Tone wood debate (yet again, I know, I know, I know), and musical perception

soma1975

thegummy said:

soma1975 said:

There is an auditory version of the Dunning-Kruger effect where many people who can't hear the difference between 2 things cannot comprehend that another person can, and so they put it down to cork sniffing, cognitive bias or somesuch. 

 

That is not like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

As I said it's a version of DK, 

'A cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognise their own incompetence. And not only do they fail to recognise their incompetence, they’re also likely to feel confident that they actually are competent.'

...where everyone thinks they are the ones that have magic ears. 

thegummy

soma1975 said:

thegummy said:

soma1975 said:

There is an auditory version of the Dunning-Kruger effect where many people who can't hear the difference between 2 things cannot comprehend that another person can, and so they put it down to cork sniffing, cognitive bias or somesuch. 

 

That is not like the Dunning-Kruger effect.

As I said it's a version of DK, 

'A cognitive bias whereby people who are incompetent at something are unable to recognise their own incompetence. And not only do they fail to recognise their incompetence, they’re also likely to feel confident that they actually are competent.'

...where everyone thinks they are the ones that have magic ears. 

The Dunning-Kruger is like in the early episodes of the X Factor when people who are abysmal singers go on and the audience wonder why the contestants would put themselves through that with no chance. The fact they're tone deaf is what makes them unable to sing but it also prevents them from knowing they're singing so badly because they don't know what "in tune" sounds like.

It's not that they know they can't sing so decide no one else can either.

I'm not just pointing this out to be needlessly pedantic, it's because the Dunning-Kruger effect is very real but the idea that people just assume that no one could possibly hear something that they can't isn't a psychological phenomenon. If anything, it would just be baseless arrogance.

For me personally, when I've swapped pickups to a totally different guitar, it seems to sound different to me. But, because I believe in science, I don't then make the leap to thinking that it must sound different just because I think I can hear it. I would only start believing that if there was evidence.

In fact, whenever I've seen anyone post blind tests, no one's ever able to pick out completely different guitars, never mind just the wood being different.

crunchman

thegummy said:

In fact, whenever I've seen anyone post blind tests, no one's ever able to pick out completely different guitars, never mind just the wood being different.

As I've said before (many times in these threads), find a PRS Custom, and a PRS Standard.  Identical apart from the fact that the Custom has a thick maple top on it.  They sound different.  It obvious that they sound different.

As a second thing to try out, PRS made a few McCarty's with a rosewood neck (the whole neck not just the fingerboard) rather than the usual mahogany.  Again, they sound different - and noticeably different.

Whether I could pick them out in a blind test played by someone else, compressed on the internet, and slathered in distortion, I'm not sure - but I can definitely tell the difference when I am playing them.  The woods make a significant difference to the sound.

thegummy

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

In fact, whenever I've seen anyone post blind tests, no one's ever able to pick out completely different guitars, never mind just the wood being different.

As I've said before (many times in these threads), find a PRS Custom, and a PRS Standard.  Identical apart from the fact that the Custom has a thick maple top on it.  They sound different.  It obvious that they sound different.

As a second thing to try out, PRS made a few McCarty's with a rosewood neck (the whole neck not just the fingerboard) rather than the usual mahogany.  Again, they sound different - and noticeably different.

Whether I could pick them out in a blind test played by someone else, compressed on the internet, and slathered in distortion, I'm not sure - but I can definitely tell the difference when I am playing them.  The woods make a significant difference to the sound.

The file compression on the internet has nothing to do with it - it's that when we know what we're expecting, we'll think we hear a difference because our sense of the world isn't like readings from recording equipment, it's formed from so many things including our expectations and our memories.

So the only way to eliminate that is to hear the sounds without any other clues about what you're hearing - if you can then pick out the correct ones a reasonable number of times then that's evidence towards them actually sounding different.

soma1975

I mean it's only needlessly pedantic because I said it was a version of. As in analogous to but not the same as. 

Otherwise it would have just been a normal amount of pedantic. 

Your living in science world seems stop once you have made an observation re changing out pickups. Nothing at all unscientific about an observation you had in hearing the difference and nothing to suggest you only imagined it.

It's the conclusions one might draw from a limited data set and too many variables that presents challenges in having a definitive and quantifiable answer. 

That said it is very hard to apply absolutes to such subjective concepts as tone. Not everything that constitutes what we consider 'tone' is easy to measure and assign a numerical value, and on any two consecutive days my rig can sound different to me without any change in the settings being changed. The reasons for that could be many, including psychological and/or demonic possession of my amp. 


Also there IS a psychological component in how a particular instrument makes you play over another instrument, and how you play affects the sound as much as anything else. 

crunchman

thegummy said:

crunchman said:

thegummy said:

In fact, whenever I've seen anyone post blind tests, no one's ever able to pick out completely different guitars, never mind just the wood being different.

As I've said before (many times in these threads), find a PRS Custom, and a PRS Standard.  Identical apart from the fact that the Custom has a thick maple top on it.  They sound different.  It obvious that they sound different.

As a second thing to try out, PRS made a few McCarty's with a rosewood neck (the whole neck not just the fingerboard) rather than the usual mahogany.  Again, they sound different - and noticeably different.

Whether I could pick them out in a blind test played by someone else, compressed on the internet, and slathered in distortion, I'm not sure - but I can definitely tell the difference when I am playing them.  The woods make a significant difference to the sound.

The file compression on the internet has nothing to do with it - it's that when we know what we're expecting, we'll think we hear a difference because our sense of the world isn't like readings from recording equipment, it's formed from so many things including our expectations and our memories.

So the only way to eliminate that is to hear the sounds without any other clues about what you're hearing - if you can then pick out the correct ones a reasonable number of times then that's evidence towards them actually sounding different.

Have you done what I said (and have said many times before) and got those guitars, and actually tried them.  Unless you are deaf, believe me you will hear a difference.

Stop poopooing what I say, and actually get out there and try some guitars.  Once you, and 3CS, actually do that, then we can have a sensible discussion about this.

Kittyfrisk

soma1975 said:

I mean it's only needlessly pedantic because I said it was a version of. As in analogous to but not the same as. 

Otherwise it would have just been a normal amount of pedantic. 

Your living in science world seems stop once you have made an observation re changing out pickups. Nothing at all unscientific about an observation you had in hearing the difference and nothing to suggest you only imagined it.

It's the conclusions one might draw from a limited data set and too many variables that presents challenges in having a definitive and quantifiable answer. 

That said it is very hard to apply absolutes to such subjective concepts as tone. Not everything that constitutes what we consider 'tone' is easy to measure and assign a numerical value, and on any two consecutive days my rig can sound different to me without any change in the settings being changed. The reasons for that could be many, including psychological and/or demonic possession of my amp. 


Also there IS a psychological component in how a particular instrument makes you play over another instrument, and how you play affects the sound as much as anything else. 

Apart from the grief that the tonewood sprites have given me & the mojo leaks that no so-called technician could fix, the amp demon is the worst. Little bastards, the lot of them.

thegummy

soma1975 said:

I mean it's only needlessly pedantic because I said it was a version of. As in analogous to but not the same as. 

Otherwise it would have just been a normal amount of pedantic. 

Your living in science world seems stop once you have made an observation re changing out pickups. Nothing at all unscientific about an observation you had in hearing the difference and nothing to suggest you only imagined it.

It's the conclusions one might draw from a limited data set and too many variables that presents challenges in having a definitive and quantifiable answer. 

Hearing a sound then 20 minutes later hearing another sound and comparing it to the memory of the one I heard 20 minutes ago isn't scientific in any way. Even if there wasn't the 20 minute wait and I was just swapping between two guitars, there is definitely nothing scientific in that.

The thing that suggests I might have only imagined it is taking the fact that any blind test I've seen is failed by everyone who takes part then taking the fact that when there's no blind test involved, many people talk about how big a difference features x and y make in tone and that they can hear it so obviously. Those two things suggest that, at least some of the time, some people are thinking they are hearing things when they know what they're hearing that they don't hear when they don't know what they're going to be hearing.

Add in loads and loads of research that exists about biases and how unreliable our senses are and how our brains piece together many different sources to paint a picture of the world and how we can't just focus on one sense and observe it as it is.

I would think anyone who knows a lot about cognition would say there's definitely a chance that the tone difference I thought I heard didn't exist in the real world.

That said it is very hard to apply absolutes to such subjective concepts as tone. Not everything that constitutes what we consider 'tone' is easy to measure and assign a numerical value, and on any two consecutive days my rig can sound different to me without any change in the settings being changed. The reasons for that could be many, including psychological and/or demonic possession of my amp. 

Surely the very fact that your rig does sound different the next day without any settings changing must open your mind to the possibility that it's your perception of it that might have changed rather than the tone itself?

Nothing would need a numerical value though, the big question seems to be "does the type of wood affect the tone?" and that could just be answered with a yes or no. It would just require a series of ABX blind tests to possibly produce some good evidence.

Also there IS a psychological component in how a particular instrument makes you play over another instrument, and how you play affects the sound as much as anything else. 

See with this aspect it really makes no difference whether the difference is real or not - if you think you hear a difference ten it will affect your playing just as much whether it's real or in your head. If that's the main reason someone is concerned with tone then they'll already know the answer that matters - if they hear a difference then that difference exists for them in their head.

It's only if part of someone's guitar choice is affected by the tone other people will hear when they listen to the music that it would matter. Even then, it's not like a piece of music will be ruined because the listener doesn't hear the same subtle tone that the player thought he heard - the listener will likely be oblivious to the idea. It's really just academic - people pose the question on forums and I suppose it's only natural to want to know the answer.

thegummy

crunchman said:

Stop poopooing what I say, and actually get out there and try some guitars.  Once you, and 3CS, actually do that, then we can have a sensible discussion about this.

But you're just completely ignoring the whole point of how our perceptions don't work like that even though I explained in the post you replied to.

So I don't know if you don't understand it or are just choosing to ignore it but telling me to try out two guitars is completely missing everything I've said in the thread.

crunchman

thegummy said:

crunchman said:

Stop poopooing what I say, and actually get out there and try some guitars.  Once you, and 3CS, actually do that, then we can have a sensible discussion about this.

But you're just completely ignoring the whole point of how our perceptions don't work like that even though I explained in the post you replied to.

So I don't know if you don't understand it or are just choosing to ignore it but telling me to try out two guitars is completely missing everything I've said in the thread.

I'm not ignoring them.  The differences are so obvious that any debate about perceptions is meaningless.

soma1975

Why does a Les Paul special sound different to a Les Paul Standard with a maple cap? 

Fez

Equipment that is mounted on helicopters is sometimes subjected to what is known as a Rap test. Basically transducers are attached to the item and it is struck with a hammer and the vibrations recorded and analysed using software. Maybe two guitars could be similarly analysed. 
If different construction but similar style guitars were used. A Les Paul with maple cap and a plain mahogany junior for instance. Then you could also analyse the signal from the pickups.
This would tell us that the two guitars sound slightly different.
Now when we plug our guitar in the signal goes through the on board tone control (assuming no pedals) then to the amp which has its own character and tone stack.
So why do we get so hung up about tone wood? If a guitar sounds good and plays good it is good.

Cols

Kittyfrisk said:

Awww, come on people.
Regardless of how we feel about what was said, @zedhex has only been a member for a couple of weeks.
Maybe be just a little gentler in the responses?

Normally I would agree, bad form to jump all over the newcomer and all that.  

This, however, is a topic which has been done to death already and, from the title, the OP knows it.  Not only that, but they’ve deliberately opened and closed their post by preemptively insulting anyone who disagrees with them.  It all smacks a bit of hopefully applying a match to the blue touch paper and standing back.

And by golly, it’s worked - over 50 replies already.  I note that the OP hasn’t been back to the thread to comment further.

Wolfetone

What I don't grasp is the word 'tonewood'. Isn't wood just wood and if it's used for a guitar it's still wood?

FWIW, my view is that there are so many factors that govern a guitars tone such as;

Neck material
Body material
String gauge, type and AGE
Paint type and thickness of coating
Shape of the guitar
The weight of the hardware on the head stock
Pickup type and numerous variations within
How the guitar is held
How the guitar is played

...and on and on and on. It's Strats vs Lesters....there's no answer. 

My other point is that the perception of sound is one of total personal perception. No good sound or bad sound, just its context in any given setting.

Just play the guitar that pleases you and enjoy.

FelineGuitars

Everything makes a difference to how a guitar and amp sounds.

So yes different timbers affect the sound , and even different pieces of the same species of timber will sound different.

The materials of the hardware, the scale length, the pickups etc

Also the same applies to your amp and speakers too 
You'd be surprised at what difference having tolex covering on your speaker cabinet will have - listening to a stripped 4x12 sounds different too from what I've heard.
It is a fairly complex equation

soma1975

Tone wood is a term used by people that are upselling wood for instruments. Wood is wood but clearly not all wood is equal and one bit even of the same species might have better properties than another. 

It's almost certainly not the single most important factor in how an electric guitar sounds but it's part of the picture. 

crunchman

Wolfetone said:

What I don't grasp is the word 'tonewood'. Isn't wood just wood and if it's used for a guitar it's still wood?

Fair point.  The label doesn't help.

That doesn't change the fact that different pieces of wood vibrate differently, and this affects the tone of the guitar.  Most are willing to accept that, even if there is debate over how important it is.  A small handful refuse to listen to those who have experience of guitars that, apart from using different wood, are identical yet sound different.  It's that handful that tend to make these threads ridiculous.

zedhex

gringopig said:

If I attach a guitar string suspended between a composite material with certain resonant frequencies, that guitar string will be louder at those resonant frequencies, and may contain many harmonic resonances. This is perceived by the human ear as a difference in timbre and volume. This is the major error that many people make when they think about how a guitar string vibrates. The vibration is not independent of the material that the string is suspended over. It's actually in a feedback loop where the vibrations pass through the suspending material, and then feedback to the vibrating string. 

You need to consider the wood of an electric guitar as subtractive only. It can only attenuate and the perfect material for mounting a string will be a rigid, dense and non yielding substance. 
There is no additive resonance, only selective attenuation.

Interesting idea - to test this, I took two guitars, held them together so that the wooden bodies were touching. I then plucked the string of one of the guitars. The strings of the other guitar started vibrating. How did that happen if the wood has only a subtractive effect?

zedhex

soma1975 said:

There is an auditory version of the Dunning-Kruger effect where many people who can't hear the difference between 2 things cannot comprehend that another person can, and so they put it down to cork sniffing, cognitive bias or somesuch. 

 

Precisely.

Lewy

zedhex said:

gringopig said:

If I attach a guitar string suspended between a composite material with certain resonant frequencies, that guitar string will be louder at those resonant frequencies, and may contain many harmonic resonances. This is perceived by the human ear as a difference in timbre and volume. This is the major error that many people make when they think about how a guitar string vibrates. The vibration is not independent of the material that the string is suspended over. It's actually in a feedback loop where the vibrations pass through the suspending material, and then feedback to the vibrating string. 

You need to consider the wood of an electric guitar as subtractive only. It can only attenuate and the perfect material for mounting a string will be a rigid, dense and non yielding substance. 
There is no additive resonance, only selective attenuation.

Interesting idea - to test this, I took two guitars, held them together so that the wooden bodies were touching. I then plucked the string of one of the guitars. The strings of the other guitar started vibrating. How did that happen if the wood has only a subtractive effect?

Is the point that if the other guitar had been made of a rigid, dense and non-yielding material it’s strings would have vibrated more?