Body wood affects tone

UnclePsychosis

impmann said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

impmann said:

...These bullshit 'studies' that try to prove that a vibrating string strapped to a piece of wood (that *Does* sympathetically resonate in tune with that string) is not affected by the material it is strapped to have to be discounted. Firstly, common sense - if you vibrate a string and then introduce a different vibration to it, that vibration pitch and amplitude changes. Secondly, guitarists will tell you that feedback is a key piece of how a note decays and going back to point one, this is a feedback loop. Thirdly, electric guitars have been built and sold since the 1940s - are you genuinely suggesting that all of these buyers were 'wrong' in their opinions formed by playing them and that all those guitar builders were trying to hoodwink buyers?

 
A guitar body does not, for the most part, 'sympathetically resonate' with the string.  A guitar body can resonate if it is energised at its natural frequency (or frequencies) as a result of something else that is near by or is touching vibrating at those same frequencies. However, in a guitar body these frequencies are unlikely to be related to any tuned notes. For almost all tuned notes a guitar body, rather than resonating, will be in a state of forced vibration - which is something very different. Also - as those papers I linked to point out - when resonance does occur in guitars it is associated with the creation of 'dead spots', not a generalised modification of the timbre of the instrument.

Yes, wooden instruments can be created where vibration at their natural frequency is a central part of how they sound, such as a xylophone, but crucially a xylophone requires a separate, specially tuned piece of wood for every note. Conversely, a guitar has one body. Also, the natural frequency something vibrates at is as much a function of its size, density and even shape as what it is made from. Hence, each key of a xylophone made from the same wood will have a different mass / size. However, different materials could also be used, such as composites, or the shape changed to produce the required pitch. For example, see the article below on a 'zoolophone'.

https://phys.org/news/2015-10-algorithm-d-vibrational.html

One consequence of the above is that, if the natural frequency or 'resonance' of the body of an electric guitar was really so important to its tone (as heard via an electromagnetic pickup) not only would the type of wood used have an effect, this effect would be vastly greater if different materials were used, and all those clips of metal-bodied guitars and so on show that this is simply not the case. Also, the natural frequency of the guitar would change if the mass of the body was varied or even its shape was changed. However, even with odd-shaped guitars, such as the Explorer, we don't hear people say 'Wow, listen to that, that's a real zig-zag tone', instead they will still witter on about it being made from korina or whatever.

In short, it is nonsense to say that the 'resonance' of a guitar's body has anything to do with the sound heard via an electromagnetic pickup.

The weakness of the idea that the body somehow feeds back energy to the strings, modifying its harmonic content has already been covered: given the very small amount of energy the string gives to the body, the high impedance of the bridge to body interface, the fact that the energy given by the string is dissipated over the entire body of the guitar and so on, it is clear that the amount of energy that is returned to the string by the body is totally insignificant. The research also shows that any such feedback does not affect the harmonics sounding on the string, certainly to a degree that is perceptible.

Yes, feedback due to the air been forced to vibrate by a loud amp is  a central part of the rock guitar sound, but this has nothing to do with the sort of 'feedback' the believers in 'tone wood' argue for. Feedback due to microphonic pickups is also possible, but this just causes horrendous squealing, not a magical colouration of the timbre of the instrument.

As to why guitar makers have always preferred wood as the main material. There are a large number of obvious answers, from tradition through to cost, availability, ease of working, known technology, appearance, the conservative nature of the guitar buying public and so on.

Yes so in other words.... we're all wrong, all the guitar makers are wrong, the experts in the field of luthiery are wrong and you're right. Our ears are wrong, yours are right. You have "science" to back up your arguments.

Had enough of this bollocks.

Ignore status activated.

-thing is, instrument makers often *are* wrong and I mean that in the nicest possible way. They're just as susceptible to the psychoacoustic effects that musicians are.  

Our tedious friend is mistaken in a great many of his assertions but the argument from authority is a terrible logical fallacy and we should be wary of invoking it.

GSPBASSES

koneguitarist said:

@GSPBASSES Personally myself I think the best and easiest way to dispel the myth of tonewood, both for builders and customers is to build a guitar to your usual high standards of UK wood such as Oak, Beech or Sycamore maybe use and a RockLite fretboard (man made ebony equivalent) and listen to the results. 
If the difference in tone is as negligible as the difference between another two of your guitars made the same way but with your usual choice of woods, then that would prove that as long as guitar is made well with decent wood, so called tone wood would be proven in most ears to be what it is a myth. 

Been there done that got the T-shirt. 

Deal with the rocklite first, I think I was one of the first to try it on a Les Paul, absolutely nothing wrong with it except it didn't sound like ebony, but it did sound like rosewood. So, rocklite is off the menu, I'm hoping that they will come up with a rosewood substitute as they have the sound now they need the look.

 

About 25 years ago. It wasn't that easy to get hold of the American hardwoods, Swamp Ash, Red Alder, you could get American White Ash, European Ash and European Alder. The White Ash was actually very good but also very heavy, I also believe this is the Ash that Fender used originally in the early fifties. European Alder sounded exactly the same as American Red Alder but it didn't look as nice, same colour, but no obvious grain pattern and heavy. European Ash had a great sound but far too heavy for most people. Like many other builders I was always trying out different woods that were easily obtainable.

 Oak I tried several times to make necks out of but it was horrible to work with, plus it always felt dead as a neck wood. As far as making bodies out of it again it was a dead, didn't seem to add anything to the sounds but I would say it took tone away. I did make a body out Beach but again it seemed dead, I must admit I didn't try to make a neck out beach which possibly I should have done. 

Sycamore is a tone wood, in particular for classical instruments violins etc well most bowed instrument almost certainly have a Sycamore back and sides called fiddle back. But unfortunately as a solid body I will call it dead, plus it's also very heavy. Burns guitars used Sycamore for all there bodies and necks and still do if made in the UK I believe. A post I done a few months ago showed a couple of Burns Marvin's I made for them they were Sycamore. I do use Sycamore, particularly for Les Paul's caps as I think the very white fiddle back takes colour better than the American maple. I also use Sycamore acoustic backs to put on the front of F hole Telecasters and drop top guitars and basses.

 As I said at the beginning of this piece, been there done that and doubt if I ever do it again, waste of time and money. 

Rabs

This is all reminding me of coffee...

Theres so much coffee out there its stupid..

I think most people will agree that real coffee is better than instant... Then some people take it further by saying no no, its only good if you grind fresh beans yourself and anyone who doesn't, doesn't know real coffee..  Then you get people who say you cant buy good beans from normal shops so they buy the really posh boutique stuff online and they will say, you don't know real coffee until you have tried this...  Then it goes even further where people buy beans that have been eaten by an animal and shit back out and they will say, you haven't tasted real coffee till you have tried that... and then you get the people who still drink instant and don't give a shit.

Its all still coffee. Just drink what you like and be happy.

(its a good thing theres no such thing as vintage coffee )

crunchman

Rabs said:

This is all reminding me of coffee...

Theres so much coffee out there its stupid..

I think most people will agree that real coffee is better than instant... Then some people take it further by saying no no, its only good if you grind fresh beans yourself and anyone who doesn't, doesn't know real coffee..  Then you get people who say you cant buy good beans from normal shops so they buy the really posh boutique stuff online and they will say, you don't know real coffee until you have tried this...  Then it goes even further where people buy beans that have been eaten by an animal and shit back out and they will say, you haven't tasted real coffee till you have tried that... and then you get the people who still drink instant and don't give a shit.

Its all still coffee. Just drink what you like and be happy.

(its a good thing theres no such thing as vintage coffee )

I've got some that's years old.  You might have given me a marketing angle.

koneguitarist

Rabs said:

This is all reminding me of coffee...

Theres so much coffee out there its stupid..

I think most people will agree that real coffee is better than instant... Then some people take it further by saying no no, its only good if you grind fresh beans yourself and anyone who doesn't, doesn't know real coffee..  Then you get people who say you cant buy good beans from normal shops so they buy the really posh boutique stuff online and they will say, you don't know real coffee until you have tried this...  Then it goes even further where people buy beans that have been eaten by an animal and shit back out and they will say, you haven't tasted real coffee till you have tried that... and then you get the people who still drink instant and don't give a shit.

Its all still coffee. Just drink what you like and be happy.

(its a good thing theres no such thing as vintage coffee )

Ah but there is, I have a cuppa here from this morning! Just heat it up! 

koneguitarist

GSPBASSES said:

koneguitarist said:

@GSPBASSES Personally myself I think the best and easiest way to dispel the myth of tonewood, both for builders and customers is to build a guitar to your usual high standards of UK wood such as Oak, Beech or Sycamore maybe use and a RockLite fretboard (man made ebony equivalent) and listen to the results. 
If the difference in tone is as negligible as the difference between another two of your guitars made the same way but with your usual choice of woods, then that would prove that as long as guitar is made well with decent wood, so called tone wood would be proven in most ears to be what it is a myth. 

Been there done that got the T-shirt. 

Deal with the rocklite first, I think I was one of the first to try it on a Les Paul, absolutely nothing wrong with it except it didn't sound like ebony, but it did sound like rosewood. So, rocklite is off the menu, I'm hoping that they will come up with a rosewood substitute as they have the sound now they need the look.

 

About 25 years ago. It wasn't that easy to get hold of the American hardwoods, Swamp Ash, Red Alder, you could get American White Ash, European Ash and European Alder. The White Ash was actually very good but also very heavy, I also believe this is the Ash that Fender used originally in the early fifties. European Alder sounded exactly the same as American Red Alder but it didn't look as nice, same colour, but no obvious grain pattern and heavy. European Ash had a great sound but far too heavy for most people. Like many other builders I was always trying out different woods that were easily obtainable.

 Oak I tried several times to make necks out of but it was horrible to work with, plus it always felt dead as a neck wood. As far as making bodies out of it again it was a dead, didn't seem to add anything to the sounds but I would say it took tone away. I did make a body out Beach but again it seemed dead, I must admit I didn't try to make a neck out beach which possibly I should have done. 

Sycamore is a tone wood, in particular for classical instruments violins etc well most bowed instrument almost certainly have a Sycamore back and sides called fiddle back. But unfortunately as a solid body I will call it dead, plus it's also very heavy. Burns guitars used Sycamore for all there bodies and necks and still do if made in the UK I believe. A post I done a few months ago showed a couple of Burns Marvin's I made for them they were Sycamore. I do use Sycamore, particularly for Les Paul's caps as I think the very white fiddle back takes colour better than the American maple. I also use Sycamore acoustic backs to put on the front of F hole Telecasters and drop top guitars and basses.

 As I said at the beginning of this piece, been there done that and doubt if I ever do it again, waste of time and money. 

Wasn't it Aria that made a lot of guitars from Oak and stuff? 
Either way thanks for reply stating your experiences with various woods.

Three-ColourSunburst

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

As has been pointed out previously, this is not an academic paper, just an undergraduate project. The only safe conclusion to be drawn from this study is probably the fact that the differences in the frequency spectra are much smaller for the electromagnetic pickups than a microphone.

The only proper academic study of this topic is this one, which found no differences between 9 wood types. As Karl Popper pointed out, one disconfirmation is all that is needed to disprove a hypothesis.

Sobre o acoplamento corda-corpo em guitarras elétricas e sua relação com o timbre do instrumento. Physicæ 9, 2010, pp. 24 - 29

String-body coupling on electric guitars and its relation with the timbre of the instrument.

Rodrigo Mateus Pereira(1), Albary Laibida Junior, Thiago Corrêa de Freitas.

(1) Tecnologia em Luteria, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil.

Abstract.


Nine electric guitar bodies were built in the form of the Telecaster model by the author RMP. These were assembled using the same neck and pickup assembly. Once each body was assembled two strings of the electric guitar were mechanically excited and the sound, obtained directly from the instrument, was recorded for later analysis. Also recorded was a musical piece played with each electric guitar. These sounds were analysed via a Fourier transform in order to obtain the component harmonics of the sound, these harmonics are responsible for the timbre of the instrument. The harmonic spectra of each electric guitar were compared to each other and there were no significant differences between them. Thus the variations of timbre of electric guitars, according to the results obtained here, depend on other factors than the wood of the body itself, a fact that arises from the absence of a significant coupling between the string and the body of the instrument. Also proposed is a modelling of the string-body coupling, which shows that only a negligible amount of energy from the vibrating string reaches the body of the instrument and that a smaller amount still returns up the string.

http://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/index.php/physicae/article/view/physicae.9.5/116

https://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/physicae/article/view/154

Three-ColourSunburst

Duplicate post as a result of trying to repost an answer that didn't show up - I seem to be getting a message telling me my post will only appear after they have been approved.

Edit.  I have tried to post again just now, and once again I just got a message telling my that my post needs to be approved. Who knows, it might appear in another 24 hours, or it might not. Whatever, the difficulty this causes pretty much shuts me out of the debate, which I guess was the intention. Oddly, the posts I flagged for personal abuse (telling me to 'fuck off' and so on) have not been moderated and are still up. Oh well, at least I better understand how this place works now!

I still seem to be able to edit my posts, so here are a couple of responses to what has been said whilst my post was awaiting 'approval'.

NelsonP

http://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/index.php/physicae/article/view/physicae.9.5/116

This is the only one that you've found.  But there will be many more that you don't have access to.

Whilst there can be a problem getting free access to some journal articles, the abstracts are pretty much all available on line, can be accessed through various academic gateways or the publishers own sites, such as Elsevier's Science Direct, and so on. There are also a growing number of open access journals these days, sources such as academia.edu and I also have access to a wide range of number journal subscriptions through my workplace.

I really doubt the claim that there are any, let alone 'many more' peer reviewed academic articles out there which show that 'tone wood' in solid body electric guitars really does work. I would love to be proved wrong. Anyone up for the challenge?

As to the claim the paper above is of no use because it is in Portuguese, just use something like Google translate.

Physicae certainly seems to be peer-reviewed. As to the department where the research was done, here is it's home page.

http://www.luteria.ufpr.br/portal/

All in all I would say that the above paper is the most credible piece of research we have showing that 'tone wood' in electric guitars is a myth. Of course, this won't stop some from preferring to cherry-pick material from an undergraduate project, or even less credible sources, arguing that a small difference on a spectrum reading somewhere somehow validates their belief. This is just the way people are - ready to uncritically accept almost any piece of 'evidence' that supports their view, but subjecting anything that undermines their view to the most rigorous examination possible, rejecting on almost any grounds that can be dreamed up, no matter how robust the overall conclusion.

Crunchman

I think @Three-ColourSunburst does have a point about the use of the word resonant.  I think the something like "responsive" would be better for what a lot of people on guitar forums use the word resonant for.

OK, if the 'tone wood' effect is real, the it must relate to some real physical properties of the system. So how would 'responsiveness' be described in the language of physics? You agree that the term 'resonance' is not the right one, so what terms should we use. 'Mojo' is not good enough.

AustrianJohn

On page 1 @Sporky said "Different bits of wood may well sound different, but it's last 2% stuff, not first 98%."

Does anyone actually disagree with this?

Can we please get back to discussing sensible things, like Brexit, whether god exists and is Elvis really still alive?

GSPBASSES

One of the UK woods, I forgot to mention is Walnut. English Walnut is mid brown in colour sometimes with darkish brown streaks. But English grown American Back Walnut is very close to colour of the American grown. Now guitars made English grown Black Walnut sound great, especially Strat's. I have made bodies and necks out this, don't exactly sound like a Swamp Ash or Alder , but very, very close. The best way to describe a Black Walnut Strat is the sound of standard US model, but on steroids very much in your face. The only thing it lacks is the top end glassy sound.

professorben

GSPBASSES said:

One of the UK woods, I forgot to mention is Walnut. English Walnut is mid brown in colour sometimes with darkish brown streaks. But English grown American Back Walnut is very close to colour the American grown. Now guitars made English grown Black Walnut sound great, especially Strat's. I have made bodies and necks out this, don't exactly sound like a Swamp Ash or Alder , but very, very close. The best way to describe a Black Walnut Strat is the sound of standard US model, but on steroids very much in your face. The only thing it lacks is the top end glassy sound.

Does it play like buttah?

MartinB

GSPBASSES said:

One of the UK woods, I forgot to mention is Walnut. English Walnut is mid brown in colour sometimes with darkish brown streaks. But English grown American Back Walnut is very close to colour of the American grown. Now guitars made English grown Black Walnut sound great, especially Strat's. I have made bodies and necks out this, don't exactly sound like a Swamp Ash or Alder , but very, very close. The best way to describe a Black Walnut Strat is the sound of standard US model, but on steroids very much in your face. The only thing it lacks is the top end glassy sound.

It hadn't occurred to me that American Black Walnut might be grown over here.  I made a bass body from it some years ago - it was a good sounding instrument but weighty.  
I've got another bit tucked away that could either make a slim guitar or bass body some time (it's 35mm thick) or perhaps I'll add a top to it.  

wackojacko

Spent ages reading through this thread....not al 23 pages mind 

not one person has mentioned that different types of wood look sexy as f@!* 

richardhomer

wackojacko said:

not one person has mentioned that different types of wood look sexy as f@!* 

Good to know that’s the way it makes you feel....

professorben

I wrote something, but deleted it. 

I just cannot be arsed to help flog this dead horse of a thread.  

octatonic

NelsonP

Three-ColourSunburst said:

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

As has been pointed out previously, this is not an academic paper, just an undergraduate project. The only safe conclusion to be drawn from this study is probably the fact that the differences in the frequency spectra are much smaller for the electromagnetic pickups than a microphone.

The only proper academic study of this topic is this one, which found no differences between 9 wood types. As Karl Popper pointed out, one disconfirmation is all that is needed to disprove a hypothesis.

Sobre o acoplamento corda-corpo em guitarras elétricas e sua relação com o timbre do instrumento. Physicæ 9, 2010, pp. 24 - 29

String-body coupling on electric guitars and its relation with the timbre of the instrument.

Rodrigo Mateus Pereira(1), Albary Laibida Junior, Thiago Corrêa de Freitas.

(1) Tecnologia em Luteria, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Brazil.

Abstract.


Nine electric guitar bodies were built in the form of the Telecaster model by the author RMP. These were assembled using the same neck and pickup assembly. Once each body was assembled two strings of the electric guitar were mechanically excited and the sound, obtained directly from the instrument, was recorded for later analysis. Also recorded was a musical piece played with each electric guitar. These sounds were analysed via a Fourier transform in order to obtain the component harmonics of the sound, these harmonics are responsible for the timbre of the instrument. The harmonic spectra of each electric guitar were compared to each other and there were no significant differences between them. Thus the variations of timbre of electric guitars, according to the results obtained here, depend on other factors than the wood of the body itself, a fact that arises from the absence of a significant coupling between the string and the body of the instrument. Also proposed is a modelling of the string-body coupling, which shows that only a negligible amount of energy from the vibrating string reaches the body of the instrument and that a smaller amount still returns up the string.

http://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/index.php/physicae/article/view/physicae.9.5/116

https://physicae.ifi.unicamp.br/physicae/article/view/154

This is the only one that you've found.  But there will be many more that you don't have access to. Our friend the former dean at the duke university would be a font of knowledge on this I'm sure.

Also, was it peer reviewed? Is the Universidade Federal do Paraná a leading academic institution in this area? Was the experiment well designed? What were the criteria for determination of a significant difference? Etc.

I'd love to be able to read this paper but sadly can't speak Portuguese.

We've had a good discussion but I now think we're reaching the end of what you can discover from internet desk research.

It would make an interesting phd project for someone though. 

Roland

MartinB said:

It hadn't occurred to me that American Black Walnut might be grown over here.  

I've planted one, but don't expect to be around to make anything from it except pickled walnuts.

Three-ColourSunburst

Post deleted because, whist I was awaiting for this post to be 'approved' I had already answered the points raised (including the ones made by NelsonP just above) by editing an earlier post on this page. 

To close. If there really are 'many more' academic papers out there showing that 'tone wood' in solid-body electric guitars really does have an effect, then I would love to read them. There you go, prove the case! Anyone up for the challenge? I have already done all I can to try to find an definitive answer. 

Sassafras

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Post deleted because, whist I was awaiting for this post to be 'approved' I had already answered the points raised (including the ones made by NelsonP just above) by editing an earlier post on this page. 

To close. If there really are 'many more' academic papers out there showing that 'tone wood' in solid-body electric guitars really does have an effect, then I would love to read them. There you go, prove the case! Anyone up for the challenge? I have already done all I can to try to find an definitive answer. 

Done all you can???
I don't think you're taking this seriously enough.