Everything else equal, changing only the guitar woods (very interesting)

[Rachmaninoff]

I didn't see this video here yet, so I'm sharing for anyone who's interested on the matter (probably many here).

This guy built identical guitars changing only the woods, and then recorded demos of each. As a guitar geek, I found it to be incredibly interesting and amusing to watch:

 

[Maertl513]

I did a comparison of four 513 in 2014. Three MT (2011, 2011, 2013), one RW (2005).
They had slightly differences in the amplified tone, but that could be caused by: PU heights, different reviews of the PCB (and one had the former "Private Stock" handwiring as a after sales modification, age and debris of an on the strings and so on).

Showing off with the attack and the sustain in that certain video, it is remarkable, that a few wood types produces a more or less unbalanced attack and different modulations within the sustain.

Thx for sharing!

 

[jfine]

Great clip! I've known for a long time that there are tonal differences between wood species--I can hear them--but there are so many variables that I've never been able to do more than generalize (maple is bright, mahogany is darker, etc.). This is the first time I've seen a reasonably scientific comparison. Brilliant! I was surprised to find that the one I liked best in all pickup positions was obeche, and I don't think I've ever played an obeche guitar. Burns Of London used obeche on a few guitars in the '60's, but if anyone else has, I'm not aware of it. Of course, this is on a bolt-on maple-neck guitar with single-coil pickups--change to a set-neck with humbuckers and the optimum body wood might well be something totally different; change the scale length and everything changes again. Those variables again...

 

[g.wizz]

very interesting especially both Pines which to my ears were close somewhat to swamp ash in clarity and the hog being the warmer of the bunch

thanks for sharing

 

[Michael_DK]

I did a comparison of four 513 in 2014. Three MT (2011, 2011, 2013), one RW (2005).
They had slightly differences in the amplified tone, but that could be caused by: PU heights, different reviews of the PCB (and one had the former "Private Stock" handwiring as a after sales modification, age and debris of an on the strings and so on).

Showing off with the attack and the sustain in that certain video, it is remarkable, that a few wood types produces a more or less unbalanced attack and different modulations within the sustain.

Thx for sharing!

I think the modulations in the sustain are mostly due to not all guitars being equally in tune

Intersting video. I think that most of the wood types gave comparable tones, with a few notable exceptions. I.e., there were differences between the comparable ones, but fairly subtle. Within the same family of tone. It would be interesting (but impossible) to know how much of this is down to differences in playing between each take. I think that using playing technique and amp controls alone, the tones that could be pulled from these approach each other even more.

My personal conclusion: Wood definitely matters - some of these examples were just TOO distinctly far from each other to be anything but the wood's influence. But I don't think all woods matter equally, if that makes sense. Another question is about variance within each type of wood. It'd be interesting to see comparison between 9 otherwise identical hog bodies and 9 otherwise identical alder bodies, for instance. Or maybe even using the same neck for all the fiddles.

 

[Mark Ray]

After watching this, my ears still gravitate toward alder for a bolt-on, single coil guitar. Cool vid.

 

[CVS]

Wow - Thanks for posting this interesting video. Definitely could hear differences in sustain and tone. The one thing that always bothers me about watching videos like this one or and videos that demonstrate a guitar's tonal capability is how hard the guitar player is attacking the string or strings with his right hand and where the guitarist is striking the strings (towards the neck? bridge? middle?) as any changes in these 2 variables can have a big effect on tone and sustain (as well as the many others mentioned in previous posts here). In this video, I have to say it looked like the performer was pretty consistent with respect to these 2 variables across all 27 demos.

 

[dogrocketp]

I believe the first generation Starla has an obeche body. It makes me think that an early Starla with P90`s would have a fascinating tone.

 

[Blues Trucker]

Pretty cool video. I could definitely here a slight difference. My only question is do any 2 PUPs sound exactly the same?

 

[Maertl513]

I think the modulations in the sustain are mostly due to not all guitars being equally in tune

Intersting video. I think that most of the wood types gave comparable tones, with a few notable exceptions. I.e., there were differences between the comparable ones, but fairly subtle. Within the same family of tone. It would be interesting (but impossible) to know how much of this is down to differences in playing between each take. I think that using playing technique and amp controls alone, the tones that could be pulled from these approach each other even more.

My personal conclusion: Wood definitely matters - some of these examples were just TOO distinctly far from each other to be anything but the wood's influence. But I don't think all woods matter equally, if that makes sense. Another question is about variance within each type of wood. It'd be interesting to see comparison between 9 otherwise identical hog bodies and 9 otherwise identical alder bodies, for instance. Or maybe even using the same neck for all the fiddles.

Of course I have had that suggestion, too, that a few guitars might be played a little nuance out tune. But on the other hand I have the expection that all guitars have been adjusted before recording. Anyways.

 

[Michael_DK]

Of course I have had that suggestion, too, that a few guitars might be played a little nuance out tune. But on the other hand I have the expection that all guitars have been adjusted before recording. Anyways.

Actually, i thought that they were quite a bit out of tune on some of the examples - way more than I would accept for any serious playing/recording

 

[C&M Music - Lafayette]

Of course, this is on a bolt-on maple-neck guitar with single-coil pickups--change to a set-neck with humbuckers and the optimum body wood might well be something totally different; change the scale length and everything changes again. Those variables again...

Exactly! More importantly, leave the guitar alone and just change the player and everything changes again!:violin:

 

[Mikegarveyblues]

Interesting vid. Agree that in some examples the guitar(s) where not properly in tune.

Ahhh... Variables... Too many!

 

[vchizzle]

Somewhat interesting. If you're going to record tonal differences in wood though, I'd rather hear a better audio recording than an "all in one" cam that is a semi long distance from the speaker. You're hearing more room sound than what frequencies and differences the guitars may be producing. I could hear differences, but I feel you're missing out without proper miking and recording. On the other hand, I guess you're hearing what you'd hear in the room...maybe...assuming it's an accurate room sound.

Aside from that, there are so many variables(as has been mentioned). Different necks, pickups, etc. It's an impossible science because of all that stuff. Still cool they did this though and gives people an idea.

 

[Screamingdaisy]

Instead of focusing on variables I'm focusing on consistencies. Namely, that the woods I'm familiar with all sounded consistent with how I'd expect them to sound. His pick attack nor the pickups aren't what's making alder sound like alder and basswood sound like basswood.

Additionally, the alder and poplar Strats sounded like what I'd expect (I've never owned an Ash Strat), and perhaps more importantly, a number of the less traditional woods didn't.

IMO.

 

[László]

It's interesting that we seem to crave some sort of objective proof of the fact that tone woods matter, when in truth most of us can hear it when we play different guitars.

Like we don't trust our own ears, or something, and need someone else to tell us we're right!

In the classical world, it's so obvious that tone woods, materials and aging matter, that very few people even bother to argue about it. Even the metals used in wind instruments make a difference to classical and jazz players, though there you'll find slightly more debate.

Still, I think it's kinda crazy that we find ourselves in need of this proof, when all we have to do is pick up our guitars and hear it; and even more amusing is the fact that no one I've spoken to disagrees that different brands of nickel plated steel strings sound different, yet they're made of the same damn stuff!

And yet, we have a hard time believing we are hearing differences between tone woods that sound very different when the wood is made to resonate by something as simple as tapping it?

Life is so interesting, isn't it?

 

[Michael_DK]

It's interesting that we seem to crave some sort of objective proof of the fact that tone woods matter, when in truth most of us can hear it when we play different guitars.

Like we don't trust our own ears, or something, and need someone else to tell us we're right!

In the classical world, it's so obvious that tone woods, materials and aging matter, that very few people even bother to argue about it. Even the metals used in wind instruments make a difference to classical and jazz players, though there you'll find slightly more debate.

Still, I think it's kinda crazy that we find ourselves in need of this proof, when all we have to do is pick up our guitars and hear it; and even more amusing is the fact that no one I've spoken to disagrees that different brands of nickel plated steel strings sound different, yet they're made of the same damn stuff!

And yet, we have a hard time believing we are hearing differences between tone woods that sound very different when the wood is made to resonate by something as simple as tapping it?

Life is so interesting, isn't it?

To me it's at least equally interesting that so many players are so adamant in attributing the tone of a guitar to all the various parts that make up that guitar without much objective evidence

The wood used to make a guitar is probably one of the likely candidates. My SPECULATION is, however, that the amount of wood used is equally important (e.g. body thickness), and I'd attribute greater significance to the neck wood type than the body wood type.

For acoustic instruments, that's an entirely different matter - there it is clear that the wood would matter (see what I did there?). But that's more a matter of bending stiffness than density, which I think is often used as an argument for tone differences.

Yes, we can plainly hear the differences between our guitars, but there are so many other factors here. And I have no problem seeing the difference between strings from same materials but different suppliers sounding different (due to manufacturing influences, especially on the wound strings).

I'm rambling. These considerations of mine are merely from scientific interest

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Well, no, it's not just that "tone woods matter", but the engineer in me craves quantifying said differences. How do we quantify brightness? Darkness? Clarity? And the most elusive of all -- that midrange quality?

So appreciate the video, very interesting, please carry on with discussion.

 

[AP515]

Well, no, it's not just that "tone woods matter", but the engineer in me craves quantifying said differences. How do we quantify brightness? Darkness? Clarity? And the most elusive of all -- that midrange quality?

The engineer in me craves the same thing. I started quantifying it too. Then an engineer did it on YouTube and beat me to it. The thing is you need to convert any recording to the frequency domain. Then you can compare quantitatively. I subtracted one frequency spectrum from the other and the remaining spectrum was the difference between them. It's pretty clear there is a difference. The cool thing is it follows what we have come to expect from what our ears tell us. Mahogany will be warm (have more lows) and maple will be bright (more highs). And guess what, that's what we see in the frequency graphs.

 

[László]

The engineer in me craves the same thing. I started quantifying it too. Then an engineer did it on YouTube and beat me to it. The thing is you need to convert any recording to the frequency domain. Then you can compare quantitatively. I subtracted one frequency spectrum from the other and the remaining spectrum was the difference between them. It's pretty clear there is a difference. The cool thing is it follows what we have come to expect from what our ears tell us. Mahogany will be warm (have more lows) and maple will be bright (more highs). And guess what, that's what we see in the frequency graphs.

It's always nice to confirm what our ears tell us.

And being an audio engineer-ish type myself, I get the need to see the proof that what we think we're hearing is what we're hearing.

Yet we make creative decisions with our ears every day, and trust them implicitly in our work! So I finally said, screw it, I'm going with my ears on this one.