths.


----------



## Trespass (Aug 4, 2012)

Placebo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The shape and weight differential could cause you to attack the strings differently.

Also, scale definitely effects tone. No contest there.


----------



## skeels (Aug 4, 2012)

Thread not closed yet?

Awright!

Since no one else has commented on this, I would like to address mj's comment.

I used to have a song where at a particular crescendo of noise, which included pressing the strings on different parts of the pickups which produced some very interesting feedback tones, I would scream my brains out into the guitar.

Disclaimer : play this loud as hell, I mean really really loud..or don't even bother ..
http://www.mkepunk.com/releases/hardcore/cowardlow-life-split-7/

Earwig is the track and yes, yes I am crazy.

The hitherto overlooked phenomenon to which mountain alluded is the non-magnetic quality of my insane screeching.

The question is: if magnetic guitar pickups do not reproduce the non-magnetic qualities of an instrument, how do they reproduce my voice?

I acknowledge that there are many links in a typical signal chain that ultimately produce what the listener hears. 

There are however acoustic phenomena that are difficult to explain.
Why do we hear when you strum the strings past the nut or behind the bridge? Hans Reichel explored this on some very unique custom guitars.
Why do pickups act the way they do? They can actually produce tones that have no sonic counterparts. When I play at very high volumes, I can press the string on different spots on a pickup and it will squeal in different tones due to feedback in conjunction with the amp, not because of any particular sound the guitar is making.

Mountainjam made a huge point that no one even acknowledged.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 4, 2012)

skeels said:


> Thread not closed yet?
> 
> Awright!
> 
> ...



Yelling onto the strings and pickups inducing vibration? Pickups are not magical tone rectangles. They sense string vibration wth a magnetic field.

Once again, just my 2c.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 4, 2012)

groverj3 said:


> Pickups are not magical tone rectangles. They sense string vibration wth a magnetic field.



Precisely! Every vibration that occurs within the guitar reaches the strings and affects their vibration, including the damping effects of the materials used to make the guitar. That doesn't change when the pickups are introduced, but rather the pickups themselves also vibrate, introducing further tone alterations.

There are a few explanations for why we cannot actually hear a noticeable difference:

The first is that the vibration of the wood has to pass through so many objects on the way to the strings, the effect it has once it reaches them is simply very negligible.

The second is that some of the tonal properties that the wood imparts on the guitar's acoustic tone are not caused by a change to the vibration of the strings, but rather by the reflection of soundwaves off of the guitar itself. Such things would obviously not be picked up by the pickups, as they aren't caused by a change in the vibrations of the strings and pickups.

The third, and the most realistically solvable, is that the vibrations that get imparted on the pickups are very similar to those of the string itself, but with partial phase inversion. This would allow the pickups to cancel the majority of the wood's effect on the tone, but only for sound that went through the pickup; acoustic tone would be unaffected.

My personal views on the subject are that wood absolutely affects tone, and that the effect of the wood can be easily counteracted later on in the chain, but we should still keep the wood in mind, because if there is a way for us to facilitate further harmony between the various elements in our sound chain, why shouldn't we take advantage of it?


----------



## elq (Aug 4, 2012)

I suspect the properties of any single piece of wood have a much bigger effect than the species of the wood. But I do think that body wood can effect the sound of an electric guitar.

yes - the pickups are simply a inductive magnetic field such that vibrating ferrous objects (strings, for example) are the dominant source of variation in said magnetic field... 

but, common people, the strings aren't vibrating freely in space. They're tightly coupled to the body of the guitar - via the bridge and fret or nut. The vibrations of the body wood do not cause direct changes in the magnetic field of the pickups, but vibration of the body wood can interact with the vibrating strings.




A simple experiment - place a vibrating object (ask your GF or Mom, or perhaps use your cellphone) in direct contact with the body of an electric guitar. If you don't dampen the strings, what happens?


----------



## Dayn (Aug 4, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Precisely! Every vibration that occurs within the guitar reaches the strings and affects their vibration, including the damping effects of the materials used to make the guitar. That doesn't change when the pickups are introduced, but rather the pickups themselves also vibrate, introducing further tone alterations.


This is pretty much what I think. Strings don't exist in a vacuum. If you play the fifth fret of the D string, the open G string will vibrate in sympathy if you don't mute it. That's just what they do. With all that's going on, the guitar itself is going to be vibrating as well. There'll be a feedback effect.

How big is that effect? I don't know. I do know that it's easy as hell to sculpt your tone in so many ways to completely eliminate it. But then, it depends on what you define as 'tone'. Does sustain count? I would have thought so. This is where body materials have a big effect.

That's my hypothesis, at least. My guitar will thunder like hell if I hit 173hz~ (F). The whole room shakes and damn is it loud. However, my room also shakes around 40hz~ (E)... but in a different way to 173hz~. When I hit the E, there's no feedback and the volume isn't any louder. All I can say for sure, beyond my pontificating, is that hardware plays quite a big role at least. Unplugged, the difference between a locking bridge and tune-o-matic is quite big.


----------



## master of the human race (Aug 4, 2012)

Electric guitars don't have sound boards like pianos or acoustic guitars. Therefor...wood species really don't matter. This talk of feedback, vacuums, and quantum physics is giving me cancer.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 4, 2012)

master of the human race said:


> Electric guitars don't have sound boards like pianos or acoustic guitars. Therefor...wood species really don't matter. This talk of feedback, vacuums, and quantum physics is giving me cancer.



Logic is a cancer that society will go any length to eradicate, it seems.

The talk of feedback, vacuums, and quantum physics is the debate of the actual science of the issue, and it's fairly relevant.


----------



## elq (Aug 4, 2012)

master of the human race said:


> herp derp


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

I think some of you guys are mixing up sustain with frequency response. Frequency response is the tone, not sustain. Before anyone says wood affects tone, I think they need to define what that means. In an electric guitar the sound is produced by the vibrating string affecting the magnetic field of the pickups. If there is no string on the body you can pretty much do whatever you want and the pickup won't make a sound, right? (I'm asking, because I've never tried it.) So if that's the case then vibrating wood won't have any effect on the sound of the guitar through the pickups. That's totally different than on an acoustic, where you can get all sorts of sound out of it without a string on there because the wood itself is the amplifier. So it stands to reason that bouncing a sound off of the wood is going to have an affect on the sound that comes off of it because it has the capability of not reflecting (i.e. absorbing) certain frequencies. That's the reason that so much thought and effort is put into getting the best possible soundboards in pianos.

Secondly, if the strings are on the electric, and you're saying that the vibrations of the wood causes the strings to resonate sympathetically, are you saying that if you play an E1, for example, a mahogany body is going to cause the other strings to resonate in a different way than a basswood body, and that's what you're saying affects tone? Or are you saying that playing an E1 on a mahogany guitar will resonate, and have different fundamentals, than a basswood guitar? 

I think that this discussion would go a lot better if the people contributing defined what they're talking about and used the standard terms in dealing with sound. There are loads of studies, articles and research done on pianos, violins, etc., and it would further this a lot more than saying, "My Les Paul definitely sounds different than my Strat." Science begins with an an idiosyncratic observation. But that doesn't work as a proof.


----------



## master of the human race (Aug 4, 2012)

Narrillnezzurh said:


> Logic is a cancer that society will go any length to eradicate, it seems.
> 
> The talk of feedback, vacuums, and quantum physics is the debate of the actual science of the issue, and it's fairly relevant.



No, it's guitarded


----------



## elq (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway - resonant frequency, comb filtering, and density...

From another forum -



> Consider one extreme: a vibrating string suspends across two infinitely stiff, infinitely massive supports. The string resonates at its own natural frequency both side to side and axially. You could consider this a "carrier frequency."
> 
> Now consider another extreme: a string under tension where one of the supports is a transducer like a speaker motor). In this case, the tension will vary according to the signal fed into the transducer. If I oscillate one of the string supports at 120hz, say, then it will induce a modulation into the vibrating string's natural frequency.
> 
> ...






master of the human race said:


> No, it's guitarded








sigh. where is that "ignore user" option...

yay. found it


----------



## master of the human race (Aug 4, 2012)

I guess I'm the only one that watched the Scott Grove video....and the only one that can take a joke.....


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

So how come people don't like this study? It seems like it was done pretty well. He used several different guitars and controlled the variable of the pickup type, height, and string, and then measured the frequency response of the string. Isn't that what we want for a study to look at this?
Like, bob123 said it didn't look at projection, pitch or timbre. But projection is volume (not tone), so that's irrelevant. And pitch is a controlled variable (and also not tone, so irrelevant). And timbre is not made up of a single characteristic, so there's no way to test it individually.

I think this is a really neat study, so I'm not sure why some of you are saying you don't believe the study was done well, but that you can audibly detect different cuts of wood.


----------



## elq (Aug 4, 2012)

Where did you read the study? All I read was a summary of the study. How did he analyze the harmonic content? Did he do a Fourier transform? MFCC analysis? ZCR? Spectral Flux?

How did he choose his sampling protocol? Etc, etc, ad nauseum.




Please take a look at http://www.thegearpage.net/board/showthread.php?t=1101014&page=1 
and listen to the sound samples http://www.mykaguitars.com/sounds/A-B-test/A-B-test.htm


----------



## AcousticMinja (Aug 4, 2012)

Sorry but..







and clearly








But really, I think there might be SOME difference in wood types and tone. Maybe more so on the clean channel. But I think coupled with the nut, tuners, bridge, frets, etc that would make a bigger difference. I had a plywood guitar I modded the crap out of and by the end of that it sounded fucking awesome. 
If I have a guitar I'm happy with, it sounds good, and plays well, I could care less if it's made out of toilet paper. I'm just happy I have a tone I like and that's what matters to me the most.


----------



## TomAwesome (Aug 4, 2012)

He's not done with the study yet, and very little information about it was given, so let's not take this as evidence in either direction just yet.

It makes sense to me that the wood would make a difference. If the bridge and nut can affect how the string vibrates, why not the wood it's attached to? Different woods should dampen different frequencies differently, right? Certain pickups tend to sound good in some guitars and bad in others, even then the construction is mostly the same aside from the wood choices. My Blaze Custom sounded much different in my Squier Strat VII than it did in my Ibanez RG7421, and they're both 25.5" scale bolt-on guitars with Hipshot-style bridges. Both guitars were wired up with the same pots and the same switches in a V/T/3WT configuration (I used the extra knob hole in the Strat for a killswitch). The character of the pickup was recognizable, but the guitars sounded undeniably different.

I realize that basically amounts to anecdotal evidence, which isn't great when you're trying to prove something, but my personal experience has me currently convinced that wood choice does play a part.


----------



## Edika (Aug 4, 2012)

Both arguments have their merits and can have arguments disproving the other sides claim. I would be interested to see this study but as other people have mentioned the experimental variable changing must be only the tonewood. Of course there are bound to be other slight variations but if changing only the tonewood of a guitar should give different spectral characteristics in the recording then and only then can someone conclude that tonewood plays no role in the sound of an electric guitar. 

For this reason two guitars from the same manufacter/luthier built with identical specs, other than the woods should be used, with the same type of strings, setup, pickups, pickup height, bridge, bridge material, nut, tuners, pots etc etc. Then recorded by the same player using the same pick, preferably into an audio interface with the same cable and pre/post eq and using the same DAW. Again a lot of the other materials would have some variations but the difference should be minimal.


----------



## flo (Aug 4, 2012)

Seriously, if the outcome of this study is that the woods and shape of an electric don't change the frequency spectrum of a plugged in solidbody electric, AND if the study was done properly, then it is like that. No measurable influence. And this is maybe the tenth time I've read this, so I actually believe it's true. 

That said, the fact that there IS a body made of wood has to have an effect on the string vibration. You've got two coupled oscillators, one being very heavy compared to the other. I'm sure the outcome would be different if the string and body were of comparable mass, or if the body was made out of a material which dampens vibration very strongly (soft rubber for example). But apparently the difference between different species of wood is negligible.

EDIT: Describe a guitar string oscillation using quantum mechanics? Mayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybe not.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Aug 4, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Intuition does not equal reality.
> 
> A decent amount of old wives tales aren't actually true.



Intuition is reality in this case.

Just guys that don't think it affects the tone, go take a class or two of basic induction (related to physics, not philosophy). You're all missing one key thing here: it's not only the strings that are vibrating. The mic vibrates as well and it vibrates *depending on the body size/wood.

*That's still not the main reason though. Another two classes you could take would be from vibration/mechanical waves-whatever it's called. Interference plays a massive role here. Why do you think the strings move when you hit the body? Because the body moves which makes the strings move. What conclusion is there left to make? Strings vibrate->body vibrates->strings vibrate due to body vibration.

Just to cite our fellow youtube blogger:
_"And if you think othervice, you suck cock."_


----------



## Speculum Speculorum (Aug 4, 2012)

Meh. This type of arguing just gets in the way of the fun I have when I'm playing music.

I'm sure that the qualities of the wood have something to do with electric tone, but it's part of a big series of things that work in union to create the sound of an instrument. Then again, I'm one of those weirdos that believes in universal connection of many different forces we don't understand, so maybe the phase of the stars effects how I hear tone on a constantly changing basis...

I'm going back to my cave now.


----------



## groverj3 (Aug 4, 2012)

Well, this hasn't gotten as nasty as I was anticipating


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Intuition is reality in this case.
> 
> Just guys that don't think it affects the tone, go take a class or two of basic induction (related to physics, not philosophy). You're all missing one key thing here: it's not only the strings that are vibrating. The mic vibrates as well and it vibrates *depending on the body size/wood.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you can't really say that because a lot of the guys on here in the other camp are saying the exact opposite - i.e. intuition, and the classes you are referring to, prove the opposite. Again, intuition is the first step of science, not the last.


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

elq said:


> Where did you read the study? All I read was a summary of the study. How did he analyze the harmonic content? Did he do a Fourier transform? MFCC analysis? ZCR? Spectral Flux?
> 
> How did he choose his sampling protocol? Etc, etc, ad nauseum.



Yeah, I didn't read the study any more than was written in that article. I'm just saying that it sounded like he set it up correctly and made an effort to control variables, etc. But everyone seems pretty sure there is not good science going on, and I don't know why. I just don't get why, when someone does a study on music instruments people immediately shoot it down because they think they have the answer, despite no studies at all. But when there is possible evidence that, say, the Higgs Boson particle exists everyone assumes the study was done correctly, and gets all excited. For a group as passionate about guitars as we are, we certainly shoot down anyone trying to further knowledge on the subject as "meanderings of a bored engineer." I personally would like to see as much knowledge gained about this stuff so we have the answers. And no offense to Leonardo7, bob123, etc., but saying, "I've owned lots of guitars, and I know there's a difference," is not enough for the world to stop doing any science on the subject. Having been on here for 4 years now, I'm continually shocked at the vitriol with which people respond to anyone's attempt to do a scientific study about guitars. We spend countless posts in the P&CE forum talking about how closed mindedness and the ignorance of science is bad, but then we use those same arguments in studies about guitars. I just don't get it.


----------



## rockstarazuri (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I didn't read the study any more than was written in that article. I'm just saying that it sounded like he set it up correctly and made an effort to control variables, etc. But everyone seems pretty sure there is not good science going on, and I don't know why. I just don't get why, when someone does a study on music instruments people immediately shoot it down because they think they have the answer, despite no studies at all. But when there is possible evidence that, say, the Higgs Boson particle exists everyone assumes the study was done correctly, and gets all excited. For a group as passionate about guitars as we are, we certainly shoot down anyone trying to further knowledge on the subject as "meanderings of a bored engineer." I personally would like to see as much knowledge gained about this stuff so we have the answers. And no offense to Leonardo7, bob123, etc., but saying, "I've owned lots of guitars, and I know there's a difference," is not enough for the world to stop doing any science on the subject. Having been on here for 4 years now, I'm continually shocked at the vitriol with which people respond to anyone's attempt to do a scientific study about guitars. We spend countless posts in the P&CE forum talking about how closed mindedness and the ignorance of science is bad, but then we use those same arguments in studies about guitars. I just don't get it.



+1000. When scientific research threads (some backed with numbers and research results) like these pop up it gets immediately shot down by people using anecdotal evidence, I wonder why.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Aug 4, 2012)




----------



## elq (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> science is good


 

My post-secondary education was in physics when I see fuzzy science, I get a bit prickly. And that the author of the article chose to end his piece with that video - I've seen videos by that guy before and he just bugs the shit out of me.


When it's all said and done, when I choose woods for a guitar, I choose only on looks 




rockstarazuri said:


> +1000. When scientific research threads (some backed with numbers and research results) like these pop up it gets immediately shot down by people using anecdotal evidence, I wonder why.



please, share the evidence, the numbers, the research results...

these arguments reminds me of how atheists can be as annoying as the religious when it comes to proselytizing their ideas...


----------



## Electric Wizard (Aug 4, 2012)

@Hollowway
In fairness, I think it's reasonable to assume that studies done at the LHC are done correctly. In this case, all we can read is a summary of the study which is also being done by someone that hasn't earned their bachelor's yet. In this instance I think it's fair to say that the methodology may be suspect. Not really a fair comparison.

Personally, I think wood has some impact on tone. Guitars are such nuanced instruments that it's hard to imagine otherwise. Although I don't think it's as pronounced as many seem to believe, and is probably one of the least important components in the formation of a guitar's particular sound.

edit: ninja'd by a bunch of posts


----------



## Sephael (Aug 4, 2012)

If the vibration of your strings can be felt in the wood of the guitar, which they can, then in turn that wood will effect the vibration of the strings. Physics - for every action there is the equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## Trespass (Aug 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> Intuition is reality in this case.
> 
> Just guys that don't think it affects the tone, go take a class or two of basic induction (related to physics, not philosophy). You're all missing one key thing here: it's not only the strings that are vibrating. The mic vibrates as well and it vibrates *depending on the body size/wood.
> 
> ...



I'm not disagreeing, I'm claiming that difference is negligible. 

Re: *screaming into a pickup. *

No one is arguing about sympathetic vibration. If you take a vibrating object, like a string or a guitar top, and yell into it, it will pick up your voice. I have a high end K&K piezo system in my archtop, and we re-amped the vocals to an indie track in the studio by damping the strings and holding the archtop body up to the monitors.

Sounded great.

The vocal track played from the monitors activated the top, the piezo picked it up.

If I had a mag pickup on that guitar, the voice would've activated the strings, and the mag pickup would've picked that up.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Aug 4, 2012)

Sephael said:


> If the vibration of your strings can be felt in the wood of the guitar, which they can, then in turn that wood will effect the vibration of the strings. Physics - for every action there is the equal and opposite reaction.



But that's not the question. The question is whether the alteration of the string's vibration is A) picked up by the pickup, and B) severe enough to produce an audible difference when the signal is run through a typical signal chain.


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Yeah, I didn't read the study any more than was written in that article. I'm just saying that it sounded like he set it up correctly and made an effort to control variables, etc. But everyone seems pretty sure there is not good science going on, and I don't know why. I just don't get why, when someone does a study on music instruments people immediately shoot it down because they think they have the answer, despite no studies at all. But when there is possible evidence that, say, the Higgs Boson particle exists everyone assumes the study was done correctly, and gets all excited. For a group as passionate about guitars as we are, we certainly shoot down anyone trying to further knowledge on the subject as "meanderings of a bored engineer." I personally would like to see as much knowledge gained about this stuff so we have the answers. And no offense to Leonardo7, bob123, etc., but saying, "I've owned lots of guitars, and I know there's a difference," is not enough for the world to stop doing any science on the subject. Having been on here for 4 years now, I'm continually shocked at the vitriol with which people respond to anyone's attempt to do a scientific study about guitars. We spend countless posts in the P&CE forum talking about how closed mindedness and the ignorance of science is bad, but then we use those same arguments in studies about guitars. I just don't get it.



The reason why the studies of the higgs boson have not been questioned is because of the system scientists have made. First of all, a big group of scientist have agreed that when tests for Higgs Boson reach statistical significance of 5 sigma, the result can be published and said to be "proven". IIRC 5 sigma means something about 1 in one millionth of a chance of false data. And that's based on statistics and no, statistics don't lie.

Now when it comes to these studies, I don't think we have gotten even near 5 sigma, nor have we even made an agreement on how many levels of statistical significance do we need, which obviously leads to people nagging.

All in all, my bet is that the body wood makes a difference in sound, be it big or small. If it doesn't, maybe I need to get back to the physics classes...


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 4, 2012)

"Wood doesn't affect tone"


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> "Wood doesn't affect tone"



Annnnd, Leonardo7 with another well thought out scientific retort! Thanks for helpin the cause, dude!


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

Kurkkuviipale said:


> The reason why the studies of the higgs boson have not been questioned is because of the system scientists have made. First of all, a big group of scientist have agreed that when tests for Higgs Boson reach statistical significance of 5 sigma, the result can be published and said to be "proven". IIRC 5 sigma means something about 1 in one millionth of a chance of false data. And that's based on statistics and no, statistics don't lie.
> 
> Now when it comes to these studies, I don't think we have gotten even near 5 sigma, nor have we even made an agreement on how many levels of statistical significance do we need, which obviously leads to people nagging.
> 
> All in all, my bet is that the body wood makes a difference in sound, be it big or small. If it doesn't, maybe I need to get back to the physics classes...



Yes, but we both know that people are not shooting down science with respect to guitar studies because it hasn't reached 5 sigma. I promise you that if the Higgs boson guys used that level of scrutiny for neck thru vs bolt on, wood vs no wood, etc studies we'd get just as many people knocking it. The 5 sigma, etc arguments are just a straw-man. People who are convinced that they can hear a difference will not be swayed by science, no matter how sound it is because they have less faith in science and the scientific method than they do in their own ears. There is no experiment that can be done that someone cannot find criticism with. If something is found to be significant at p <.05, people will still focus on the .05, or the methods, or just say they don't believe it. Fundamentally what is at work here is that people are more passionate about their belief than science. Just like there are people that will never, no matter what the level of research done, believe that global warming is occurring, there are people that will never believe that a bolt on and neck thru sustain the same, or that a mahogany and basswood electric sound the same. I'm not claiming this is the case (or with global warming for that matter), but it's evident to me that some people are only finding fault in studies which do not support their beliefs. And to me that is closed minded, and wrong.


----------



## JStraitiff (Aug 4, 2012)

Wood definitely affects the tone of an electric guitar. As opposed to an acoustic guitar, the electric guitar's tonal properties are mainly contained to the strings. However, the tonal properties of the strings are affected by everything else on the guitar including saddles, nut, bridge, body wood, shape, size and finish. The pickups are what detects this off the strings and sends it to an amplifier. These things are all true on an acoustic guitar as well except, instead of a pickup sending the sound to an electronic amplifier, the amplifier is built in. Its made up of the body woods and now that tone that was previously affected by the woods etc, is being amplified by the same wood that originally created the tone. The woods not only affect the tone of the strings in this case, they also affect the tone of the amplifier. This is why woods make "more" of a difference in an acoustic.

I hope this helps people understand a little better.

And just to mention, even with a magnetic pickup in an acoustic guitar you can tell the difference between instruments drastically. I used a soundhole pickup in my $200 samick and then used the same pickup in a $3000 taylor and the difference in tone was as drastic in the recording as it is in person (and as drastic as the difference in price..)


----------



## leonardo7 (Aug 4, 2012)

Where is this scientific data which will supposedly and shockingly prove what I know to be wrong?


----------



## Kurkkuviipale (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> Yes, but we both know that people are not shooting down science with respect to guitar studies because it hasn't reached 5 sigma. I promise you that if the Higgs boson guys used that level of scrutiny for neck thru vs bolt on, wood vs no wood, etc studies we'd get just as many people knocking it. The 5 sigma, etc arguments are just a straw-man. People who are convinced that they can hear a difference will not be swayed by science, no matter how sound it is because they have less faith in science and the scientific method than they do in their own ears. There is no experiment that can be done that someone cannot find criticism with. If something is found to be significant at p <.05, people will still focus on the .05, or the methods, or just say they don't believe it. Fundamentally what is at work here is that people are more passionate about their belief than science. Just like there are people that will never, no matter what the level of research done, believe that global warming is occurring, there are people that will never believe that a bolt on and neck thru sustain the same, or that a mahogany and basswood electric sound the same. I'm not claiming this is the case (or with global warming for that matter), but it's evident to me that some people are only finding fault in studies which do not support their beliefs. And to me that is closed minded, and wrong.



Well said. I'm also going to remain silent in this matter to the second I have read a full study of the matter and heard an A-B that's even in level and so should everyone else that's for or against the matter.

I would like to point out though that questioning the methods of the study is not the same as questioning the data or the significance.

Just my CC...


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

leonardo7 said:


> what I know to be wrong?



There is no amount of science that could prove you wrong, because, as you said, you already know the answer. My point is that you will never believe anything else because you're 100% convinced you're right. On the other side of the argument are people that are 100% convinced of the opposite of you, and say wood has no bearing on tone. And you can't find a study that will shockingly prove what they know to be right. Bottom line is that shooting down any attempts to find the truth because you think you know an answer with nothing other than personal observation as evidence is never going to solve the argument.


----------



## Amanita (Aug 4, 2012)

was trying to type in some text wall...
halfway through i just wiped out all i typed. 
in the meantime some crazy Swedish guy with a stone guitar:
http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u205/komorok/?action=view&current=PICT5462.mp4


----------



## Hollowway (Aug 4, 2012)

FWIW I recently read an article with what seemed to be a pretty good experimental protocol where a guy had two guitars that he took apart and used different pickups in, so he had a maple guitar and a Mahogany (I think those were the woods) and two different pickups. He then analyzed the frequency response (he posted the graphs in the article). What he found was that with one of the pickups there were no differences in the wood types and with the other pickup there were some differences. So I'm not saying there's any take home message here, because, again, half of the people are going to rip the study apart because they simply don't believe it. But I thought it was a cool study. I'll try to find it if I can and post a link.


----------



## technomancer (Aug 4, 2012)

Hollowway said:


> There is no amount of science that could prove you wrong, because, as you said, you already know the answer. My point is that you will never believe anything else because you're 100% convinced you're right. On the other side of the argument are people that are 100% convinced of the opposite of you, and say wood has no bearing on tone. And you can't find a study that will shockingly prove what they know to be right. Bottom line is that shooting down any attempts to find the truth because you think you know an answer with nothing other than personal observation as evidence is never going to solve the argument.



Which would be why these threads are completely pointless as you've got people quoting mostly half-assed studies that insist on responding over and over and guys using their personal experience countering. Nobody is ever convinced of anything except what they thought to start with and nothing ever gets accomplished except for people bitching at each other.

This is also why these ALWAYS get closed


----------

