Why Does An Electric's Wood Type Alter Tone?

[FretFire]

Guys, there is a debate going on at another forum I'm a member of, and I was wondering if you guys might be able to help clear it up. There are a couple guys arguing that all you hear coming from your amp is the strings and pickups interacting, and that the type of wood has basically no effect on what you hear. Several others (including myself) are saying that different woods do indeed have different effects on your tone, whether it be an inherent brightness, etc. Any insight?

The link to the other thread, for anyone interested.

http://guitar.com/Discuss/readmsg.asp?show...297&boardID=100

[Czar]

I don't think it alters the tone as much as some others believe, but it does. Yes the pickups are detecting the strings vibration and send it to the amp, but the characteristics of the wood will effect the way they strings vibrate, thus altering the tone.

[bassman]

that thread is beating a dead horse... the issue has been stated pretty clearly by some of those guys. The vibrations of the string are affected by the acoustical properties of the wood, and electric solid body instruments really do have acoustic properties. A comparison might help- the material that a speaker cabinet is made of can greatly affect the tone of the setup- the same goes for the electric instruments strings. Different species of wood, and even identical species of wood from the same tree can have different effects on the vibrations of the strings. The difference is surely not as noticeable in electric instruments as it is in acoustics- at least in most cases. However, it is still there. Mikelp, seems to just keep on saying, why,why,why,why,why,prove it, prove it,prove it, prove it, prove it. He is jjust not listening to the answers that have been given to him. Perhaps he wants someone to break it down to him in the most simple form, quantum mechanics...

Peace,

Ryan

[Hotrock]

I think you'll find people arguing about that wherever there are guitars.

The general feeling here is that the type of wood DOES make a difference, I'm sure someone will explain it better, but here is my take (but I'm no expert) and it's in engineer speak (sorry):

The wobbly bit of the strings are held by (lets say) the bridge and the nut which are attached to the wood. For the sake of this example we will assume that the nut and bridge transfer 100% of the vibration to the body. This causes the body to vibrate (you can tell that the body vibrates because it….errr…..vibrates when you play it). This means that the bits holding the strings vibrate too (at a different frequency to the string) and this alters the sound, it is however a secondary effect as you do mainly hear the strings interacting with the pups. I generally model stuff like this as a spring, mass, damper model. For example, take your car suspension, it has a spring (suspension), mass (unsprung weight of wheel, brakes etc) and damper (the….errr…..damper). Given that the spring and mass remain constant, if you change the damper, the displacement graph (with time) of the vertical suspension movement will change as the oscillation is more or less damped. This is the same with the guitar. If everything remains the same except for the wood, the damping characteristics will change (as the vibrations I spoke about a minute ago will be at a different frequency due to the guitar body resonating at a different frequency). This will cause the oscillation of the string to change slightly.

I’m sure someone else will pop in with a bit less rambling version (or indeed the right version) but that’s been my take on it. Oh and for future reference, if the wood is kept the same and the body shape is changed, the body will hit resonance at a different frequency, therefore the sound will change.

Oh and if you were wondering about the engineer speak, we use the terms “wobbly bit” when we think no one else is listening

Excuse any spelling and grammer bugger ups, as this is a quick note between meetings.

Kaj

[erikbojerik]

The only way to really hear the difference between woods on a solid body electric is to play clean; if you play enough clean guitar, you'll notice the difference (and notice it more easily the more you play).

If you use active humbuckers and a Fuzzy Gonads overdrive with the gain set at 11, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Brazilian rosewood and petrified dog crap.

[darren wilson]

petrified dog crap

Dammit! That's what my next guitar was going to be made of, but now you've spoiled the surprise! I guess i'll make it out of WOOD now.

[FretFire]

Thanks for all the help guys. Looks like you pretty much agree with the majority of the people involved over at guitar.com. I'm not really sure why that discussion turned so ugly, it's unfortunate.

[westhemann]

If you use active humbuckers and a Fuzzy Gonads overdrive with the gain set at 11, then you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Brazilian rosewood and petrified dog crap.

pffft!so i guess i prefer my alder guitars with active humbuckers and metal zone distortion pedal over my mahogany ones with the same pickups through the same pedal for nothing then.

if your style of music is metal,and you have been playing it for years through different guitars and amps,you most certainly WILL hear the difference.

BUT i have a harder time telling the difference in clean tones.why?because my ear has not had the years of traing in clean tones that it has in overdriven tones

I'm not really sure why that discussion turned so ugly, it's unfortunate.

i can tell you why.it's because some can hear the differences clearly,and others cannot,and the ones who cannot do not want to admit their hearing may be inferior to the ones who can

[Myka Guitars]

Not only do people hear at different levels of subtlety but one of the most influencial parts of the tone chain is rarely brought into the discussion. That is that most amplifiers color the sound of the guitar so much that they do sound (nearly) the same. Not that many people will go out and buy the most articulate, transparent amplifier they can get because (controversy coming...) tube amps are expensive. A lot of the newer amps have digital modelling and effects built right in. This makes almost any guitar sound the same. And this is what people are hearing. That and the overprocessed music industry's mass market recordings (that's for another discussion).

I did a test with a friend's solid state Marshall amp with built in chorus and distortion and my Fender tube amp. While we could hear the difference plain as day through my Fender tube amp you could barely hear any difference at all through his Marshall solid state amp. Hardly any of the guitar's color was there at all. Not to dismiss the solid state amps out there that do a great job of clearly and unobtrusively amplifying a guitar's tone, it's just that a lot of the newer (and more acce$$ible) amps have built in effect circuitry. They aren't going for total clarity. And it's no wonder. The same companies building the cheap lifeless guitars are putting out these digital effected amps to try to make their guitars sound better.

It is almost impossible to prove this point in the current mass produced, monotone guitar and amp market. I see and hear the evidence every day. That's enough for me and my clients. That's why they are buying custom.

[frank falbo]

I agree with Myka. I think the "modelling generation" (currently about 16 and younger) as a whole will come up through the ranks with a different view of what tone is. I mean, our forefathers were judging "tone" as an acoustic-only equation, and before them was cat gut strings. I think as the world becomes more digitized we'll accept things like CGI, pitch correction, and tone modelling as larger parts of the equations. The Variax is a great example. Before that it was the Roland V-guitar system, and piezo equipped Parkers that were breaking ground. It's saying "lets have this thing, and fake like it's really this other thing." It's sad, depending on what viewpoint you come from. We'll be telling our grandkids about the "good old days" just like every generation before us.

The important thing is that we have this right now. We have cool wooden guitars and tube amps. So I plan on getting the most joy I can out of them. Who cares if my kids or grandkids laugh at me for playing one of those old "tree guitars" that they think sounds old school? I don't think today's accepted tone principals will ever go away, though. Like I think CGI is replacing puppetry and makeup for good. I don't think anyone will spend 10 hours in a makeup chair 10 years from now when a computer can apply the look in minutes, post-production. And why use a stunt man with cables when your computer can make us think we're seeing spiderman leap through town? It's like, who records with real reverb anymore? No one. Everyone uses an effect or a plug in. Sure some people go to an old church and mic it up, but its rare. Imagine if you could lay tracks with a LP/Marshall and then decide later you wished you had used a Strat/Tweed sound instead. So you just click a mouse, and poof! Its transformed, because the track was originally laid with a raw "variax" type signal, or a digitally encoded signal. We do that now with drum triggers. You can mess with it in post production by changing out the drum sounds. Some of this technology is too cool to scoff at, but as a guitarist I'll still play the old school stuff, and I believe wood choice and combination is essential to determining a guitar's tone.

Strings will always have to be attatched to something, and that's the key. People think the acoustic properties of a guitar are so important in determining the pickup output, and they are, but because strings are some of the most sensitive musical items out there. Perhaps moreso than wind instruments and definitely more than percussion. I mean, the type of plastic and thickness of your pick affects the sound! Strings are infinite in variable, and the items they're attatched to are infinitely influential to how the string will attack, vibrate, swell, sustain, decay, etc.

It also affects the frequency range and response curve, but again, that's not always in direct correlation to the acoustic sound you hear. I could shape a guitar so that the upper horn area was carved out, shaped like a megaphone aiming up at the player. It would change the response curve you heard, but have little effect if any on the tonality of the electric sound. If you put an extra soundhole in the side of a 335, aiming up at the player, again it would greatly alter the acoustic tone for the player. But it would have perhaps no effect on the plugged in tone, and a very disproportionate one at best. Any time the wood debate comes up regarding electric solidbodies, just keep thinking, it's all about the strings, all about the strings.

As for discussions getting nasty, that falls solely on the character of the individuals, not the debate itself.

[Kevan]

I could shape a guitar so that the upper horn area was carved out, shaped like a megaphone aiming up at the player.

...while Frank's working on the North Drums of guitars (heh heh), I'll add this to the fray:

No two ears 'hear' the same. Ears are like fingerprints; they are all shaped differently. This is why a Dumble sounds great to XXXXX, but sounds like "petrified dog crap" to YYYYYY.

Also, when it comes to wood, you will NEVER have two guitars that sound EXACTLY alike. I mean EXACT (Hotrock knows what kind of exact I'm talkin' about). Why not? Because the grain of the wood in those two guitars is different, courtesy of Mother Nature. It might be just a teeny-tiny variation in the grain, but it's enough to, technically, make one sound different than the other. Not different bad and not different good....just different.

You and I might not be able to hear the difference between the two 'identical' guitars, but placed under the proverbial microscope, the differences are evident.

Frank- no email and no call? Wassabi? Let's get this thing goin'! I'm here all week. You have my cell number, I think.

[rino]

I think maple sounds cool. Like maple tops or for an extreme example pick up a maple hollow body and you’ll hear the difference wood and shape can make.

But, there is more to a guitar than just sound.

The weight, the feel, the look and the smell of a guitar all serve to inspire you in a certain way. And wood is responsible for all that.

As far as sound goes, I never really played a guitar that I didn’t like. Even my nephew’s cheap ass $99 starter guitar sounds good.

But wood and shape will always be important to me, cause it’s simply nice to have what you want sometimes.

[deadmike]

i understand most of what people are saying, and you can pretty much warp your guitar to whatever sound you like with effects pedals and such if you cant get your preffered wood, why worry about it, these people arguing against need to understand that different materials vibrate differently. basic physics. hence why my guittar is made of pine with a very thin walnut veneer. because i dont care how it vibrates...

everybody says "it wont work!!" yet when i plug the bastard into 2 effects modules and a destortion pedal they will be too deaf to care what its made out of!!

vibrating walls.... check

vibrating guitar....nil

[erikbojerik]

My son (with my help) is still on a mission to measure the frequency response of different tone woods, as a way to quantify discussions such as these, but the project has slowed down a bit now that they've cancelled his science fair (postponed 'till next year). The idea is to duplicate (as much as one can) the kind of frequency response measurements that engineers use to spec out speaker cabinets, except he'll be using a peizo instead of a mic. To put some numbers onto the kinds of sentiments expressed so well by Kevan, Frank & Myka.

We're starting with several different pine boards (cheap) to quantify the point that Kevan was making. After that...well...we're hoping for wood donations in the name of science (body blanks only...)

[guitar_ed]

I just got a blurb in the mail from GC, and there are bits in it about how and why various different things impact on the tone. And what they said about the various pieces, including the body, is that they impact the way in which the string vibrates.

I am not a physics major, so I can not judge the accuracy of the statement. I am just repeating it.

Guitar Ed

[Kevan]

Erik- I'm not sure a piezo will be sensitive enough to measure the wood down to the level I was talking about, but I wish you and your son the best of luck. I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that I'm anxious to hear your results (no pun intended).

I've not done the tests myself, but I've watched luthiers bang on big body blanks looking for a sound they couldn't describe in words.

There's a "tone" out there.

Some hear it. Some don't. And some of us get whatever is leftover on the shop floor.

(I'm kinda bummed no one got my North Drums joke....oh well...obscurity is for the few.)

[dmsean]

Well this is my .02

part of my job is to figure out things that effect taking measurements. This is what I think is the reason that different woods effect tone. The pickup picks up the vibration of the string. The pickup doesn't notice any difference in the string, the vibration is what it is. the wood that the pickup is mounted to actually vibrates according to the sympathic frequency of the piece of wood. Wood densities, thickness, grain patterns ect. are all going to effect this vibration. because the pickup and the strings are vibrating at different rates they cause harmonics, this in turn is transmitted thru the pickup and to the amp. When tapping a piece of wood you will hear a "tone" the harder and stiffer the wood the higher the frequency will be.

I spent a few years working with accelorometers, and acoustic setups. I could be wrong but this is my .02

[gtrplyr]

thats kind of stupid why someone would think that wood wouldnt effect the sound. if it didnt why wouldnt we just make guitars out of cheap plywood instead of expensive aftrican mahogany and what not

[ToddW]

Because that wouldn't be as much fun

Silly to say the wood won't affect the tone. How significant that effect will be is what is debatable.

I have my doubts that in a blinded test, anyone could consistantly separate 5 guitars made of purple heart from 5 made of maple. That's if all other factors are the same. They're both hard and fairly dense woods and there's variation in each species. Yes, it's probably one wood species vibrates or dampens a certain group of frequencies differently than another wood of similar density and hardness, but I doubt it's enough for us to hear. I do think you could hear the difference between woods of vastly different densities and hardnesses if the guitars were otherwise identical.

[Prostheta]

petrified dog crap

Dammit! That's what my next guitar was going to be made of, but now you've spoiled the surprise! I guess i'll make it out of WOOD now.

It would make the burning guitars debate more lively and amusing, that's for sure. I have no idea how it takes stain, and what fillers are compatible. Peanut butter and epoxy?

Oh, this is a really old and done to death thread also. Suffice it to say that the materials holding the bridge/nut/frets or whatever is the fixed points either side of the vibrating string length is subject to resonance/damping and movement. That will in turn affect to a degree the vibrating string length also. In short and to answer the original question directly, it alters tone because wood is not a "perfect" material. Making an instrument out of acrylised aerated concrete coated with a thick layer of lead might be more "true" and less affective on the string vibrations! I believe that's Ibanez' current low-end instrument technique however.

Edited February 27, 2009 by Prostheta

[erikbojerik]

I think dmsean put the physics of it very nicely - that is a good description of what is going on.

I've made incremental progress in the frequency response experiment - mostly by thinking - piezo output is the only way to go, and the idea will be to take the spectra on many different woods of identical dimensions (density is measured) and subtract from them the frequency response of a similar homogeneous material that has no grain (isotropic) - probably MDF though we may try plywood and OSB as well just for kicks. This should do a decent job to normalize out the dimensional and methodological aspects of the measurement.

Right now I am a bit stuck on how best to hold the billet (maybe hung by string at 2 corners), how to excite the wood (bonk, or speaker/driver using white noise or a swept sine - maybe both) and where to place the excitation (center?) and the response piezo (I'm thinking roughly @ bridge position).

[Narcissism]

Wow, this thread was resurrected from 2004...

[Prostheta]

Oh be quiet you two, or we might as well be pinning the topic. Pshaw.

[Woodenspoke]

I've made incremental progress in the frequency response experiment - mostly by thinking - piezo output is the only way to go, and the idea will be to take the spectra on many different woods of identical dimensions (density is measured) and subtract from them the frequency response of a similar homogeneous material that has no grain (isotropic)

All you need is a magic wand which makes all the tress grow like clones, LOL

I can see it now Maple Clone 10X's the price, cloned from the very maple tree used to make the original LP Gold top, documents to prove the genetic material was recoverd from SN# 0000001. It could happen?????????

I would be interested to see the results anyway

[dmsean]

I think dmsean put the physics of it very nicely - that is a good description of what is going on.

I've made incremental progress in the frequency response experiment - mostly by thinking - piezo output is the only way to go, and the idea will be to take the spectra on many different woods of identical dimensions (density is measured) and subtract from them the frequency response of a similar homogeneous material that has no grain (isotropic) - probably MDF though we may try plywood and OSB as well just for kicks. This should do a decent job to normalize out the dimensional and methodological aspects of the measurement.

Right now I am a bit stuck on how best to hold the billet (maybe hung by string at 2 corners), how to excite the wood (bonk, or speaker/driver using white noise or a swept sine - maybe both) and where to place the excitation (center?) and the response piezo (I'm thinking roughly @ bridge position).

I think I would use a Accelorometer shaker table, then mount multiple accelomometers over the billet. This should give you a nice map of the actual variations of each area of the billet (MDF) in question. From there you could then take pieces of the same size with the grain running in different directions, and different densities, and see the variation from the original. This would give you the ability to predict with atleast some consistancy of how the resonant frequecies will come out.

This in turn would give you the ability to try to find the perfect wood grains to get the "tone" you are looking for from any guitar you are building in theory anyway.

As for how to suspend your billet, from the primary labs that I i have seen, I would suspend your piece from 4 corners (this will keep any outside noise from effecting you readings) and place a speaker directly below the billet and use a swept sinewave, one again you'll have to use multiple points to get a good mapping of your billet.

Once again this is just my .02 I am not a physics major and I never played one on TV.