Billy Corgan thinks paint colour affects tone.

Three-ColourSunburst

Bridgehouse said:

Maynehead said:

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

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. 

To say that an increase in sustain might be perceived as making a note brighter - because the higher harmonics are preserved for longer - is fully in accordance with the mathematical laws that govern the decay of the energy in a vibrating string.

To say that certain harmonics are 'selectively damped' is an entirely different claim, and not one that I have seen any plausible mechanism for. For example, even if the nonsense that deano made up about dispersion did have an effect at sub-ultrasonic wavelengths, the effects would be a direct function of frequency, so any attenuation would not be selective - just as the light waves in a prism are bent as a direct function of their wavelength, so the shorter the wavelength, the more the dispersion.

There is still the fact that a minimal amount of the energy on the string passes to the body via the bridge, undermining the claim that there can be any meaningful degree of string-body 'resonance'.

There is also the fact that the only properly conducted scientific experiment into the effect of body wood on timbre has shown that it has no perceptible effect.

Currently, the balance of the available scientific evidence is that body wood has no effect on balance of the harmonics on the string. If anyone can point me to proper scientific evidence showing otherwise (not made up nonsense built on a desperate search of a basic physics text book, or video of a schoolboy hitting strings with a ruler) I would be happy to accept that it does.

Three-ColourSunburst

deano said:

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.

I have already (several times) posted links to papers and illustrations that answer your question. (In fact, your own post includes a link that answers your question.) Go to the start of the thread, read what I say (slowly and carefully) follow the links and read the papers, and all will become clear. Then there will be no need to go off desperately searching through physics text books in the hope you can find something that might be able to use to build up some pseudo-scientific 'explanation' of the validity of your faith.

Cheers!

octatonic

What the fuck have I started?

Three-ColourSunburst

octatonic said:

What the fuck have I started?

The defence of religious faith inevitably leads to warfare.

Bigsby

octatonic said:

What the fuck have I started?

An interesting thread. I even enjoyed browsing the Postmodernist section.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

No wonder we are going around in circles when people can't even be bothered to read what has been posted previously. 

That's a bit of a dickish thing to say considering how complimentary I had been to you in the thread.

Since your first post you've also said a million other words, many of them about how only an insignificant fraction of a percentage of the vibrations are transferred to the body anyway so I don't think it's overly clear that you do accept the type of wood affects the amplitude envelope of the note.

JerkMoans

Has anyone considered the effect of ley lines, yet?

thegummy

JerkMoans said:

Has anyone considered the effect of ley lines, yet?

Will need to test that out when I get a chance to play.

Just waiting for Taurus to get in proper alignment then I'm good to go.

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

No wonder we are going around in circles when people can't even be bothered to read what has been posted previously. 

That's a bit of a dickish thing to say considering how complimentary I had been to you in the thread.

Apologies, I was just getting bored with certain posters repeatedly demanding that I answer points and give links that were already provided in the very post they were quoting from, clearly not bothering to even look at what has been posted on previous pages, wasting time by dreaming up irrelevant nonsense and trying to imply that I don't understand even 'basic physics' at the same time making it clear they themselves haven't got a clue. To then say, 'I'm not going to play around anymore and they will be checked' was the final straw!  Some people!

Sorry that you got caught in the crossfire!

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

No wonder we are going around in circles when people can't even be bothered to read what has been posted previously. 

That's a bit of a dickish thing to say considering how complimentary I had been to you in the thread.

Apologies, I was just getting bored with certain posters repeatedly demanding that I answer points and give links that were already provided in the very post they were quoting from, clearly not bothering to even look at what has been posted on previous pages, wasting time by dreaming up irrelevant nonsense and trying to imply that I don't understand even 'basic physics' at the same time making it clear they themselves haven't got a clue. To then say, 'I'm not going to play around anymore and they will be checked' was the final straw!  Some people!

Sorry that you got caught in the crossfire!

No worries

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

Since your first post you've also said a million other words, many of them about how only an insignificant fraction of a percentage of the vibrations are transferred to the body anyway so I don't think it's overly clear that you do accept the type of wood affects the amplitude envelope of the note.

I have said several times that  the wood of the body plays an important role in the sound produced by acoustic instruments, simply because with an acoustic instrument it is the vibration of the body that we directly listen to. In this case the string is the source of energy that excites the system, with the body acting as a bandwidth filter. In the case of an electric guitar the string still is the excitation source, but this energy is directly sensed, converted and filtered by the pickups. The energy that is dissipated via the body is just wasted.

From page 2:

As to 'string- body coupling' and 'resonance', these tend to be either misplaced over-generalisations based on what is known about the way acoustic guitars work, where you listen to the sound waves directly generated by the vibrations of the sound board and / or misinterpretations of the mathematical models developed by researchers such as Gough [see 'The Theory of String Resonance on Musical Instruments', Acustica, Vol 49 (1981) ]...

Page 2 again:

the sound of an acoustic guitar is essentially the sound of an amplified string, although variations in the wood, bracing and so on will cause some of the partials to be amplified more than others. In effect the soundboard is itself a set of filters. Again the partials on the string will be pretty much unchanged, other than a gradual decrease in their amplitude as energy is lost through the bridge as it drives the soundboard. Interestingly, the many natural vibration frequencies of an acoustic guitar's soundboard - its eignemodes - do not correspond to the harmonic series, so the vibrations of the soundboard will still be 'forced' rather than involve 'resonances', although these resonances can still colour the sound produced.

And page 3:

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.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

Since your first post you've also said a million other words, many of them about how only an insignificant fraction of a percentage of the vibrations are transferred to the body anyway so I don't think it's overly clear that you do accept the type of wood affects the amplitude envelope of the note.

I have said several times that  the wood of the body plays an important role in the sound produced by acoustic instruments, simply because with an acoustic instrument it is the vibration of the body that we directly listen to. In this case the string is the source of energy that excites the system, with the body acting as a bandwidth filter. In the case of an electric guitar the string still is the excitation source, but this energy is directly sensed, converted and filtered by the pickups. The energy that is dissipated via the body is just wasted.

From page 2:

As to 'string- body coupling' and 'resonance', these tend to be either misplaced over-generalisations based on what is known about the way acoustic guitars work, where you listen to the sound waves directly generated by the vibrations of the sound board and / or misinterpretations of the mathematical models developed by researchers such as Gough [see 'The Theory of String Resonance on Musical Instruments', Acustica, Vol 49 (1981) ]...

Page 2 again:

the sound of an acoustic guitar is essentially the sound of an amplified string, although variations in the wood, bracing and so on will cause some of the partials to be amplified more than others. In effect the soundboard is itself a set of filters. Again the partials on the string will be pretty much unchanged, other than a gradual decrease in their amplitude as energy is lost through the bridge as it drives the soundboard. Interestingly, the many natural vibration frequencies of an acoustic guitar's soundboard - its eignemodes - do not correspond to the harmonic series, so the vibrations of the soundboard will still be 'forced' rather than involve 'resonances', although these resonances can still colour the sound produced.

And page 3:

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.

See, reading that twice (so 3 times in total now), it still comes across to me that you're saying on an electric guitar, unlike an acoustic, the body's vibrations doesn't change what the pickup picks up in any significant way.

Am I wrong to think you're saying that?

stonevibe

JerkMoans said:

Has anyone considered the effect of ley lines, yet?

The Earths magnetic fields in theory could affect your sustain.






But only on Tuesdays....

Bridgehouse

@Three-ColourSunburst - my own experience with basses (many) has shown that some fretboard and body wood combinations give a different sound - even with same bridge (all Hipshot standard rear loading) same pickup and same scale length etc. through the same amp. I even swapped the strings from one bass to another as a good worn in set of flats can sound different to a new set

The difference to my ears is probably best described as some giving a rounder and fuller low-mids and less higher frequency (you can hear the difference with an amp with a tweeter) and others giving a less pronounced lower mids, but more defined higher mids and higher frequencies generally. 

So if it’s not the body wood or fretboard wood, what is causing the difference? 

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

@Three-ColourSunburst - my own experience with basses (many) has shown that some fretboard and body wood combinations give a different sound - even with same bridge (all Hipshot standard rear loading) same pickup and same scale length etc. through the same amp. I even swapped the strings from one bass to another as a good worn in set of flats can sound different to a new set

The difference to my ears is probably best described as some giving a rounder and fuller low-mids and less higher frequency (you can hear the difference with an amp with a tweeter) and others giving a less pronounced lower mids, but more defined higher mids and higher frequencies generally. 

So if it’s not the body wood or fretboard wood, what is causing the difference? 

For me the first thing is always taking in to account our perception biases (see the McGurk effect et. al) and ask if the difference is actually there or if we're imagining it because we know things have been changed (and look different etc.)

Maybe if someone else was to record samples of your different basses and play them back to you blind, the differences wouldn't be what you thought they were.

crunchman

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

@Three-ColourSunburst - my own experience with basses (many) has shown that some fretboard and body wood combinations give a different sound - even with same bridge (all Hipshot standard rear loading) same pickup and same scale length etc. through the same amp. I even swapped the strings from one bass to another as a good worn in set of flats can sound different to a new set

The difference to my ears is probably best described as some giving a rounder and fuller low-mids and less higher frequency (you can hear the difference with an amp with a tweeter) and others giving a less pronounced lower mids, but more defined higher mids and higher frequencies generally. 

So if it’s not the body wood or fretboard wood, what is causing the difference? 

For me the first thing is always taking in to account our perception biases (see the McGurk effect et. al) and ask if the difference is actually there or if we're imagining it because we know things have been changed (and look different etc.)

Maybe if someone else was to record samples of your different basses and play them back to you blind, the differences wouldn't be what you thought they were.

Or maybe the more straightforward explanation is that it sounds different to @Bridgehouse because it is different.

thegummy

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

@Three-ColourSunburst - my own experience with basses (many) has shown that some fretboard and body wood combinations give a different sound - even with same bridge (all Hipshot standard rear loading) same pickup and same scale length etc. through the same amp. I even swapped the strings from one bass to another as a good worn in set of flats can sound different to a new set

The difference to my ears is probably best described as some giving a rounder and fuller low-mids and less higher frequency (you can hear the difference with an amp with a tweeter) and others giving a less pronounced lower mids, but more defined higher mids and higher frequencies generally. 

So if it’s not the body wood or fretboard wood, what is causing the difference? 

For me the first thing is always taking in to account our perception biases (see the McGurk effect et. al) and ask if the difference is actually there or if we're imagining it because we know things have been changed (and look different etc.)

Maybe if someone else was to record samples of your different basses and play them back to you blind, the differences wouldn't be what you thought they were.

Or maybe the more straightforward explanation is that it sounds different to @Bridgehouse because it is different.

It's also a possibility but it being more straightforward doesn't make it more likely.

Of course, many people assume that what they perceive is what exists - in the guitar world as well as every other world - but that leads to many, many false beliefs.

Bridgehouse

Ok, I see no point in this debate at all now.

I can hear differences. Lots of players can.

But apparently it’s simply just me perceiving that there is a difference. Great. In that case I’ll carry on selecting body wood on the notion it might make a difference to sound, as for me, and many others it does anyway. 

Lovely. Screw the science, apparently it’s psychology. Fine, that’s good enough for me to carry on as is. 

Enjoy your pointless debate chaps.

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

Ok, I see no point in this debate at all now.

I can hear differences. Lots of players can.

But apparently it’s simply just me perceiving that there is a difference. Great. In that case I’ll carry on selecting body wood on the notion it might make a difference to sound, as for me, and many others it does anyway. 

Lovely. Screw the science, apparently it’s psychology. Fine, that’s good enough for me to carry on as is. 

Enjoy your pointless debate chaps.

You've got that the wrong way round, it's not that your perception is definitely wrong, it's that it might be. So it's not "screw the science" - it's very much that we need science to determine facts because human perception isn't reliable.

NelsonP

@Three-ColourSunburst ;

Some questions:

1. Is energy transferred from the strings to the guitar body when a string is plucked?

2. Is some of this energy absorbed by the body wood?

3. Do all (wood) materials absorb this energy in precisely the same way?