Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 242.1K All Categories
- 22 >> Start Here <<
- 12 New Members
- 8 FAQs
- 86.8K Gear
- 39.6K Guitar
- 3.4K Acoustics
- 1.3K Bass
- 14.7K Amps
- 17.3K FX
- 274 Digital & Modelling
- 765 Other Instruments
- 8.3K Making & Modding
- 422 Gear Reviews
- 107 Guitar Reviews
- 73 Amp Reviews
- 119 FX Reviews
- 87 Other Reviews
- 750 Made in the UK
- 975 Theory
- 1.9K Technique
- 2.1K Live
- 3.2K Studio & Recording
- 2.1K Making Music
- 220 Events
- 15 Guitar Show 2018
- 832 Plug My Stuff
- 105.4K Classifieds
- 41.2K Guitars £
- 2.8K Acoustics £
- 139 LH Guitars £
- 900 Basses £
- 10.6K Parts £
- 18.4K Amps £
- 34.1K FX £
- 2.8K Studio & Rec £
- 6.1K Misc £
- 465 Personnel
- 54.8K Chat
- 36.6K Off Topic
- 1.1K Tributes
- 6.6K Music
In this Discussion
Become a Subscriber!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Body wood affects tone
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
In a way this question can never be answered truly as some do not want the truth, as like me they believed all the hype and myths of the guitar world,
It still doesn't rule out the affect of body material.
Instagram
So you proved that a guitar designed to sound like a Fender sounds a bit like a Fender to people who can hear it but not see it but have been told it is a Fender; have I got that right?
I repeated the double neck experiment at the weekend and I'd like to make a slight amendment to my initial report. The sound coming through the body actually has more mids than I heard over my loudmouth bandmates conversation last week - a noticeable honk in, I'd say, the 2-500hz range along with the fundamental tone.
Also worth pointing out that @Three-ColourSunburst 's "1/100,000th" of the level thing isn't correct.
Assuming a 60db difference between string-generated signal and through-body generated signal, that'd be 1/1000th of the direct signal. Assuming a 45 db signal difference when the strings are free to resonate in sympathy with the body, and an open or fretted string would be in playing, that's a 1/178th the direct signal level.
However, using ratios in this manner is silly, the decibel system was designed specifically because we *don't* perceive volume in that way. A 60dB difference is, in practice, the difference between a cranked AC30 at 1 meter and a person talking at a conversational level in a quiet room. Significant, I admit, but I seriously doubt anyone would characterise an AC30 as being 1000 times louder than a speaking voice. It's just not the way our ears work.
TCS seems to be working on the assumption that if the body-vibration-only signal is 60dB lower than the string signal, that energy being transmitted back to the strings would again loose 60dB in strength. I view it the other way; if the string is not being artificially constrained, the vibration in the body will have an effect on the string which in turn, being metal, will be free to influence the signal generated in the pickup to a far higher degree than the vibrating wooden body, even if in terms of energies the body has more than the string. I think this is supported by my observation that unmuted strings vibrating in resonance with the body generate a louder signal than muted strings over the selected pickup. And, tbh, common sense.
Consider this: if the muted string test generated a signal level of -60dB, and letting the strings resonate only generated an extra signal of -120dB, the summation of the through-body and resonating string signal would only get 0.009dB louder! Clearly, that's not what's happening here.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
However some of the comments are quite insightful and could potentially contribute to this debate. See the below:
The part you neglected to note was that this will not happen evenly for all harmonics of a given 'complex wave'. For example, the fundamental note might be reflected at 85%, but the 1st harmonic might be reflected at 75% its initial strength. The 2nd harmonic might reflect at 90% its strength. Different frequencies will reflect and be absorbed differently depending on the material used to reflect them. This is a function of that materials natural resonance and internal friction mechanisms. In the hypothetical example I just gave the balance between the harmonics and the fundamental note is altered. The 1st harmonic is quieter and the 2nd harmonic was louder. The relationship between the fundamental note & harmonic is altered - and for lay people out there - that equals tonal difference!
Different materials (woods) will reflect and absorb different frequencies at varying levels of efficiency. Some woods might be more efficient between 400hz-600hz but deaden 550hz to 750hz. Remember, tone has nothing to do with the fundamental note. Tone or timbre is a function of the relationships between the fundamental and its harmonics. Just altering that relationship changes timbre or note.
You actually helped make this point when you talked about how this fundamental and harmonic relationship helps distinguish between the tone of different instruments (piano vs. voice vs. guitar). Well this same principle works the same for different woods. Different woods will reflect and absorb different frequency bands with varying levels of efficiency. Those frequency bands will be the 'home' for the different harmonics. Perhaps most peoples ears aren't sensitive enough to hear the subtle differences. I challenge you to make one of your guitars out of something like a stiff piece of rubber or plastic to see what happens.
Also, another factor that WILL affect tone will be how much the guitar itself vibrates. Why? Because the damn pickups are attached to the guitar. Those pickups will actually vibrate subtly with the guitar (because they are attached). Each vibration will bring the pickups closer or farther from the strings while the note is being played. This will introduce high frequency changes in the signal. Again, the vibration of the pickups will be a function of the density of the instrument. . I'm not making up this science. Different materials reflect and absorb and vibrate differently when excited by different frequencies. We use this same science to measure the density of the earth and pinpoint where and when earth quakes occur. Your presentation does a good job explaining the formulas that we use to measure basic waves, but then over simplifies the conclusions that should be drawn from them. After introducing your formulas you treat the wave as a 'fundamental' only. Yes, if the guitar wave was just a fundamental, then the only change you would get from materials would be amplitude change. BUT the guitar wave is a complex wave made from harmonics and TIMBRE or TONE is a function of the relationship between those several different sounds. The same material will NOT affect all parts of the frequency spectrum evenly, thus altering harmonic/fundamental balance, and thus affecting the tone. Any seismologists out there wanna chime in? Fender's older Custom Shop channel has some great videos where master builders explain why they select different woods.
http://www.antennas.ca/calc_pv_ratio.htm
Or.
http://www.digitalaudioreview.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/5.2.png
Either way, the indirect signal caused by the pickups vibrating under the string is a tiny fraction of that produced directly.
As to the perceived volume, OK, so our hearing is so designed to conceal the actual difference in sound pressure levels between a 'quiet' and a 'loud' signal, but that is neither here nor there. The absolute differences are still real, which is why a 50 dB signal - say someone reading quietly - will be totally obscured by someone cranking an AC30 at 110 dB!
Anyhow, all this is peripheral, given that the (only) properly controlled, peer-reviewed, journal- published academic research available on the subject shows that 'tone wood' makes no difference to the sound of a solid body electric guitar.
Unless some other research is found (or done) showing this conclusion to be false (not some student project, or piece of research on some other vaguely related topic, such as what causes dead spots) the only rational course of action is to accept that the balance of the evidence shows that 'tone wood' is not real.
Until such research becomes available, that's me out of this debate as, frankly, given the available academic evidence, there is nothing to debate, other than people's misconceptions.
I'd strongly argue otherwise - it's not neither here nor there. We're talking about sound, and the near logarithmic nature of physical energy difference compared to perceived volume is how we hear.
I don't think anyone here has the time or resources to satisfy your standards, in that case. I did my fun little test, and suggested conclusions.
Don't forget, I'm not arguing about tone woods - just that the resonance of a guitar body does have an impact on the signal coming out the guitar jack. I don't really care whether or not a maple guitar sounds different than a mahogany one or whether or not I could tell the difference in a blind test. I'm pretty confident I couldn't. I also think the body difference matters less than the neck and how the two are joined together, as ably demonstrated by @Gassage 's (sorry to pull you back in) "hold the headstock" test. I'm just demonstrating that the body resonance *does* get picked up, after the thread seemed to go in the direction of saying that it didn't.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
1. Can I go back to thinking guitars are fun please?
2. I'm not as far down the spectrum as I thought.
3. Mary Spender.. sorry unrelated thought...
I'm off to Youtube now...
No less pointless, I admit...
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Yeah that's an interesting bit of speculation you quoted there. I assume there's a natural frequency dependent damping or absorption going on, and I did search for that sort of data last week. But there don't seem to be any easily found data tables etc (apart from very simple damping figures), so I gave up. Data is not going to convince a lot of regular players anyway, sadly
it also reminds me a little of the problems EMG have in their pickups sound clinical, or CD's are not as warm sounding as vinyl. I think maybe wood is a throwback to the mentality of old is best. Without giving time to try and move forward.
Ah, throwback mentality. Yep, i like wooden guitars, i must be stuck in the past. In some ways that is true, but it doesn't stop me using modern materials like carbon fibre or modern construction techniques like fanned frets in some of my builds. Steel ain't for me.
Instagram
It's like a forum enema!
Bassists moved forward with different woods extra stings active electronics etc quite quickly but some guitarists are quite stuck in the ways of what works for them. Nothing wrong with that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but sometimes our choices are shaped by what our heros used and what were the standards.
It would be interesting to see a trial where a load of guitars say a strat were all made the same in solid colours but with different body materials such as various woods, composites and resins.
I wonder if people would be able to tell which guitar they liked without knowing material before hand.
And how much of their choice would be based on sustain?
2)me either
3) yes
You do realise that was just a euphemism all along?
*An Official Foo-Approved guitarist since Sept 2023.
Pretty conclusive.
Did it work?