Johnny Foreigner Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 at this stage I've used both genuine mahogany and african mahogany. I found the genuine very easy to work with - easy to cut, easy to sand, etc. The african less so. I'm inclined to use genuine again, but as it's nearly double the price most places, I was also looking at Sapele. How would that stack up against the two mahoganys in terms of ease of working, ease of finishing, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 since mahoganies (well all woods really, but mahogany seems like it has a greater range) vary so much there is a lot of cross over- you could easily pay double for the genuine and get a piece that works like the african you didnt like as much! Sapele is generally a bit stiffer with more bite to the sound. its not usually as 'works like butter' as some mahoganies, you really need to be aware of grain direction to get the most from it when using edge tools. It sands just fine and finishes quite easily. I like oiled sapele Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Foreigner Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 interesting.... what about walnut for a body wood (topped with maple)? Any thoughts on workability / sound considerations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestorationAD Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 interesting.... what about walnut for a body wood (topped with maple)? Any thoughts on workability / sound considerations? Walnut body should rock. I am experimenting with 2 walnut bodied guitars this year I just haven't posted them yet. When they are done I will let you know how they go. Walnut works amazing. The peruvian I have cuts like butter yet is stiff and has an awesome ring to it. The black is almost as nice... Sapele is a staple at my shop. I love the slightly darker tones I get out of it. I have pieces that are identical to Khaya in color (light) and weight and have pieces that are dark colored and heavy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Foreigner Posted February 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Walnut body should rock. I am experimenting with 2 walnut bodied guitars this year I just haven't posted them yet. When they are done I will let you know how they go. Awesome. A buddy wants me to build him an SG, so I'm thinking walnut topped with black dyed quilted maple. I've been rereading the Hand of Doom thread obsessively. That thing was insanely beautiful. Best SG I've ever seen by a long shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helldunkel Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've written an informative article on the subject a couple weeks ago, maybe you will find this to be interesting... Sound and Species Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Foreigner Posted February 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 I've written an informative article on the subject a couple weeks ago, maybe you will find this to be interesting... Sound and Species SUPER interesting, thanks Patrick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted February 11, 2011 Report Share Posted February 11, 2011 If you've paid attention to Huff's posts, you'd see a pattern. He constantly drones on about how you can't tell what the woo/instrument will really sound like until it's done because if subtle, munir variations which occur within two cuts of wood from the same tree. Armed with this level of dismissal, you can't make ANY generalization about ANY species of wood EVER!!!!!! You'll never know what it will sound like, so don't ever bother trying. If the pickup was wound in a dry climate, it might make tit sound different than one wound in high humidity. Don't try, don't bother, don't investigate, don't take your own experiences into account, don't take anyone elses experiences into account (except for his, of course), and jsut admit that nobody will ever have even an educated guess about the likely tonal result. OF course, we have the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of years of acoustic lutherie and 60 years of electric lutherie to argue with him, but it doesn't matter because they're all wrong. So. Yes, while it is correct that wood will vary depending on where it's grown, the exact sub-species, and a hundred other variables, you can make generalizations about the tone it will bring. What I've found is that there seems to be a direct correlation between the density of the wood and the tone. The more harder the wood, the brighter it seems to be. Likewise with softer woods being more warm. Smoothness of grain seems to be a good indicator as well, but it's not as good an indicator. And to answer your question about walnut: American black walnut makes a fantastic sounding guitar. It's a bonus that it's a dream to work with, and looks great regardless of what you do to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RestorationAD Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Yes, while it is correct that wood will vary depending on where it's grown, the exact sub-species, and a hundred other variables, you can make generalizations about the tone it will bring. What I've found is that there seems to be a direct correlation between the density of the wood and the tone. The more harder the wood, the brighter it seems to be. Likewise with softer woods being more warm. Smoothness of grain seems to be a good indicator as well, but it's not as good an indicator. +1 Well said. That is pretty much my theory to a point. I have a general idea of what I am after when I start... but I never know what the final mix is going to sound like until it is done. Works for me I love good surprise... Until you start building the same guitar over and over again (even then) it will be very hard to be able to control the final tones. What you will start to learn is what works and what gives you something in the range you are after. Building is an adventure. When it is over you stop, enjoy the scenery, and start another adventure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helldunkel Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Don't try, don't bother, don't investigate, don't take your own experiences into account, don't take anyone elses experiences into account (except for his, of course), and jsut admit that nobody will ever have even an educated guess about the likely tonal result. OF course, we have the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of years of acoustic lutherie and 60 years of electric lutherie to argue with him, but it doesn't matter because they're all wrong. As usual thank you for you wonderfull constructive and provocative comments, I'm glad that you enjoy making fun anytime I post something... Laugh as much as you wish, the fact is that at this point you still dont know how to open a wood encyclopedia and read, because at this point you still think that "mahogany" is a specific wood and not a generic term... and your speaking about experience What I've found is that there seems to be a direct correlation between the density of the wood and the tone. The more harder the wood, the brighter it seems to be. Likewise with softer woods being more warm. Smoothness of grain seems to be a good indicator as well, but it's not as good an indicator. Funny that you then have to confirm what I write in my article.... The Specific modulus is the property of a material (in this case, wood) and consists of the elastic modulus per mass density. It is also known as the stiffness to weight ratio or specific stiffness. The more harder the wood the brighter it seems to be, I'm actually confirming this in the article, again learn how to read... Don't try, don't bother, don't investigate, don't take your own experiences into account, don't take anyone elses experiences into account (except for his, of course), and jsut admit that nobody will ever have even an educated guess about the likely tonal result. I've written an informative article on the subject a couple weeks ago, maybe you will find this to be interesting.. Usually this means that an intelligent person may be interested and may go and check this out, maybe he wont agree since its an informative article. Somebody like you who has sooo much experience will naturally feel completely offended, I understand your frustration mate, dont worry Your trolling mate damn now watch mister einstein avatar start a flame war as he always does....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supernova9 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 If you've paid attention to Huff's posts, you'd see a pattern. He constantly drones on about how you can't tell what the woo/instrument will really sound like until it's done because if subtle, munir variations which occur within two cuts of wood from the same tree. Armed with this level of dismissal, you can't make ANY generalization about ANY species of wood EVER!!!!!! You'll never know what it will sound like, so don't ever bother trying. If the pickup was wound in a dry climate, it might make tit sound different than one wound in high humidity. Don't try, don't bother, don't investigate, don't take your own experiences into account, don't take anyone elses experiences into account (except for his, of course), and jsut admit that nobody will ever have even an educated guess about the likely tonal result. OF course, we have the accumulated knowledge of hundreds of years of acoustic lutherie and 60 years of electric lutherie to argue with him, but it doesn't matter because they're all wrong. So. Yes, while it is correct that wood will vary depending on where it's grown, the exact sub-species, and a hundred other variables, you can make generalizations about the tone it will bring. What I've found is that there seems to be a direct correlation between the density of the wood and the tone. The more harder the wood, the brighter it seems to be. Likewise with softer woods being more warm. Smoothness of grain seems to be a good indicator as well, but it's not as good an indicator. And to answer your question about walnut: American black walnut makes a fantastic sounding guitar. It's a bonus that it's a dream to work with, and looks great regardless of what you do to it. Very provocative response, totally unnecessary and if you disagree with someone's viewpoints they are better ways to do it in order to stop it turning into a flamefest. I think you're looking for an argument. Put down the keyboard and take your stress out elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Our Souls inc. Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I read the article. * yawn * It seems to completely contardict everything it says somewhere along the line. ... and for a guy who believes you can't tell the tone of a certain specie of wood, you sure build every guitar out of "perfectly quartersawn sapelli!!!" usually with a "Crazy figured top!!" . My point being that you yourself are predisposed to using a certain type of wood because you beleive you'll get a certain tone out of it . ... but I thought each piece varies?!? My point is this, I use certain types of wood because I KNOW what tonal range to expect of them. Build me a "dark" sounding solid maple guitar. I double-dog-dare you to. I don't think it can be done without serious manipulation of the electronics. The very fact that you say "stiffness" has to do with brightness,means you beleive that I can expect a brighter tone out of Ebony than I can from Pine. ... oh, we build out of way more than 3 types of wood, too. So, yes, I consider myself to be intelligent, and yes I found the article to be a bore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 I straddle the fence on this one - i believe the generalisations are very useful and a good place to start with wood/tone discussions, but as builders we always need to remember that they are just generalisations and they will only ever get us so far. when somebody asks for a guitar with a "mahogany type tone with more mids" or any of the other descriptions i get in my inbox i could start making them feel like a silly child for saying such things, or i could ask them a few more questions to help pin down the tone they are after from the guitar and make suggestions on how i would go about it, starting with the generalisations like 'i need a piece of ******** to get me close' before looking at individual planks to get me where i want to be! It seems to completely contardict everything it says somewhere along the line. tbh, i see a bit of self contradiction as a quality in many things, especially luthiery - as long as you know why you are contradicting yourself. an example: i believe its a silly idea to build electric guitars out of solid maple, i believe they will usually be too bright and often too heavy. I own a solid maple guitar that is neither too bright or too heavy. I have played other solid maple guitars that were not too bright or too heavy, i have played many others that were. Its a contradiction, but i am still not going to be building any solid maple (whatever the exact species) guitars as i know it wont work with my usual build style A few months back i had someone try to discredit me on another forum, after a while he started pointing out how i wouldnt give a straight answer to his questions about the hardness of ebony, apparently he thought my unwillingness to give a clear and easy answer clearly demonstrated that i didnt actually know anything about building guitars. the guy simply couldnt understand that a straight answer (other than 'it depends on...') didnt exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avengers63 Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Just to prove that I'm going off of a pattern of a dismissive, I-know-more-than-you, condescending attitude.... You wont trully know what is the final tone of your guitar until you finish building it The tone of an instrument is produced by hundereds of various factors which includes: - scale - your hands - thickness of the body, neck, fingerboard - hardware - nut material - finish - pickups - strings - wood selection etc etc etc.... This romantic myth / poetry / legend that the blind mass thinks about when talking about tonewood on electric guitars is sometimes absurd because they always refer to generic terms which dont mean anything. Also considering that inside the same blank you can have various densities and stiffeness to weight ratio... Like you pointed out, he must judge the board his got and not make up an opinion on what he reads in forums because quite frankly it's not even a guide... Also ''mahogany'' does not mean anything already, its a generic term.... However sapeli is a varietie of the ''mahogany'' specie, I wrote this article a couple weeks ago after having enough cup of teas receiving mails from people asking me what sound produces ''mahogany'' and ''walnut'', now I just link them up "Mahogany" may refer to the largest group of all Meliaceae, the fifteen related species of Swietenia, Khaya and Entandrophragma. While I wont talk about sound (and you will understand why), I thought I would shime in to explain something.... Here is an article I wrote about the subject: <a href="http://www.hufschmidguitars.com/wood_species" target="_blank">sound and species</a> When you mention ''walnut'', which ''walnut'' are you talking about? You do however mention the specie of the ''ash'' which in this case is swamp ash..... ''Walnut'' is a generic therm which does not really mean anything... My point is, there are several different species of ''walnut'' out there which all have a different stiffeness to weight ratio... What does this mean? Basically and to make this simple, this means that they will sound totally different from eachother.... <!--sizeo:2--><span style="font-size:10pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo--><b>stiffeness to weight ratio is the major factor of what produces the sound of the wood on a musical instrument and which makes you say that it either sounds warm or bright........</b><!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--> Here are some exemples from my private stock: pictures edited out Some more Claro Walnut but this time with some figurine which means that the structure of the wood totally differs from the previous exemple so by default which means that in no way can this wood sound the same then the previous exemple... pictures edited out etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....... Now here are some more exemple of different species... My point is, be sure to know which walnut you are talking about before to say ''walnut sounds bright'' walnut has more mids'' etc because it makes no sens..... Hopefully this clarifies what the big marketing guys have done to try and place a specific sound on a generic name... Same when you buy a ''mahogany'' guitar.... What does this mean? Nothing... haha Yet people still say ''mahogany sounds warm and muddy'' and maple sounds ''bright and snappy'' *Argentine Walnut *Brazilian Walnut *California Walnut *Hinds' Walnut *Nuevo Leon Walnut *West Indies Walnut *Arizona Walnut *Texas Walnut or Little Walnut *Mexican Walnut *Andean Walnut * Juglans nigra L. - Black Walnut *Peruvian Walnut * Juglans soratensis Manning - *Guatemalan Walnut *Venezuela Walnut *Japanese Walnut etc etc etc etc....... care to chime in about black walnut's tone? EDIT: about the black walnut (The Eastern Black walnut (Juglans nigra) is a species of flowering tree in the hickory family) It all depends how you are going to combine it with the hundereds of other ingredients which makes for the final sound of your instrument.... You see, in all of these posts, the only thing that's been said is "you don't know what you're talking about" and "you'll never know what it's going to sound like until it's done." I still stand by this post I made in response to Huf: If you wanted to take it one step further, the same species can grow in different places, but due to varying conditions it can be structurally different in subtle ways and sound different. Heck, different parts of the <i>same tree</i> could potentially suffer from the same effect. You could literally say that you will never truly know EXACTLY what it will sound like until it's done. Or you can go with the well known, general properties that we're all aware of. I'm not going to knock hufschmid's knowledge, but this is a classic example of 1) overthinking the whole thing, and 2) asking what time it is and being told how to make a clock. Except he's not telling you how to make the clock, but that you have to understand HOW to make the clock before you can truly know how to tell time. Essentially, (again - no disrespect) he hasn't given you any of the information you've asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 12, 2011 Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 (edited) Patrik, I went into that article with an initial "oh here we go again on another this-is-the-way-things-are BS article" but I was proved wrong. That is exactly how I feel about these blanket terms being bandied around. "Mahogany" means nothing unless you count "brown and woody" as being descriptive also. My plans for next builds involve a Brian May Red Special, and my research into the appropriate materials led me to these species-specific conclusions also. Mahogani, Swietenia and Sapele would produce three different necks despite all being blocked under the term "Mahogany". Take this a little further and there is the problem of people who see wood and don't hear wood; those that haven't learnt to listen to wood in the raw before incorporating it into an instrument. Good wood makes a difference....knowing what IS good wood is a problem that takes longer than a lifetime to completely learn in my opinion, but progressively you can pick out the lesser examples! I'm shocked that some people have never heard Dalbergia nigra tapped and ringing in person. Makes you change your mind how you perceive wood in a few moments. Really. Hats off to you. Edited February 12, 2011 by Prostheta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bartbrn Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't want to sound like a smartass, or disparage anyone's tonewood theories,but I'd like to make a few observations: 1. Leo Fender's Esquire/Broadcaster/nocaster, the Bigsby Travis, and Les Paul's original "log" used woods that were exceptionally mundane, yet everyone's been trying to capture that original Fender tone for 60+ years. But who, 60+ years on, can say what that tone was? 2. With modern modeling amps and effects boxes, a bewildering variety of strings, and modern pickups of differing design from humbuckers -- with and without coil-tapping -- to rail, polepiece, AlNiCo 3 and 5 and neodymium magnet bases, all making for infinite varieties and combinations of pickups, as long as the body and neck are of the stiffness required to set and maintain proper intonation and action, it seems to me that accurately gauging the effect that the properties of specific woods have on the sound of solid-bodied guitars -- which are always played amplified, with many electronic components in the signal path from the guitar to the amp, and from the amp, through a specific soundfield, to your ears -- is an exercise somewhat akin to flatly declaring the exact number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin. Acoustic guitars, of course, are a hugely different matter. 3. Wood aficionados should check out http://pinecaster.com/ and have a listen to Arlo West's pine-bodied custom guitars using mostly Bill & Becky Lawrence's pickups. Yes, West, like all electric guitar players, uses electromagnetic pickups, tube and/or solid-state amp heads and cabs, electronic pedals and effects, and a specific room space. Don't forget that in this case, you're listening to a software-compressed signal through your computer, then headphones or speakers. Thank God we can all choose our own beliefs! Bart Brown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't want to get into the debate on tonewoods here,but I would just like to point out that if Leo Fender was so brilliant and if everything he did is used as a benchmark for the way things "should be done"(as evidenced by the "Fender has been doing(insert thing here)for (insert unit of measurement here) and that was good enough for (inset musician here) so it's good enough for me" argument),then why the heck aren't we all buying Fenders instead of building our own? Sure,flatsawn maple is fine in a neck...Fender did it...does not mean that quartersawn may not be better in your handmade custom... Running opposing grain in your laminates may not be foolproof,but it's better than nothing and it looks more balanced than doing it the other way Sure,Fender made guitars of mucho cheaper plentiful woods...doesn't mean your handmade custom should be made of cheap plentiful wood... Yes,I belive mahoganies tend to be warmer in general than maple in general...and I can't think of a single piece of any type of mahogany that I have heard that does not meet the term "warm",or a single piece of maple that was not brighter in comparison.."muddy" is a generic term and should never be used to describe wood. I tend to seek out nice tight pieces of the mahogany family...but if the mahogany is a lighter,more porous piece I like to mate it with a maple cap. Sure,making generalities about woods is not always accurate for every piece,but neither is making generalities about the intelligence levels of those who like to think in those terms. I know I am bringing in several other recent topics in this post,but whatever. Do unto others, Random acts of kindness,and be kind,rewind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Factors outside of Leo and Co's "magic" such as old growth wood availability are factors also. The Tele "Thinline" was created due to the dwindling availability of lighter (Ash?) blanks. Fender occupies a strange position in history due to the initial bent on commercial production and manufacture rather than high class artisanry. I am sure as shet that they didn't tap blanks or spend valuable (and expensive) time grading woods other than the most basic of visual inspections. Perhaps old growth woods from relatively undisturbed habitats created a greater prevalence of "good" wood which is almost non-existent now? Would a first generation Strat sound as good at the time of manufacture as it would after 50+ years of aging and wearing in? Anyway. Back onto the topic of Sapele/"Mahogany". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 One thing maybe we all should keep in mind about Fender(and others) is that for every one that becomes something great and lasts a lifetime there are many that become trash and get thrown in the closet or sold in a garage sale as junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westhemann Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 One other thing I would like to point out is that all of this talk about sapelle is going to bring the demand up and thus the price as well.. So thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prostheta Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 Agreed, yeah. It's not that spectacular in comparison to other commonly available (and more sustainable) woods out there. A lot of that is probably due to the moniker "Mahogany" having been slapped on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim37 Posted February 13, 2011 Report Share Posted February 13, 2011 I don't want to get into the debate on tonewoods here,but I would just like to point out that if Leo Fender was so brilliant and if everything he did is used as a benchmark for the way things "should be done"(as evidenced by the "Fender has been doing(insert thing here)for (insert unit of measurement here) and that was good enough for (inset musician here) so it's good enough for me" argument),then why the heck aren't we all buying Fenders instead of building our own? Sure,flatsawn maple is fine in a neck...Fender did it...does not mean that quartersawn may not be better in your handmade custom... Running opposing grain in your laminates may not be foolproof,but it's better than nothing and it looks more balanced than doing it the other way Sure,Fender made guitars of mucho cheaper plentiful woods...doesn't mean your handmade custom should be made of cheap plentiful wood... Yes,I belive mahoganies tend to be warmer in general than maple in general...and I can't think of a single piece of any type of mahogany that I have heard that does not meet the term "warm",or a single piece of maple that was not brighter in comparison.."muddy" is a generic term and should never be used to describe wood. I tend to seek out nice tight pieces of the mahogany family...but if the mahogany is a lighter,more porous piece I like to mate it with a maple cap. Sure,making generalities about woods is not always accurate for every piece,but neither is making generalities about the intelligence levels of those who like to think in those terms. I know I am bringing in several other recent topics in this post,but whatever. Do unto others, Random acts of kindness,and be kind,rewind Fenders idea was to build an afordable guitar that could be easily repaird thats why he used a bolt on neck if a neck warped, twisted or broke you just bolt a new one on. if you busted the body you could put a new body on and keep your old neck and hardware. plus by doing all this he could use an assembly line aproch to building making them cheaper to produce. they don't have to have trained luithiers to build there guitars. all this makes me wonder why you can buy a faded sg for the same as a highway one tele. any way use what ever wood you want wes did make a good point your not trying to mass produce guitars as cheap as possible if you spend a few extra bucks here and there you will end up with a much nicer guitar in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bartbrn Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) I don't want to get into the debate on tonewoods here,but I would just like to point out that if Leo Fender was so brilliant... then this opening statement is followed by a treatise on on laminates (!), "warm" or "muddy" mahoganies, "brighter maples," and then, out of the blue, comes this: Sure,making generalities about woods is not always accurate for every piece,but neither is making generalities about the intelligence levels of those who like to think in those terms. I certainly hope you weren't referring to my post in your remark "making generalities about the intelligence levels of those who like to think in those terms" -- nothing could be further from my purpose, and if it was my remarks to which you were referring, I'm afraid you've missed my point entirely. People are free to think what they like -- even me. I don't think Leo Fender or Les Paul were infallible geniuses, they were guitar makers in search of a solution to the problem of the limited volume of acoustic guitars of any configuration in a big band setting. Charlie Christian comes immediately to mind. Nor do I believe the configurations and components of their early experiments were, or are, the be-all and end-all of guitar construction. What I do think is that, unlike acoustic guitars, which depend on the vibrations of a plucked string, which vibrates a bridge, which vibrates the soundboard to which the bridge is coupled, which, in turn, creates sound waves in the air cavity inside the guitar, all of the sound waves "coupling" with the the interior top (soundboard), sides, and back, and if the coupling is good, a nice sound comes (mostly) out the sound hole (see http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/guitaracoustics/construction.html), solid-body electric guitars have VERY little scope to create vibrations significant to the tone of an electronically-amplified instrument. It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear -- in the flat, unmusical plunk of a plucked string on an unplugged solid-body electric guitar, period. I also believe that the effects of componentry in the guitar itself, especially the pickups and their relationship to the strings, are the prime determinants of the sound of any solid-bodied guitar, and that the composition of the body and neck -- AS LONG AS THE BODY AND NECK PROVIDE THE STABILITY AND STRENGTH REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CORRECT INTONATION -- make, for all practical purposes, no perceivable difference to the signal coming through the guitar's output jack. I wish I was smart enough and had the equipment (and time and money!) to conduct the following series of tests: 1. Pick a string, a tailpiece, a bridge, a nut, a tuning machine, and one simple, very clean pickup like the Lawrence Keystone. 2. Using the same string at the same very accurately chromatically tuned pitch (say 440.00 Hz which produces an A, standard tuning for the 5th string of a 6-string guitar), and the same tailpiece and bridge device, nut device, tuning key, pickup, precise scale length and distance from the string to the pickup pole piece (always using the same pole piece), and a simple single-wire-and-ground connected to a very precise oscilloscope, and, finally, a mechanical plectrum that insures the string is picked with exactly the same force at exactly the same angle of attack, affix this one-note-generating device to many single kinds of wood, many combinations of wood, some bolted together to emulate a bolt-on neck, some dove-tailed and glued to create a set neck, with the "body" and "neck" shape all exactly the same dimensions for every combo (including a neck-through, or body and neck all one piece, and the tailpiece, bridge, nut, and tuning key all in exactly the same place, and measure, at the greatest possible resolution of the O-scope, the wave-form that results: attack, peak, decay, overtones, all the harmonic spikes and valleys. NB: .All experiments conducted with the "guitars" in the same fixture, preferably in the playing position of upper bout at the top, lower bout at the bottom, "quitar" centerline perfectly horizontal -- strings picked when a guitar is on its back vibrate -- and interact with the pickup -- differently than a string picked in the "playing position." 3. Finally, do the same experiment with the exact same setup affixed, in the exact same relationship of all parts to one another, to a solid piece -- same size and configuration as all the wooden constructions -- of lead, soft as possible without compromising the ability of tailpiece, bridge, and nut to keep the string in correct and unmoving intonation.. I don't know what the results would be, but I bet they'd settle a lot of arguments! This would be an excellent acoustical physics experiment for a university lab -- any takers? Bart Brown Edited February 14, 2011 by bartbrn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 solid-body electric guitars have VERY little scope to create vibrations significant to the tone of an electronically-amplified instrument. It's my opinion that differences in neck and body materials make VERY little -- I believe NONE that can be heard by the human ear -- in the flat, unmusical plunk of a plucked string on an unplugged solid-body electric guitar, period. I also believe that the effects of componentry in the guitar itself, especially the pickups and their relationship to the strings, are the prime determinants of the sound of any solid-bodied guitar, and that the composition of the body and neck -- AS LONG AS THE BODY AND NECK PROVIDE THE STABILITY AND STRENGTH REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CORRECT INTONATION -- make, for all practical purposes, no perceivable difference to the signal coming through the guitar's output jack. you dont need fancy science for this - just go to a guitar shop and play a few guitars. if you can play a few of the same type you quickly notice how different they can sound. with CNC manufacture and machine wound pickups the biggest variable to explain the difference in sound is the natural variations within the wood. After playing a few similar instruments you will notice the similarities and differences that can be present in one type of wood The other thing you can do to highlight how different woods can sound is a few pickup swaps. Simply take a pickup you like and try it in a different guitar (preferably the same scale length and as many other things the same as possible). or, have you ever had a guitar that wouldnt sound good no matter what you did, i have - pickups helped get me to something i almost liked, but the character of the instrument still shone through strongly!! What I do think is that, unlike acoustic guitars, which depend on the vibrations of a plucked string, which vibrates a bridge, which vibrates the soundboard to which the bridge is coupled, which, in turn, creates sound waves in the air cavity inside the guitar, all of the sound waves "coupling" with the the interior top (soundboard), sides, and back, and if the coupling is good, a nice sound comes (mostly) out the sound hole (see http://www.phys.unsw...nstruction.html), you need to consider the coupling that occurs in an electric guitar the same way. can you accept that a string coupled to a soft spongy material would vibrate differently to a string coupled to a steel bar? Because thats basically what its about. Some materials will absorb more of the strings vibration than others. Also try to remember that a vibrating body may feed back some vibrations into the string, thereby influencing the way the string vibrates and the signal the pickups get to sense John Birch did agree with you and decided to build everything out of solid maple. He thought everything could be controlled with pickups and electronics. i own a john Birch guitar, and it does sound great. I have played a few over the years, and it is sadly not true that they all sound great - but i think he got it right most of the time and his build philosophy worked for him. Tbh, he may not have cared that much about the species of wood he used, but he was using decent stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WezV Posted February 14, 2011 Report Share Posted February 14, 2011 3. Wood aficionados should check out http://pinecaster.com/ and have a listen to Arlo West's pine-bodied custom guitars using mostly Bill & Becky Lawrence's pickups. Yes, West, like all electric guitar players, uses electromagnetic pickups, tube and/or solid-state amp heads and cabs, electronic pedals and effects, and a specific room space. Don't forget that in this case, you're listening to a software-compressed signal through your computer, then headphones or speakers. just to clarify - arlo says on his website that he uses pine because he likes the tone and the weight of pine bodied guitars. The guy is still being a 'wood aficionado' - but just happens to have gone a different route to most of us. Although with fender and squier now re-producing pine bodied telecasters (i suspect, partly due to TDPRI members)its not really an 'alternative' to choosing good wood, but a different option to make your guitars sound and feel different Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.