Why do guitars....

57Deluxe

simple answer - dependent upon the climate conditions and nutrients that were available the time that that specific tree grew on this planet.

WezV

57Deluxe said:

simple answer - dependent upon the climate conditions and nutrients that were available the time that that specific tree grew on this planet.

yeah, water and mineral content  are one side of it, climate is another.

Spruce tops for acoustics need  tight grain.   To get tight grain you need long winters and short summers.   too much summer wood will give a very wide grain.   The trees need to grow very slowly, not have a massive growth spurt every summer.  


water content in soil directly affects the size the wood cells will grow too.  Wood grown in very wet soil will have larger cells, once dry this will be more air in the wood.  "Swamp ash" is the perfect example of this.   It used to be called Punk Ash because it was useless for all the structural things you would normally use ash for.  

now, mahogany.  even today, it is still transported by river in some parts of the world.   Here is an old pic:


My theory on "old mahogany" is simply that they will have gone for the biggest trees closest to the river when first harvesting the rainforests.   As the resource got scarcer prices went up, and it became worth going further inland. the wood got heavier... less water content, more mineral content.

 Also, the denser ones they did get just sank... its almost like an inbuilt weight selection right from the forest.   Do you think the workers today would let a whole tree just sink without attempting recovery.  These days those old ones are being dragged up and sold as sinker wood

guitars4you

WezV said:

My theory on "old mahogany" is simply that they will have gone for the biggest trees closest to the river when first harvesting the rainforests.   As the resource got scarcer prices went up, and it became worth going further inland. the wood got heavier... less water content, more mineral content.

 Also, the denser ones they did get just sank... its almost like an inbuilt weight selection right from the forest.   Do you think the workers today would let a whole tree just sink without attempting recovery.  These days those old ones are being dragged up and sold as sinker wood

good logic on the old mahogany and closer to the river bank etc

PRS made a feature of this old 'sunken' mahogany on a few limited edition models

jpfamps

WezV said:

57Deluxe said:

simple answer - dependent upon the climate conditions and nutrients that were available the time that that specific tree grew on this planet.

yeah, water and mineral content  are one side of it, climate is another.

Spruce tops for acoustics need  tight grain.   To get tight grain you need long winters and short summers.   too much summer wood will give a very wide grain.   The trees need to grow very slowly, not have a massive growth spurt every summer.  


water content in soil directly affects the size the wood cells will grow too.  Wood grown in very wet soil will have larger cells, once dry this will be more air in the wood.  "Swamp ash" is the perfect example of this.   It used to be called Punk Ash because it was useless for all the structural things you would normally use ash for.  

now, mahogany.  even today, it is still transported by river in some parts of the world.   Here is an old pic:


My theory on "old mahogany" is simply that they will have gone for the biggest trees closest to the river when first harvesting the rainforests.   As the resource got scarcer prices went up, and it became worth going further inland. the wood got heavier... less water content, more mineral content.

 Also, the denser ones they did get just sank... its almost like an inbuilt weight selection right from the forest.   Do you think the workers today would let a whole tree just sink without attempting recovery.  These days those old ones are being dragged up and sold as sinker wood

That's a theory I've not heard before, and makes perfect sense to me.

A friend also reckons that a lot of the wood used in the 30s-50s for construction (not just of guitars of course) would have been cut down many years earlier, and thus seasoned more slowly. What are your thoughts on this?

WezV

I am sure there is some truth in it.  It will have been a slower route to market anyway, and most would have been air dried rather than kiln

ICBM

TheGuitarWeasel said:

I think we need to draw up a theory of 'Schrodinger's wood'; whereby wood (shut in a steel box) both makes a difference to a guitars tone and doesn't at the same time ... depending on observation. Would save all the bollocks we get here every time this chestnut pops out of the fire.

This. The problem is that there are two different ways of looking at it.

1. All electric guitars sound basically the same - like an electric guitar. (Excluding the Strat in-between settings, which are due to the particular unique spacing of the pickups.)

2. There are large differences in the sounds of different guitars, affected to varying degrees by almost every minor part of the design, construction, materials and hardware.

These are mutually exclusive, but both are true at the same time depending on the viewpoint of the observer - the most extreme examples being a non-musician listening to a finished record, and the player holding the guitar.

Bridgehouse

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

It's a pointless experiment when there's so much variation in the playing each time.

Even if it was a skilled player, one of the top session players in the world, it would be almost impossible to get each strum to be consistent.

Bridgehouse

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

It's a pointless experiment when there's so much variation in the playing each time.

Even if it was a skilled player, one of the top session players in the world, it would be almost impossible to get each strum to be consistent.

I posted it as a joke to be honest

thegummy

Also, the fact that it's not a blind test means that, even ignoring the above point, people watching and listening will be completely swayed by the visuals.

I'd bet it would be possible to do that kind of video but secretly swap the audio and visual for each one and still have people swearing they hear the maple as brighter and mahogany as warmer.

Bridgehouse

thegummy said:

Also, the fact that it's not a blind test means that, even ignoring the above point, people watching and listening will be completely swayed by the visuals.

I'd bet it would be possible to do that kind of video but secretly swap the audio and visual for each one and still have people swearing they hear the maple as brighter and mahogany as warmer.

I posted it as.... never mind.

NelsonP

in case you don't get the joke...
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/112703/body-wood-affects-tone/p1

For the record I should probably state that I do think that wood makes a difference to the tone.

Bridgehouse

NelsonP said:

in case you don't get the joke...
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/112703/body-wood-affects-tone/p1

For the record I should probably state that I do think that wood makes a difference to the tone.

I should have linked to that thread

fretfinder

Just use EMG active pickups and it won’t make a blind bit of difference what wood the guitar’s made of, or if it’s plastic or metal etc... 

fendergibson

Just a quick jump in to call out @richardhomer - looks like you were wrong again sunshine - you’d make a shit detective