Interesting Video , does body mass/weight really affect the tone ??? ,

mark123

thegummy

Watched this earlier when it was posted in a couple other threads.

It's very pertinent to me at the moment - my favourite guitar for sound is a Les Paul right now but it's a lot heavier than I'd prefer. When I play my PRS Custom 24 I absolutely love how light it is but hate the neck pickup so I've been thinking if I get a Custom 22, could I get the lovely lightness of the PRS Custom with the sound of the Les Paul.

I was surprised with the conclusion in the video - when I've been searching and asking around (including a thread on this forum) there doesn't seem to be the debate that there is with tonewood - there seemed to be a consensus that everyone accepts the size/shape/weight of the body definitely affects the tone, the debate is just whether the type of wood makes a difference when the size/shape/weight are the same. But this video concludes that none of those matter - the tiniest slither of material that will physically hold the hardware in place sounds the same as a huge slab like a vintage LP.

Danielsguitars

i built 2 les pauls one was a heavier body by 1lb, both honduran and the heavy one sounded good but not like the lighter one, it just didn't sing the same, conclusion is i don't make a full body LP over 9lb ish as it looses something imo

I actually took the fretboard off the heavy one and it's still waiting to be taken apart to do something else with it, that was a few years ago now

 The trouble is i compared it to a 56 goldtop 

carlos

in before Michael Jackson eating popcorn
in before pallet guitar
in before Scott Grove
in before concrete guitar
in before that study done as part of an MSc in Physics in a Brazilian university (can't find it right now)
in before Billy Corgan's paint
in before Aristides' Arium guitars
in before The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin (and he's talking about steel string guitars which are much more dependent on their wood for their tone!)
Have I forgotten anything?

octatonic

In before someone says ‘this shit again’?

stickyfiddle

carlos said:

in before Michael Jackson eating popcorn
in before pallet guitar
in before Scott Grove
in before concrete guitar
in before that study done as part of an MSc in Physics in a Brazilian university (can't find it right now)
in before Billy Corgan's paint
in before Aristides' Arium guitars
in before The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin (and he's talking about steel string guitars which are much more dependent on their wood for their tone!)
Have I forgotten anything?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=7Oo2H-W7d6A

gibsongretschfan

His sustain test is bullshit and the 30% body sounded shrill... then again I did listen on my phone so everything sounds shrill

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

I was surprised with the conclusion in the video - when I've been searching and asking around (including a thread on this forum) there doesn't seem to be the debate that there is with tonewood - there seemed to be a consensus that everyone accepts the size/shape/weight of the body definitely affects the tone, the debate is just whether the type of wood makes a difference when the size/shape/weight are the same. But this video concludes that none of those matter - the tiniest slither of material that will physically hold the hardware in place sounds the same as a huge slab like a vintage LP.

This video does not show that "the tiniest slither of material that will physically hold the hardware in place sounds the same as a huge slab like a vintage LP".  It shows that if you cut bits off a guitar that make no contribution to the overall stiffness of the structure, or the rigidity of the bridge-body interface, then it will not affect the sound. Why should it?

On the other hand, if you take a rigid guitar - typically one made of a big slab of wood with a fat neck - and start shaving away wood in a way that affects its structural rigidity - then the resultant increased flex will absorb energy, as so likely reduce the sustain.

In fact Braun himself has done a similar comparison. Guess what? Thin body / thin neck (and so likely more structurally flexible) guitars do seem to have somewhat less sustain than thick body / thick neck (and so likely more structurally stiffer) guitars, but even here the picture isn't black and white - probably because thickness is not the only thing that determines a guitar's structural rigidity.

The research comes to similar conclusions, and it seems that a much improved electric guitar could be built by using stiffer more rigid materials, especially for the neck - perhaps using carbon fibre and steel (or titanium) to make a unified structure running from the head stock to the bridge mounting.

Sassafras

I'm going to sit this one out.

Three-ColourSunburst

Sassafras said:

I'm going to sit this one out.

Very wise - at this moment someone is probably wading though a book of 'basic physics' and having discovered that gravity is related to mass, is about post a defence of the idea that heavy guitars inherently sound different to lighter ones which makes reference to Newton's apocryphal apple or gravitational waves.

guitars4you

can't even be bothered to look at it - everything has an impact on tone - sum of the parts

Three-ColourSunburst

guitars4you said:

can't even be bothered to look at it - everything has an impact on tone - sum of the parts

Even the colour of the paint.

JerkMoans

carlos said:

in before Michael Jackson eating popcorn
in before pallet guitar
in before Scott Grove
in before concrete guitar
in before that study done as part of an MSc in Physics in a Brazilian university (can't find it right now)
in before Billy Corgan's paint
in before Aristides' Arium guitars
in before The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin (and he's talking about steel string guitars which are much more dependent on their wood for their tone!)
Have I forgotten anything?

Chem trails

terada

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Sassafras said:

I'm going to sit this one out.

...having discovered that gravity is related to mass...

I thought siraxeman had proved that gravity doesn’t exist?

now I’m just confused 

Fretwired

But .. does having a large beer gut help with sustain? What about the weight of the guitar player? These factors need to be looked at scientifically.

Babones

carlos said:

in before Michael Jackson eating popcorn
in before pallet guitar
in before Scott Grove
in before concrete guitar
in before that study done as part of an MSc in Physics in a Brazilian university (can't find it right now)
in before Billy Corgan's paint
in before Aristides' Arium guitars
in before The Heretic's Guide to Alternative Lutherie Woods, by John Calkin (and he's talking about steel string guitars which are much more dependent on their wood for their tone!)
Have I forgotten anything?

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I was surprised with the conclusion in the video - when I've been searching and asking around (including a thread on this forum) there doesn't seem to be the debate that there is with tonewood - there seemed to be a consensus that everyone accepts the size/shape/weight of the body definitely affects the tone, the debate is just whether the type of wood makes a difference when the size/shape/weight are the same. But this video concludes that none of those matter - the tiniest slither of material that will physically hold the hardware in place sounds the same as a huge slab like a vintage LP.

This video does not show that "the tiniest slither of material that will physically hold the hardware in place sounds the same as a huge slab like a vintage LP".  It shows that if you cut bits off a guitar that make no contribution to the overall stiffness of the structure, or the rigidity of the bridge-body interface, then it will not affect the sound. Why should it?

On the other hand, if you take a rigid guitar - typically one made of a big slab of wood with a fat neck - and start shaving away wood in a way that affects its structural rigidity - then the resultant increased flex will absorb energy, as so likely reduce the sustain.

In fact Braun himself has done a similar comparison. Guess what? Thin body / thin neck (and so likely more structurally flexible) guitars do seem to have somewhat less sustain than thick body / thick neck (and so likely more structurally stiffer) guitars, but even here the picture isn't black and white - probably because thickness is not the only thing that determines a guitar's structural rigidity.

The research comes to similar conclusions, and it seems that a much improved electric guitar could be built by using stiffer more rigid materials, especially for the neck - perhaps using carbon fibre and steel (or titanium) to make a unified structure running from the head stock to the bridge mounting.

How does the majority of the body of a Strat make no contribution to the structure but the body of a les Paul does?

Genuine question, I'm not implying anything.

terada

Fretwired said:

But .. does having a large beer gut help with sustain? What about the weight of the guitar player? These factors need to be looked at scientifically.

I have also heard that talent might have an impact, but haven’t had it confirmed

Fretwired

terada said:

Fretwired said:

But .. does having a large beer gut help with sustain? What about the weight of the guitar player? These factors need to be looked at scientifically.

I have also heard that talent might have an impact, but haven’t had it confirmed

How much talent is required to strum a guitar three times ... :-)

Being serious though I have found strings have a big impact on sustain ...

RaymondLin

My criticism of his test is he just played 1 note...one would expect he would play clean, gain, chords, songs and may be tuning.

a single note in a rather high pitch is not a good data sample in a scientific point of view.  

thegummy

RaymondLin said:

My criticism of his test is he just played 1 note...one would expect he would play clean, gain, chords, songs and may be tuning.

a single note in a rather high pitch is not a good data sample in a scientific point of view.  

There was nothing scientific about the test at all.

Then again, he was going for YouTube clicks to make money rather than trying to publish scientific research to further human understanding.