Billy Corgan thinks paint colour affects tone.

Bigsby

deano said:

So many electric guitars have been built since the mid-40's or so (I think) and we have settled on using a number of specific woods. They are reasonably available, can be worked reasonably easily, have a pleasing look to them, sustain well and have a practical weight, as well as producing a pleasing tone. There are woods that have consistently produced guitars within these limits, and we collectively refer to them as tone woods.

Yes, but why have we fixated on calling them 'tone woods', rather than 'cheaper woods', or 'easy to work woods' or 'locally available woods' or 'not too effing heavy woods'? Are we really sure Leo Fender's top priority was 'tone' rather than any of those other factors? If anything, I suspect it was the other way around: If all the other factors of cost, weight, ease of supply were met, then the impact on tone was considered. And why don't we now call then 'traditional woods'? This factor of being traditional seems more important than tone, as evidenced by the arrival of new 'tone woods' to replace rosewood, as soon as it become difficult to ship internationally.

IHMO, 'Tone wood' is more about marketing than meaning.

Three-ColourSunburst

deano said:

I'm - like many people on here I guess - scientifically trained...

So I believe...

I think...

I would guess...

I suspect...

I don't think...

...It's about woods absorbing energy from the strings selectively, leaving a more or less pleasing vibration pattern in the string to be captured by the pickups.

There is such a huge impedance mismatch between the string and the heavy steel bridge and big lump of wood that makes up the body of an electric guitar that this simply isn't possible.

Even with acoustic instruments the colour the soundboard gives to the timbre is almost all down to the way the wood excites the air. In effect we listen to the vibrations of the body, soundboard and their interaction with the air in the body as they are driven by the string. Only in very special circumstances can the body drive the string, as when the instrument is designed to have a low string-bridge-body impedance, the primary resonance of that body is close to that of a played note, and enough energy can be fed into the system to get the whole system resonating - as with bowing a 'wolf' note on a cello.

All that happens on the string is that energy of all the partials is gradually dissipated, following the same well-defined mathematical laws. Otherwise, the only way the body can influence the string is if there is enough flex at the bridge/ body interface to allows the string to alter its length, alternatively getting shorter and longer, and guitar bridges are just too rigid for this to happen to any meaningful degree.

As I have said, I am quite open to be shown a properly worked scientific and mathematical proof of how electric guitar 'tone wood' works, but I have searched high and low for one and everything I have read supports the opposite conclusion. Surely, as someone who is 'scientifically trained' you too would only be happy with such an explanation? Until then the qualification-ridden rationale you put forward (I believe, I suspect etc.) is nothing more than a statement of faith.

NelsonP

@Three-ColourSunburst ;;

The point that I was trying to make earlier is that there is already a massively long, pretty impenetrable and inconclusive thread about the merits (or not) of tone wood on this forum so that thread would be a better place to continue the debate, if you really believe that it will lead to a different outcome than last time.

Here's the link again
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/112703/body-wood-affects-tone/p1

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

The point that I was trying to make earlier is that there is already a massively long, pretty impenetrable and inconclusive thread about the merits (or not) of tone wood on this forum..

That thread might be 'inconclusive', but the science is not. (Edit: At least going by everything I have read so far. 'Scientific knowledge is always provisional', and that.)

As I said earlier I do think that it would be best for me to revisit the topic in new thread, where I could go over in detail the research I have read since that thread was posted. Let's see if other posters think the same way.

NelsonP

Oh good

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

A state of skepticism and suspense may amuse a few inquisitive minds. But the practice of superstition is so congenial to the multitude that, if they are forcibly awakened, they will regret the loss of their pleasing vision. Their love of the marvellous and supernatural, their curiosity with regard to future events, and their strong propensity to extend their hopes and fears beyond the limits of the visible world, were the principal causes which favoured the establishment of Polytheism. So urgent on the vulgar is the necessity of believing, that the fall of any system of mythology will most probably be succeeded by the introduction of some other mode of superstition.

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon. Volume 2, Chapter 15 (1781).

I really love that quote.

Something I've always thought is that, in these post-religious times, often people will mock or sneer at the religious while at the same time holding equally absurd beliefs about secular things.

P.s. I've always stayed completely neutral on the tonewood debate because I've never seen any real evidence either way but I have to admit your posts in this thread are quite convincing.

Three-ColourSunburst

Back on topic. Perhaps Corgan just has a 'need to be special'.

http://goodmath.scientopia.org/2011/12/30/audiophiles-and-the-need-to-be-special/

SNAKEBITE

Have we really devoted 3 pages to this?

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

Something I've always thought is that, in these post-religious times, often people will mock or sneer at the religious while at the same time holding equally absurd beliefs about secular things.

The way I see it we are in many ways abandoning the 'White, western European male' values of the Enlightenment - such as reason, logic and empiricism - and going back to a much more irrational way of thinking. The main driver of this has been the desire of the 'post-modern' liberal left (and especially the feminist movement) to undermine 'male' science, so validating 'other ways of knowing'. Hence all that nonsense from people like Sandra Harding about science being a 'perversion' of the male mind and Newton's Principia being nothing more than a 'rape manual', along with the concomitant growth in the influence of a whole range of counter-science 'ways of knowing', from feminist theory to Feng Shui, alternative medicine and religious fundamentalism. 

Unfortunately, the 'my truth is as good as yours' relativism this has unleashed is creating a world where 'the truth' is whatever the most powerful - or at least those who 'control the narrative' - say it is. As Orwell warned in Nineteen Eighty-Four, this is a direct path to totalitarianism. (Remember Winston Smith arguing that the laws of physics were real and that the Earth revolves around the Sun as he was been tortured by O'Brien, who argued that the truth was whatever the party said it was. Orwell also said that relativism was something that frightened him 'more than bombs'. In my view with good reason.) 

How ironic that so many on the left are now getting all worked up about the right jumping on the 'post truth' bandwagon!

Some interesting discussion on this issue here.

https://theconversation.com/the-surprising-origins-of-post-truth-and-how-it-was-spawned-by-the-liberal-left-68929

https://www.spiked-online.com/2015/06/11/feminism-and-the-turn-against-enlightenment/

Perhaps Corgan is just in tune with the times in which we live.

NelsonP

SNAKEBITE said:

Have we really devoted 3 pages to this?

Actually a bit more than that....
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/144828/
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/2070473/#Comment_2070473

Three-ColourSunburst

But surely, there can be no more important a topic to discuss than the decline of the influence of reason, logic and empiricism as we descend into an Orwellian future where the 'truth' is nothing more than a relativistic social construct.

Heed my words, Corgan is but a canary in the coal mine!

octatonic

Three-ColourSunburst said:

But surely, there can be no more important a topic to discuss than the decline of the influence of reason, logic and empiricism as we descend into an Orwellian future where the 'truth' is nothing more than a relativistic social construct.

Heed my words, Corgan is but a canary in the coal mine!

I thought he was a rat in a cage?

deano

Three-ColourSunburst said:

deano said:

I'm - like many people on here I guess - scientifically trained...

So I believe...

I think...

I would guess...

I suspect...

I don't think...

...It's about woods absorbing energy from the strings selectively, leaving a more or less pleasing vibration pattern in the string to be captured by the pickups.

There is such a huge impedance mismatch between the string and the heavy steel bridge and big lump of wood that makes up the body of an electric guitar that this simply isn't possible.

Even with acoustic instruments the colour the soundboard gives to the timbre is almost all down to the way the wood excites the air. In effect we listen to the vibrations of the body, soundboard and their interaction with the air in the body as they are driven by the string. Only in very special circumstances can the body drive the string, as when the instrument is designed to have a low string-bridge-body impedance, the primary resonance of that body is close to that of a played note, and enough energy can be fed into the system to get the whole system resonating - as with bowing a 'wolf' note on a cello.

All that happens on the string is that energy of all the partials is gradually dissipated, following the same well-defined mathematical laws. Otherwise, the only way the body can influence the string is if there is enough flex at the bridge/ body interface to allows the string to alter its length, alternatively getting shorter and longer, and guitar bridges are just too rigid for this to happen to any meaningful degree.

As I have said, I am quite open to be shown a properly worked scientific and mathematical proof of how electric guitar 'tone wood' works, but I have searched high and low for one and everything I have read supports the opposite conclusion. Surely, as someone who is 'scientifically trained' you too would only be happy with such an explanation? Until then the qualification-ridden rationale you put forward (I believe, I suspect etc.) is nothing more than a statement of faith.

Well, I can certainly feel vibrations on the neck and the body of my guitars when I play a string. Therefore some of the energy in the string is passing into the wood of the neck and the body. That is energy being removed from the string. Now if you are correct, what you are saying is that those woods will extract energy from the strings equally regardless of what woods are used.

Well fair enough, but I would like to see evidence of that. At the moment certainly tone woods exist by fiat. That's what we refer to as woods suitable - and commonly used - for building guitars.

If we are talking about experiments, my theorem is easy. A pickup connected to an O'scope, which is independent of the string. The string is supported between two metal posts embedded into a length of wood, tuned to A 440. The wood species can change but the metal posts, the string and the pickup remain the same. Picking the string will cause the string to vibrate, and that will be picked up and recorded on the O'scope. The pickup is suspended above the string, not in contact with the wood at all.

I maintain that there will be a different pattern shown on the O'scope when the wood is a 1 metre x 20cm x 5cm block of maple, than when the  wood is a 1 metre x 20cm x 5cm block of mahogany, than when the wood is a 1 metre x 20cm x 5cm block of oak, and that will be because those woods attenuate the vibration of the string differently, when the vibrations are coupled to the metal posts, and then coupled to the wood block.

There is nothing magic about this. A piece of plastic could be used, and attenuation will take place. Vibrations are passed from entity to entity according to the laws of physics - Sound is heat  is light. They travel through media using conductance, convection or radiation. All three are merely different mechanisms for transporting energy from place to place through different materials.

If vibrations didn't travel through wood, then a xylophone would not make a noise when struck. The bridge pins can certainly transfer vibration into wood. Play a string and you will feel it. More so on bass.

Acoustic tops start to vibrate because the vibration of the string is coupled to the top by the acoustic guitars bridge. There is nothing magical about that conductance. Solid wood conducts in the same manner.

thegummy

deano said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

deano said:

I'm - like many people on here I guess - scientifically trained...

So I believe...

I think...

I would guess...

I suspect...

I don't think...

...It's about woods absorbing energy from the strings selectively, leaving a more or less pleasing vibration pattern in the string to be captured by the pickups.

There is such a huge impedance mismatch between the string and the heavy steel bridge and big lump of wood that makes up the body of an electric guitar that this simply isn't possible.

Even with acoustic instruments the colour the soundboard gives to the timbre is almost all down to the way the wood excites the air. In effect we listen to the vibrations of the body, soundboard and their interaction with the air in the body as they are driven by the string. Only in very special circumstances can the body drive the string, as when the instrument is designed to have a low string-bridge-body impedance, the primary resonance of that body is close to that of a played note, and enough energy can be fed into the system to get the whole system resonating - as with bowing a 'wolf' note on a cello.

All that happens on the string is that energy of all the partials is gradually dissipated, following the same well-defined mathematical laws. Otherwise, the only way the body can influence the string is if there is enough flex at the bridge/ body interface to allows the string to alter its length, alternatively getting shorter and longer, and guitar bridges are just too rigid for this to happen to any meaningful degree.

As I have said, I am quite open to be shown a properly worked scientific and mathematical proof of how electric guitar 'tone wood' works, but I have searched high and low for one and everything I have read supports the opposite conclusion. Surely, as someone who is 'scientifically trained' you too would only be happy with such an explanation? Until then the qualification-ridden rationale you put forward (I believe, I suspect etc.) is nothing more than a statement of faith.

Well, I can certainly feel vibrations on the neck and the body of my guitars when I play a string. Therefore some of the energy in the string is passing into the wood of the neck and the body. That is energy being removed from the string. Now if you are correct, what you are saying is that those woods will extract energy from the strings equally regardless of what woods are used.

Well fair enough, but I would like to see evidence of that. At the moment 

The wood doesn't extract the energy from the strings - if the wood wasn't there the energy would still travel through the air, it just hits the wood because it's in the path.

deano

thegummy said:

deano said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

deano said:

I'm - like many people on here I guess - scientifically trained...

So I believe...

I think...

I would guess...

I suspect...

I don't think...

...It's about woods absorbing energy from the strings selectively, leaving a more or less pleasing vibration pattern in the string to be captured by the pickups.

There is such a huge impedance mismatch between the string and the heavy steel bridge and big lump of wood that makes up the body of an electric guitar that this simply isn't possible.

Even with acoustic instruments the colour the soundboard gives to the timbre is almost all down to the way the wood excites the air. In effect we listen to the vibrations of the body, soundboard and their interaction with the air in the body as they are driven by the string. Only in very special circumstances can the body drive the string, as when the instrument is designed to have a low string-bridge-body impedance, the primary resonance of that body is close to that of a played note, and enough energy can be fed into the system to get the whole system resonating - as with bowing a 'wolf' note on a cello.

All that happens on the string is that energy of all the partials is gradually dissipated, following the same well-defined mathematical laws. Otherwise, the only way the body can influence the string is if there is enough flex at the bridge/ body interface to allows the string to alter its length, alternatively getting shorter and longer, and guitar bridges are just too rigid for this to happen to any meaningful degree.

As I have said, I am quite open to be shown a properly worked scientific and mathematical proof of how electric guitar 'tone wood' works, but I have searched high and low for one and everything I have read supports the opposite conclusion. Surely, as someone who is 'scientifically trained' you too would only be happy with such an explanation? Until then the qualification-ridden rationale you put forward (I believe, I suspect etc.) is nothing more than a statement of faith.

Well, I can certainly feel vibrations on the neck and the body of my guitars when I play a string. Therefore some of the energy in the string is passing into the wood of the neck and the body. That is energy being removed from the string. Now if you are correct, what you are saying is that those woods will extract energy from the strings equally regardless of what woods are used.

Well fair enough, but I would like to see evidence of that. At the moment 

The wood doesn't extract the energy from the strings - if the wood wasn't there the energy would still travel through the air, it just hits the wood because it's in the path.

Yes it does extract (attenuate) the energy in the string, so does the air, which is why you can hear an electric guitar when played acoustically. You are hearing the strings setting up a sympathetic vibration in the air molecules, which travels out as a wave through the air as a medium.

Wood is merely another medium. Just as the further you stand from the guitar the less you hear the acoustic sound of an electric guitar because the air attenuates the sound energy turning it to heat, so wood will transport the vibration of the string. There is no reason to suppose that a guitar won't attenuate the vibration, and just as air attenuates sound differently (which is why you can hear bass notes from further away than higher notes) so does wood. It will be a more efficient transport medium than air because solids are by their nature.

crunchman

Most of the energy from the strings goes into the wood.  Why do you think that an acoustic guitar needs a soundboard?  If the energy from the strings went directly into the air as a wave (rather than being wasted as friction) then an acoustic guitar doesn't need a soundboard.

When you don't have a soundboard, you get a "silent" guitar:

https://uk.yamaha.com/en/products/musical_instruments/guitars_basses/silent_guitar/slg200_series/index.html

The body of the guitar is directly coupled to the strings.  Far more of the energy goes into the body than into the air.  If we go back to Newton (equal and opposite reactions), when the filtered vibrations of the body will also affect the vibrations of the strings.

As @Deano said, you can fell the body and/or neck vibrating on an electric guitar.  It definitely has an effect.

Please go back and re-read what I wrote above.  If the wood has no effect, then a Les Paul, SG, 335, and ES 175 should sound the same - and they don't.  That much is obvious to anyone with ears.

photek

crunchman said:

Please go back and re-read what I wrote above.  If the wood has no effect, then a Les Paul, SG, 335, and ES 175 should sound the same - and they don't.

Unless they are all the same colour of course.

deano

If you really want to prove to yourself that the vibration of the string passes into the body of the guitar, try this simple experiment...

1. Unplug it so you are playing your electric guitar acoustically.
2. Place the body of the on the small knob of bone that sits just behind your ear.
3. Pluck a string.

You will hear the guitar quite clearly. This is because the vibrations are passing through the body, through the bone and into your audiological system. If any of you have ever had a hearing test, this is where they carry out the bone conductance test.

Now, wood is a complex system, made strands of lignin. Different woods have different densities, and density is what is important. The more strands of wood there are the fewer air pockets there are to attenuate the vibrations. The vibrations are passed more efficiently where the wood fibres are more tightly connected to each other. I'm sure there are other things in there like resins and other biological products.

So why do we expect wood to attenuate evenly and equally across all frequencies?

Metal or plastic, yes as they have a consistent structure in whichever direction you look (even in a poly-plastic material because it will be the same complexity and density in all directions) ,and are made of the same materials in whichever direction you look. But wood has too many variables in its make up to state that attenuation can ever be equal and even. Different woods will attenuate different frequencies to different rates. It's in the very nature of wood as a material to do that.

NelsonP

Put a clip on tuner on the selector switch of your guitar. Can you still tune it?
If yes, then this proves that there is transfer of the energy from the string into the body.

Since energy can be transferred from the strings to the body then the opposite is also true.

Different body materials will respond differently to this energy. In much the same way that a xylophone responds differenty to a glockespiel when hit with a hammer. This is an extreme example to make the point that different materials respond differently to an impulse, but hopefully you get the point.

Therefore it is entirely reasonable to expect that e.g. mahogany and basswood would respond in different ways to the vibration of the string.

Whether this difference is detectable audibly I do not know, but this would be very hard to prove one way or the other experimentally.

Can we talk about whether white guitars sound better now?

Sassafras

Three-ColourSunburst said:

But surely, there can be no more important a topic to discuss than the decline of the influence of reason, logic and empiricism as we descend into an Orwellian future where the 'truth' is nothing more than a relativistic social construct.

Heed my words, Corgan is but a canary in the coal mine!

Not only that, the Earth is flat but people insist on rejecting all the evidence that irrefutably points to its flatness.