# Scientific Study of wood and it's affect on electric guitar tone



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

It's the age old question, does wood contribute to the tone of an electric guitar? 

Rather than start another opinion thread I'd like to float an idea by the community. How about we at www.sevenstring.org actually sponsor and conduct a real scientific study on the subject. We may not put the issue to rest but it would certainly get us a lot closer to an answer many of us spend a lot of time thinking about. 

The reason I believe we are the perfect forum for this is that we aren't the typical group of guitar players. We push boundaries and we make things happen. We are for the most part very open minded. We are also 70k + strong in numbers. If any group of people can make this happen it's us, so why not let it be us that does it first. 

Let's keep this thread from getting sidetracked by opinions on wood and let's focus instead on the feasibility of setting up and conducting the study. Any and all contributions on that are very welcome.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 24, 2014)

I'll just copy my post from the other thread:

Take a plank of mahogany/maple/walnut/whatever other tonewoods (or even just different pieces of the same wood) and mount a bridge, nut, and pickups on them. Record 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.

If there is a difference, then we know wood plays a part in the tone. If there's no difference, we haven't really disproved anything per se, but we are close to saying that the particular piece of wood doesn't really make a noticeable difference in sound.

Edit: also, preferably should have some sort of very controllable picking machine to take the human part of the equation out


----------



## Mordacain (Sep 24, 2014)

Simple question, how are we going to confirm like density? The studies that have been done always get hung up by not addressing the difference of wood density.

I'd propose that MRIs would need to be done to screen the test bodies for the same density across the entire body. 

There have been scientific test performed, but there are always problems with the testing methodology, leaving far too many variables to chance.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 24, 2014)

Tom, as a builder, how much would you be looking to cover, cost and labor wise?

It's going to take a lot of capital to invest in the materials, labor, and tools to test the first two parts. 

Even the cheapest way to do it, using a control neck, bridge, pickups, and rig would still require many bodies to create a reliable sample size. 

I wouldn't find anything conclusive unless we had at least a dozen of each type of wood looked at, and no less than ten wood types. 

One of the hallmarks of good science is a meaningful sample size.

Then comes bias, which is why we need multiple testers which can then be compared, and of course the builder would have no part in the testing, but would need to be heavily supervised. So we'd then be sending 120 guitar bodies, a neck and hardware, rig all over the country, which isn't going to be cheap either.

How about this, if we can agree on a methodology in here I'll throw up a Kickstarter or IndieGoGo. I'll help coordinate and throw some funding in.


----------



## jwade (Sep 24, 2014)

It might make sense to come up with a handful of cities where the majority of users live/can get to somewhat easily, basically have a small series of ss.org tone debate conferences where you could have multiple testers go to a specific venue.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 24, 2014)

jwade said:


> It might make sense to come up with a handful of cities where the majority of users live/can get to somewhat easily, basically have a small series of ss.org tone debate conferences where you could have multiple testers go to a specific venue.



We're looking for science, not anecdotal stuff. 

Fewer testers with better controls will give much better, accurate data.


----------



## dudeskin (Sep 24, 2014)

Thinking about it. 
Would it have to be a body? 
You could take the bulk density of the woods you wanted to test. Then work out a workable size out then use that density across all the woods as a marker from there. Or if you want to test the other way around. Use a set size of wood. Say with a template from bridge holes and a basic neck pocket. And screw a pickup to it directly. 
I'm on my phone, but think that's the idea I'm thinking. Too many variables with body sizes and shapes etc. cutting that out could help make a better comparison. 
All depending on what exactly wants testing.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 24, 2014)

dudeskin said:


> Thinking about it.
> Would it have to be a body?
> You could take the bulk density of the woods you wanted to test. Then work out a workable size out then use that density across all the woods as a marker from there. Or if you want to test the other way around. Use a set size of wood. Say with a template from bridge holes and a basic neck pocket. And screw a pickup to it directly.
> I'm on my phone, but think that's the idea I'm thinking. Too many variables with body sizes and shapes etc. cutting that out could help make a better comparison.
> All depending on what exactly wants testing.



I feel like we still need to keep this somewhat grounded in the real world applications of the woods. 

A simple, slab Tele body built to VOS spec would be simple to build and approximate much of the guitar market as far as body configuration. Though, let's not lose sight here. We're testing the difference in woods in guitars.


----------



## dudeskin (Sep 24, 2014)

I suggest something like an e-bow for inducing a sound. Using some sort signal analyser to compare them. 
We have stuff like that at work but I have no idea if they can be used for this kind of thing.


----------



## metaldoggie (Sep 24, 2014)

Actually, I have been working on a paper for college in the same vein, although I'm drifting away from the how or does _wood_ affect tone and changing the perspective.

I have deliberately not involved the forum because the general consensus seems to be that it creates an unwanted sh*tstorm of negative comments.

I personally think that everything on a guitar makes a difference to the sound whether it be additive or subtractive.

I found this study that examines the difference in sound when the PUs are mounted to different pick guard materials.
http://iiav.org/archives_icsv/2008_icsv15/Papers/T0524.pdf

I agree a scientific study is necessary to prove the point, but I'm also sure you will still get a lot of naysayers whatever happens.

What I think you should start with is proving that how a pickup is attached to the body affects how much the wood makes a difference - the wood on a strat with a pick guard is going to affect tone a bunch less than direct mount pickups.

From there it needs to be shown how different construction methods affect the sound (bolt on vs glue in vs thru-neck).

Ultimately you need to define what the most effective construction is that elicits the largest tonal difference from all components, and then build multiple instruments out of different woods.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 24, 2014)

I feel like an ebow still isn't a real world test. 

If this testing is ultra sterile and so far removed from regular guitar playing mechanics we won't sway many of the tonewood "true believers".


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 24, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel like an ebow still isn't a real world test.
> 
> If this testing is ultra sterile and so far removed from regular guitar playing mechanics we won't sway many of the tonewood "true believers".



Maybe do both. Do the ultra-sterile, and do play testing.

I'm down to help in any way I can Tom.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

I've talked to Ben Crowe at Crimson Custom in the UK on his forum about designing the conditions for such an experiment.

I have a few thoughts about it:

1st:

The experiment MUST be double-blind. The people running the experiment should be unaware what species they are working with, and the people listening to the samples should not be allowed to know either.

The scope needs to be sufficiently narrow for an experiment to be meaningful. Are we talking about neck wood, body wood, or fingerboard wood? I think the body wood is the most contentious, controversial argument, so I would start there. For the purpose of experimentation, I think the test pieces should be a single piece of a single species. So, no laminations. Once the body wood question is answered, the lamination question may be more or less interesting, resulting in possible future experiments.

2nd:

The best and clearest results come from simplified test parameters. Thus, the test pieces need not actually be complete guitars. They don't need to have 8 strings, or 6, or even 2. They don't need full bridges or truss rods, or any other non-essential hardware. In my opinion, all the hardware that is needed is: 

1 string, 1 tuner, 1 single-string bridge, 1 single-string pickup, 1 piezoelectric transducer, 1 small piece of nut material, 1 fret

Where possible, each test of each species should be executed using the same hardware. The fret and string are possible exceptions.

The sound of strings changes through use, so perhaps a fresh string should be used for every iteration of tests (read: every time the body wood is changed, a new string is used).

Also, the fret easily may be damaged from being inserted and removed from test to test. Bar fretwire (https://www.lmii.com/products/tools-services/fretting/bar-fretwire) could alleviate this problem. It does not use tangs to keep itself in the slot, and so would not require as much pressure.

3rd:

The test guitar itself could be as simple as a small machined board strung up to some arbitrary but consistent scale (25"?) and tuned to some arbitrary but consistent note (E2?). The boards would need to be machined to the same geometric specifications (thickness, shape, etc.) with the same mechanical properties (bridge screw holes, tuner shaft hole, pickup cavity, etc.).

Since the purpose of the test is to measure the potential impact of species on tone, the guitar shape should be irrelevant. As long as it is as consistent as possible between all test samples, the body style doesn't matter. Therefore, I think it'd be silly to waste wood and time making whole guitars when it's not necessary.

4th:

The picking mechanism needs to be consistent, and not dependent upon human interaction. A pendulum system could be used, or a simplified robotic plectrum mechanism. I think the robot would be more consistent, but also a lot more complicated.

5th:

In addition to the magnetic pickup, I think 3 other systems should be used. 1st, a piezoelectric transducer in the bridge saddle would be able to detect more subtle variations in the mechanical vibration of the string than the magnetic pickup could. 2nd, A soundboard transducer attached to the wooden test piece would pickup what vibrations are induced in the wood. 3rd, a microphone should give us acoustic performance data.

6th:

An open string and a fretted note should be played, with several iterations, with all 4 recording systems running, for each species.

For analysis, I think several stages and perspectives need to be considered. 

First, capturing audio data should produce a waveform with which spectrum analysis could be done. That would show, hard and fast, whether or not wood has a measurable effect on frequency transmission, reflection, and attenuation.

Data from the magnetic, piezo, soundboard, and microphone pickup systems could be overlaid with each other to see where they vary, and what significant differences might exist.

People, trained _and_ laypeople (luthiers, musicians, audio engineers, and non-musical people) should be tapped to listen to the samples and given questionnaires regarding what they heard. Questions should be written to eliminate the possibility, as far as possible, of painting expectations.

If spectral variations exist from species to species, it would be interesting to compare that data to the subjective data from the listeners. You might be able to see how technically measurable differences might translate to actually audible differences.

------------

There is no evidence in the world that will convince certain people of the truth or falsehood of tonewood. Whatever body style you use, someone will question the results saying something like "Sure, that's fine for a tele, but a Les Paul/Strat/PRS/etc. is totally different!" But that doesn't mean that the experiment should be mired in unscientific wackery. And that doesn't mean the results won't be useful for everyone else.


----------



## Mik3D23 (Sep 24, 2014)

^This. It's pretty much a more in depth description of what I was saying.


----------



## ihunda (Sep 24, 2014)

This reads like a great kickstarter project, I can tell you this will raise interest for much more people than just the sso.org competition.

I am confident we/you could raise more than enough to pay for labor and materials, 

Let's make this happen!


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 24, 2014)

ihunda said:


> This reads like a great kickstarter project, I can tell you this will raise interest for much more people than just the sso.org competition.
> 
> I am confident we/you could raise more than enough to pay for labor and materials,
> 
> Let's make this happen!



That's actually a great idea.


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

It seems we have some interest in a study. There are some great ideas on here already. Keep going!!


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Tom, as a builder, how much would you be looking to cover, cost and labor wise?
> 
> It's going to take a lot of capital to invest in the materials, labor, and tools to test the first two parts.
> 
> ...



I agree completely. Great ideas for fundraising too. 

As for the bodies we will definitely have to have every body identically proportioned and at the same MC (moisture content) so that the only variables aside from the species will be density and weight. Then with that data we may be able to further explore the correlation between density, weight and whatever specific data we harvest from the testing. There are literally a mountain of variables that we must identify and neutralize.


----------



## celticelk (Sep 24, 2014)

HaMMerHeD said:


> 2nd:
> 
> The best and clearest results come from simplified test parameters. Thus, the test pieces need not actually be complete guitars. They don't need to have 8 strings, or 6, or even 2. They don't need full bridges or truss rods, or any other non-essential hardware. In my opinion, all the hardware that is needed is:
> 
> ...



While true from the scientific perspective, I'd suggest that if you make whole guitars, then you can give them to backers at a certain level when the testing is complete, which might help to spur donations.


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

If we do that I'd suggest partnering with a manufacturer that builds to very high tolerances like Carvin, organize it like a run here and then have the only option being the body wood. Have all of the guitars shipped to the same place for testing or if the manufacturer is willing test the guitars at the factory.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

celticelk said:


> While true from the scientific perspective, I'd suggest that if you make whole guitars, then you can give them to backers at a certain level when the testing is complete, which might help to spur donations.



Frankly, that sounds very gimmicky to me. Also, contributors to scientific research are generally given credit as sponsors in the scholarly papers that come form the research.

If you want to stratify contribution rewards for a Kickstarter style campaign, I think something like the following would be appropriate:

Personal named thanks for the top 2 or 3 contributors ("The research staff would like to thank X, Y, and Z for their valuable contribution to funding this study.")

Grouped and named recognition. ("Other funding contributors include: A, B, C, ...")

Unnamed thanks. ("...and other donors from Kickstarter campaign supporters.")


----------



## celticelk (Sep 24, 2014)

HaMMerHeD said:


> Frankly, that sounds very gimmicky to me. Also, contributors to scientific research are generally given credit as sponsors in the scholarly papers that come form the research.



Of course it's a gimmick. My point was that it might be a gimmick that makes the difference between having the funding and not having the funding. And if you're thinking about scientific publication as an end-point, then I'm thinking you'll need to *seriously* step up your game in terms of the rigor of the building and testing process. Pull some articles from top-shelf acoustics journals and see what the field's current standards are.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

Obviously, if there is to be any scientific merit (which I assumed was the goal due to Tom's title for this thread), the design and research phase of the experiment would need to be stepped up, and done by someone other than me, since I don't have the credentials or the thorough knowledge for it. I would suggest that none of the other participants in this thread meet those requirements either. At some point, if this idea gains momentum, actually credible experts will have to be consulted and retained, and researchers chosen to do the work. And that probably isn't going to be anyone participating in this thread.

But I would rather see such experiments not done at all rather than see them done, but with so many useless intervening variables as to render the conclusions meaningless and discourage further research.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 24, 2014)

Mordacain said:


> Simple question, how are we going to confirm like density? The studies that have been done always get hung up by not addressing the difference of wood density.
> 
> I'd propose that MRIs would need to be done to screen the test bodies for the same density across the entire body.
> 
> There have been scientific test performed, but there are always problems with the testing methodology, leaving far too many variables to chance.


 
Weight/volume = density. We would have to post weight, volume, and density of each test material.

To negate the idea of inconsistencies in picking, using a tone generator mounted near the strings to produce a sweep of tonal frequencies in conjunction with a spectral analyzer would pinpoint resonant frequencies in the material in question.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

Grindspine said:


> Weight/volume = density. We would have to post weight, volume, and density of each test material.
> 
> To negate the idea of inconsistencies in picking, using a tone generator mounted near the strings to produce a sweep of tonal frequencies in conjunction with a spectral analyzer would pinpoint resonant frequencies in the material in question.



Yeah, accurate measurements for size and mass would give density easily enough.

And using a robotic picking mechanism would reduce criticism of inconsistencies in picking. Using the same technology that runs the CNC machines that make the test pieces to pick the string should be satisfactory.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

A scientific publication would not be a serious contribution, as this is not in an area of serious and active scientific research. It'd mostly just be more fodder for internet guitar forums. So while I believe somebody should do this study, and do it properly, there's no need to get too serious about the idea of a publication. It'd likely just be an interesting blog post.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

By that rationale, the "Recasting Metal" article on the rhythm and meter of Meshuggah probably never should have been published in Music Theory Spectrum. But it was..

Oxford Journals | Arts & Humanities | Music Theory Spectrum

Materials science is a very serious and active field of scientific research. And the potential usefulness of conclusions that could be drawn from a proper study like this could affect the design and manufacture of electric instruments, as well as conservation efforts for certain species of endangered hardwoods.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

HaMMerHeD said:


> By that rationale, the "Recasting Metal" article on the rhythm and meter of Meshuggah probably never should have been published in Music Theory Spectrum. But it was..
> 
> Oxford Journals | Arts & Humanities | Music Theory Spectrum
> 
> Materials science is a very serious and active field of scientific research. And the potential usefulness of conclusions that could be drawn from a proper study like this could affect the design and manufacture of electric instruments, as well as conservation efforts for certain species of endangered hardwoods.



I'm not saying that at all. The music theory community cares a lot about theoretical contributions to music theory. What is the scientific community that cares about electric guitar construction? Where is that venue? How many publications do they have annual? What is their average citation count? 

Not everything on Mythbusters is a worthwhile contribution - they're interesting, but they're not significant scientific contributions. This is more in the realm of pop science - if you talked to a guy with a PhD in the right area of physics he could probably already tell you the answer. This is more just about whether you can sway the opinion of the general guitar-playing population.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

American Lutherie

It's the quarterly journal of the Guild of American Luthiers.


----------



## Bisky (Sep 24, 2014)

Its been done. No matter what evidence is offered, people will still believe in what they want to believe in.

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


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> I'm not saying that at all. The music theory community cares a lot about theoretical contributions to music theory. What is the scientific community that cares about electric guitar construction? Where is that venue? How many publications do they have annual? What is their average citation count?
> 
> Not everything on Mythbusters is a worthwhile contribution - they're interesting, but they're not significant scientific contributions. This is more in the realm of pop science - if you talked to a guy with a PhD in the right area of physics he could probably already tell you the answer. This is more just about whether you can sway the opinion of the general guitar-playing population.



I'm not concerned with swaying people opinion or gaining the interest of academia. I think that this will directly benefit or at least be of interest to millions of people that play the electric guitar around the world.


----------



## ElysianGuitars (Sep 24, 2014)

Bisky said:


> Its been done. No matter what evidence is offered, people will still believe in what they want to believe in.
> 
> http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/



Any link to the results and his method? That article is two years old, and promised full results in a year...


----------



## Tom Drinkwater (Sep 24, 2014)

Bisky said:


> Its been done. No matter what evidence is offered, people will still believe in what they want to believe in.
> 
> http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/



That is not exactly what we plan to do. This guy tested out a handful of very different guitars with the same pickups and strings and tested them somehow and found them all to sound identical. Interesting approach but I'm curious as to the actual process he used. I don't think anyone here disagrees that most everything about a guitar affects the tone more than wood if wood does anything at all. We're talking about testing identical instruments with the only variable being body wood.


----------



## ormsby guitars (Sep 24, 2014)

I've already done virtually everything that has been suggested so far in this thread. 

I've talked about it previously within this forum. 

This is the reason I never enter tone wood discussions arguing that wood doesn't matter.


----------



## narad (Sep 24, 2014)

HaMMerHeD said:


> American Lutherie
> 
> It's the quarterly journal of the Guild of American Luthiers.



Yea, more of a hobbyist publication than a scientific journal...



Tom Drinkwater said:


> I'm not concerned with swaying people opinion or gaining the interest of academia. I think that this will directly benefit or at least be of interest to millions of people that play the electric guitar around the world.



Which, to be clear, is what I meant by swaying the opinions of the general guitar playing population. Since we don't know what the conclusion would be, I simply mean enlightening people to the conclusion of a well-conducted scientific experiment.

As far as scientific setup:
- It's unclear to me why you'd need at least 10 different species of wood as previously suggested. If you can't show an interesting difference across mahogany/maple/swamp ash/alder/ and basswood, I feel like using more is unlikely to be of interest to the average guitar player.

- The idea of using a single string also seems like a poor design, as if the evaluation hinges on some blind human perception trials, our perception of music and "tone", I would argue, is not well tied to a single note. I'd certainly expect some chords to be in the trial, even if a separate trial was conducted using just single notes.

- Sending things all over the country also sounds like an odd concept, which seems more likely to introduce confounding aspects than to prevent them.


----------



## HaMMerHeD (Sep 24, 2014)

narad said:


> Yea, more of a hobbyist publication than a scientific journal...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The American Lutherie journal was just the first thing to come to mind. I disagree that it's a hobbyist publication. However, there are other potential publishers. There are numerous journals devoted to forestry management and conservation, and I should think a thorough scientific study regarding the actual necessity or value of certain hardwoods would be quite interesting to some of them.

And I really have to ask: Why are you so against this thing being done thoroughly? Perhaps you don't take the question seriously, but that doesn't mean other people don't.


----------



## vick1000 (Sep 24, 2014)

Mik3D23 said:


> I'll just copy my post from the other thread:
> 
> Take a plank of mahogany/maple/walnut/whatever other tonewoods (or even just different pieces of the same wood) and mount a bridge, nut, and pickups on them. Record 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.
> 
> ...


 
This has already been done by several guitar manufacturers. Except they used actual guitars, and thye concluded there exists an often subtle, but definite tonal change in the signal.


----------



## Grindspine (Sep 24, 2014)

Bisky said:


> Its been done. No matter what evidence is offered, people will still believe in what they want to believe in.
> 
> http://www.guitarsite.com/news/music_news_from_around_the_world/electric-guitar-wood-myth-busted/


 
I did a search on Google's scholar search and found no peer-reviewed article matching that one. Unfortunately, it was brief coverage with no link to the full article. I am interested in this study, but cannot currently verify the results.
----
Back to ideal testing methods for an additional study (additional studies should never be discounted) instead of a picking machine, what about a controlled burst of air on the string?


----------



## immortalx (Sep 24, 2014)

I think HaMMerHeD has nailed it. It's a complex problem and its parameters should definitely be simplified. 
A human picking hand, for example, would render such an experiment useless. Trying to capture such minute differences while introducing factors such as picking angle/attack, string muting and pressure at the fretting hand, is not a way to produce consistent results.


----------



## Matt_D_ (Sep 25, 2014)

I will put money on... that there is a difference


except is is almost imperceptible to human hearing and only visible under a very high resolution comparison of recorded audio



will be fascinating to see the results, after all if there *is* a difference will it be down to wood species? or some other factor. density? water content? age? some other biological factor within the wood? ...

ie: if you do this test, you're going to want to also throw in those variables too.


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 25, 2014)

Why are so people caught up on tolerances etc? That to me is much further from a real world test than it can possibly get. Guitars aren't made with these impeccable tolerances and perfect instances of the factors listed throughout this thread.
A real world test, IMO, would be to take a manufacturer that has multiple wood types for its bodies within the same model range, with the same hardware, pickups etc. Most major guitar manufacturers would have something to provide, Ibanez and the RG range for eg. Test same woods against each other and then against different woods. At the end of the day the real world scenario is we walk into a guitar store and pick from a range on the shelf, not from a perfectly grafted and treated piece of wood prepared by the hand of god.


----------



## 7stg (Sep 25, 2014)

The electronics would need to be transferred from one guitar to another to avoid manufacturing tolerances effecting the outcome. Use a terminal block to avoid resoldering the pickups.


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 25, 2014)

narad said:


> Not everything on Mythbusters is a worthwhile contribution - they're interesting, but they're not significant scientific contributions. This is more in the realm of pop science - if you talked to a guy with a PhD in the right area of physics he could probably already tell you the answer. This is more just about whether you can sway the opinion of the general guitar-playing population.


I agree with that. I feel like a paper in a reasearch journal is not a place for busting (or not) popular myths. You can still submit this study to some journals, and see their answer anyway, but it's highly time consuming to transform a study into a paper (I'm in the process right now...  ).


----------



## Edika (Sep 25, 2014)

If somebody does take on this project the pickup control test should be with no materials below and strings tuned between fixed points. This should give the most transparent frequency response for it.

I would suggest adding an acrylic and a metallic neck material to the mix along with wood. That would give further information to the results.


----------



## narad (Sep 25, 2014)

HaMMerHeD said:


> The American Lutherie journal was just the first thing to come to mind. I disagree that it's a hobbyist publication. However, there are other potential publishers. There are numerous journals devoted to forestry management and conservation, and I should think a thorough scientific study regarding the actual necessity or value of certain hardwoods would be quite interesting to some of them.
> 
> And I really have to ask: Why are you so against this thing being done thoroughly? Perhaps you don't take the question seriously, but that doesn't mean other people don't.



Oh, I'm interested in the question. There's nothing wrong with the question or wanting to apply some scientific rigor towards answering and potentially dispelling some deeply entrenched myths. I simply disagree that it's an interesting _scientific_ contribution.

In any scientific field of study there are well-respected, reputable venues to publish in, where articles are peer reviewed, and significant contributions appear. Experts in the field are involved through the entirety of that process. Then there's the second tier conferences and journals. Maybe there's some useful contributions in there, but mostly just trivial extensions of tier 1 work. Then there's the for-profit publishers, who basically make money by publishing terrible papers but survive because in some countries you cannot obtain your degree until you have n published papers, etc. Then below that are these hobbyist type publications, where it's not even the scientific community that takes part in it. There's no venue. There's no debate. Maybe they're interesting articles, maybe they're not. Maybe the experiment is sound, maybe it's not.

Perhaps some of the problem stems from not having an academic analogue to guitar building. Say we're talking about welding. There's many guys that do welding for a living, that could tell you all about their hands-on experience welding things in their garage for the past 30 years. Experts of that domain. Now if one of these guys decides to scientifically investigate an issue of debate in say...the muffler community...is the outcome of that going to be of interest to the scientific community? No. It's of interest to the muffler community, which is largely a bunch of hobbyist guys who trick out their cars. 

Meanwhile, there are experts who have devoted their lives to the scientific study of welding. You can go to Cambridge and get a PhD in welding and joinery. You can be professor of welding. And what they publish is cutting edge welding and joinery research, that none of us would understand without devoting years of our lives to understanding even what the big issues in welding and joinery are. Each paper from a top welding journal will be cited, and fork off into new avenues of investigation. It might take a graduate student his entire PhD to reach one publication level contribution. Two entirely different worlds. And to me you're suggesting taking a result from one world and treating like it has an importance and bearing in another. It doesn't. The Journal of Medicine doesn't publish, "Swimming after eating: Now or Wait 20 Minutes?", even if you tackle it in the most rigorous manner. 

With that in mind, what is the purpose of a publishing a scientific article? It's not the dissemination of knowledge - the internet takes care of that. It's about playing a role in a larger community. In this context, there is no community. The larger community is on guitar forums. It sounds more like a desire to add some sort of authenticity to the experiment, but because the proper scientific community doesn't exist (The American Lutherie Journal is not going to provide that kind of criticism), it's a fruitless endeavor IMO. Guitar blogs and forums would have a field day with it though.

And to suggest having people buy onto a paper's acknowledgements section is definitely cringe worthy.


----------



## Megaton_900 (Sep 25, 2014)

Nice idea. Id back this as a kickstarter.
And +1 to the acrylic & metallic necks too.
But only as long as it is rigorously(!) done, as there is no shortage of 1/2 baked studies.

Using chords, not notes is not really possible (or helpful, it'd just add to the error) as the frequency analysis would split those apart anyway.

Personally, id like to know -IF- there is a difference, what in the wood causes it.
Once the initial experimental setup is there it'd be pretty easy to test a plastic(/other non-wood) that mimics that property/combination of properties (eg, density, Young's modulus or whatever else).
Just for a proof of concept to compare the frequency analysis' of the real and emulated timber!
It might not be a practical material for an instrument (weight/cost/whatnot), but it would have more of an impact on the audience to see a sound duplicated.

One important part of this is also having an appropriately defined limit for how loud a contribution must be to be noticeable.
Jumping makes the earth move, but is it on a scale we will ever notice?
0dB, typically used as the limit of human hearing? -2dB for people with good ears, just to be safe?
Lets not forget that prolonged exposure to high volume sounds damages that (eg, sitting next to a guitar amp while practicing/going to a concert) -and- that it changes slightly depending on the frequency of the vibration (and affected by age).
Another component i think would be reasonable to get a quick answer from a professional.

My current understanding(/opinion) is that any noticeable differences between identical guitars (bar the timber) is largely due to manufacturing tolerances (on the electronics, often up to 10% on "identical" parts), subtle differences in the position of the pickup (height, and route location) and general difficulties in picking consistently. (and density)*

However, i look forward to knowing, rather than guessing. 

*Edit: And density. This has reasonalbe physics to back it up.


The Q said:


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



But, like i commented above, if this is the only difference then id like to see a "emulated" wood guitar, say of plastic with the appropriate density.


----------



## asher (Sep 25, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> Why are so people caught up on tolerances etc? That to me is much further from a real world test than it can possibly get. Guitars aren't made with these impeccable tolerances and perfect instances of the factors listed throughout this thread.
> A real world test, IMO, would be to take a manufacturer that has multiple wood types for its bodies within the same model range, with the same hardware, pickups etc. Most major guitar manufacturers would have something to provide, Ibanez and the RG range for eg. Test same woods against each other and then against different woods. At the end of the day the real world scenario is we walk into a guitar store and pick from a range on the shelf, not from a perfectly grafted and treated piece of wood prepared by the hand of god.



Because the idea is to remove as many variables as absolutely possible and get tolerances as tight as we can. Otherwise, there are way too many things to claim: "It's that particular guitar! That bridge is pot metal and the other isn't! One pickup is wound too hot!" and on and on and on.


----------



## redstone (Sep 25, 2014)

The biggest influence comes from the neck IMO, and they have to sound CLEARLY different, like very bright vs meaty. Swapping random bodies or testing a wood plank vs plastic is meaningless if they sound the same. Most guitar necks sound like the same pile of dull crap.

I suggest to build multilaminated maple necks and one-piece multichambered mahogany necks until you get that clear acoustic difference. Neck through, no body, no truss-rod, only one string, .04-05 gauge (the thick and thin strings tend to reduce the differences).


----------



## notasian (Sep 25, 2014)

we should do a poll im really curious how many people think wood doesnt matter on this thread. i dont think it does


----------



## Vrollin (Sep 26, 2014)

notasian said:


> we should do a poll im really curious how many people think wood doesnt matter on this thread. i dont think it does



I think I was watching a video a while back where PRS ran through their woodstocks, they reckon they had woods that resonated in particular notes to use for certain tunings or what ever. I'm no mathamagician but how can something that is a different density not have a different tone?


----------



## Necromagnon (Sep 26, 2014)

Vrollin said:


> I think I was watching a video a while back where PRS ran through their woodstocks, they reckon they had woods that resonated in particular notes to use for certain tunings or what ever. I'm no mathamagician but how can something that is a different density not have a different tone?


That's the problem: this is not the question. I guess we're facing a major problem in this question, that is mixing everything up. The debate is not about woods sounding different to each other, all alone. The question is how wood interfere with the final sound of an electric instrument.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 26, 2014)

So how does this sound:

We get 15 bodies each made of Mahogany, Alder, Ash, Swamp Ash, Maple, Walnut, Rosewood, Basswood, Korina, Koa, Oak, and Cedar. We'll mull over the exact species of each, and pick the ones used most commonly in production instruments. All bodies will be two-piece center jointed (the most common construction), in a standard Strat or Tele shape, routed for a single humbucker and one pot, with a regular size cavity around back. Each body will be finished in a thin black lacquer. Each body will have a random serial number etched into the back, which will later be covered by paint. 

All bodies will be made by one builder, in one shop, and then sent to a different shop to be painted. Both steps will be monitored by independent parties. The bodies will be given randomly selected serial numbers by an independent party at the paint shop and cataloged. 

A separate builder will build three necks, all maple/maple, and built to specs that represent a good portion of the production guitar market, think: Fender style. These are just to evaluate the bodies. 

The electronics will be wired by a separate party to just be a simple pickup-pot-jack with quick connects. There will be five assemblies made, all using identical components from the same manufacturers (likely Dimarzio/SD with Bourns/CTS). 

The bridge of the guitars will be the same Hipshot unit, same ones used on all guitar bodies. 

As for strings, just plain D'Addario XL 9s. They're incredibly common and have great consistency. Every test will begin with a new set. 

All data will be collected via small recording device in a controlled studio environment. All guitar bodies will be tested by no less than 10 guitar players each playing 10 predetermined pieces of music. All players will use the same type of pick from the same batch (Fender Mediums). All recordings will be stored in lossless format and assigned numbers based on the serial number painted on the outside of the guitar. 

Once all data is collected, the bodies will be sanded down and pre/post serial numbers matched up. The data will be given to three outside entities for individual evaluation.


----------



## asher (Sep 26, 2014)

Are they going through an amp on its clean channel with flat EQ, or..?

I like the idea of multiple players going at the same pieces, but I am concerned we'll get some sort of "tone is in the player" stuff going on too. Is there a good way we can get some equivalent to the picking robot for consistent note playing _also_?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 26, 2014)

asher said:


> Are they going through an amp on its clean channel with flat EQ, or..?
> 
> I like the idea of multiple players going at the same pieces, but I am concerned we'll get some sort of "tone is in the player" stuff going on too. Is there a good way we can get some equivalent to the picking robot for consistent note playing _also_?



They're going direct to the recording device. Those recordings will later be analyzed on their own, and then reamped by others through popular, regularly available presets on stuff like AxeFx and Kempers, as well as through popular amps (Marshalls, Mesas, Peaveys, etc.). 

That's why there are ten players, though we could probably up that number to 25. Thus, if the tone is "in the hands" it'll be shown. 

I HATE the idea of making this so non-real-world that the data will be lost on most guitarists.

I also don't think the goal should be to answer: "Does the body wood effect tone?" as much as it should be: "Does the body wood effect tone in a meaningful, measurable way, consistently?".


----------



## asher (Sep 26, 2014)

Makes sense. I wouldn't discard the players in either case, I'm just kind of hoping we can do both, so for someone to do some hardcore wave form analysis the player changes are removed entirely.


----------



## ormsby guitars (Sep 26, 2014)

So wait, on a forum which is known to have members having issues getting just ONE guitar from various builders, we're planning on ordering a whole bunch 'just to muck around'?

Seems like a great idea!

Anyway, its the NECK that contributes the most tonal difference. Body has less of an effect. You'd be much better getting 15 necks made.

When i did this experiment back 10 years ago, I used quasi necks: materials cut to rough neck dimensions of a neck (but all identical), then a single string. Recorded a whole bunch of samples including not just different tonewoods (and non tonewoods), but then lacquered the pieces and tried again, or laminated versus solid, etc etc.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 26, 2014)

You got those clips Perry?


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Sep 26, 2014)

ormsby guitars said:


> So wait, on a forum which is known to have members having issues getting just ONE guitar from various builders, we're planning on ordering a whole bunch 'just to muck around'?



With something so simple needed we could probably go with Warmoth or Mighty Mite, or one of the other long established shops that specialize in replacement bodies. 

We don&#8217;t need a fly-by-night small builder and that's certainly not anything anyone has suggested. 



> Seems like a great idea!



Hence my original skepticism. 



> Anyway, its the NECK that contributes the most tonal difference. Body has less of an effect. You'd be much better getting 15 necks made.



Moving forward, I don't see why that can't be the next step, of course we need a first step too. 



> When i did this experiment back 10 years ago, I used quasi necks: materials cut to rough neck dimensions of a neck (but all identical), then a single string. Recorded a whole bunch of samples including not just different tonewoods (and non tonewoods), but then lacquered the pieces and tried again, or laminated versus solid, etc etc.



Awesome! Let's hear those clips!


----------



## Fretless (Sep 26, 2014)

I'm down for what max suggested. I think some mechanical aspect should be tested as well such as a mechanical pick (something like what mythbusters would use with an actuator to make each pick even) that way even though humans are tested and are the basis for the experiment, there is also a baseline from a machine that doesn't change. You could have an open E plucked by the machine several times and then several times by each player. Doing so would provide a baseline for each test. You could run the open note through something like izotope and use the matching feature in order to get a good EQ map to see where the differences are.


----------



## TheEmptyCell (Sep 29, 2014)

Maybe for my Anthropology dissertation I'll do a study of tone-wood debates among musicians. Could be interesting...


----------



## zilla (Sep 30, 2014)

just killing some time at work, so i haven't had a chance to read this entire thread, but what you guys are talking about doing would lend itself beautifully to a DoE (Design of Experiments) test.

you define your parameters, define your variable, and then perform specific tests and record the responses.

Plug the values into the DoE software and get your pareto chart to see what the key parameters are that have an impact on what you are measuring.

The trick is going to be being able to quantify what you're going to measure.

my suggestion would be that you try to measure 3, maybe 4 things:

1. put a piezo transducer on the body and have a spectrum analyzer to see what vibrational modes are present in the body when you strum a chord or hit certain notes

2. might not be practical, but using the same pickup on all guitar bodies would be very important as pickup-to-pickup variation can colour the tone. take a DI output from the pickup and plug it into a spectrum analyzer and see the output.

3. place a mic at a specific location and plug it into the spectrum analyzer.

you can look at factors like amplitude, frequency components (FFT), frequency response, etc and then do an ANOVA study to determine if there are any statistically significant differences between them.

ideally you'd transplant the same bridge, pickup, and neck to keep that consistent from test to test. the location of where the string is plucked, along with the pick material, angle, etc etc would also need to be controlled. maybe to keep things as simple as possible, you have the bodies top routed and mount all of your electronics on the pickguard (but then you don't have the pickup physically coupled to the body)


----------



## notasian (Oct 1, 2014)

we need the mythbuster. seriously. i would love to see them do this, wait i would actually pay to see them do this


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Oct 1, 2014)

And _IF it's scientifically proven that wood does not effect tone, how many people do you think will flip their sh*t? EVERYONE on SSO? ALL the people who spent five grand on a Gibson? Ignorance is bliss..._


----------



## zilla (Oct 1, 2014)

guaranteed everyone TGP will try to discredit the findings, lol.


----------



## narad (Oct 1, 2014)

Nour Ayasso said:


> And _IF it's scientifically proven that wood does not effect tone, how many people do you think will flip their sh*t? EVERYONE on SSO? ALL the people who spent five grand on a Gibson? Ignorance is bliss..._


_

It wouldn't matter much at all to guys who bought nice guitars because fancy tone woods go hand-in-hand with better craftsmanship most of the time. It wouldn't discredit any purchases, only change some of the understanding behind why they like a certain instrument. Not sure what your Gibson comment is getting at.

But we'd be able to stop hearing questions like, "I have an RG with a maple neck and a rosewood board and a basswood body and a maple cap that's 8mm thick and I want to sound like that one really obscure album from the 90s what Bare Knuckles should I buy thanks!"_


----------



## TemjinStrife (Oct 1, 2014)

narad said:


> But we'd be able to stop hearing questions like, "I have an RG with a maple neck and a rosewood board and a basswood body and a maple cap that's 8mm thick and I want to sound like that one really obscure album from the 90s what Bare Knuckles should I buy thanks!"



No we wouldn't, because people wouldn't believe it if it was conclusively scientifically provable.

Tonewood "faith" will be just about as hard to address as other types of faith


----------



## crg123 (Oct 1, 2014)

This might sound silly or misguided (also thinking way ahead) but after this is all said and done since the guitars are being paid to be built for the sole point of this experiment when they are finally done with their use what happens to them?

My vote is to donate the money raised by selling each instrument (*keeping in mind they have been funded through a crowdsourcing method in this scenario so technically they are already paid for to make this experiment viable*) goes to help a foundation like Autism research, ALS, or some other good charity. That we're killing two birds with one stone if you will.

I mean obviously this wouldn't be the case if the builders are donating their own money into this, only if it was crowd funded. Or hell if it was that way and people didn't want to go the charity route, the highest donators receive the guitars ( not pumped about this idea but its an idea)



> I also don't think the goal should be to answer: "Does the body wood effect tone?" as much as it should be: "Does the body wood effect tone in a meaningful, measurable way, consistently?".



Also this


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 1, 2014)

I just figured the bodies would be included in the Kickstarter in higher donation packages. 

-$1 for fun
-$10 a big thanks 
-$50 your name included in the write up 
-$100 second round pick of one of the bodies
-$150 first round pick of a body 
-$200 very first body choice 
-$300 body and neck
-$500 complete body, neck, hardware and electronics 
And on and on.


----------



## narad (Oct 1, 2014)

I think you're kind of going about this the wrong way with the huge amount of wood species and duplicates of each body. That sounds more like shooting for an ideal situation, without a realistic expectation of how much people would fund this. Of course, $30k+ for potato salad, so who knows, but there are reasons why researchers pursue pilot studies with smaller samples before going all out. This is especially true when you don't have a clear source for funding.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Oct 1, 2014)

I feel there are enough musicians out there who would throw down, if it's marketed right. 

At least I'd hope so given the potato salad fund and the thousands of dollars that even it's spin offs gained.


----------



## zilla (Oct 1, 2014)

narad said:


> I think you're kind of going about this the wrong way with the huge amount of wood species and duplicates of each body. That sounds more like shooting for an ideal situation, without a realistic expectation of how much people would fund this. Of course, $30k+ for potato salad, so who knows, but there are reasons why researchers pursue pilot studies with smaller samples before going all out. This is especially true when you don't have a clear source for funding.





This.

I'd take 2 or 3 woods first... swamp ash or maple, mahogany, and maybe basswood... these would represent "very bright", "very warm" and "balanced" tones. maybe even use just very bright and very warm first and see if you can actually discern differences between those before you start making bodies from other woods.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2014)

There are a few assumptions happening which make me wonder if the whole idea can be simplified.

Would using planks of identical size, with one string attached at both ends with hitch pins, running over the identical magnetic pickup, demonstrate the same core tone characteristics as a fully constructed guitar of the same material?

In other words, do you need to make the whole guitar, or would a piece of basswood and a piece of mahogany of the same dimensions, with identical strings of the same length, material, gauge and tension, demonstrate that the woods themselves make a difference?

I'd say, see if there's an effect there before constructing full guitars. 

Even throw in an aluminum bar of the same dimensions, just for the lulz. 

Just an idea for a preliminary test.

----

BTW, I couldn't find a link, but a few years ago (IIRC) on the Unofficial Martin forum there was a blind test of guitars of different woods. There are so many who make huge assertions about how distinctive all the different wood combinations sound... but in that particular pudding of blind sound testing, there was no proof found. 

Each of those guys was so convinced that he or she possessed golden ears... but the test found no one with such powers of discrimination. 

And I suspect that this test will turn out the same way as well. Hence, preliminary just to be sure an effect exists, before going on to measure the effect.


----------



## redstone (Oct 3, 2014)

It depends, if they use thick and large planks of wood, it might raise the resonant peak too much to hear a difference. All the pseudo-guitars will sound the same (= dead). Testing the impact of wood, and testing the difference between species are two different experiences.

I think the impact must be tested first, oily vs non oily wood, high speed vs low speed propagation, low peak vs high peak. Then you can refine and test neck joints, wood species, how shapes affect resonant peaks etc.


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Oct 3, 2014)

narad said:


> It wouldn't matter much at all to guys who bought nice guitars because fancy tone woods go hand-in-hand with better craftsmanship most of the time. It wouldn't discredit any purchases, only change some of the understanding behind why they like a certain instrument. Not sure what your Gibson comment is getting at.
> 
> But we'd be able to stop hearing questions like, "I have an RG with a maple neck and a rosewood board and a basswood body and a maple cap that's 8mm thick and I want to sound like that one really obscure album from the 90s what Bare Knuckles should I buy thanks!"



Well I was getting at the fact that if the wood doesn't matter, then 5 grand towards a guitar, that mind as well be made out of plastic, would really blow. But from what your saying I'm assuming you meant that price tag relates to craftsmanship over wood selection? I mean in the end we all know it's just the brand, but still I'd feel pretty annoyed knowing the wood had no affect whatsoever.

As to your stereotypical example of a question that is probably 100% accurate, those will never go away no matter how much information is available....


----------



## patsanger (Oct 3, 2014)

Piezo on a guitar made from a concrete block


BC Rich Acrylic



Look, I love the enthusiasm here. Do the tests if you want, but there will never be a definitive finding. You might get some data, but people will either believe it or not (look at vaccination issues) and it still doesn't handle all issues.


----------



## narad (Oct 3, 2014)

patsanger said:


> but people will either believe it or not (look at vaccination issues)



Yes, some people will always be idiots. That's no hindrance to some other people searching for more definitive answers.


----------



## redstone (Oct 3, 2014)

patsanger said:


> Piezo on a guitar made from a concrete block
> 
> 
> BC Rich Acrylic




The first guitar sounds like shit, second is okay. Both use wooden necks. Some wooden guitars sound like shit. Some wooden guitars sound okay. Conclusions ?

You cannot prove wood has no impact on tone by showing that one specific piece of wood sounds exactly like one specific piece of plastic/concrete/metal/wood. If you want to prove there's no difference, you have to test the acoustic differences. So it starts with different sounding guitars.

You'll never find a video with same hardware/electronics/specs and very different acoustic tone, getting the same amplified tone. That's because it sounds different.

There's so much bullshit on the internet, I saw that guy, I think it was S. Grove, correct me if I'm wrong, putting the guitar against his body and arguing that it didn't change the amplified tone, but did it change the acoustic tone to begin with ? Nope. That's the level of arguments against tonewoods.


----------



## tmo (Oct 3, 2014)

So, after reading this thread a little on diagonal (some post were just browsed and others were jumped over), I need to say that this is a great idea to test.

Here is my input on the subject and I here by apology for saying somethings that may have already been said. The principles regarding a possible test should be focused on the QUESTION that is needed to be answered, so its formulation is particularly important. To my understanding the question is: is the wood responsible for tone differences in guitar manufacturing? This means testing WOOD before the guitar. A guitar building process is a quite complex one and IMO the most tone changing factor here is the love affair of the luthier with his craft. That cannot be an issue here, so no full guitars should be involved.

1 - I think the test should be performed on blank peaces of wood (no wood lamination, just full blanks and the same type cut, this as a starting point) on 2 situations:
Same dimensions
Same weight
For a nice test, there should be a more than 3 samples of the same wood type. Overall volumes and weights should respect average guitar sizes. 

2 - Picking should be mechanical. Regarding the question formulated, it's the wood to be tested, not the feeling on the musician. Also, picking should be placed in more than one position: near the bridge, at 1/4 of the scale length and at 1/2 of the scale length.

3 - Wood blanks should not be routed for electronics. All electrical hardware should be placed over the woods. Routing may interfere with vibration propagation, the testing with magnetic pickups can always be made using its placement over the strings...

4 - Piezo pickups are, IMO, the best solution for data gathering in this subject, however, magnetic pickup testing may also be considered.

5 - Scale length should be 25.5, for it is the most commonly used one (I think...) so wood blanks dimensions should allow for this

6 - As already stated, strings shall be all the same.

7 - Recording is direct from piezo.

And that's about it, lots of fun and work to do for info and data gathering. The analysis of this info should be left for those who master the craft.

Personally, I think that wood does have a small importance on overall tone, but it is much surpassed by all electronics that may be installed or amps and FXs being used, starting by pickups and pots. Then, there is the guitar setup that may kill or resurrect a guitar and in the end there is the feeling that the guitar promotes on the musician, some people just don't bind to some guitars, either physically or psychically. So, the question is: are we to measure and analyse wood versus tone or something else?

Edit: sound analysis shall obviously be made by sound spectrum analyzers, however, that will only result in math numbering and formulas. How will that be translated to human perception of sound? Aren't all our feelings and senses biased/filtered by our emotional state of mind? Isn't all the environmental perception of the world subjected to our psychological state? This means that our (as individuals) perception of "Tone" is not absolute nor universal. What feels good today, may feel bad tomorrow...


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2014)

First off, those videos are brilliant. I agree the sound quality isn't great, but I think even the voices don't sound well recorded. 



redstone said:


> You cannot prove wood has no impact on tone by showing that one specific piece of wood sounds exactly like one specific piece of plastic/concrete/metal/wood. *If you want to prove there's no difference, you have to test the acoustic differences.*



You're starting with the wrong null hypothesis. *You can't prove the non-existence of something. You have to prove something exists. *

Correct hypothesis*: Woods sound the same when using an electromagnetic pickup. 

*To nullify stated hypothesis*: With only the body changing, demonstrate a difference in tone between the body materials. *

*You can't claim there is a difference without proof. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Prove there is a difference.*

Regarding a consistent impetus to the strings, a small magnet on a string, attached at the midpoint, would allow a consistent amount of force to be imparted to the string when pulled off. 

You should firmly attach (claimp or otherwise) the tuning mechanism and pickup to plank in an identical manner. I'd argue for clamping, because that way there wouldn't be an argument about differences in screw placement and such. Having everything attacked to the plank means that any movement imparted to the pickup through such attachment is also present, and will show up in the recorded data. 

A simple system like this will get rid of all variables introduced by the complex system of a guitar, including glue joints, neck reinforcement, tuners, bridges... and also saves time, because you don't have to make a bunch of guitars. 

Just to give an example of where material differences can be heard, do you know why carbon fiber guitars have foam on the inside of the top?

Because they're too bright and resonant, and most people want something more wood-like. 

There is an audible difference for that purpose. 

If there is an audible difference between the wood types when using an electromagnetic pickup system, it will be apparent using a Fast Fourier Transformation (FFT) analysis program (there are probably many available as freeware).

If there is no difference, that's it. No need to go on to constructing a guitar. 

And even if people disagree with the conclusions, and maybe even argue about how the measured evidence isn't good... they'd have to come up with good reasons why the results should be discarded, or replicate the experiment openly to disprove it. 

I think this could be fun. This is like the Stradivarius comparison study, where skilled soloists couldn't identify the Stradivari instruments from modern ones when visual clues were obscured. (There are two other studies coming out from the same data set, revealing that audiences couldn't tell either, nor experts, when in a concert hall... supposedly where whatever magic a Strad has is supposed to shine.)

That researcher started with the same idea and question as this topic:

A lot of people try to research a difference.

Is there a difference?

Result: No. No difference. 

And the study was very strong, and took criticisms of previous such studies into account to lock things down and prevent critics from claiming a "Tone of the Gaps" argument. 

Anyway, here's a link to a news article about the study, but if one did some searching and reading about this study, the two yet to be published, and the previous study, it would be good preparation for how to set this current one up.

I think if a good enough job were done, this would warrant publication.


----------



## redstone (Oct 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> You're starting with the wrong null hypothesis. *You can't prove the non-existence of something. You have to prove something exists. *
> 
> Correct hypothesis*: Woods sound the same when using an electromagnetic pickup.
> 
> ...



That's my point ! We're trying to test the influence of wood, not its lack thereof. Right ? 

Thus by just swapping some slabs of woods like you suggest, you might not prove or disprove such influence, since on average, unplugged guitars sound.. average. It's essential to check that both guitars sound different unplugged, and as much as possible to be sure that, in case it doesn't make any difference, there's no room for doubt.

So the experience starts with drastically different sounding guitars, or it never starts.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 3, 2014)

redstone said:


> That's my point ! We're trying to test the influence of wood, not its lack thereof. Right ?
> 
> So the experience starts with drastically different sounding guitars, or it never starts.



Your last line assumes that the difference in guitar sound comes from the wood, but that (as I've said before, and which this topic is about) is an unproven assumption. 

All other things being equal, you're trying to test if the wood itself makes a difference when introduced into the electromechanical system of string and pickup. 

You haven't yet proven that the "drastically different sounding guitars" sound that way because of the wood. You have too many variables (Strats sound different from LPs, metal truss rod versus carbon fiber rod, etc.), including variance in construction from one instrument to the next just because there might be more glue on one instrument than another. You need to strip everything out but the essentials.

So, you eliminate all the variables but one, leaving just the "body" material as the changing variable... the only thing you want to test. 

When testing one variable, it is a terrible practice to introduce more variables beyond the one for testing. You'd never be able to prove that any variance is due to just one variable, as opposed to everything else you're introducing.

That's sloppy experimental design, and bad practice.


----------



## zilla (Oct 3, 2014)

Explorer said:


> When testing one variable, it is a terrible practice to introduce more variables beyond the one for testing. You'd never be able to prove that any variance is due to just one variable, as opposed to everything else you're introducing.
> 
> That's sloppy experimental design, and bad practice.



Look up ANOVA studies and design of experiments.


----------



## helferlain (Oct 4, 2014)

It's done already: 

https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~elektrogitarre/

Unfortunatly, the content is only available in german. It's the result of years of research. The man behind is Prof. Dr, Zollner @ the University of Regensburg, Germany.

As far as I can follow the technological explanations (in my native german language), it coveras a scientific study about all possible aspects of electric guitars, including the body / neck / fretboard wood. Everthing is proved with scintific measurements, iclidung a lot of charts and diagrams for those who can read and understand that stuff. Sometimes a bit of personal opinion too, but that makes the reading more entertaining.

Maybe there is a competent translater around sevenstring.org?


----------



## Nour Ayasso (Oct 4, 2014)

redstone said:


> The first guitar sounds like shit, second is okay. Both use wooden necks. Some wooden guitars sound like shit. Some wooden guitars sound okay.



Exactly, and neither of them can djent, so clearly we've gotten no where 

I do wanna say that a huge factor is that the freakin pickup was in the bridge right? Like literally in the bridge, so of course the clean tones sounded like crap. 

I want to say that wood doesn't effect distortion tones much, but I feel clean tones is here it seems to matter the most, to me at least.


----------



## Andromalia (Oct 4, 2014)

I'd bet 100 that same density whatever and whichever sound the exact same while two different densities whatevers will sound different.
You should add a non wood body of the same density as a chosen wood body to test it.

Whether it's a perceptible difference is something else. The thing is, I currently have a dozen guitars and not two of them share the same specs so it's pretty impossible to know.


----------



## Explorer (Oct 4, 2014)

zilla said:


> Look up ANOVA studies and design of experiments.



Since you believe they supports your viewpoint on adding more variables than the only one being tested:

If one has the ability to limit the variables to just the one being tested, does ANOVA advocate adding numerous additional and difficult-to-control variables to muddy the result?

If so, what is their reasoning for doing so?

I'm greatly interested, since adding variables which one can't control is something we've always avoided, especially if we could get rid of those uncontrolled factors altogether. 

----

I had one more thought regarding the experiment.

find the quietest, most transparent magnetic pickup possible. That way, you won't be filtering out any of the frequency spectrum.

I think that the Alumitones made for steel guitar are supposedly full range flat response. I know that they have construction methods which will alter the response.

If you approach them via email, maybe linking to this topic to show you're serious, they might even be willing to provide you with free pickups for this experiment.


----------



## Andless (Oct 4, 2014)

helferlain said:


> It's done already:
> 
> https://hps.hs-regensburg.de/~elektrogitarre/
> 
> ...



I tried to read it, but the section on wood material contained a lot of quotes from other people and with my german skills I wasn't able to find any original conclusions on this part of the topic, although I found a lot of passages hinting to wood difference not being audible in some sections I tried to read.

Perhaps if you could just provide a quick and dirty summary of any conclusions regarding wood material?


----------



## zilla (Oct 4, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Since you believe they supports your viewpoint on adding more variables than the only one being tested:
> 
> If one has the ability to limit the variables to just the one being tested, does ANOVA advocate adding numerous additional and difficult-to-control variables to muddy the result?
> 
> ...




I never said that I advocated adding uncontrolled variables.

You can have several controlled variables and vary more than more and still be able to analyze the data. You will be able to statistically see which variables are interacting, which do jot impact your measurable results, as well as rank them from most influential to least.

See
What Is Design of Experiments (DOE)? | ASQ

Analysis of variance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## helferlain (Oct 4, 2014)

Andless said:


> Perhaps if you could just provide a quick and dirty summary of any conclusions regarding wood material?



I can try it....



attempt of translation said:


> 1. You shall not compare an electric guitar with an acoustic guitar
> 2. You shall not transfer your experiences frot acoustic guitars to electric guitars
> 
> 3. What the common guitar player declares as "attack" and "sustain" is physically a part of refection and absorbtion of the oscillation energy of the string.
> ...



The original text contains a lot of tech talk about the measurements an the physics behind it. And it contains even more quotes from guitar magazines, that contradict themenself and that annihilate any credibility of these magazines inclusive any reason to spend money for that papers.


----------



## tmo (Oct 4, 2014)

lol...

That was kind of expected... I have no skills in German language, so that document is useless for me.

Is there a resume of how tests were performed, what variables were considered and what results have been obtained, not the conclusions, I mean...


----------



## Explorer (Oct 4, 2014)

I agree with not adding additional uncontrollable variables, zilla. 

To misquote William of Occam, variables should not be multiplied needlessly. 

And there's no need in this case.

Remember, it's not just about getting good data, but being able to rule out objections to the study's design. If it's stripped back to just the one variable, you want to prevent someone saying that possibly a build damped the vibrations, or that another build sounded more lively, and so on. 

----

I do believe that woods can sound different acoustically. I've been in a room where someone played different suspended identically shaped planks of wood with contact mics attached, and there were differences... but there was variation even between two pieces of the same species, so it's an unanswered question as to whether a particular species sounds consistent, or if it varies from tree to tree, or even plank ot plank. 

Once you move away from a system which measure how the wood is vibrating, and only magnetically picks up how the string alone is vibrating, I suspect that there will be no great influence on that string vibration except for how much a material damps the string... but it's possible that the magnetic pickup, being in motion on the body in a different pattern from the string, could produce some kind of interactive interference pattern which will be audible in timbre. 

I want to know now! I don't want to wait! *laugh*


----------



## Andless (Oct 4, 2014)

helferlain said:


> I can try it....
> 
> 
> 
> The original text contains a lot of tech talk about the measurements an the physics behind it. And it contains even more quotes from guitar magazines, that contradict themenself and that annihilate any credibility of these magazines inclusive any reason to spend money for that papers.



Thanks. In my mind, the parts of the guitar acts as a filter (analogue to that of an analogue synth) on the frequencies in the vibrating string, and this paper seem to verify this. It seems however that the paper suggests also if I read the paper and your summary correctly, that the effect of the wood differences easily gets lost or overshadowed in the other variables (parts & construction method/quality). That would make sense to me.


----------



## zilla (Oct 4, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I agree with not adding additional uncontrollable variables, zilla.
> 
> To misquote William of Occam, variables should not be multiplied needlessly.
> 
> ...




This is the whole point behind a multi-variable DOE... To find the major impacting variable AND to find which variables interact.

You could find that wood type and bridge type, or wood type and body shape impact tone, but you won't be able to determine how those variables interact with each other. You can treat it as a multi-variate optimization problem to maximize the frequency output of the entire guitar system.

A lot of people have a very difficult time accepting that you can change multiple parameters at the same time and still be able to get meaningful results because it is counter to all of the "best practices" that are taught in science classes.


----------



## helferlain (Oct 5, 2014)

Andless said:


> ... that the effect of the wood differences easily gets lost or overshadowed in the other variables (parts & construction method/quality). That would make sense to me.



Thats it.


----------



## Fretless (Oct 5, 2014)

MaxOfMetal said:


> I feel there are enough musicians out there who would throw down, if it's marketed right.
> 
> At least I'd hope so given the potato salad fund and the thousands of dollars that even it's spin offs gained.



Give me a few months to prepare, and I will throw down


----------



## patsanger (Oct 5, 2014)

Either find a birdfish (.....birdfish.................................) and change out the tonebars - or make something like it, where you have a stable platform that does not move and you change in and out the wood segments you are testing.


----------



## redstone (Oct 5, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Your last line assumes that the difference in guitar sound comes from the wood, but that (as I've said before, and which this topic is about) is an unproven assumption.
> 
> And that's ad hominem.
> 
> ...



sorry, answer's in the quote


----------



## Andless (Oct 6, 2014)

patsanger said:


> Either find a birdfish (.....birdfish.................................) and change out the tonebars - or make something like it, where you have a stable platform that does not move and you change in and out the wood segments you are testing.



I'd love myself a birdfish  but at $15000 they are out of budget for me.


----------



## axiomIII (Oct 28, 2014)

here is narads gelb strandberg...


----------

