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

carlos

Somewhat off topic but why do people need a guitar that can sustain for 2, 3 bars when played clean? I've got guitars on both extremes of sustain and it's a non factor for actual music .

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

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.

Not sure what you are saying.

Which 'Strat' are we talking about? There is the Ibanez 'S', which is a sort of 'Superstrat'. This has a fixed bridge and very thin body, which might be expected to flex more than the chunky LP, and sure enough its sustain is generally less for the lower strings. For the higher strings the sustain of the 'S' is actually pretty good, but then again it does have a maple neck so here its neck stiffness might be compensating for the thinner body.

This seeming contradiction perhaps reflects the fact that the eigenmodes (the energy-sapping natural vibration frequencies) of electric guitars generally show up in the lower, sub-500Hz frequency range, a reflection of their massive construction. (In comparison the thin soundboard of an acoustic guitar will have multitudes of different eigenmodes across a much wider range of frequencies.)

This paper discusses body flex in electric guitars, and also their low string-bridge-body conductance. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmut_Fleischer/publication/282790879_Fleischer_H_und_Zwicker_T_Mechanical_vibrations_of_electric_guitars/links/5736092808ae298602e09e42/Fleischer-H-und-Zwicker-T-Mechanical-vibrations-of-electric-guitars.pdf

A similar paper looking at more body shapes, but in German.

https://www.dega-akustik.de/fileadmin/dega-akustik.de/fachausschuesse/ma/dokumente/beitraege/2001_2_Schwingungen_EGitarren.pdf

If we are talking about the RG or PS, these both have trem systems of different designs that are likely to introduce a range of confounding factors, from differences in bridge impedance through to the effect of routing a large part of the body away close to the crucial bridge-body interface.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

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.

Not sure what you are saying.

Which 'Strat' are we talking about? There is the Ibanez 'S', which is a sort of 'Superstrat'. This has a fixed bridge and very thin body, which might be expected to flex more than the chunky LP, and sure enough its sustain is generally less for the lower strings. For the higher strings the sustain of the 'S' is actually pretty good, but then again it does have a maple neck so here its neck stiffness might be compensating for the thinner body.

This seeming contradiction perhaps reflects the fact that the eigenmodes (the energy-sapping natural vibration frequencies) of electric guitars generally show up in the lower, sub-500Hz frequency range, a reflection of their massive construction. (In comparison the thin soundboard will have multitudes of different eigenmodes across a much wider range of frequencies.)

This paper discusses body flex in electric guitars, and also their low string-bridge-body conductance. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmut_Fleischer/publication/282790879_Fleischer_H_und_Zwicker_T_Mechanical_vibrations_of_electric_guitars/links/5736092808ae298602e09e42/Fleischer-H-und-Zwicker-T-Mechanical-vibrations-of-electric-guitars.pdf

A similar paper looking at more body shapes, but in German.

https://www.dega-akustik.de/fileadmin/dega-akustik.de/fachausschuesse/ma/dokumente/beitraege/2001_2_Schwingungen_EGitarren.pdf

If we are talking about the RG or PS, these both have trem systems of different designs that are likely to introduce a range of confounding factors, from differences in bridge impedance through to the effect of routing a large part of the body away close to the crucial bridge-body interface.

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

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.

Not sure what you are saying.

Which 'Strat' are we talking about? There is the Ibanez 'S', which is a sort of 'Superstrat'. This has a fixed bridge and very thin body, which might be expected to flex more than the chunky LP, and sure enough its sustain is generally less for the lower strings. For the higher strings the sustain of the 'S' is actually pretty good, but then again it does have a maple neck so here its neck stiffness might be compensating for the thinner body.

This seeming contradiction perhaps reflects the fact that the eigenmodes (the energy-sapping natural vibration frequencies) of electric guitars generally show up in the lower, sub-500Hz frequency range, a reflection of their massive construction. (In comparison the thin soundboard of an acoustic guitar will have multitudes of different eigenmodes across a much wider range of frequencies.)

This paper discusses body flex in electric guitars, and also their low string-bridge-body conductance. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helmut_Fleischer/publication/282790879_Fleischer_H_und_Zwicker_T_Mechanical_vibrations_of_electric_guitars/links/5736092808ae298602e09e42/Fleischer-H-und-Zwicker-T-Mechanical-vibrations-of-electric-guitars.pdf

A similar paper looking at more body shapes, but in German.

https://www.dega-akustik.de/fileadmin/dega-akustik.de/fachausschuesse/ma/dokumente/beitraege/2001_2_Schwingungen_EGitarren.pdf

If we are talking about the RG or PS, these both have trem systems of different designs that are likely to introduce a range of confounding factors, from differences in bridge impedance through to the effect of routing a large part of the body away close to the crucial bridge-body interface.

See this is very relevant for my real-world, non theoretical, decision - the PRS Custom, as well as having a thinner body, has a trem and the associated cavity. So maybe that in itself will have a bigger effect on the sound than anything to do with the body wood or size?

AlexC

Does it matter? Really? Does anyone care? Audience’s don’t. Is a guitar a musical instrument or a scientific project?

Bigsby

AlexC said:

Does it matter? Really? Does anyone care? Audience’s don’t. Is a guitar a musical instrument or a scientific project?

Audiences tend not to care what key you're playing in either, does that mean it doesn't matter?

If two or more people are interested in discussing something, that suggests they care about it to some degree or other, thus, in some sense it 'matters'. In the same way it matters how many R8s someone bought this week - (to the people discussing it)

Science isn't separate from anything else in life, it encompasses everything, including musical instruments. 

Henrytwang

Wonder how much he’d get for it if he glued it back together and listed it on eBay . 

thegummy

AlexC said:

Does it matter? Really? Does anyone care? Audience’s don’t. Is a guitar a musical instrument or a scientific project?

I never understand comments like this.

Who cares if some random drunkard in a pub doesn't care? When I listen to Jeff Beck I very much enjoy all the subtleties in the guitar tone, as I do when I'm playing myself.

I mean, if the only thing you care about is that a guitar will allow you to make noise at a gig then why even look at a guitar gear forum? Just buy an 80 quid guitar and you're set for life.

terada

AlexC said:

Does it matter? Really? Does anyone care? Audience’s don’t. Is a guitar a musical instrument or a scientific project?

So far in one day 58k views. Which is the real point of the vid. 

We’ve all cared enough to comment. Meanwhile YouTube wins again. 

Three-ColourSunburst

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

thegummy

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

So if the Custom 22 was like a Les Paul but the body was much thinner - it could possibly sound the same.

But the fact it's single cut and, possibly more so, the fact it has a trem with the associated cavity cut out right at the bridge, means it won't sound like a LP?

Bridgehouse

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

So if the Custom 22 was like a Les Paul but the body was much thinner - it could possibly sound the same.

But the fact it's single cut and, possibly more so, the fact it has a trem with the associated cavity cut out right at the bridge, means it won't sound like a LP?

It won’t sound like a Les Paul because you have seen that it isn’t - and thus psychologically it won’t sound like a Les Paul cos it isn’t. Apparently.

crunchman

thegummy said:

See this is very relevant for my real-world, non theoretical, decision - the PRS Custom, as well as having a thinner body, has a trem and the associated cavity. So maybe that in itself will have a bigger effect on the sound than anything to do with the body wood or size?

@thegummy - the trem does affect the tone on a PRS Custom, or a DGT - and I have owned both.  I've also owned a McCarty, and a PRS Singlecut among other PRS guitars.  The DGT and the McCarty are very similar construction apart from the trem.  The hardtail instruments definitely sound different to the instruments with a trem.  You see a similar effect with other models as well.  For example, a hardtail Strat sounds different from a Strat with a trem.

I think I saw you post in another post that you were thinking of getting a PRS because your Les Paul is heavy.  What I will tell you is that none of those PRS that I owned completely nails a Les Paul tone, if that's what you are after.  For reference, I've also owned 3 Les Pauls.

I've had enough of all the silly arguments so I don't really want to get into a detailed discussion of why none of them sound exactly like a Les Paul, though I do think it's significant that the maple cap is a lot thicker on all those PRS guitars.  There are other factors as well, and others might have a different opinion as to why they sound different, but whatever the cause, they do.

I played the new(ish) 594 model in a shop a little while ago.  To my mind, the double cut version of that is the best of the doublecut PRS guitars for getting close to a Les Paul tone.  The Singlecut guitars get closer but they are a similar weight to a Les Paul anyway, so you might as well keep the Les Paul.  If you don't have the budget for a 594, then a second hand McCarty will get you a lot closer than a Custom.  The pickups in the older McCartys weren't great though, so you might want to budget for a good set of PAF style pickups.

The best thing to do is go into a decent shop (before they all close down) and try a bunch to find what you like.

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

So if the Custom 22 was like a Les Paul but the body was much thinner - it could possibly sound the same.

But the fact it's single cut and, possibly more so, the fact it has a trem with the associated cavity cut out right at the bridge, means it won't sound like a LP?

It won’t sound like a Les Paul because you have seen that it isn’t - and thus psychologically it won’t sound like a Les Paul cos it isn’t. Apparently.

lol it's very common for people to dislike these kind of findings - we like to think that we perceive the world as it really is and that we make reasoned decisions based on logical understanding of how things actually are so when we're told that's not the case, it's understandable that people will try not to believe it.

AlexC

Oh, dear! What I meant was - does it really matter the absolute machinations of a guitar? If someone finds it personally interesting (which people who make guitars do, presumeably and many people on this forum) then that’s understandable. As for buying a shit guitar and making a noise... that’s kind of the opposite extreme, isnt it. Perhaps I am in a minority that, for me, the sounds and music and overall ‘song’ that a guitar player makes is far more interesting and inspiring than how much their guitar weighs, what circuit of Muff they’re using and how many winds their pickup has. But, as I said, perhaps that’s just me.

ESBlonde

I thought the video should have continued.
Add some mass to the headstock. Then remove that and a chunk of wood from there too.
Anyway lots of  interest it seems.

Bridgehouse

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

So if the Custom 22 was like a Les Paul but the body was much thinner - it could possibly sound the same.

But the fact it's single cut and, possibly more so, the fact it has a trem with the associated cavity cut out right at the bridge, means it won't sound like a LP?

It won’t sound like a Les Paul because you have seen that it isn’t - and thus psychologically it won’t sound like a Les Paul cos it isn’t. Apparently.

lol it's very common for people to dislike these kind of findings - we like to think that we perceive the world as it really is and that we make reasoned decisions based on logical understanding of how things actually are so when we're told that's not the case, it's understandable that people will try not to believe it.

No. You misunderstand. I can very well imagine that it is psychological. Lots of things are. But that makes the whole debate irrelevant. It matters not whether there’s any actual difference as we will perceive it as different anyway.

thegummy

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

See this is very relevant for my real-world, non theoretical, decision - the PRS Custom, as well as having a thinner body, has a trem and the associated cavity. So maybe that in itself will have a bigger effect on the sound than anything to do with the body wood or size?

@thegummy - the trem does affect the tone on a PRS Custom, or a DGT - and I have owned both.  I've also owned a McCarty, and a PRS Singlecut among other PRS guitars.  The DGT and the McCarty are very similar construction apart from the trem.  The hardtail instruments definitely sound different to the instruments with a trem.  You see a similar effect with other models as well.  For example, a hardtail Strat sounds different from a Strat with a trem.

I think I saw you post in another post that you were thinking of getting a PRS because your Les Paul is heavy.  What I will tell you is that none of those PRS that I owned completely nails a Les Paul tone, if that's what you are after.  For reference, I've also owned 3 Les Pauls.

I've had enough of all the silly arguments so I don't really want to get into a detailed discussion of why none of them sound exactly like a Les Paul, though I do think it's significant that the maple cap is a lot thicker on all those PRS guitars.  There are other factors as well, and others might have a different opinion as to why they sound different, but whatever the cause, they do.

I played the new(ish) 594 model in a shop a little while ago.  To my mind, the double cut version of that is the best of the doublecut PRS guitars for getting close to a Les Paul tone.  The Singlecut guitars get closer but they are a similar weight to a Les Paul anyway, so you might as well keep the Les Paul.  If you don't have the budget for a 594, then a second hand McCarty will get you a lot closer than a Custom.  The pickups in the older McCartys weren't great though, so you might want to budget for a good set of PAF style pickups.

The best thing to do is go into a decent shop (before they all close down) and try a bunch to find what you like.

One of the PRS's I do have is the Bernie Marsden and it's even more like "a Les Paul" than my Gibson Les Paul, i.e. it's chunkier and has binding etc.

Turns out I actually prefer the look of no binding and prefer the feel of the slimmer LP neck that's on the model I have but I find that they both sound to me like a classic LP sound when putting the same (BK Mule) pickups in them.

I'd easily believe that it's that you may have many more years experience hearing Les Pauls so are more picky with how close it would have to be for you to consider the tone the same.

When I look closely, I think you're right that the PRS's maple cap does seem to be thicker than the Gibson, though it's quite hard to see it with the arched shape of the top and the binding.

So for me it would be down to whether the Custom 22 would get in to the range that I find close enough to the classic LP tone (which is the tone I love) or if the trem and all the rest of the variables make it sound too different.

thegummy

Bridgehouse said:

thegummy said:

Bridgehouse said:

thegummy said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

thegummy said:

I'm talking about the Strat in the video - if his conclusion is true that even removing most of the wood from the body doesn't change the tone, surely a Les Paul having even more wood than the Strat had to begin with wouldn't affect it either.

Ah, I thought you were talking about the 'Thin versus thick' video, not the one where he cuts bits off the guitar.

Yes, how massive the body of a Les Paul is is irrelevant to how it sounds, other than in relation to how that mass contributes to the overall stiffness of the instrument, and the integrity of the bridge-body interface. That's just what his video showed - simply altering the mass of the body by cutting off non-structural bits of it doesn't change the way it sounds.

This is exactly what you would expect given that the rate energy leaks away from the string into the body is a function of the impedance of the bridge, and whether that energy is transmitted into a big or small lump of wood is irrelevant.

So if the Custom 22 was like a Les Paul but the body was much thinner - it could possibly sound the same.

But the fact it's single cut and, possibly more so, the fact it has a trem with the associated cavity cut out right at the bridge, means it won't sound like a LP?

It won’t sound like a Les Paul because you have seen that it isn’t - and thus psychologically it won’t sound like a Les Paul cos it isn’t. Apparently.

lol it's very common for people to dislike these kind of findings - we like to think that we perceive the world as it really is and that we make reasoned decisions based on logical understanding of how things actually are so when we're told that's not the case, it's understandable that people will try not to believe it.

No. You misunderstand. I can very well imagine that it is psychological. Lots of things are. But that makes the whole debate irrelevant. It matters not whether there’s any actual difference as we will perceive it as different anyway.

Ah I'm sorry, I thought you were passing it off. I'm sure many people will because of the fore-mentioned dislike of that kind of thing (e.g. a lot of people believing in heaven mostly because they don't want to believe there's nothing).

What you say is true - it's actually the reason I look to scientific proof because I know that if I was to just go to a shop and compare them, I don't trust I'd be able to perceive the differences reliably.

Maybe that means I wouldn't be able to reliably tell the difference in day to day playing either so shouldn't care about it at all. It could be the case.

thegummy

AlexC said:

Oh, dear! What I meant was - does it really matter the absolute machinations of a guitar? If someone finds it personally interesting (which people who make guitars do, presumeably and many people on this forum) then that’s understandable. As for buying a shit guitar and making a noise... that’s kind of the opposite extreme, isnt it. Perhaps I am in a minority that, for me, the sounds and music and overall ‘song’ that a guitar player makes is far more interesting and inspiring than how much their guitar weighs, what circuit of Muff they’re using and how many winds their pickup has. But, as I said, perhaps that’s just me.

The overall song is more important to me too but for my own playing, the subtleties in the tone does matter to me so anything that affects that is something I want to investigate.

Whether I spend too much time and effort looking in to such things is questionable though. It's quite probable I concentrate too much on things that matter very little.

If I could have the concentration to just practice for 3 hours solid every day I'd be a lot better off but I don't so take breaks and spend some of those breaks on forums. Maybe I should try harder to discipline myself!