Billy Corgan thinks paint colour affects tone.

Sassafras

This is such a fascinating topic. I'm enthralled.

deano

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Lebarque said:

Record an alder strat. Replace the body with an ash one, but leave every single other component the same. Record the guitar again. Does it sound different? Yes. Simples. What am I missing?

deano said:

I don't think it is hard.

As I say, a piece of mahogany 100cm x 10cm  x 10cm with two metal posts, threaded, and inserted into the long axis of the mahogany. now wrap a guitar string around those posts and tune up to - well, anything you like really - a specific pitch. Clamp a guitar pickup in standard laboratory clamps and feed the wires into an oscilloscope. When you pluck the string, the scope will record the wave pattern...

It's been done. Result - body wood makes no difference to the timbre of an electric guitar. From page three of this very thread...

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

Where did you get the English language version from because the two papers you have provided links to are all in Italian.

I would be interested to see what negligable is defined as, given it is enough to feel in the body.

I would also be interested to review what the level of "no significant differences" means, because there isn't a light and day dfference between guitars anyway. It's not like I am claiming a difference of say a guitar and a cello, or a piano note vs a slapped bass note.

Hattigol

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Just like the way...a warm cup of coffee will get hot if you put it in a fridge, once again by absorbing heat energy from its interior?

What unimaginable sorcery is this?
Please confirm this is an error before I waste a perfectly good cup of coffee....

Sassafras

Hattigol said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Just like the way...a warm cup of coffee will get hot if you put it in a fridge, once again by absorbing heat energy from its interior?

What unimaginable sorcery is this?
Please confirm this is an error before I waste a perfectly good cup of coffee....

It's true. That's why I keep my lettuce in the oven.

thegummy

Sassafras said:

Hattigol said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Just like the way...a warm cup of coffee will get hot if you put it in a fridge, once again by absorbing heat energy from its interior?

What unimaginable sorcery is this?
Please confirm this is an error before I waste a perfectly good cup of coffee....

It's true. That's why I keep my lettuce in the oven.

Lettuce in on some of your other vegetable secrets

thegummy

stonevibe said:

I weirdly enough did an article today around mass and tone of guitars.

https://www.gearnews.com/guitar-sustain-do-heavier-guitars-really-sustain-for-longer/

That's an article in the way that the description of a tv show in the tv guide is an article

Three-ColourSunburst

NelsonP said:

Some differences observed here:

Things must really be getting desperate if people are presenting school projects where some lad hits guitar strings strings with a ruler - without full control over exactly where and how a string is excited - in order to support their belief in electric guitar 'tone wood'.  Even the page linked to that video acknowledges the weaknesses of the 'experiment'.

As you can hear in the recordings, the pick attack between the samples is somewhat different, but less different than the results, I would argue.

...What makes a guitar sound like a guitar, as opposed to for example a piano or a harp, is the spectrum of overtones that are generated when the strings are plucked.

http://guitarworks.thestrandbergs.com/2014/12/28/the-impact-of-wood-choice-in-an-electric-guitar/#comment-58029

The second point is partly correct, in that the overtones are generated by the way and where the string is plucked. However, other factors - such as the attack and decay - are at least as significant in determining the characteristic sound of an instrument. Also, as my own FFT traces show, what most people think of a pleasing guitar timbre is more a product of the amplifier than the raw signal. Whatever, having correctly identified the significance of the way the string is excited, and then noting that there were variations in this crucial factor for each 'snapshot' taken, it is nothing more than an act of faith to argue that the differences in the traces were actually due to some other factor. I.e the wood used in the rig.

deano wrote

Where did you get the English language version from because the two papers you have provided links to are all in Italian. I would be interested to see what negligable is defined as, given it is enough to feel in the body.

The paper is written in Portuguese, not Italian. Google translate is your friend. As to what 'negligible' means, even with the high degree of string-body coupling in a violin, only about 20% of the string's energy ends up driving the body of the instrument. For an electric guitar the total value will be only a small fraction of this.

The paper 'Predicting the decay time of solid body electric guitar tones' in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, May 2014, gives some comparative figures for bridge and neck admittance values for an electric guitar. These indicate that, of the energy in the string of an electric guitar that does decay via admittance to the body and neck, less than 2% is admitted via the bridge, with the rest being admitted via the neck/fret interface, so from a practical and research point of view the string of an electric guitar can be considered to be fixed at the bridge. Overall, only a fraction of a % of the energy in the string will be admitted via the bridge, and only a few percent via the neck/fret interface.

Here is the bridge admittance comparison that I posted earlier, taken from 'Investigating dead spots of electric guitars' by H. Fleischer Acustica 85 (1999), 128 - 135. The top shows a violin, the middle and acoustic guitar, and the bottom an electric guitar.

http://imgbox.com/1s4NpnOf

In the case of this particular study 'no significant difference' can be taken to mean 'producing no perceptually detectable differences in the timbre of the test instruments'. They got three professional musicians, two luthiers and a journalist to evaluate the timbre of the test instruments. All said that they thought they heard differences, but it was found that they said this even when they were presented with the same instrument twice. They also rated each instrument on a scale of 1-5 for bass, middle and treble response. There was no consistent rating for any of the instruments. 

Hattigol wrote:

What unimaginable sorcery is this?

Nice bit of selective quoting. You managed to make it appear that I was arguing exactly the opposite of what I was actually saying. Well done!

deano

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

Some differences observed here:

Things must really be getting desperate if people are presenting school projects where some lad hits guitar strings strings with a ruler - without full control over exactly where and how a string is excited - in order to support their belief in electric guitar 'tone wood'.  Even the page linked to that video acknowledges the weaknesses of the 'experiment'.

As you can hear in the recordings, the pick attack between the samples is somewhat different, but less different than the results, I would argue.

...What makes a guitar sound like a guitar, as opposed to for example a piano or a harp, is the spectrum of overtones that are generated when the strings are plucked.

http://guitarworks.thestrandbergs.com/2014/12/28/the-impact-of-wood-choice-in-an-electric-guitar/#comment-58029

The second point is partly correct, in that the overtones are generated by the way and where the string is plucked. However, other factors - such as the attack and decay - are at least as significant in determining the characteristic sound of an instrument. Also, as my own FFT traces show, what most people think of a pleasing guitar timbre is more a product of the amplifier than the raw signal. Whatever, having correctly identified the significance of the way the string is excited, and then noting that there were variations in this crucial factor for each 'snapshot' taken, it is nothing more than an act of faith to argue that the differences in the traces were actually due to some other factor. I.e the wood used in the rig.

deano wrote

Where did you get the English language version from because the two papers you have provided links to are all in Italian. I would be interested to see what negligable is defined as, given it is enough to feel in the body.

The paper is written in Portuguese, not Italian. Google translate is your friend. As to what 'negligible' means, even with the high degree of string-body coupling in a violin, only about 20% of the string's energy ends up driving the body of the instrument. For an electric guitar the total value will be only a small fraction of this.

The paper 'Predicting the decay time of solid body electric guitar tones' in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, May 2014, gives some comparative figures for bridge and neck admittance values for an electric guitar. These indicate that, of the energy in the string of an electric guitar that does decay via admittance to the body and neck, less than 2% is admitted via the bridge, with the rest being admitted via the neck/fret interface, so from a practical and research point of view the string of an electric guitar can be considered to be fixed at the bridge. Overall, only a fraction of a % of the energy in the string will be admitted via the bridge, and only a few percent via the neck/fret interface.

Here is the bridge admittance comparison that I posted earlier, taken from 'Investigating dead spots of electric guitars' by H. Fleischer Acustica 85 (1999), 128 - 135. The top shows a violin, the middle and acoustic guitar, and the bottom an electric guitar.

http://imgbox.com/1s4NpnOf

In the case of this particular study 'no significant difference' can be taken to mean 'producing no perceptually detectable differences in the timbre of the test instruments'. They got three professional musicians, two luthiers and a journalist to evaluate the timbre of the test instruments. All said that they thought they heard differences, but it was found that they said this even when they were presented with the same instrument twice. They also rated each instrument on a scale of 1-5 for bass, middle and treble response. There was no consistent rating for any of the instruments. 

Hattigol wrote:

What unimaginable sorcery is this?

Nice bit of selective quoting. You managed to make it appear that I was arguing exactly the opposite of what I was actually saying. Well done!

Okay so in order...

1) 20% of a string drives an violin's top. Fair enough. Those are made from maple with some kind of wood bridge. Mostly air in the way. Why when The BBC say that air is much less of an efficient conductor of sound energy that solids, would one expect anything different?

2) "For an electric guitar the total value will be only a small fraction of this"? Your words there, not mine. Please back them up with links to evidence. I'm not going to play around anymore and they will be checked.

3) Your second point before my quote indicates 2% of the sound energy to be transmitted into into the body, and more - but you do not state how much - is added via the fret/neck joint. Please tell us how much this is.

4) You claim only a "fraction" of this is passed back to the string via the bridge. I have claimed no feedback from the body to the string. Only that the string will lose energy faster at differing frequencies into different woods. Who has claimed that this is relevant? More important, please tell us with references so everyone can check, what the "fraction" is. I would also like to know, with links and references, what you mean by...

and only a few percent via the neck/fret interface.

5) When you say...

Nice bit of selective quoting. You managed to make it appear that I was arguing exactly the opposite of what I was actually saying. Well done!

would that be the same kind of selective quoting when you stated?

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.

So when you selectively quote it is fine. When others do it is a problem.

Do you want to explain that to us all?

stonevibe

thegummy said:

stonevibe said:

I weirdly enough did an article today around mass and tone of guitars.

https://www.gearnews.com/guitar-sustain-do-heavier-guitars-really-sustain-for-longer/

That's an article in the way that the description of a tv show in the tv guide is an article

Made more sense to use a video. 

That way you can hear it. 

thegummy

deano said:

would that be the same kind of selective quoting when you stated?

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.

So when you selectively quote it is fine. When others do it is a problem.

Do you want to explain that to us all?

His quote about coffee in the fridge was sarcastic to stress that it obviously isn't the case but you quoted it as if he was literally saying that when he was saying the opposite.

deano

thegummy said:

deano said:

would that be the same kind of selective quoting when you stated?

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.

So when you selectively quote it is fine. When others do it is a problem.

Do you want to explain that to us all?

His quote about coffee in the fridge was sarcastic to stress that it obviously isn't the case but you quoted it as if he was literally saying that when he was saying the opposite.

If you want to take the piss out of folk then you need to be whiter-than-white.

thegummy

deano said:

thegummy said:

deano said:

would that be the same kind of selective quoting when you stated?

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.

So when you selectively quote it is fine. When others do it is a problem.

Do you want to explain that to us all?

His quote about coffee in the fridge was sarcastic to stress that it obviously isn't the case but you quoted it as if he was literally saying that when he was saying the opposite.

If you want to take the piss out of folk then you need to be whiter-than-white.

I don't know what you mean by that at all

NelsonP

Three-ColourSunburst said:

NelsonP said:

Some differences observed here:

Things must really be getting desperate if people are presenting school projects where some lad hits guitar strings strings with a ruler - without full control over exactly where and how a string is excited

I disagree. Look at the traces carefully. He plucks each note twice. There is more similarity in the traces between pluck 1 and pluck 2 on the same wood than there is between woods.

Maynehead

I have just been flicking through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that both “sides” are agreeing that the type of wood a guitar is made from DOES in fact make a difference to its perceived tone, but disagree only on the process by which this happens?

One side is saying that different woods absorbs different harmonic frequencies, and the other is saying different woods affect attack and sustain differently. However, both will result in a difference in the final perceived tone of the instrument.

So, on the specific question of whether different woods affect the guitar’s tone, isn’t everyone actually in agreement here?

thegummy

Maynehead said:

I have just been flicking through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that both “sides” are agreeing that the type of wood a guitar is made from DOES in fact make a difference to its perceived tone, but disagree only on the process by which this happens?

One side is saying that different woods absorbs different harmonic frequencies, and the other is saying different woods affect attack and sustain differently. However, both will result in a difference in the final perceived tone of the instrument.

So, on the specific question of whether different woods affect the guitar’s tone, isn’t everyone actually in agreement here?

If that's the case I've really misunderstood 3CS - as far as I was aware he was saying that the type of wood does not make a difference.

Maynehead

thegummy said:

Maynehead said:

I have just been flicking through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that both “sides” are agreeing that the type of wood a guitar is made from DOES in fact make a difference to its perceived tone, but disagree only on the process by which this happens?

One side is saying that different woods absorbs different harmonic frequencies, and the other is saying different woods affect attack and sustain differently. However, both will result in a difference in the final perceived tone of the instrument.

So, on the specific question of whether different woods affect the guitar’s tone, isn’t everyone actually in agreement here?

If that's the case I've really misunderstood 3CS - as far as I was aware he was saying that the type of wood does not make a difference.

I think he was saying it does not alter the harmonic content, or what he refers to as the “timbre” of the tone, but it does affect the attack, sustain and decay of the note, which is the actual difference we’re hearing between the woods.

If I’ve understood correctly...

Bridgehouse

Maynehead said:

thegummy said:

Maynehead said:

I have just been flicking through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that both “sides” are agreeing that the type of wood a guitar is made from DOES in fact make a difference to its perceived tone, but disagree only on the process by which this happens?

One side is saying that different woods absorbs different harmonic frequencies, and the other is saying different woods affect attack and sustain differently. However, both will result in a difference in the final perceived tone of the instrument.

So, on the specific question of whether different woods affect the guitar’s tone, isn’t everyone actually in agreement here?

If that's the case I've really misunderstood 3CS - as far as I was aware he was saying that the type of wood does not make a difference.

I think he was saying it does not alter the harmonic content, or what he refers to as the “timbre” of the tone, but it does affect the attack, sustain and decay of the note, which is the actual difference we’re hearing between the woods.

If I’ve understood correctly...

If that is what he's actually saying, then I agree with him based on my experience with bass.

Let me present a conundrum to you first:

On a bass, the Low B on a 5 string (lowest note) is around 30.9 Hz.

The Ampeg SVT 810-E - the all time classic Ampeg 8x10 cabinet, renowned for its cutting and punchy lows, and incredibly good low mids has a frequency range (at -3db) of 58Hz-5kHz. It has a usable lowest frequency (at -10db) of 40Hz - lower than this and the frequency curve plummets quickly down to about 35hz at which point it's a very big -db number..

Er, so how come the SVT 810-E does such a good job of presenting a clear, ringing low B when the fundamental is 10hz lower than the lowest usable frequency for that cab?

Harmonics. Which on a bass are really important. Your ear and brain effectively hears all the other harmonics in the Low B very clearly and makes the rest up for itself. If there were any kind of a fundamental shift/change/effect on harmonics by changing the body/neck/fingerboard wood then you'd not hear that Low B very well at all. And yet the SVT 810-E does a great job on any 5-stringer. 

I would say there are some subtle changes to the harmonic content in any given body wood - but not much, if anything the attack, sustain and decay of certain harmonic frequencies on different basses are affected and thus change the way the sound of the bass is perceived. I'm having a fretless 5 string built in black limba, with an ebony board. Apparently that combination can seem quite 'dark' compared to say maple and Ash. I can fully believe that black limba increases the sustain of lower mid harmonics and inhibits the attack and sustain of some higher frequency harmonics. 

gibsongretschfan

In my head it's always been

E = red
F = grey
G = burnt orange
A = brighter orange 
B = blue
C = green
D = translucent midnight blue with speckles 

Hattigol

How can we have a thread this long which isn't about R8s??

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

Maynehead said:

I have just been flicking through the posts in this thread, and it appears to me that both “sides” are agreeing that the type of wood a guitar is made from DOES in fact make a difference to its perceived tone, but disagree only on the process by which this happens?

One side is saying that different woods absorbs different harmonic frequencies, and the other is saying different woods affect attack and sustain differently. However, both will result in a difference in the final perceived tone of the instrument.

So, on the specific question of whether different woods affect the guitar’s tone, isn’t everyone actually in agreement here?

If that's the case I've really misunderstood 3CS - as far as I was aware he was saying that the type of wood does not make a difference.

From my first post in this thread...

differences in sustain can be misinterpreted as differences in timbre as the higher partials tend to decay more quickly, but even here factors such as the attack and decay of a note play at least as big a role in the characteristic sound of an instrument as the partials themselves.

No wonder we are going around in circles when people can't even be bothered to read what has been posted previously. Even Maynehead is somewhat misreading what I said, as I was saying that whilst increased sustain might be perceived to give a change in timbre, due to that way the higher harmonics naturally decay more quickly, I did not claim that body wood affects the attack of the note. Rather, I was pointing out that the 'characteristic sound' of an instrument is down to more than just the partials generated on the string by the way it is excited, with the attack, decay (and vibrato) also contributing to the instrument's sound envelope.