# I found a *scientific* video that nukes tonewoods



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

here's the link, it's an hour long but worth watching. dunno if it's going to be easy to understand for non-scientific people since I've studied physics, engineering and math quite a bit so I already knew most of what he says. Give it a try anyway if you're interested.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svmOQuNC1Uw

I'll give you a tl;dr version of what he says. wood affects the tone : no. wood affects the sustain : yes.

I'm just sharing the stuff. I've always wanted a video like this that doesn't try to use real life examples that depend on the quality of the audio recording and/or your headphones or speakers. All this guy uses is math and physics, two things I've learned to trust quite a bit. I was already very convinced before I watched this video, but then again, evidence by formula is always better in my book.

I already expect this to start some butthurt and/or a crazy shitstorm, but that's the fun of it. Believing in tonewoods is just like believing in a religion, so everyone's gonna react differently. I'll believe this guy until someone proves him wrong with solid science.


----------



## ShawnFjellstad (Sep 19, 2014)

Another one of _these_ threads.


----------



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

watch the video first


----------



## Chi (Sep 19, 2014)

*Runs off to his dedicated "tonewood-debate"-shelter*


----------



## ShawnFjellstad (Sep 19, 2014)

Nagash said:


> watch the video first



I don't give a shit. 

This topic has been beaten to death and back, and nobody needs another thread about it.


----------



## Prophetable (Sep 19, 2014)

ShawnFjellstad said:


> I don't give a shit.
> 
> This topic has been beaten to death and back, and nobody needs another thread about it.



Sweet mentality about knowledge.


----------



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

Prophetable said:


> Sweet mentality about knowledge.



especially since we're talking about hard science here. who the hell needs facts when you have opinions, right ?


----------



## ShawnFjellstad (Sep 19, 2014)

You misunderstand my post. These threads just turn into a shit-storm of bickering, and this forum doesn't need _more_ of that.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 19, 2014)

ShawnFjellstad said:


> I don't give a shit.
> 
> This topic has been beaten to death and back, and nobody needs another thread about it.



If there is science backing it up and not rhetoric, I'm for one interested


----------



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> If there is science backing it up and not rhetoric, I'm for one interested



that's what I wanted to see as a reaction. Most people won't get a bachelor of physics just to understand how their guitar works, this guy does the job and condenses it into one hour (which is a very short lecture for me) so I figured, might as well profit.


----------



## JuliusJahn (Sep 19, 2014)

There was a discussion (an educated one!) on facebook about this. The issue with the physics route is that they dont consider the feedback of the vibrations of the wood back into the string that then DO effect the tone. Everyone sees a string + 2 anchors and not a block of tonewood. 

This video seems to sum it up well enough for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLxE8iDWD_w


----------



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

JuliusJahn said:


> There was a discussion (an educated one!) on facebook about this. The issue with the physics route is that they dont consider the feedback of the vibrations of the wood back into the string that then DO effect the tone. Everyone sees a string + 2 anchors and not a block of tonewood.



watch the video 

it's hilarious how many people are thinking "physics are wrong !" before they even watched the video I linked. watch it first, discuss later . it's an hour long, you shouldn't be commenting already


----------



## sehnomatic (Sep 19, 2014)

> consider the feedback of the vibrations of the wood back into the string that then DO effect the tone



By the same mentality of the tonewood and wave behavior, by yelling at a mahogany door, I'll sound deeper at the other end?


----------



## Church2224 (Sep 19, 2014)

I am going to grab my pop corn and some scotch, this is going to be a good one.


----------



## UC MisteryC (Sep 19, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> I am going to grab my pop corn and some scotch, this is going to be a good one.



Post this same topic on the MyLesPaul forum and you're in for an Oscar tier comedy.


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (Sep 19, 2014)

Church2224 said:


> I am going to grab my pop corn and some scotch, this is going to be a good one.




A shitstorm is incoming.


----------



## Nag (Sep 19, 2014)

it's been almost an hour, I think people can start reacting now


----------



## Chi (Sep 19, 2014)

Alright, this didn't turn out so bad after all.


----------



## TheHandOfStone (Sep 20, 2014)

Wait, so the argument is that electric guitars don't really amplify compression waves, so there is little opportunity for body wood to selectively emphasize frequencies within these waves to produce a signature tone?

It's a pretty good argument, but I can't believe I wasted 55 minutes of my life to hear it.


----------



## Dominoes282 (Sep 20, 2014)

I skimmed the video so I don't feel like I've heard enough of the argument, but in the beginning when he said "If you question science, you'd be a fool", I was put off a bit. If we didn't question science, how the hell would we have any progress in the world? Einstein challenged Newton and came up with relativity. Microchips are getting smaller and more powerful (well, at least they did in the past couple years) by reconfiguring equations. You get the point... Anyways, to someone who's watched the video, does he explain the difference in tone in regards to pickups? Like how the magnets could effect the sustain or tone? I've always been curious about that.


----------



## jwade (Sep 20, 2014)

I'm not going to sit through an hour long lecture. Is the video an argument that an electric guitar's sound *while amplified* has nothing to do with the wood? Or is this one of those 'You can use any wood in existence, they're all the same sound all the time' arguments?


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 20, 2014)

Would a solid steel guitar make the tone more metallic?


----------



## iamnoah262 (Sep 20, 2014)

Guy uses science to challenge tonewoods, guitar makers HATE him.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 20, 2014)

I am watching the video, but I am wondering if there is a measurement of "tone" that he missed. Looking at a spectral analyzer vs. measuring the amplitude of waves are both valid measurements of sound, but they measure different aspects of the sound.

I did catch that he already admitted that "real sound isn't like this" at 9:45 in the video in regard to the sound wave.

The word "tone" generally refers to the quality of sound, that is to say the overtones layered on the root note, which is the primary wave. Different densities of wood can absorb different frequencies before those frequencies reflect back to the strings. Those frequencies will not be picked up by an electric pickup. At 18 minutes into the video, he addresses timbre. It is frequencies produced by nodes, the timbre of the string, that is affected by absorption of groups of frequencies by different densities of wood.

Even though the pickup is detecting the vibration of the string, resonance passing through the bridge, frets, or nut pass directly into wood, which effectively acts as an energy sink. As he starts to actually explain at 22 minutes into the video, part of the sound is reflected back into the string.

At 24 minutes in, he explains that the wave is at the same frequency when reflected, which is true. He just misses the fact that some frequencies are absorbed by different density objects (tone woods).

He completely misses the idea that tone is the absence of some overtones/frequencies. 

At 28 mins, though I agree that the waves (whether sympathetic or inverse) cancel only momentarily and momentum/frequency is maintained, I will point out that he is wrong about no energy being lost. More accurately, some is changed to heat through friction (entropy). I will agree that part of the wave physics does not affect tone, just sustain.

At 29:48 he is right about the waves not cancelling each other, however, he does not address that the "natural frequency" (aka resonant frequency) of different densities of objects does affect amplitude of harmonic waves (the natural frequencies and nodes he addressed) affecting the string vibration at the point where the string passes through the magnetic field.

Stating that "tone" (quality/timbre) is not affected while sustain is affected seems to be a logical fallacy. If sustain of some harmonic waves is maintained by denser materials while the same harmonic waves are not as well maintained by softer materials, a chance in timber will be detectable.

At 37 minutes, he clearly states that the relation between velocity, frequency, and lamda (in his equation) does not address the wood at all.

At 28:57 he mentions complex waves, but does not address that the complexity of the wave IS exactly what most guitarist refer to as "tone". Yes, the waves act the same in all circumstances. It is only the absorption of some of those frequencies by the wood that causes the difference.

Let's say, for example, that an A at 110 Hz is also ringing harmonics at 220, 440, and 880 Hz. A softer wood, like mahogany, (a substance with its own resonant frequency) will resonate 220 more strongly than 880. Some of the harmonics at 880 will be reduced in amplitude due to change of energy to entropy. A very dense material that does not lose amplitude at 880 will sound "brighter" due to those frequencies not being lost.

I do applaud the video for trying to address the issue, but there is oversight in the conclusion.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 20, 2014)

It's late... I watched the whole video and started to read some of the comment replies to the video.

The guy in the video will give little to no consideration to the comments that the string is connected to wood that absorbs some frequencies, thereby changing the timbre at the string itself.

To evidentially show the difference, a snapshot of a single wave played on identical guitar strings mounted on drastically different densities of bodies would have to be placed side by side to see that there are differences in amplitudes of harmonics within a waveform. All it really takes for an audible difference is one material accentuating a second order harmonic while a different one accentuates a third order harmonic (by accentuate, I mean absorbing other harmonics more than) or something to that effect.


----------



## redstone (Sep 20, 2014)

It affects sustain therefore it affects tone. If your guitar doesn't sustain low mid frequencies, your pickups will hardly compensate for that. That's called Real Life Experience. Some people really need it. Math is to science what grammar is to philosophy, if you use false premises you're just a sophist.


----------



## Nag (Sep 20, 2014)

jwade said:


> I'm not going to sit through an hour long lecture. Is the video an argument that an electric guitar's sound *while amplified* has nothing to do with the wood? Or is this one of those 'You can use any wood in existence, they're all the same sound all the time' arguments?



He says that acoustic guitar and electric guitar don't work with the same type of wave, and yes he talks about the amplified sound. Nobody will tell you that unplugged electrics all sound the same regardless of wood because that's wrong 



TRENCHLORD said:


> Would a solid steel guitar make the tone more metallic?



He says it wouldn't, but you'd have a hell of a lot of sustain.



iamnoah262 said:


> Guy uses science to challenge tonewoods, guitar makers HATE him.



That's a constant in all of these videos. They're made by people who want you to know that manufacturers are selling you the idea of "tonewoods" for a lot of money. I didn't any difference between the 3 samples at the end, except MAYBE he didn't pick all the strings with the exact same strength.



Grindspine said:


> massive wall of text



I asked him some of what you mentioned. He said that while the wood will dampen the vibration, it's not frequency specific. So what he means is that the wood cancels a portion of the entire wave... and it won't cancel more low harmonics or more high harmonics (which I'd have expected).

Yes, he DID miss that part in his video. I mentioned to him that, like a true scientist, he defined all the terms that he uses... wave length, frequancy, velocity etc but he doesn't even define what "tone" means. He uses it as a synonym for "sound".



redstone said:


> It affects sustain therefore it affects tone. If your guitar doesn't sustain low mid frequencies, your pickups will hardly compensate for that. That's called Real Life Experience. Some people really need it. Math is to science what grammar is to philosophy, if you use false premises you're just a sophist.



Again, what he explained me in the comments is that decay (sustain) of a guitar isn't frequency specific. I have a hard time accepting that *sort of* and he didn't make a fancy explanation for THAT part.

Which is why I'd totally want to make this experiment : take a guitar neck, a loaded pickguard, a bridge, a pack of strings and load all the stuff on two different bodies that are *supposedly* polar opposites, like alder and mahogany. But good quality wood pieces, not some random crap you found in a pawn shop. and IF you actually end up with two sounds that are clearly different, ask this guy to explain you how that's possible.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Sep 20, 2014)

To summarize this thread: "I spent a lots a money on my fancy fly by night custom, so the wood HAS to have an effect!"


----------



## redstone (Sep 20, 2014)

I already did. There's no point arguing with that guy.. he doesn't want to know what's true.

Make sure that their acoustic tones are really different, whatever the woods shape price etc. There's only one myth about tonewoods : "X wood cannot sound like Y wood".


----------



## The Q (Sep 20, 2014)

Many thanks for the video.

I am a tonewood iconoclast. While I'd accept that one slab of wood may have a tiny effect on the vibration of the string compared to the other, the difference cannot be compared to the effect the strings, the pick and the pickups have on the sound. Plus, since no wood is truly homogenous, even 2 slabs from the same tree may manage to *e*ffect string dampening on a completely different manner.

Not that it matters anyway when you distort everything to hell and then mix with other instruments or do double and triple takes of a single track.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Nag (Sep 20, 2014)

The Q said:


> Many thanks for the video.
> 
> I am a tonewood iconoclast. While I'd accept that one slab of wood may have a tiny effect on the vibration of the string compared to the other, the difference cannot be compared to the effect the strings, the pick and the pickups have on the sound. Plus, since no wood is truly homogenous, even 2 slabs from the same tree may manage to *e*ffect string dampening on a completely different manner.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I think pretty much the same. if you look at ALL the stuff that goes on until you have a complete track, you could care less about the wood. As long as it's a good solid piece, I'm fine with it.


----------



## narad (Sep 20, 2014)

Dominoes282 said:


> I skimmed the video so I don't feel like I've heard enough of the argument, but in the beginning when he said "If you question science, you'd be a fool", I was put off a bit. If we didn't question science, how the hell would we have any progress in the world? Einstein challenged Newton and came up with relativity. Microchips are getting smaller and more powerful (well, at least they did in the past couple years) by reconfiguring equations. You get the point...



He means the scientific method. Incrementally refining theories in light of new evidence is not questioning science, it is science.


----------



## Church2224 (Sep 20, 2014)

All I know is all the materials Schecter Custom Shop keeps putting into my guitars keep working well, so they should keep doing what they do right to the woods. 

I could care less I just want the damn thing to sound good, look good and be durable.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

I haven't made it all the way through the video, but while reading through the comments I notice he doesn't ever mention overtones, he only deals with the fundamental tone. Pickups definitely pick up overtones, and that can effect the tone. He also claims electric guitar bodies are stationary objects, but a properly constructed guitar is going to vibrate with the strings, that's that resonance you feel and hear through the guitar. I'm not really up on phyics through, I only just passed my college physics class, so I can't really speak much to that aspect of it, but I will say that if your physics only take a narrow look at the subject you won't get a full picture and it's easy to make the math work in your favor.

Posted this comment on his video:



> +WillsEasyGuitar I worked at Collings Guitars for a while, and they were testing different ply constructions for hollow bodies while I was there. They had identically built guitars where the only difference was the plies. They had solid cores, so like a neck through as you say, yet each one sounded very different through a Fender tube amp's clean channel.
> 
> Your math seems to be very narrowly focused. Keeping it so narrow makes it easy to prove, but also means you leave out many variables. I notice you never once mention overtones, so I'd be curious if you ever took overtones into account? Overtones absolutely change with the material that the string is mounted to, and pickups do pick them up. Notes from guitars aren't just a fundamental tone.
> 
> Also, regarding your attitude on this medium... You seem to think that your science is infallible, but nothing in science is infallible, and hypothesis and theories can be and are modified all the time. You should never be so sure that you're right, as other evidence and theories can come along and disprove you. I don't really can't add anything physics-wise here, nor can I really disprove you as I'm just a guitar builder, not a physicist, just wanted to add my 2 cents. I can tell you that I've done things like body replacements where the neck didn't change and have heard the tonal difference (which is amplified by moderate distortion), but that's not science.&#65279;



This comment was in response to him talking about hollow bodies with solid cores not sounding any different than solid bodies... I only made it halfway through his video before turning it off.


----------



## sehnomatic (Sep 20, 2014)

Regardless of whether wood affects tone or not, we should just be gunning for what plays well and what looks good. Tone is a tailored element of instruments and is easier to change in comparison to playability and looks.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

sehnomatic said:


> Regardless of whether wood affects tone or not, we should just be gunning for what plays well and what looks good. Tone is a tailored element of instruments and is easier to change in comparison to playability and looks.



I agree, but it doesn't hurt to start from the proper base.


----------



## narad (Sep 20, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> Also, regarding your attitude on this medium... You seem to think that your science is infallible, but nothing in science is infallible, and hypothesis and theories can be and are modified all the time. You should never be so sure that you're right, as other evidence and theories can come along and disprove you. I don't really can't add anything physics-wise here, nor can I really disprove you as I'm just a guitar builder, not a physicist, just wanted to add my 2 cents. I can tell you that I've done things like body replacements where the neck didn't change and have heard the tonal difference (which is amplified by moderate distortion), but that's not science.&#65279;



That's just a bit ridiculous. I agree with your first point - realistically any attempt to analyze the physics of the electric guitar is going to leave out a few (hopefully unimportant) variables, and the breakdown in this video is certainly subject to those concerns. But the "nothing in science is infallible" card is a huge reach in this context because these are all well-studied principles and play fundamental roles in millions of technological advancements. So it isn't PhD physics, it's Physics 101. You'd have just as much luck revising the gravitational constant by studying kids jumping on the bed.


----------



## chopeth (Sep 20, 2014)

So, in case wood doesn't affect tone, the best guitar for me is the one made of ash or basswood because these woods are lighter than any other, right? (I have back issues)


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 20, 2014)

I don't really need science. I've played guitars made from "dark sounding woods" that were shrill as ...., even unplugged. I've played guitars made from "bright" sounding woods that were warm and dark. It didn't take me more than two seconds of contemplation to realize that you can't expect a guitar to sound a different way just on the wood type. 

I don't use wood type to determine what guitars I buy, unless it's for the looks. If it looks and/or sounds good, I buy it.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

narad said:


> That's just a bit ridiculous. I agree with your first point - realistically any attempt to analyze the physics of the electric guitar is going to leave out a few (hopefully unimportant) variables, and the breakdown in this video is certainly subject to those concerns. But the "nothing in science is infallible" card is a huge reach in this context because these are all well-studied principles and play fundamental roles in millions of technological advancements. So it isn't PhD physics, it's Physics 101. You'd have just as much luck revising the gravitational constant by studying kids jumping on the bed.



Scientific theories are modified and disproven all the time as the science improves or the community tests the theories. There is also personal bias that can effect the outcome or conclusion. Are you seriously disagreeing with that? Also, there wasn't much science in his video, there was just math. He hasn't tested his theory in any way, yet is confident enough to present it as fact. That's not scientific.


----------



## narad (Sep 20, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> Scientific theories are modified and disproven all the time as the science improves or the community tests the theories. There is also personal bias that can effect the outcome or conclusion. Are you seriously disagreeing with that?



Yes. There's a reason you can teach the first two years of a physics and calculus series using 40 year old books, and that's because while *some* scientific theories are "revised"*, foundational, well-studied principles are largely set in stone. To contribute something to these foundational results would be semi-miraculous, and while possible, is not plausible. 

Scientific theories are more frequently revised on the cusp of human understanding, and that's not where vibrating strings live (at least, not in the guitar sense).

And personal bias cannot affect the outcome or conclusion of a sound scientific experiment - that's the entire point of the scientific method.



ElysianGuitars said:


> Also, there wasn't much science in his video, there was just math. He hasn't tested his theory in any way.



The math _is_ a discussion of scientific principles. It's not some tangential monologue that has no bearing. While the end of the video sound bake-off could be analyzed in a more objective manner, I'm definitely confused as to what you would suggest he do in addition to building three identical "guitars" out of three different materials and performing some sort of listening test / spectral analysis.

*revised does not mean some equation is declared entirely mistake and stripped from all future work. That's just intentionally painting the scientific process in an unrealistic light to weaken his position.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

narad said:


> Yes. There's a reason you can teach the first two years of a physics and calculus series using 40 year old books, and that's because while *some* scientific theories are "revised"*, foundational, well-studied principles are largely set in stone. To contribute something to these foundational results would be semi-miraculous, and while possible, is not plausible.
> 
> Scientific theories are more frequently revised on the cusp of human understanding, and that's not where vibrating strings live (at least, not in the guitar sense).
> 
> ...



Where am I arguing that physics is going to change?  He's taken a very narrow focus on this, treating the string and the anchors as a closed system, unless I'm mistaken? There's a lot more to a guitar than a string and its anchors... His thought experiment certainly doesn't encompass everything, yet he's making claims as if it's fact.


----------



## Nag (Sep 20, 2014)

chopeth said:


> So, in case wood doesn't affect tone, the best guitar for me is the one made of ash or basswood because these woods are lighter than any other, right? (I have back issues)



That's a perfectly fine way to do it. You'll spend way more time dealing with your body than with your guitar anyway, there's a good reason ergonomic designs are so popular. I don't think I've heard Ola Strandberg ramble for hours about the woods he uses, he's much more into the PLAYING aspect than the SOUND aspect of guitar building.



Chokey Chicken said:


> I don't really need science. I've played guitars made from "dark sounding woods" that were shrill as ...., even unplugged. I've played guitars made from "bright" sounding woods that were warm and dark. It didn't take me more than two seconds of contemplation to realize that you can't expect a guitar to sound a different way just on the wood type.
> 
> I don't use wood type to determine what guitars I buy, unless it's for the looks. If it looks and/or sounds good, I buy it.



I mentioned it in the comments of the video... I think people just assumed alder is bright and mahogany is dark because they compared a strat and a les paul, and this is what they heard. But they probably overlooked scale length, construction method, pickup type etc because not everyone is very well-informed about these things.



ElysianGuitars said:


> Scientific theories are modified and disproven all the time as the science improves or the community tests the theories. There is also personal bias that can effect the outcome or conclusion. Are you seriously disagreeing with that? *Also, there wasn't much science in his video, there was just math*. He hasn't tested his theory in any way, yet is confident enough to present it as fact. That's not scientific.



So did you just say that math isn't science ? First off, you just insulted a soft spot of my butt, and second, physics are based on math, my friend. I've studied physics and engineering for two years and I've learnt (and mathematically proved) every single formula he uses in the video. All this stuff is verified. There's a difference between a conjecture and verified truths. This is what narad has been trying to tell you like half a dozen times now. The formulas he uses are all demonstrated and verified, they're not debatable anymore. Nothing he says in the video is wrong. What you'd need to do to prove this guy wrong is bring up something he forgot (like the overtones thing which he partially covered in the comments while talking to me, but that's really the only thing he didn't dissect and explain properly in the video).


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 20, 2014)

At around 10:30 into the video he teaches us that it takes 60 seconds for the second hand on a clock to make a full cycle. 

I feel smarter already.


----------



## leonardo7 (Sep 20, 2014)

Before I watch the entire vid, does he make any reference to the magnetic interaction between the pickups and strings? Cause thats where the tone is being translated. He even says himself in the beginning "this whole thing is about waves" and that hes referring to solid body guitars only. Where is the reference to electric guitars though? Forgive me if Im wrong but doesnt disregard for the electric/magnetic aspect make his point invalid if we are talking about electric guitars? I havent watched the whole thing so I dont know if he makes reference to the electrics and magnetics but if he doesnt then his argument has a whole other side to it that must be scientifically represented if hes saying that wood has no affect on tone in an electric guitar.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

Nagash said:


> So did you just say that math isn't science ?



Nope.


----------



## Nag (Sep 20, 2014)

leonardo7 said:


> Before I watch the entire vid, does he make any reference to the magnetic interaction between the pickups and strings? Cause thats where the tone is being translated. He even says himself in the beginning "this whole thing is about waves" and that hes referring to solid body guitars only. Where is the reference to electric guitars though? Forgive me if Im wrong but doesnt disregard for the electric/magnetic aspect make his point invalid if we are talking about electric guitars? I havent watched the whole thing so I dont know if he makes reference to the electrics or magnetics but if he doesnt then his argument has a whole other side to it that must be scientifically represented if hes saying that wood has no affect on tone in an electric guitar.



He does mention the pickups. Next time, watch the video before trying to discredit things you assume he forgot, but he didn't. 



ElysianGuitars said:


> Nope.


----------



## MisterE (Sep 20, 2014)

> Nothing he says in the video is wrong. What you'd need to do to prove this guy wrong is bring up something he forgot


What I would like him to do with his forulas is to explain how sustain works when playing an electric guitar loud.
Why you do some notes sustain and, if you move an inch, they'll stop.
So resonance is a huge influence. The wood resonates and amplifies some frequencies while dampening others. he doesn't take that into acount in his formulas.
Formulas are only good when applied properly.
If you disregard some parameters, you can prove anything.
I'm not a tonewood nut and IMHO the only piece of wood that can have any effect on the tone is that of the neck because it comes into direct contact with the string.


----------



## narad (Sep 20, 2014)

I'm going to be bald by the time this thread hits page 3 at the current rate at which I'm pulling my hair out.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 20, 2014)

Nagash said:


>



Only one who should be rolling his eyes is me. You asked a question, assumed the answer and went on an rant about it. Knee jerk reactions sure are fun.


----------



## TomAwesome (Sep 20, 2014)

Everything I was going to say was pretty much said already. Damn. He bothered to talk about resonance and how it does affect how waves are reflected back into the string, but then his equations didn't take it into account. He didn't even really actually address body wood at all except by saying, "It has no effect. Really." The only things he did address were that a given frequency going into a mass will be the same frequency when it comes back out, and that passing waves don't cancel each other out, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim differently. What we're left with is an otherwise nice explanation of what happens when a string vibrates that ultimately completely neglects what happens between the string and what it's anchored to. A video about body wood that ignores the body wood. I will admit, though, that I couldn't hear an appreciable difference between the clips at the end.


----------



## Jzbass25 (Sep 20, 2014)

Dominoes282 said:


> I skimmed the video so I don't feel like I've heard enough of the argument, but in the beginning when he said "If you question science, you'd be a fool", I was put off a bit. If we didn't question science, how the hell would we have any progress in the world? Einstein challenged Newton and came up with relativity. Microchips are getting smaller and more powerful (well, at least they did in the past couple years) by reconfiguring equations. You get the point... Anyways, to someone who's watched the video, does he explain the difference in tone in regards to pickups? Like how the magnets could effect the sustain or tone? I've always been curious about that.



If you question the science then you're actually a scientist, he speaks in absolutes and overlooks many details pertaining to the question. If he wrote a paper on this I could see him being torn to threads because of confounding variables.


----------



## leonardo7 (Sep 20, 2014)

Nagash said:


> He does mention the pickups. Next time, watch the video before trying to discredit things you assume he forgot, but he didn't.



OK I will, but what kind of world is this where I have to waste hours of my time watching videos that do nothing but try to scientifically disprove what I know to be true?


----------



## Eliguy666 (Sep 20, 2014)

> So did you just say that math isn't science ?



In the interest of fairness, math as a language is not a science, but a means to present it. The science is located in the discovery and testing of assertions in math.


----------



## JackPlaysIbanez (Sep 20, 2014)

Who gives a ...., tonewoods look pretty so lets keep building pretty looking guitars with them.


----------



## Nag (Sep 20, 2014)

JackPlaysIbanez said:


> Who gives a ...., tonewoods look pretty so lets keep building pretty looking guitars with them.




You're my bro now. 


and yes, like it's been said, the whole resonance and overtones things don't figure in his video. I was wondering if he had forgotten even more...


----------



## guitar4tw (Sep 20, 2014)

The difference is also much about feel and resonance, but it's also audible, but in the case of solidbody guitars the differences aren't going to be that big. 

But still, an all metal guitar would sound different to a wood guitar. Frequencies are just that - frequencies, and A is and A, but the coloration and timbre of the tone can differ almost endlessly. That's why an orchestra consist of different instruments and not just one instrument. You can hear the difference between a cello and a violin playing the same A at the same pitch, and of course much more easily the difference between a trumpet and a cello. 

And the same goes for guitars, after owning so many different ones made up of different woods (often having the same pickups) through the years I've been playing, the difference in sound is definitely something you notice between them, some combinations more than others of course.


----------



## The Q (Sep 20, 2014)

Orchestral instruments don't use magnetic pickups.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Sep 20, 2014)

Tonewoodites might burn you at the stake for this heretical thread, Nagash  Do not suggest the Tone Gods don't exist.


----------



## guitar4tw (Sep 20, 2014)

The Q said:


> Orchestral instruments don't use magnetic pickups.



Yeah you're right, but still just to put the point in extremes to make it clear again, a magnetic pickup in an all metal guitar would sound different than the same pickup in an all wood guitar. And the same goes in a much lesser extent to woods - an all mahogany guitar will sound different to an all maple guitar. Watching an hour long video trying to disprove this is completely unnecessary because experience shows beyond doubt that it's true. The signal it puts out will be colored slightly differently, which again makes the amp respond differently. And everything can't be EQed either. Adding more bass on the amp to compensate between two different guitars doesn't necessarily just add "bass", but can make the bottom end more loose etc.

But whatever, the people who laugh at this can just go ahead and create the first maintenance free, all-plastic guitar and have fun with it. The reason this doesn't feel tempting to most of us doesn't just have to do with sound, but also the intangible subject of aesthetics and feelings, which of course also play a huge part in all of this...


----------



## Zulphur (Sep 20, 2014)

Nagash said:


> Which is why I'd totally want to make this experiment : take a guitar neck, a loaded pickguard, a bridge, a pack of strings and load all the stuff on two different bodies that are *supposedly* polar opposites, like alder and mahogany. But good quality wood pieces, not some random crap you found in a pawn shop. and IF you actually end up with two sounds that are clearly different, ask this guy to explain you how that's possible.



This is exactly the type of experiments that needs to be done to clarify all of this. Just changing the body and keeping everthing else, same electronics , pickup height and pickup position on the body (same construction)
Still waiting for a video like this to pop up. I think there are similar experiments like that on video but not precisely done this way.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 20, 2014)

guitar4tw said:


> Yeah you're right, but still just to put the point in extremes to make it clear again, a magnetic pickup in an all metal guitar would sound different than the same pickup in an all wood guitar. And the same goes in a much lesser extent to woods - an all mahogany guitar will sound different to an all maple guitar. Watching an hour long video trying to disprove this is completely unnecessary because experience shows beyond doubt that it's true. The signal it puts out will be colored slightly differently, which again makes the amp respond differently. And everything can't be EQed either. Adding more bass on the amp to compensate between two different guitars doesn't necessarily just add "bass", but can make the bottom end more loose etc.
> 
> But whatever, the people who laugh at this can just go ahead and create the first maintenance free, all-plastic guitar and have fun with it. The reason this doesn't feel tempting to most of us doesn't just have to do with sound, but also the intangible subject of aesthetics and feelings, which of course also play a huge part in all of this...



I actually have an acrylic guitar. It doesn't sound drastically different than any of the wood guitars I own. Weighs a ....ing ton though. Oddly enough, even it isn't excessively bright like a lot of people tend to claim. (Though the shit pickups do color the sound to make it sound bright.)


----------



## Eliguy666 (Sep 20, 2014)

> *supposedly* polar opposites, like alder and mahogany.



Actually, alder is an awful comparison wood for anything for that, because it's supposed to be super neutral, leaning a bit towards warm, like basswood. What you'd want to do is find a super-heavy, undried piece of mahogany or walnut (brighter, but without much upper-high content at all, and very nasal) with something incredibly bright like ebony or maple for a body.


----------



## RunawayThumbtack (Sep 20, 2014)

I posted this, and the video maker called me some fun names about it, but if strings really are all that makes the sound, then how come I can take the strings off of a guitar, rest my chin on it, hum, and hear it? (No, my JB isn't microphonic.)

The wood and strings are dynamically coupled, and his physics just aren't detailed enough to capture the details of what's going on.

Besides, the three sound samples he recorded sound different from one another...he seems to have deleted my comment where I said how so.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 21, 2014)

RunawayThumbtack said:


> I posted this, and the video maker called me some fun names about it, but if strings really are all that makes the sound, then how come I can take the strings off of a guitar, rest my chin on it, hum, and hear it? (No, my JB isn't microphonic.)
> 
> The wood and strings are dynamically coupled, and his physics just aren't detailed enough to capture the details of what's going on.
> 
> Besides, the three sound samples he recorded sound different from one another...he seems to have deleted my comment where I said how so.



Exactly


----------



## frahmans (Sep 21, 2014)

Zulphur said:


> This is exactly the type of experiments that needs to be done to clarify all of this. Just changing the body and keeping everthing else, same electronics , pickup height and pickup position on the body (same construction)
> Still waiting for a video like this to pop up. I think there are similar experiments like that on video but not precisely done this way.



I think Rob Chapman and Lee Anderton from chapman guitars did a video showing the difference in tone wood with all else equal. Even then, it did not make others happy and added more fuel to an already hot fire.


----------



## Bisky (Sep 21, 2014)

Rob Chapman sells guitars for a living so I'm not sure I would take his word for it. If tonewoods changed the tone of an electric guitar somebody at Gibson would have already posted the physics and testing proving it.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 21, 2014)

Bisky said:


> Rob Chapman sells guitars for a living so I'm not sure I would take his word for it. If tonewoods changed the tone of an electric guitar somebody at Gibson would have already posted the physics and testing proving it.



If I could use cheaper materials on guitars I would. No one will buy an MDF or plywood guitar because it will sound like crap.


----------



## JSanta (Sep 21, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> If I could use cheaper materials on guitars I would. No one will buy an MDF or plywood guitar because it will sound like crap.



I'm not a luthier, but when you say plywood do you mean the stuff that you can pick up at home depot or the laminates that are used by hundreds of luthiers? No one is going to argue that Bob Benedetto's line of laminates sound like crap. Additionally, Flaxwood Guitars are essentially a wood pulp and glue hybrid that is actually really nice. 

Neither of these are cheap either, excellent quality plywood body blanks can cost hundreds of dollars when purchased through builders like Steve Holst.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 21, 2014)

JSanta said:


> I'm not a luthier, but when you say plywood do you mean the stuff that you can pick up at home depot or the laminates that are used by hundreds of luthiers? No one is going to argue that Bob Benedetto's line of laminates sound like crap. Additionally, Flaxwood Guitars are essentially a wood pulp and glue hybrid that is actually really nice.
> 
> Neither of these are cheap either, excellent quality plywood body blanks can cost hundreds of dollars when purchased through builders like Steve Holst.



Just saying I'd love to be able to build out of cheaper materials and have the guitars sound good. That's not the reality though.


----------



## Chokey Chicken (Sep 21, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> If I could use cheaper materials on guitars I would. No one will buy an MDF or plywood guitar because it will sound like crap.



They wouldn't sound like crappy though. It's just the artificially inflated importance of tone woods that make people think that expensive great cuts of wood do anything worthwhile. Legit, I have paulonia (sp?) Bodies that are cheaper than dirt and they sound great. 

It feels cheap though, which may be a reason to shy away from things like it. The guitars I have made from the stuff sort of feel like toys, but they still sound good. Maybe I'll record a demo track with one when I get home from work.


----------



## Prophetable (Sep 21, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> If I could use cheaper materials on guitars I would. No one will buy an MDF or plywood guitar because it will sound like crap.



I refinished an 80s Kramer made from plywood. It was a pain to fill and smooth the ends of board but once it was complete it sounded just fine. You would have never guessed it was plywood under that paint.


----------



## Edika (Sep 21, 2014)

I saw the video out of curiosity just to see what the guy had to say and was expecting much more to be honest. I should point out that I'm not for or against tonewoods as I don't have enough evidence to prove or disprove what effect they might have. The components of an electric guitar and the fact that the vibrational energy of a string is being converted to electricity through a magnetic field instead of sound waves being amplified on the sound box of a guitar by bouncing around the walls of the wood and being amplified thus creating the timbre of the instrument, do suggest that the wood of the solidbody guitar is irrelevant. 

What I can say from his video is that he proved that the fundamental frequency of a wave is not altered by the medium. That is a high school physics or first year university explanation and while it is correct it doesn't address other factors on that would create the timbre, or tone if you would like, of the instrument. Because all that differentiation of the perfect wave is what gives an instrument it's unique sound. Resonance doesn't play a role only to the sustain of a note. So actually the waveform should be expressed as a sum of various frequencies that would affect the amplitude of the wave in various regions but still have a fundamental frequency that gives you the note.

Now if the wood of the guitar plays a role and how big that is in a solid body guitar, that I can't tell you as it will require calculations and testing that I don't have the means or real desire to do at the moment. I am sure that the strings, pickups, electronics and amplifier play the biggest role in the electric guitar sound but there are some aspects that might give an idea of the role of a solid body in shaping the final sound. One thing to consider is the fact energy is being transferred mainly to the bridge, nut and tuners of the guitar but some of it moves through the wood with different speeds, goes back to the bridge and nut and has a complex interaction with the waves travelling through the bridge and then is released on to the strings. Since the magnetic field of a pickup is not extremely strong and at a certain distance from the strings, a vibrating body would vibrate the pickup itself, thus altering the interaction of the magnetic field with the vibrating string. Let's not also forget that the strings are not vibrating perfectly perpendicular to a string but in a three dimensional ellipsoidal pattern.

TL;DR: I'm not saying he's wrong but he is over simplifying a quite complex phenomenon of the timbre of an instrument and confusing it with the fundamental frequency of a note. Still doesn't mean that tonewood is the biggest or maybe even a factor at all in solid body guitars but his explanation doesn't prove much.

EDIT: And tonewoods are just beautiful so aesthetically it has an impact .


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 21, 2014)

Edika said:


> I saw the video out of curiosity just to see what the guy had to say and was expecting much more to be honest. I should point out that I'm not for or against tonewoods as I don't have enough evidence to prove or disprove what effect they might have. The components of an electric guitar and the fact that the vibrational energy of a string is being converted to electricity through a magnetic field instead of sound waves being amplified on the sound box of a guitar by bouncing around the walls of the wood and being amplified thus creating the timbre of the instrument, do suggest that the wood of the solidbody guitar is irrelevant.
> 
> What I can say from his video is that he proved that the fundamental frequency of a wave is not altered by the medium. That is a high school physics or first year university explanation and while it is correct it doesn't address other factors on that would create the timbre, or tone if you would like, of the instrument. Because all that differentiation of the perfect wave is what gives an instrument it's unique sound. Resonance doesn't play a role only to the sustain of a note. So actually the waveform should be expressed as a sum of various frequencies that would affect the amplitude of the wave in various regions but still have a fundamental frequency that gives you the note.
> 
> ...



I don't think many will say that the wood is the biggest factor, it's a pretty small factor, but in the overall package it does matter, in my opinion.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 21, 2014)

Prophetable said:


> I refinished an 80s Kramer made from plywood. It was a pain to fill and smooth the ends of board but once it was complete it sounded just fine. You would have never guessed it was plywood under that paint.



I had an old Series 10 that was plywood, and nothing would get that thing to not sound like a turd  Pickups didn't matter, it was just a turd of an instrument.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 21, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> I don't think many will say that the wood is the biggest factor, it's a pretty small factor, but in the overall package it does matter, in my opinion.





Quality and construction, scale length, bridge and nut type/material, pickups, and strings (that one gets overlooked a lot, for some reason). But some guitars just sound dead no matter what you do to them, and I think wood has something to do with that.

Though it's interesting to see that more and more people are realizing that characterizing species of woods with certain sounds doesn't really make sense (though the vast majority of guitarists still seem to think this way)


----------



## Eliguy666 (Sep 21, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> Quality and construction, scale length, bridge and nut type/material, pickups, and strings (that one gets overlooked a lot, for some reason). But some guitars just sound dead no matter what you do tho them, and I think wood has something to do with that.



Very much agree with this. A bad set of strings can make anything sound bad, and a lot of people are playing dropped beyond what's safe in their scale length inharmonicity-wise.

As to species vs specimen characteristics, it can really matter on the species and the individual piece. More homogenous woods like spruces or ebonies will generally sound consistent throughout specimens, but there are more types of mahogany and rosewood than reasonable to expect, and even then a ton of variation within species (I've handled a mahogany denser than any maple or walnut I've encountered).


----------



## Edika (Sep 21, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> I don't think many will say that the wood is the biggest factor, it's a pretty small factor, but in the overall package it does matter, in my opinion.



Judging by all the guitars made with let's say by Jackson with OFR's by Schaller, CTS pots, Floyd locking nuts, Jackson tuners, whatever 09 gauge strings they put stock and SD JB and 59 at 25.5' I'd say that soloists don't sound identical between them as well as King Vs and RRs. Jackson enthusiasts in this thread can attest to that. You might argue that there are variations in all those materials but industrial manufacturing has quite tight margins of value before they scrap a product and I assume they test their products before packaging and shipping. That would usually be below 1%. If so little can have such difference in tone/timbre then why not wood?


----------



## Nag (Sep 21, 2014)

Captain Butterscotch said:


> Tonewoodites might burn you at the stake for this heretical thread, Nagash  Do not suggest the Tone Gods don't exist.




Honestly, this thread has given me two things :
- intelligent and interesting arguments for and against the video and the tonewood debate in general. We're talking science for once, discussing facts and backing them up, finding omissions in the logic of the video etc. I love learning things and threads like this are very informative as long as they don't turn into a shitstorm, which I think I've mostly avoided so far.
- the most hilarious neg rep I've had so far. I love people . Disclaimer for the mods : I'm not bitching about rep here, I LOVE getting butthurt neg rep, it's a silent way of telling me I did something right


----------



## AndrewG716 (Sep 21, 2014)

After watching the video and reading the comments, this is my take on the situation:

He assumes that the nut, bridge and pickup are stationary. In a comment he states that "The nut is stationary for all practical purposes. it doesn't move enough to alter the timbre. half of zero is still zero. a neck can move as you say if it is made poorly or composed of springs made of nerf products."

I haven't looked, but I doubt that research into the matter has been done. Just how much the parts of a given guitar vibrate relative to the strings will of course affect the tone. Given that these effects were not neglected, some of the system variables would become functions of the structure and properties of the guitar, as well as time. "Wood does not show up in the equations" would then not be true.

So after watching the entire video to see how he deals with the flexibility of the guitar, I think we have returned to square one. We can say that the structure and properties of a guitar affect the tone, but from practical experience we know that the effects are often negligible, and are dwarfed by everything else that goes into an electric guitar's sound.


----------



## cardinal (Sep 21, 2014)

^ I guess I'm not sure what he means by "stationary for all practical purposes," but anyone who's struggled with a guitar with dead notes knows that the neck and body are resonating as the strings vibrate. You can find pretty good papers looking at how the neck and body resonate:

http://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/mitarbeiter/ehem-mitarbeiter/hfleischer/deadspots-en

The vibrations have very practical consequences because they can kill the sustain of notes at particular frequencies. It seems reasonable to me that these vibrations also can impact the timbre of notes by canceling certain overtones etc. But do particular species of wood tend to have characteristics that tend to result in what people call tone wood?


----------



## AndrewG716 (Sep 21, 2014)

cardinal said:


> ^ I guess I'm not sure what he means by "stationary for all practical purposes," but anyone who's struggled with a guitar with dead notes knows that the neck and body are resonating as the strings vibrate. You can find pretty good papers looking at how the neck and body resonate:
> 
> http://www.unibw.de/lrt4/mechanik/mitarbeiter/ehem-mitarbeiter/hfleischer/deadspots-en
> 
> The vibrations have very practical consequences because they can kill the sustain of notes at particular frequencies. It seems reasonable to me that these vibrations also can impact the timbre of notes by canceling certain overtones etc. But do particular species of wood tend to have characteristics that tend to result in what people call tone wood?



Thanks for the link. For anyone who hasn't read it, it basically states that the flexibility of a guitar neck is not negligible and can affect the vibrations of the strings.

The question then becomes, as you say, about whether or not small differences in the properties of the structure, which already have a relatively small contribution to the overall sound (given typical electric guitar construction) are perceptible or quantifiable?

This is the original tonewood debate.

EDIT: The paper does note that body/bridge/pickup vibration is much less than neck/nut vibration. Most tonewood talk I've seen focuses on body woods, even though it appears that the properties of the neck have a much larger influence.


----------



## RunawayThumbtack (Sep 21, 2014)

AndrewG716 said:


> Most tonewood talk I've seen focuses on body woods, even though it appears that the properties of the neck have a much larger influence.



Agreed--the neck materials selection is critical.


----------



## Fretless (Sep 22, 2014)

ElysianGuitars said:


> If I could use cheaper materials on guitars I would. No one will buy an MDF or plywood guitar because it will sound like crap.



Build me a MDF or plywood fan fret 30" bass VI and I'd rock it!

Back on topic, what needs to be done is: Take multiple blocks (and a few repeating blocks) of wood and shape them in the same way with the grain lining up in the same manner, route a mounting hole for pickups in the same spot in all the wood blocks (swapping the pickup between each block after each take of recording), take something like a speaker to mount to the body of the wood to vibrate the wood (like the example earlier where the dude was humming on his guitar) , run the results of recording a frequency sweep (that way the recording is equal each time) through a program like izotope that can map the resulting EQ curve. If they're all the exact same, then tonewood would be debunked as far as that test goes, but if the resulting EQ curves vary even slightly, then that suggests there is such as thing as tonewood.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 22, 2014)

I am entertained by the fact that I was quoted as "massive wall of text".

Regarding the ideas of tone & sustain. I am making a sematic jump here, but perhaps the definitions are getting blurred between the two. If maple and ebony "sustain" more than a basswood ply guitar, is that what many of us call "brighter"?

I do strongly question the idea that the wood dampens all frequencies identically. Recalling some statistics on ear plugs, certain ear plug materials dampen high frequencies more than low frequencies. An example of this can be seen here.

Etymotic Research, Inc. - ETY?Plugs® (ER?20) High Fidelity Earplugs

Considering that wood is porous, even though it is more dense than foam, I posit that different densities of wood, like differing densities of foam, do dampen different frequencies by different levels.

If the above statement is true, the reflection of the wave back into the string would be frequency modified, thereby confirming a link between wood density and waveforms transferring to the pickups.


----------



## Edika (Sep 22, 2014)

I haven't read up on wave physics in a while so I knew the dude had forgotten to address one important factor in the creation of a waveform, that is especially complex, in an instrument and the interaction of overtones and harmonics. That is the phase changes in waves traveling through other mediums and being reflected or appearing to other contributions. I am posting a link that has a quite simple explanation and representation of the effects of phase on the amplitude of a wave and the perceived sound from an individual:

Waveforms: Adding waveforms and Phase

Again I don't know what the effect of the solid body will have on the sound but what AndrewG716 says makes sense and would affect it somewhat.

For the most adventurous and somewhat knowledgeable in wave physics (or people that have some background and want to learn a few more things about wave physics) here are a couple of links that have a more robust description of waves. This is what I was expecting more or less when I opened the youtube vid:

http://hep.ph.liv.ac.uk/~hutchcroft/Phys258/CN1WaveEquation.pdf
http://phyweb.phys.soton.ac.uk/quantum/lectures/waves4.pdf


----------



## cardinal (Sep 22, 2014)

We know that neck vibrations selectively dampen certain frequencies (dead spots, see the article linked above). And in some ways that frequencies does seem consistent (many Strats have a deadspot at the G string, 12th fret, certain Fender basses has a problem that's always in the same spot). But is that due to the wood type or more a result of the construction? Probably a bit of both (a tweak to the construction or to stiffen the neck can help).


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 22, 2014)




----------



## Grindspine (Sep 22, 2014)

Regarding the Etymotics Ear Plug page that shows frequency specific dampening of sound, WillsEasyGuitar replied:



> you are confusing sound waves with transverse waves. transverse waves loose signal across the board. you don't have to take my word for it, read a physics textbook on wave behavior and you will see I am correct.


 
I have replied:


> With a guitar, aren't we talking about sound (compression) waves being transferred from string to wood, and vice-versa (reflections)? Though the visual interpretation on an oscilloscope appears as a transverse wave, it is a translation of a compression wave moving through matter.
> 
> In the Etymotic page referenced above, dampening is shown as being frequency specific. From what I can tell, frequencies (in a sound wave) transferred through matter in a guitar and transferred through matter in an earplug have common behavior


 
I am sure, at this point, that he is confusing transverse waves with compression waves. Compression waves (like sound) are complex waves that do show frequency modification through varying mediums.

This, with reflection back into the string, results in modification of the wave that will be passed through the magnetic pickup.

Conclusion: Dampening of some frequencies can affect the waveform passed into the magnetic pickup.

Waves can be modified, but the extent of modification varies greatly. Objectively, with the right equipment, particularly a tone generator and oscilloscope, quantitative measurement should be able to provide evidence of some difference in physical response between different densities of wood.


----------



## ZeroTolerance94 (Sep 22, 2014)

So... if the strings were made of wood, would the _electric _guitar still work?


----------



## fool (Sep 22, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> So... if the strings were made of wood, would the _electric _guitar still work?



no.


----------



## Fretless (Sep 22, 2014)

ZeroTolerance94 said:


> So... if the strings were made of wood, would the _electric _guitar still work?



Wood is non magnetic, so no. However get some lightly wood wrapped iron core strings and they will.


----------



## notasian (Sep 22, 2014)

i almost died when he said now obviously a bridge made of steel will resonate better than... uhh macaroni and cheese hahahahahahahahahaha anyway its funny because i recently watched rob chapmans vid that says proof that tonewoods affect tones lol i love heated debates on youtube. can u say butthurt???

PROOF - Wood Affects Electric Guitar Tone - Chapman "Special Run" Swamp Ash ML-1 - YouTube


----------



## Jzbass25 (Sep 22, 2014)

Why do we have these threads the answer is yes it does affect tone but imo it's to an overstated (and understated) extent on the internet. Also people classify tones by wood species which is an imperfect system since the physical properties that changes the physics will be different from cut to cut.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Sep 22, 2014)

So like, if wood doesn't affect tone, how come they sound different? Serious Q, don't hate... (or do, w/evs)


----------



## Nag (Sep 22, 2014)

notasian said:


> i almost died when he said now obviously a bridge made of steel will resonate better than... uhh macaroni and cheese hahahahahahahahahaha anyway its funny because i recently watched rob chapmans vid that says proof that tonewoods affect tones lol i love heated debates on youtube. can u say butthurt???
> 
> PROOF - Wood Affects Electric Guitar Tone - Chapman "Special Run" Swamp Ash ML-1 - YouTube



That video is too easy to criticize. They use two different guitars, not one set of parts they mount on two different bodies. And they don't even use the same player.



Jzbass25 said:


> Why do we have these threads the answer is yes it does affect tone but imo it's to an overstated (and understated) extent on the internet. Also people classify tones by wood species which is an imperfect system since the physical properties that changes the physics will be different from cut to cut.



Well yes it's overstated like crazy. I do agree with many things he says in the video, I like how many things we found in this thread that he forgot in the video... for me, the wood matters, but NOT because of what people usually say. And not to the extent people usually believe.



Yo_Wattup said:


> So like, if wood doesn't affect tone, how come they sound different? Serious Q, don't hate... (or do, w/evs)


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Sep 22, 2014)

I'm of the school of thought that you can't count on wood type to determine the sound you'll get. Yeah, if you play an ash guitar it'll sound different compared to a mahogany guitar, but if you play ten ash guitars back to back, they'll all sound different too.

I'm also debating making guitars out of cheap as .... materials just for the experience of building guitars. I own several guitars made out of cheap crap woods/materials, and they sound fine, even if they do feel rather toyish. I'm never going to drop big bucks on fancy wood unless it just looks nice. You're wasting your money otherwise. 

Each piece of wood will just sound different. That's a huge reason it's best to try a guitar before you buy it.

I won't tell anyone else what guitar to buy or how to make that choice. But I can't help buy laugh when people ask "what kind of pickup should I get for my mahogany guitar?" A better question is "my guitar sounds very bright/dark/etc. What pickup tames *insert undesirable frequency here* while maybe adding a bit more *insert desired frequency here*.?"


----------



## pondman (Sep 22, 2014)

Beating a deceased horse with a stick creates tone but its all reliant on what the stick is made of. The horse doesn't hear or have an opinion for obvious reasons


----------



## Eliguy666 (Sep 22, 2014)

From personal experience: always judge the piece of wood itself rather than the species. While some trends generally do hold true as whole species, biodiversity in a single species can make a bigger difference than a species difference.
As a whole, wood really does seem to affect tone, but not in ways easy to describe. The words used to describe tone are overcomplicated and misunderstood, too, which makes it difficult to classify things accurately.


----------



## asher (Sep 22, 2014)

pondman said:


> Beating a deceased horse with a stick creates tone but the its all reliant on what the stick is made of. The horse doesn't hear or have an opinion for obvious reasons


 

Dude, you're just opening a huge can of worms here about decay levels, presence of formaldehyde, Egyptian style, etc. Don't do it!!!


----------



## jwade (Sep 22, 2014)

Not to mention the differing bone densities of horses living in different altitudes/climates.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 23, 2014)

pondman said:


> Beating a deceased horse with a stick creates tone but the its all reliant on what the stick is made of. The horse doesn't hear or have an opinion for obvious reasons


 


For the tone!


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 23, 2014)

> Yeah, if you play an ash guitar it'll sound different compared to a mahogany guitar, but if you play ten ash guitars back to back, they'll all sound different too.



/thread


----------



## ElRay (Sep 23, 2014)

Show me one double blind study where the listeners accurately say, "That's a mahogany body with a bolt-on 5-ply Maple and rosewood neck and an ebony freeboard and stainless steel frets.", and I'll agree to the concept of tonewood. Until then, it's just voodoo.

I won't argue that one piece of wood will sound different than another, but there's no evidence that the whole predictable sound based on species of wood is anything more than mythology.

/thread


----------



## The Q (Sep 23, 2014)

I had found this in the past: Can You Tell The Difference??? ASH vs. ALDER | TalkBass.com yet the clips had been deleted before I visited the thread.

Even though the clips aren't there, some of the reactions from people that guessed wrong were incredibly infantile, which is a strong indication (if not proof) that personal bias is not an unimportant factor in these things.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 23, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Show me one double blind study where the listeners accurately say, "That's a mahogany body with a bolt-on 5-ply Maple and rosewood neck and an ebony freeboard and stainless steel frets.", and I'll agree to the concept of tonewood. Until then, it's just voodoo.


Monty Python- Déjà Vu - YouTube


----------



## narad (Sep 23, 2014)

This is not exactly the same -- as the focus was not on the wood combo - but there was also a TGP listening test which had a slew of guitars - I believe they were at least one Gustavsson Bluesmaster, a PRS DGT, a 60s ES-335, and possibly a Ruokangas or Artinger. We're mostly talking the same kinds of woods there, but everything else was a toss up - tunomatic vs. trem vs. wraparound / solid vs. chambered vs. hollow / IRW vs. BRW / and fancy old mahogany vs. new production line mahogany / $1800 vs. $10k+. A whole slew of different PAFy pickups. And basically everyone had their own favorite and people were generally pretty terrible at picking out which was which. 

I don't really know what the take-home point is there, only that all these aspects of guitars that are obsessed over to the most minute of details will ultimately make little difference on a recording. Still, for me the enjoyment of guitar is often something I find in the feel of playing and the in-room sound, not what comes out of studio monitors, so I'll continue to be wrapped up in all these debates. I certainly cannot tell any appreciable difference in those clips at the end of OP's video.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 23, 2014)

ElRay said:


> Show me one double blind study where the listeners accurately say, "That's a mahogany body with a bolt-on 5-ply Maple and rosewood neck and an ebony freeboard and stainless steel frets.", and I'll agree to the concept of tonewood. Until then, it's just voodoo.
> 
> I won't argue that one piece of wood will sound different than another, but there's no evidence that the whole predictable sound based on species of wood is anything more than mythology.
> 
> /thread



You can't even get that with the Pepsi vs Coke challenge.


----------



## Nag (Sep 23, 2014)

So we've reached the funny part of the discussion : the video says wood never affects tone, the community says wood affects tone but it's never 100% predictable. Weird, isn't it ?

I love these things


----------



## redstone (Sep 23, 2014)

Why is that funny and weird ? The community's right ^^ (it happens sometimes)


----------



## Alex Kenivel (Sep 23, 2014)

ElRay said:


> I won't argue that one piece of wood will sound different than another, but there's no evidence that the whole predictable sound based on species of wood is anything more than mythology.
> 
> /thread


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 23, 2014)

redstone said:


> The community's right ^^ (it happens sometimes)


How's the community right with nobody agreeing with each other?


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 23, 2014)

Nagash said:


> So we've reached the funny part of the discussion : the video says wood never affects tone, the community says wood affects tone but it's never 100% predictable. Weird, isn't it ?
> 
> I love these things


 
My hypothesis is that wood density greatly affects tone more than specific specie of wood. I don't have the gear to quantitatively test this. 

This would explain why many players feel that a certain wood sounds different in a certain way. As a broad generalization, chunks of ash are generally lighter than maple, so some prediction of density (therefore affect on frequency absorption) can be guessed when selecting the wood.


----------



## Randy (Sep 23, 2014)

Scientifically speaking, this guy's delivery is unlistenable and he sounds like a self-righteous twat. 

Not everybody has 55 minutes to sit through something and remember all points by the time they get to the end. FFS, the video doesn't even need to be that long but he prattles on and on about inconsequential shit instead of just getting on with it.


----------



## jwade (Sep 23, 2014)

I'd like to build two guitars, identical aside from the neck wood used. They'd both be say...mahogany bodies with ebony fingerboards, one with a maple neck, the other a mahogany neck. Both would be bolt on, fixed bridge, the same scale length (probably 25.5") and the exact same hardware/pots/solder/glue/etc. I'd rout for a single coil at the neck, a humbucker at the bridge, and once it's all wired up run it through both a DI & a nice basic tube amp with everything set to 12 o clock (obviously, using the exact same pickups wired in the exact same way for the second guitar). I fully expect that it would sound quite different, but in the interest of providing a more concrete test than most of the other various 'tonewood' oriented videos.

_*EDIT* I suppose it'd make more sense to just build two necks and use the same body, thereby negating any need to solder/unsolder to install in a different body.
_
To me, that would provide a significantly more conclusive setting than the majority of these videos of so-called 'scientists' babbling about unrelated b.s.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 23, 2014)

jwade said:


> I'd like to build two guitars, identical aside from the neck wood used. They'd both be say...mahogany bodies with ebony fingerboards, one with a maple neck, the other a mahogany neck. Both would be bolt on, fixed bridge, the same scale length (probably 25.5") and the exact same hardware/pots/solder/glue/etc. I'd rout for a single coil at the neck, a humbucker at the bridge, and once it's all wired up run it through both a DI & a nice basic tube amp with everything set to 12 o clock (obviously, using the exact same pickups wired in the exact same way for the second guitar). I fully expect that it would sound quite different, but in the interest of providing a more concrete test than most of the other various 'tonewood' oriented videos.
> 
> _*EDIT* I suppose it'd make more sense to just build two necks and use the same body, thereby negating any need to solder/unsolder to install in a different body.
> _
> To me, that would provide a significantly more conclusive setting than the majority of these videos of so-called 'scientists' babbling about unrelated b.s.




Taken one step further, it could be as simple as just taking a plank of mahogany/maple/walnut/whatever other tonewoods (or even just different pieces of the same wood) and mounting a bridge, nut, and pickups on them, and recording samples with each. Use a spectrum analyzer to see the differences, and use the recordings in a double blind study to see if anyone can even hear the differences, let alone describe them.


----------



## jwade (Sep 23, 2014)

That doesn't mean anything to real people though, if it's not a proper guitar, people will argue. If it's just a big square plank, it won't matter what the results are, people will bitch.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 23, 2014)

jwade said:


> That doesn't mean anything to real people though, if it's not a proper guitar, people will argue. If it's just a big square plank, it won't matter what the results are, people will bitch.



Well said hypothetical people clearly don't understand the scientific process then, and if the subject of debate is if tonewoods affect tone; then the only variable allowed in the experiment should be tonewood. 

*somewhere in a gibson forum*
"Guys which guitar shape gives me a warmer midrange?"


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 23, 2014)

Somebody PM me when they've worked out the math behind "mojo".


----------



## UC MisteryC (Sep 23, 2014)

jwade said:


> people will bitch.



Yup. Give a sample regardless of which side of the debate it favors, and people will cry in increasing severity whenever new points arise: "BS, you didn't play all of the strings" then "BS, you didn't compare all of the notes" then "BS, you didn't play chords" then "BS, bad equipment, bad strings, bad wood, this variable, that variable".


----------



## Randy (Sep 23, 2014)

jwade said:


> I'd like to build two guitars, identical aside from the neck wood used. They'd both be say...mahogany bodies with ebony fingerboards, one with a maple neck, the other a mahogany neck. Both would be bolt on, fixed bridge, the same scale length (probably 25.5") and the exact same hardware/pots/solder/glue/etc. I'd rout for a single coil at the neck, a humbucker at the bridge, and once it's all wired up run it through both a DI & a nice basic tube amp with everything set to 12 o clock (obviously, using the exact same pickups wired in the exact same way for the second guitar). I fully expect that it would sound quite different, but in the interest of providing a more concrete test than most of the other various 'tonewood' oriented videos.
> 
> _*EDIT* I suppose it'd make more sense to just build two necks and use the same body, thereby negating any need to solder/unsolder to install in a different body.
> _
> To me, that would provide a significantly more conclusive setting than the majority of these videos of so-called 'scientists' babbling about unrelated b.s.





Mik3D23 said:


> Taken one step further, it could be as simple as just taking a plank of mahogany/maple/walnut/whatever other tonewoods (or even just different pieces of the same wood) and mounting a bridge, nut, and pickups on them, and recording samples with each. Use a spectrum analyzer to see the differences, and use the recordings in a double blind study to see if anyone can even hear the differences, let alone describe them.




To me, it's pretty much impossible to do with wood since the qualities of wood vary from tree to tree, and even piece to piece of the same tree. 

The only practical way I could think of would be using man-made materials where level of variation is much more controlled and measurable. The basic concept would be the same, in that you'd be measuring variations in the same things that occur in wood (density, porousness, etc.); as such, it would imply that the same correlation should carry over to wood.


----------



## jwade (Sep 23, 2014)

UC MisteryC said:


> Yup. Give a sample regardless of which side of the debate it favors, and people will cry in increasing severity whenever new points arise: "BS, you didn't play all of the strings" then "BS, you didn't compare all of the notes" then "BS, you didn't play chords" then "BS, bad equipment, bad strings, bad wood, this variable, that variable".



Or the good old 'The strings were totally NOT picked as hard the second time' argument.

I don't know, I've played so many guitars through the same amp with the same settings, and to my ears, without giving a shit whatsoever about the supposed 'tonewoods', I've always heard obvious differences. It might be hard to come up with a proper 'test' that can shut down the debate, but I can say that in my personal experience, even running through an amp, different woods have different characteristics. A secondary opinion, my girlfriend, who has absolutely no knowledge of this overall debate, was sitting reading one night. I said 'hey, don't look up, I want you to listen to two things, see what you think.' I had my mahogany neck/body SG and my maple neck/basswood body RG beside me. Both with Dimarzio pickups, not idenitcal but close enough for the example for my liking. 

I plugged one in (using Cubase with Gutiar Rig simulating the clean channel of a JCM800) and played an open E chord a few times. Switched to the other guitar, strummed the open E again, and she instantly said 'the first was the Ibanez, the second was the SG'. 

That's from someone with no particular interest in the supposed differences in the sound of woods. Take it however you want.


----------



## Fretless (Sep 23, 2014)

Randy said:


> The only practical way I could think of would be using man-made materials where level of variation is much more controlled and measurable. The basic concept would be the same, in that you'd be measuring variations in the same things that occur in wood (density, porousness, etc.); as such, it would imply that the same correlation should carry over to wood.



So an acrylic versus say bakelite? I think that would be rather interesting.


----------



## AndrewG716 (Sep 23, 2014)

So the guy made a sort of response video:



(NSFW due to language)

If you weren't already aware that the guy has a couple of screws loose, this will probably solidify the idea.

The most relevant part is when he's talking about the issue of pickup vibration and waves reflecting back into the string being out of phase with the string vibration. His way of disproving this is "you're talking out your ass".

In most of the video, when he would talk about what people were doing wrong, I could only think about how they were right and/or he was actually doing the same thing.

I would like to join the chorus of more rational people saying "The wood a guitar is made of will have a small effect on how it sounds," and "the correlation between species of wood and their effects on the sound is very limited."


----------



## cardinal (Sep 23, 2014)

Just to add to the comments regarding wood densities:

I had a guitar that was pretty much all mahogany (just had a maple top), but it was one of the lightest guitars I've ever held. Based on tonewood descriptions of the mahogany/maple top combo, you'd assume the guitar would have been warm with great sustain. Instead, it was very bright/snappy with incredible resonance but pretty limited sustain. I've always assumed that the guitar sounded like this because the mahogany was so much lighter/less dense than you'd expect mahogany to be. But I don't have anywhere near enough data points to be able to say for sure. I do know that other mahogany bodied/maple topped guitars I own(ed) have been 1) much heavier and 2) sound much warmer with much better sustain.


----------



## sehnomatic (Sep 23, 2014)

He delivered his points wrong. Again. You can't win a debate when you insult the intellegence of your opposition. Whether or not his argument is right, if he presents it in a bigoted manner, his argument will be perceived as bigoted.


----------



## Fretless (Sep 23, 2014)

AndrewG716 said:


> So the guy made a sort of response video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. That dude is crazy. If he was so upset by what people said, then why did he bother putting something else out there. I smell trollbait.


----------



## Jzbass25 (Sep 23, 2014)

AndrewG716 said:


> So the guy made a sort of response video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow he really has an inferiority complex, but I guess he just doesn't want to accept he's wrong and not half as smart as he thinks.


----------



## Erockomania (Sep 24, 2014)

Regardless of any theoretical scientific explanations, if your [imperfect] ears can or can't tell the difference then that is all that matters. NOBODY can tell if they are hearing a mahogany-bodied, maple-necked guitar or a swamp ash-bodied, wenge-necked guitar on a recording (although you could muster a good guess if it was classic rock vs djent, lol). I'd guess most of the difference is simply in the way the guitar feels in your hands, rests on your body and the way YOU connect with it. Besides, any extremely subtle difference in body wood can be overcome easily by changing pickups. 

As long as the wood is stable and relatively durable (and looks good if that matters to you) then that is all that REALLY matters. ANY of the common woods, in most any combination will yield fine results in a well built guitar with a good pickup. 

The top 5 things that affect guitar sound (in my experience and in this order):
1.pickup
2.pickup placement 
3.scale length
4.build quality
5.body/neck join

Having said that, if all these things are dialed and you are striving for that elusive last 5-10% (like all gear junkies) then woods play a little bigger part. I'd imagine most high end luthiers think along these lines. They will dial all the most import 'necessities' to the point of perfection in their mind... then they strive for excellence and market differentiation by really focusing on choosing the right woods (quality wise/density/appearance/etc..). 

Then again, I could be mumbling directly out of my ass.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 24, 2014)

^
Maybe someone will hear that, this time... I truly agree, and don't really understand why this debate is this much more of a concern for electric guitar players than for classical (as far as I know at least) while it's where it got the least influence.


----------



## Edika (Sep 24, 2014)

AndrewG716 said:


> So the guy made a sort of response video:



Now if this guy is in the 130-140 IQ range then this must mean I'm in the 150 and up range and up because he seems like a duuuuuuuuuuumb motherf_u_cker to me. Of course arbitrary IQ self awareness from youtube posters is really scientific. Nice touch with the Gaussian distribution though.

A person that speaks about transverse waves passing through other mediums, being reflected and not taking phase differences into account shows a limited knowledge and understanding in wave physics. It kind of reminds me about the joke of theoretical Physicists having to improve on the milk production of a cow farm by making the initial hypothesis that cows are spherical!

EDIT: But theoretical Physicist are truly over the 140 IQ range.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

jwade said:


> I don't know, I've played so many guitars through the same amp with the same settings, and to my ears, without giving a shit whatsoever about the supposed 'tonewoods', I've always heard obvious differences. It might be hard to come up with a proper 'test' that can shut down the debate, but I can say that in my personal experience, even running through an amp, different woods have different characteristics. A secondary opinion, my girlfriend, who has absolutely no knowledge of this overall debate, was sitting reading one night. I said 'hey, don't look up, I want you to listen to two things, see what you think.' I had my mahogany neck/body SG and my maple neck/basswood body RG beside me. Both with Dimarzio pickups, not idenitcal but close enough for the example for my liking.
> 
> I plugged one in (using Cubase with Gutiar Rig simulating the clean channel of a JCM800) and played an open E chord a few times. Switched to the other guitar, strummed the open E again, and she instantly said 'the first was the Ibanez, the second was the SG'.



That's precisely the kind of comparison you don't want to have. Everything is different in that scenario, so there's no reason to attribute it to tone wood, but you attribute it to the differences in wood anyway.


----------



## The Q (Sep 24, 2014)

OK, that does it. The guy's a sociopath.

I was uncomfortable to begin with, with statements like "if you disagree with me, you disagree with science" (appeal to... authority perhaps?) which is idiotically dogmatic and completely unscientific, ESPECIALLY when you haven't presented any points yet.

I replied with the following (just the gist of it):


> [...]And then you started talking about I.Q, on a video that was supposed to be about tonewoods which will open you to "inferiority complex" and ad hominem attacks, driving us further away from the tonewood concept. And then some politics too for good measure...
> It's a pity, because I expected a serious scientific approach towards dismissing the concept of tonewood. All you did instead, is to talk about "dumb ............s" that "cannot disagree with me".[...]


... to which came this wall-'o-text:


> I could care less if you don't "support" my approach. I'm not sure if you noticed, the video's title is "my vulgar rant about stupid people and my tone wood video" so you were really shocked to hear me talk about stupid people and throw out insults? would you be shocked if you went to McDonalds ordered a hamburger and then got one? In my first video I did go over the physics, even in this video I went over the science of it. if you can't see this...well, it justifies my IQ rant. What I said in my first video holds true. if you disagree with what I said, you disagree with science and math. It's not what I made up or an opinion, it's reality. if anyone has an inferiority complex it's you. your post to this video and attitude is petty at the very least. in your link you state "Dont get obsessed over trivialities." I suggest following that advice.&#65279;


I am not one to take insult from youtube however. The guy has issues (his insecurities are obviously expressed through his in-advance dogmatism and that monologue about IQ, while the sociopathic behaviour can be seen by this second video and the maniac reply above) and he's not worth taking him seriously especially when he claims to be the mouthpiece of science - I can tell you that this behaviour and approach would be kicked out of every conference in the world.

Here's a more serious paper on the subject: http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

The Q said:


> The guy has issues (his insecurities are obviously expressed through his in-advance dogmatism and that monologue about IQ, while the sociopathic behaviour can be seen by this second video and the maniac reply above) and he's not worth taking him seriously especially when he claims to be the mouthpiece of science - I can tell you that this behaviour and approach would be kicked out of every conference in the world.



While I did enjoy the first video, I have to say that I've never seen an intelligent person hit his arm against his chest and make "retard sounds."


----------



## Edika (Sep 24, 2014)

The Q said:


> Here's a more serious paper on the subject: http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf



I think someone had posted this article in a similar thread (maybe you) and I found it quite interesting. There was a heated discussion with various other opinions concerning the test mentioned and the testing parameters but I don't remember the details. It would be interesting to know if the article was published in a peer reviewed journal as that usually gives more validity to results.
In general the premise of mass production instruments is that a model from a certain series with certain characteristics will sound the same or very close to another model of the same series.


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

All of the arguments aside this is truly an interesting topic. I'd love it if some lab somewhere actually set up a study and then a hoard of actual scientists replicated the study in hopes to reinforce or disprove it. Then we might be on to something. 

Until then the most interesting test about wood affecting tone I've heard of was when Fender made 10 or 12 identical tele's with the only variable being the body wood. This was more of blind test than an actual scientific study though. The point was to determine which body woods to offer for the Telecaster turns 60 Tele-bration models. One of my wood suppliers, Tom Thiel from Northwinds Tone Wood, supplied over 2000 body blanks for the build. He told me about the test but I can't verify it personally. The 3 top body woods from the test were reclaimed redwood, old growth pine and reclaimed red spruce IIRC. Anywho, the results alone tell me that the guitars had to sound different.


----------



## Nag (Sep 24, 2014)

AndrewG716 said:


> So the guy made a sort of response video:
> 
> [video]
> 
> ...



Well, now that gets interesting. I'll have to watch that video later.

I liked the first video a lot because it's just hard science. And what's funny with hard science is what happens if you forget or neglect data, which this thread has shown very efficiently.

Now when you don't even PROVE your point, it gets real fuzzy. By the way, didn't know my ass talks. I'll have to check that out.


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

I can't agree that the video represented "hard science" as much as he used physics to attempt to validate his viewpoint. A single study doesn't make hard science and this wasn't really study. It was kind of garbage science. 

I'd love to see an actual scientist do a study about this stuff though and have that replicated and refined and published somewhere other than YouTube.

My favorite thing about science is that it is the quest for truth rather than truth itself. Scientific facts are absolute until science turns around and disproves them a decade later.

We have people that live and work in the science community right here on sso. Why don't we fund and host our own study?


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

Pickups don't just amplify string vibration. Take a guitar with no strings on it, and tap the body/neck/pick up, what do you hear through the amp? That's right, sound.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> Pickups don't just amplify string vibration. Take a guitar with no strings on it, and tap the body/neck/pick up, what do you hear through the amp? That's right, sound.



But that's not what is said. He's saying the pickups only "transmitters" for vibrations from a magnetic field. If you tap a body/neck and you are knocking any metal around to make a field that is captured by the pickup, you will hear it. It's not musical. It's not tone. 

But yea, if you take a block of wood without any metal on it, mount a pickup on it (ideally with plastic, such that the only metal is the pickup's magnet), mount a jack, connect it to an amplifier, and hit it, and the amplifier makes noise, well, that's news to me. I also wouldn't know what relevance it'd have on the debate...


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> But that's not what is said. He's saying the pickups only "transmitters" for vibrations from a magnetic field. If you tap a body/neck and you are knocking any metal around to make a field that is captured by the pickup, you will hear it. It's not musical. It's not tone.
> 
> But yea, if you take a block of wood without any metal on it, mount a pickup on it (ideally with plastic, such that the only metal is the pickup's magnet), mount a jack, connect it to an amplifier, and hit it, and the amplifier makes noise, well, that's news to me. I also wouldn't know what relevance it'd have on the debate...


What do you think a microphone does?

All the bull shit "science" in the world can't make the perfect pick up. If it transmits sound vibration outside of the magnetic fields effect, it effects tone. That's because the pick up responds to compression waves too, because even the best potted, low output pick up, still responds to physical vibration.

ALL pick ups are microphonic to some degree, especially when fixed to a resonating object such as a guitar body, even epoxied actives. This idiot just proved it by taking the pickup out of the body and tapping it. Put that same pick up in a body and tap it.

This is easy to prove with one model of guitar, the BC Rich Warlock. They made one out of Acrylic, with the same exact design as their wooden models. If you played one, you would instantly know the difference. Some frequecies are absorbed and dispersed, just as he says, while others are transmitted and not as equally dispersed.


----------



## The Q (Sep 24, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> Pickups don't just amplify string vibration. Take a guitar with no strings on it, and tap the body/neck/pick up, what do you hear through the amp? That's right, sound.



If your pickup is not microphonic, this cannot happen by design. The pickups don't respond to sound waves, they respond to alterations on the magnetic field; vibrating metal is our use case here.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 24, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> Pickups don't just amplify string vibration. Take a guitar with no strings on it, and tap the body/neck/pick up, what do you hear through the amp? That's right, sound.


This is called "microphonic issues", also known to be a parasite. That's why pups are wrapped into parafine and mounted with dampers (if I'm not mistaken).


----------



## Nag (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> But that's not what is said. He's saying the pickups only "transmitters" for vibrations from a magnetic field. If you tap a body/neck and you are knocking any metal around to make a field that is captured by the pickup, you will hear it. It's not musical. It's not tone.
> 
> But yea, if you take a block of wood without any metal on it, mount a pickup on it (ideally with plastic, such that the only metal is the pickup's magnet), mount a jack, connect it to an amplifier, and hit it, and the amplifier makes noise, well, that's news to me. I also wouldn't know what relevance it'd have on the debate...




What the guy said in the video is that the pickups only pick up the vibrations from the strings. If the pickup picks up the vibrations in the wood, that changes a few things...


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

Nagash said:


> What the guy said in the video is that the pickups only pick up the vibrations from the strings. If the pickup picks up the vibrations in the wood, that changes a few things...



Yes, but somebody needs to prove that first! I think if that happens it's only due to the jitters of pieces of metal jostling around, and if it happens in the absence of all those extraneous metal bits (including, unfortunately for this purpose, bits which are usually parts of the pickup structure which are not intended to serve any audio purpose), well, I'd be very interested to hear that.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> Yes, but somebody needs to prove that first! I think if that happens it's only due to the jitters of pieces of metal jostling around, and if it happens in the absence of all those extraneous metal bits (including, unfortunately for this purpose, bits which are usually parts of the pickup structure which are not intended to serve any audio purpose), well, I'd be very interested to hear that.



Are you people listening to yourselves?

If the pick up responds to vibrations in the wood, it does not matter HOW. What it means is that it DOES, and therefor the wood is part of the tone of the signal.

As I said, how do you think a microphone works? It turns sound pressure waves into an electrical signal, it's just designed to do that as efficiently as possible, while a guitar pick up tries to eliminate that effect in it's design. If it is not eliminated, which it is not, and cannot be, then the pick up is still a microphone to some extent.

This is why active, epoxied, pick ups sound more similar in various guitars, they are the closest to non-microphonic as it gets. But they still respond to changes in wood density and body construction, all be it on a much lesser leel than passives.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> Are you people listening to yourselves?
> 
> If the pick up responds to vibrations in the wood, it does not matter HOW. What it means is that it DOES, and therefor the wood is part of the tone of the signal.



I think you might have a reading problem. What you're saying is A implies B. Please show A, _then_ have a lengthy discussion about B. In other words, show that a pickup actually responds to vibrations in the wood. And yes, the extent to which it responds would still be a crucial factor. Conjectures are about as helpful as anecdotes.

But as to your microphonic pickup conjecture, that would mean that for many of us that prefer passives to actives, what we enjoy most about the sound of the guitar is due entirely to the flaws of pickup design. I'm entirely convincible of wood being an important part of the tonal equation, but I'm far more skeptical of that aspect being the source of it.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> I think you might have a reading problem. What you're saying is A implies B. Please show A, _then_ have a lengthy discussion about B. In other words, show that a pickup actually responds to vibrations in the wood. And yes, the extent to which it responds would still be a crucial factor. Conjectures are about as helpful as anecdotes.
> 
> But as to your microphonic pickup conjecture, that would mean that for many of us that prefer passives to actives, what we enjoy most about the sound of the guitar is due entirely to the flaws of pickup design. I'm entirely convincible of wood being an important part of the tonal equation, but I'm far more skeptical of that aspect being the source of it.



I don't have a reading problem, you simply are ignoring the fact of the matter. If I tap on my guitar body, the pick up sends a signal, it does not matter if the coils are moving, or it's magical fairies making the signal. The woods vibration is tranfered and converted to electrical energy all the same.

Now if I tap on a basswood guitar, it sound different than a maple guitar, because the vibrations reaching the magic fairies/ coils, are now different.

When I pluck the string, the same tonal character reaches the pick ups, now mated with the output of the pole pieces and associated field.

By the "physics" theory this fool has presented, a steel guitar would sound exactly like a wood guitar, and as we know (people that build guitars that is) all things bieng equal (pick ups included), they do not.

Also, why do pick ups feedback even when the strings are muted? When you start adding gain (more amplification) to the signal, the minor output and subtle flaws in the pick up are amplified as well.


----------



## TRENCHLORD (Sep 24, 2014)

IME
Softer wood = softer attack (rounder, less punch to front-end of notes)
Denser wood = more abrupt attack (sharper, more punch and stiffness)

That's the main thing I've always noticed. 
I really don't notice the differences much (a little, just not huge) as far as bass/mid/treble is concerned.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

TRENCHLORD said:


> IME
> Softer wood = softer attack (rounder, less punch to front-end of notes)
> Denser wood = more abrupt attack (sharper, more punch and stiffness)
> 
> ...



This is what most people refer to as "brighter". More attack, more sustain, more treble overall. This effect is also present more in a neck through design, over a bolt on or set neck.


----------



## Edika (Sep 24, 2014)

I was tapping one of my guitars out of curiosity to see if I could produce any sounds. This was a fixed bridge string through body guitar. Nada, zilch, nothing. Must be that the strings are really old .


----------



## The Q (Sep 24, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> I don't have a reading problem, you simply are ignoring the fact of the matter. If I tap on my guitar body, the pick up sends a signal, it does not matter if the coils are moving, or it's magical fairies making the signal. The woods vibration is tranfered and converted to electrical energy all the same.
> 
> Now if I tap on a basswood guitar, it sound different than a maple guitar, because the vibrations reaching the magic fairies/ coils, are now different.
> 
> ...



Does it do the same if you remove the strings entirely?


----------



## TomAwesome (Sep 24, 2014)

Well, he didn't address the issue of different frequencies being absorbed/diffused differently, but I don't know whether or not that was brought up much in the YouTube comments. I didn't look, but I imagine the discussion there was a lot less thoughtful than it was here. FWIW, I don't think he's insane or sociopathic; I think he just vlogged angry. Probably not a great idea if he's trying to maintain credibility, but I don't think it makes him stupid or insane.



vick1000 said:


> Pickups don't just amplify string vibration. Take a guitar with no strings on it, and tap the body/neck/pick up, what do you hear through the amp? That's right, sound.



You shouldn't. That part of what he was explaining is pretty sound. It's a magnet and transmits current caused by magnetic fluctuations, not mechanical vibrations. If it's picking up mechanical vibrations, it's because those vibrations are moving something that is affecting the magnetic field. You might even be jostling the guitar cable around, which will often tend to introduce some sound. I might try it next time I restring something, though, just to be sure.



vick1000 said:


> This is what most people refer to as "brighter". More attack, more sustain, more treble overall. This effect is also present more in a neck through design, over a bolt on or set neck.



Actually, I think it's the other way around. I seem to remember a study being done that found that bolt-ons sustain longer, though not by much. I also find myself often gravitating more toward bolt-ons these days because they seem to have a snappier attack. I can't find the study, though, and my subjective experience may be the result of other factors in those guitars or my slow descent into complete madness.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 25, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> As I said, how do you think a microphone works? It turns sound pressure waves into an electrical signal, it's just designed to do that as efficiently as possible, while a guitar pick up tries to eliminate that effect in it's design. If it is not eliminated, which it is not, and cannot be, then the pick up is still a microphone to some extent.


A membrane microphone (for singing, speaking, etc.) works with a membrane (thus its name) that is pushed by air pressure. The movement of the membrane moves a magnet in a coil that helps transform the air pressure (the input signalà into an electri signal.
Now, why I say that? Because I've never seen any membrane on a guitar pickups. 
If you want to try: remove the string, then shout as loud as you can on your guitar pickups, guitar plugged and volume+gain on 11. Tell me if you hear yourself.

The working principle of a guitar pickups is simple: a magnetic field and a magnetic string (e.g. does't work with nylon strings) that perturbates that field. Modifying the field modify the signal creating it. This signal IS the sound of the guitar. Yes, you can have OTHER perturbation of this field, such as air waves parasites, electric installation parasites, etc. But the wood is non-magnetic, so the pickup CANNOT interprete the vibration of the wood alone. It can be able to feel it with the strings on, because hitting the body will put the strings in vibration, but alone, it cannot.

Anyway, I'm still wondering: why is everybody so much into the tonewood debate while we know that everyguitar are made of the same woods and all plugged into an Axe FX because djouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunt? 

PS:


TomAwesome said:


> Actually, I think it's the other way around. I seem to remember a study being done that found that bolt-ons sustain longer, though not by much. I also find myself often gravitating more toward bolt-ons these days because they seem to have a snappier attack. I can't find the study, though, and my subjective experience may be the result of other factors in those guitars or my slow descent into complete madness.


A study like this was made by a french luthier, Christophe Grellier, that tries to take on that sustain myth for neckthrough. I don't remember exactly the test, but it shows that the bolt on neck is much better than neckthrough. Imo, the problem behin many of those statements is psychology. Bolt-on where, for us, mostly found on crapy asian guitars, having poor build quality, thus poor sound qualities. Then, Jackson and some others came with a new type of construction, the neckthrough, on high quality builds. Between the difference of construction quality not being mentionned, and the sale arguments, it tends to become reduced to "neckthrough is better than bot-on". But we'll keep that for a nother deadhorsebeating thread.


----------



## Edika (Sep 25, 2014)

Magnets, how do they work?

Sorry couldn't resist, all this talk about them and nobody mentioning this.

That was the reason for my post concerning the vibrations passing to pickups through tapping a guitar but Necromagnons explanation was really explanatory.

I'd just like to mention that tapping a guitar with some kind of tremolo system will cause sound to come out of the pickup unless you have succesfuly dampened and stopped any movement from the bridge and springs.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 25, 2014)

Necromagnon said:


> A membrane microphone (for singing, speaking, etc.) works with a membrane (thus its name) that is pushed by air pressure. The movement of the membrane moves a magnet in a coil that helps transform the air pressure (the input signalà into an electri signal.
> Now, why I say that? Because I've never seen any membrane on a guitar pickups.
> If you want to try: remove the string, then shout as loud as you can on your guitar pickups, guitar plugged and volume+gain on 11. Tell me if you hear yourself.
> 
> ...




If you could yell loud enough to resonate the wood or the pick up, as does a string vibrating, then yes, you would hear "your voice" through the pick up.

Again, this is why a pick up will feedback with the strings muted, or even no strings, with enough gain on the signal.

There is a very simple experimant anyone can do. Buy a tuning fork, remove your strings, strike the fork and place the handle on the back of the guitar body, outside the field, under the same conditions as you play with strings.

This will simulate the string vibrating the body, and show you how a pick up behaves to cyclic vibration from a source outside it's field.

If the notion that materials used in a guitar's construction had no effect on tone, were true, then what about bridge materials? Can you tell me changing from steel, to brass, to graphite saddles has no effect? That's an easy one to try. Most have already done it.


----------



## The Q (Sep 25, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> If you could yell loud enough to resonate the wood or the pick up, as does a string vibrating, then yes, you would hear "your voice" through the pick up.
> 
> Again, this is why a pick up will feedback with the strings muted, or even no strings, with enough gain on the signal.
> 
> ...



No it won't without any strings and especially if you've sealed the cavities properly. There might be interference from other sources but these have to be electromagnetic in type (e.g. power cables).

Wood has no effect unless the pickups are microphonic or are not waxed properly, resulting in the pickups getting the movement of the polepieces (you don't even need a guitar body for this).


----------



## 1b4n3z (Sep 25, 2014)

Wonder if tapping on a stringless body might actually cause the bridge to vibrate and cause a sufficiently powerful pickup (measured as how large a magnetic field it generates) to pick up the vibration. A Floyd is magnetically charged with the strings on and there is quite a bit of bridge to interefere with the field. Don't know, is it plausible? Shouldn't affect the neck pickup though.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 25, 2014)

^ This
If your pickups feedback, that's a parasite by the beginning. You can willingly do it, a non-potted pup without dampers under etc., but then, it's relatively different, imo.

I should try it sometimes with my guitar: guitar clamped to a table with dampers (to prevent vibration to transfer to the desk), and the same pups in the regular place (screwed on the body) and one at the same place and distance to string but held by a rigid arm fixed on the desk far from the guitar (just to be sure), and record a few strummings. I don't have the answer, evenif I guess what it might be, and I'd like to hear if I'm right or not.

PS: ninja'd by 1b4n3z. I refer to the post of The Q right above.


----------



## The Q (Sep 25, 2014)

This happens if you have an electric screwdriver and turn the drill bit over the pickups. But I'd love to see someone trying to produce sounds out of a properly wax/epoxied pickups using these strings: Rohrbacher Titanium Acoustic Guitar Strings - Medium Tension Phosphor Bronze Wound which don't interact with the magnetic field as per their FAQ.

If your pickups could get sounds out of non-ferromagnetic material. such as your guitar's wood, then these strings would work too.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 25, 2014)

You don't need fancy strings. Just standard nylon strings will do the trick (I'm just wondering by typing this if nylon strings have ball ends to make it easier to mount...)


----------



## foreright (Sep 25, 2014)

^ You can get nylon strings with ball ends yes - Dean Markley makes some for a start


----------



## The Q (Sep 25, 2014)

I used this extreme example of strings to point out the importance of materials that affect the magnetic field, for a pickup, even if you have metal strings on there.


----------



## Andless (Sep 25, 2014)

The Q said:


> If your pickups could get sounds out of non-ferromagnetic material. such as your guitar's wood, then these strings would work too.




Wouldn't the point be that the vibration in the body travels to the strings and generates sound if you tap the body?


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 25, 2014)

Andless said:


> Wouldn't the point be that the vibration in the body travels to the strings and generates sound if you tap the body?


It would if strings are ferromagnetic. That's what happens (with microphonic issues mentionned above) when you tap your guitar: the strings vibrates cause of the hit, and the pups captures the strings movement.


----------



## canuck brian (Sep 25, 2014)

In the ...what... almost 70 years that electric guitars have been built, nobody has really come down to a 100% conclusive, failproof, cannot-be-refuted argument/experiment/whatever against tonewood. Personally I don't care.

This is an argument about what could be the most subjective and personal thing guitarists look for - tone. 

Threads like this and guys who argue this to death are simply created and done to argue points that will never create an agreed upon consensus because it's so incredibly subjective. 

Please just stop.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 25, 2014)

Again, refuters claim that it's a parasitic behaviour, and that if a pick up is working and built properly, it won't happen.

I will tell you again, NO pick up is completely free from microphonics. Even if you can't hear them, they will respond to vibration, because their parts are not 100% insulated from vibration. The coils and pole pieces in particular, produce the most noise, even in epoxied actives. Just because it's not designed to work like a microphone, does not mean the same principal is present, hence the term "microphonic".

Now you may need to amplifiy the signal to a rediculous amount (think wide open 120w tube amp) to hear this effect, but make no mistake it is there. What's more relavent, is it does effect tone, especially on high gain preamps through high output power sections. That's why wood effect tone.

I still have not heard a response from the detractors about why a pick up will feedback when strings are muted, or with no strings, or as to why bridge material matters, but body and neck do not.

I'll make it even more simple for you.

The materials used in the entire guitar, body/neck/bridge/nut, effect HOW the string vibrates. Just as if where you pick the note changes it, or whrer it's fretted, or what string gauge and material is used. The string is effectively a part of all those materials at the point is struck and allowed to resonate.

Example. Make a "guitar" out of a piece of PVC and one out of steel. How do you think the string will react to either of those materials. So to any doubters out there, if you can honestly say that there are no tonal differences to where the string is fretted (and I don't mean frequency) then you are dillusional. Pick ups have been designed to address that very issue, in addition to reducing microphonics.


----------



## The Q (Sep 26, 2014)

vick1000 said:


> Again, refuters claim that it's a parasitic behaviour, and that if a pick up is working and built properly, it won't happen.
> 
> I will tell you again, NO pick up is completely free from microphonics. Even if you can't hear them, they will respond to vibration, because their parts are not 100% insulated from vibration. The coils and pole pieces in particular, produce the most noise, even in epoxied actives. Just because it's not designed to work like a microphone, does not mean the same principal is present, hence the term "microphonic".
> 
> ...



My EMGs are not microphonic however. Probably because they've been epoxied shut. The "ridiculous gain needed to spot anything" means that you are probably translating levels as low as -90 dB (SPL). Keep that in mind, I'll get back to it.

When a string is plucked, there are 3 immediate factors that affect its vibrational movement: The kind of pick you use and the way you hit the string with it (because it directly touches the string), the string itself (because... it's the source) and the bridge and nut/fret (because it directly touches the string). One could also add the magnetic pull from the pickup here.

Anything else, such as the neck or the guitar's body will certainly affect the string but it will have to (sort of) "go through the bridge" or "go through the fret" first before its effects can be compounded. Now, the bridge (and the nut and frets, but I'll focus on the bridge) is not a movable component, so the effect is much lesser on itself and much less transmitted to the string, especially since the string itself is the source of the vibration. It's a bottleneck in other words while at the same time the string has much more energy to begin with losing it slowly (aka sustain).


The point here, in conjuction with what I stated earlier and in accordance to my very first post on this topic, is that while the whole construction affects the string vibrating, the effects are so miniscule that they don't matter. Not only that, but not even two pieces of wood from the same tree will ever exhibit the same characteristics. I guess that's why most people change picks and pickups prior to blaming the wood in the guitar for the tone they are after, especially when you add boatloads of compression, distortion and other instruments into the mix.


If I had a workshop I would test two slab of woods with a pickup, a bridge and a nut and record their frequency graphs. Unfortunately I live in a flat and there are no workshops here that I could rent by the hour.


----------

