Question About the Tonewood Debate Itself

ICBM

The really interesting thing is that at least one scientific test *has* been done.

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

But bizarrely, the conclusion reached by the 'scientists' - confirming their own original hypothesis - is totally at odds with their own experimental data! Which is something of a perfect illustration of how much belief affects the result, I think.

If you look at the graphs, while the overall shapes of the curves are similar, there are differences at some frequencies in the order of 10dB - that's huge, and cannot be simply brushed aside as not being audible in the amplified signal.

But I would also take a bet that both guitars sounded like Telecasters.

p90fool

koneguitarist said:

in what way is it  'fact' that quantity, density and species makes a difference?

It's a fact that an ES175 and a Les Paul sound radically different, despite having the same electronics. 

That at least covers quantity and density, species is just a more subtle variation in density. 

WezV

p90fool said:

koneguitarist said:

in what way is it  'fact' that quantity, density and species makes a difference?

It's a fact that an ES175 and a Les Paul sound radically different, despite having the same electronics. 

That at least covers quantity and density, species is just a more subtle variation in density. 

agreed

Gibsons designs are good examples.

You have the Les Paul, SG, Flying V, explorer and 335 all made with the same recipe, even the same woods .... but the structure of the body and neck is very different

ICBM

WezV said:

Gibsons designs are good examples.

You have the Les Paul, SG, Flying V, explorer and 335 all made with the same recipe, even the same woods .... but the structure of the body and neck is very different

Yes, and while they are all superficially capable of the same sounds - especially overdriven on the bridge pickup - if you listen more closely they do actually sound quite different and distinctive... even the V and the Explorer which are otherwise more or less identical other than the shape.

AustrianJohn

thegummy said:

For that, though, it would have to be a blind test and there would have to be many passes (because even the same person playing the same thing on the same guitar twice will sound different each time) and the listener would have to be able to consistently tell all (or almost all) the samples using whichever variable.

I think you've just clarified that - even if tonewood makes a difference - it is a very small difference compared to the difference made by pickups, amp, pedals, player and even plectrum.

koneguitarist

p90fool said:

koneguitarist said:

in what way is it  'fact' that quantity, density and species makes a difference?

It's a fact that an ES175 and a Les Paul sound radically different, despite having the same electronics. 

That at least covers quantity and density, species is just a more subtle variation in density. 

But the construction is radically different so again not a fair point about the wood and density. 
Play a les paul junior or special like a tele it will sound like a tele. both different woods, construction, pickups, scale length, pot values. 
Player makes the most significant difference, everything else is just as inconsistent trivia. 
And if this wasn't true, why do so many of us all disagree on what is and isn't tonewood as we cannot prove it in any way. 

ICBM

koneguitarist said:

Player makes the most significant difference, everything else is just as inconsistent trivia. 

Here's a good example.



Nice tone Peter Buck gets out of that Rickenbacker...











... except that he recorded it with a Les Paul . The Rick is just in the video.

In fact, if you listen very carefully to the last two chords, I think you *can* tell - they're very thick-sounding, something you don't really get from a Rick - but by and large, Buck makes anything sound like one.

Skipped

carlos said:

Also this:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/million-dollar-strads-fall-modern-violins-blind-sound-check

A double blind test only shows us how people respond to test conditions.

It tells us nothing about preferences.

If professional  musicians stopped using their heavily repaired Italian violins to record their next album, that would be an important indication of a change in preference.

If Paul McCartney stopped using 60 year old Gibson and Epiphone guitars to record in his studio, completely alone, with no one watching, that would indicate an unexpected change of preference.

Three-ColourSunburst

ICBM said:

The really interesting thing is that at least one scientific test *has* been done.

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

But bizarrely, the conclusion reached by the 'scientists' - confirming their own original hypothesis - is totally at odds with their own experimental data! Which is something of a perfect illustration of how much belief affects the result, I think.

If you look at the graphs, while the overall shapes of the curves are similar, there are differences at some frequencies in the order of 10dB - that's huge, and cannot be simply brushed aside as not being audible in the amplified signal.

I am trying not to get drawn in to all this again, but I can't let that pass. This was not a genuine scientific study, it was a student project!

The only properly controlled, journal-published scientific study into this subject that I have seen was that conducted by Thiago Correa De Freitas et.al of the lutherie department of the University of  Paraná in Brazil. He built a whole series of identical guitar bodies using different woods, built a robotic arm to ensure the strings were picked in the same way each time and then analysed the frequency spectrum of the sound produced. He found that the body had no measurable impact on the frequency spectrum produced. Below is a translation of the abstract and links to the paper. 

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.

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

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

Unless someone can provide links to other journal-published articles showing that the species of wood used to make the body of an electric guitar does have an effect on the timbre of the sound produced by an electromagnetic pickup than this is currently the best answer to the question we have. I do know that many believe otherwise, which is to be expected given the complexities of human psychology and perception. But then people believe lots of things that don't stand up to real scientific scrutiny, especially it seems when it comes to the ability to discriminate between subtle differences in sound - just look at the audiophiles for some good (and often directly comparable) examples!

Even if we accept that 'tone wood' does have some minor effect, the question remains whether any difference is actually perceptible, especially when an amp is being driven. I would suggest that a whole range of factors from the amp used, the pickups, variations in the values of the components in the guitar's wiring, the players technique, the plectrum used and so on have such a vastly greater effect on the sound produced that any difference caused by the species of the wood the body was made from would simply be drowned out.

Three-ColourSunburst

WezV said:

You have the Les Paul, SG, Flying V, explorer and 335 all made with the same recipe, even the same woods .... but the structure of the body and neck is very different

And yet, when all else is pretty much equal, can sound so similar, even when they are fitted with different wiring and pickups.

koneguitarist

At last some common sense by @Three-ColourSunburst ;

if you spent thousands on a vintage Les Paul, you would be determined that it must be used as you spent so much on it. 
Material will I think make a difference to sustain but not tone. No such thing as tone wood in my opinion only marketing hype. The quality builder will make you a good guitar out of any material as they are quality builders and know how to make a guitar work. 

ICBM

Three-ColourSunburst said:

I am trying not to get drawn in to all this again, but I can't let that pass. This was not a genuine scientific study, it was a student project!

The data was real, and so I will keep linking it no matter what you think.

In the study you linked, there are also large differences in the graphs. It makes no difference what the written conclusion is, the evidence is right there.

What it proves even more conclusively than that the body wood *does* make a difference, is that people who want to deny it does - and who start from that assumption, in both cases - will ignore the evidence of their own tests. This is a classic example of confirmation bias.

If you can find any *other* study than the one you keep linking which does actually have data which supports the conclusion, feel free to post it...

Three-ColourSunburst

ICBM said:

What it proves even more conclusively than that the body wood *does* make a difference, is that people who want to deny it does - and who start from that assumption, in both cases - will ignore the evidence of their own tests.

If you can find any *other* study than the one you keep linking which does actually have data which supports the conclusion, feel free to post it...

That student project 'proves' nothing. For example, there was no indication that there was any proper control over the way the string was picked, a massive confounding variable. All it says is that "Each string was plucked with a pick between the neck and bridge pickup areas".

Yes, it would be great the have more credible scientific studies on this topic, but the only one there seems to be that directly addresses this question is the one I cited above. So, currently, the balance of the scientific evidence is that 'tone wood' has no measurable (let alone perceptible) effect on the sound of an electric guitar.  If you can find a real, journal-published scientific study that shows otherwise, feel free to post it...

crunchman

koneguitarist said:

p90fool said:

koneguitarist said:

in what way is it  'fact' that quantity, density and species makes a difference?

It's a fact that an ES175 and a Les Paul sound radically different, despite having the same electronics. 

That at least covers quantity and density, species is just a more subtle variation in density. 

But the construction is radically different so again not a fair point about the wood and density. 
Play a les paul junior or special like a tele it will sound like a tele. both different woods, construction, pickups, scale length, pot values. 
Player makes the most significant difference, everything else is just as inconsistent trivia. 
And if this wasn't true, why do so many of us all disagree on what is and isn't tonewood as we cannot prove it in any way. 

If you want something with identical construction but different woods there are a few PRS guitars you can use.

The Custom and the Standard definitely sound different.  They are the same guitar except that the Custom has a very thick maple cap.

If you can find a rosewood necked McCarty and compare it it a regular mahogany necked McCarty then they definitely sound different as well.  Again the only difference is the wood.

Three-ColourSunburst

P.s. Surely, even those who think that body wood variations of some sort affect the sound of an electric guitar would agree that this sort of generalisation about specific species is nonsense?

The swamp-ash sound is twangy, airy, and sweet. It offers firm lows, pleasant highs, a slightly scooped midrange...Solid basswood bodies have a fat, but well-balanced tonality. There’s a muscular midrange, but also a certain softness and breathiness. blah blah blah...

https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/tonewood-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-tonewoods

ICBM

Three-ColourSunburst said:

That student project 'proves' nothing. For example, there was no indication that there was any proper control over the way the string was picked, a massive confounding variable. All it says is that "Each string was plucked with a pick between the neck and bridge pickup areas". 

Yes, it would be great the have more credible scientific studies on this topic, but the only one there seems to be that directly addresses this question is the one I cited above. So, currently, the balance of the scientific evidence is that 'tone wood' has no measurable (let alone perceptible) effect on the sound of an electric guitar.  If you can find a real, journal-published scientific study that shows otherwise, feel free to post it...

Well, given that you've so far linked two studies - you originally did the first one, remember - which show data which directly contradicts the written conclusions that it makes no difference, you're actually looking for a third one .

Three-ColourSunburst said:

P.s. Surely, even those who think that body wood variations of some sort affect the sound of an electric guitar would agree that this sort of generalisation about specific species is nonsense?

The swamp-ash sound is twangy, airy, and sweet. It offers firm lows, pleasant highs, a slightly scooped midrange...Solid basswood bodies have a fat, but well-balanced tonality. There’s a muscular midrange, but also a certain softness and breathiness. blah blah blah...

https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/tonewood-tutorial-everything-you-need-to-know-about-tonewoods

Yes, definitely. There may be some broad generalisations related to density and hardness, but no more than that.

Particularly given that in some cases there can be some debate about what exact species of wood was actually used in some guitars - not least the mahogany in 50s Gibsons.

p90fool

koneguitarist said:

 Material will I think make a difference to sustain but not tone. 

I agree, that's the crux of it, but it makes a difference to sustain at varying frequencies, which is where our perception of different tone comes in. 

thegummy

Sporky said:

hyperben said:

I did this using my ears. 

The human hearing system is not a reliable or accurate thing. It's trivially easy to skew a blind listening test in favour of the outcome you want, for example. 

I'm not saying the wood definitely doesn't make a difference; I am saying that there is insufficient evidence to support many of the strong statements that people make in either direction.

Arguments about guitars made from concrete or cheese aren't terribly relevant. 

This is the crux of it all - a lot of people either don't know or don't accept just how completely unreliable their sound perception judgment is so if they play different guitars and believe they're hearing a difference, they just accept that they're clearly hearing a difference that exists.

That's why people will claim something as a fact - on the basis that "fact" means something they completely believe themselves.

The test required to even get the first useful information about whether tonewood is a fact or not has either never been done or, if it has, no one I've seen arguing about tonewood knows about it to link to it.

koneguitarist

p90fool said:

koneguitarist said:

 Material will I think make a difference to sustain but not tone. 

I agree, that's the crux of it, but it makes a difference to sustain at varying frequencies, which is where our perception of different tone comes in. 

which is dependant on the density and build of the body, so we are still not any wiser about a given wood species. Most guitarists if they are honest buy certain guitars with fancy woods because they are pretty, not because of tone. 

Skipped

koneguitarist said:

if you spent thousands on a vintage Les Paul, you would be determined that it must be used as you spent so much on it.

There is a reason why Joe Bonamassa is still buying examples of wonderful guitars that were built from stored for decades/mature wood stocks. And then touring with them. It is clearly not because he was disappointed with the last 100 guitars he bought. Because that wouldn't make any sense, would it....

If Jimmy Page is in the mood to play today, he will reach for a guitar that he has owned more than half of his life and which has beaten off all the  competition. It is very unlikely that he will be reaching for an NOS R8 that has already been flipped 4 times........

We could have a very long list. It just depends on how many iconic musicians you wish to insult on the basis of their ears, experience and judgement.