Just curious this forum's opinion of tone wood on electrics.

Jcub said:
The subjects preferred the sound of the newer instruments. A total of two studies were done with performers and listeners. The third study looked at the acoustic properties of the violins. It may or may not translate to guitar. I have now sufficiently posted enough to post links:









https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1619443114
Click to expand...
This is really interesting. There is one part of the equation that seems to have been left out. Originally, violins were designed to be played using gut strings. The majority of them have been modified to use steel strings (neck rests, heavier sound posts). I wonder how that factors into the sound that we now hear.
 
dogrocketp said:
This is really interesting. There is one part of the equation that seems to have been left out. Originally, violins were designed to be played using gut strings. The majority of them have been modified to use steel strings (neck rests, heavier sound posts). I wonder how that factors into the sound that we now hear.
Click to expand...

Ask Les, he’ll know, he was most likely around in the “gut string” era, crumhorns, long scale lutes etc.
 
opnoob said:
Good point. Although tonewooders go hand in hand with vintage buffs paying dumb money to buy something that's old because supposedly it has mystical fairy dust from the 50s sprinkled on it from Jimi.

Agreed that automated machine playing is required.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t endorsing machine playing.
 
HANGAR18 said:
Yes. Nowhere near as much as the amp, but yes, a little bit.
Click to expand...
I agree. I have some random thoughts about amps.

Most here know I write and record music for TV ads, documentaries, etc. I've been at this work in the studio for 33 years now. I spend an awful lot of time listening for little details, cutting tracks, and mixing the stuff I write.

I've had dozens of amps, and currently have four in my studio: An HXDA, a DG30, a Mesa Lone Star and a Mesa Fillmore. They're very different-sounding amps. The HXDA is based on a late 60s Marshall Plexi; the Lone Star was designed with Fender Blackface topology; the Fillmore is built around Fender Tweed topology; and the DG's foundation is a mixture of AC30, Tweed and HiWatt topologies.

I have four speaker cabs - a PRS closed back 'Big Mouth' 2x12 cab with V30s, a ported PRS DG 2x12 cab with V30s, a Mesa 4x10 cab with Celestion Creams, and the Lone Star's 2x12 combo with Mesa/Celestion Black Shadows.

All of the amps feed into a KHE 8 x 4 amp and cab switcher; all of the cabs are fed by its outputs. I can feed any cab with any head at the touch of an electronic relay toggle switch, or via MIDI. It's a simple, quiet system with no tone suck to color the audio further.

I pay careful attention to grounding, so there's no hum and noise to interfere with the audio production, or factor in listening back later.

All of these amps and cabs sound quite different from one another live and in person. I doubt that anyone with hearing ability would claim that they all sound alike (but you never know). I love to play around and experiment with the amps into the various cabs, it's useful professionally, it's fun, and it's enlightening.

However, a funny thing happens with amps. I dial them in to my taste. I go for a version of 'my tone' colored by that particular amp. In other words, despite the differences, sometimes it seems my goal is to make them sound somewhat similar to one another.

A year or two later listening back to a track I did, can I always tell you which amp played which part? Usually -- but not always.

Expectations regarding certain sounds affect how we perceive audio. So to some degree identifying what gear produced a given tone has to do with sounds one expects to be produced by certain gear.

How many of us initially thought that Jimmy Page used a Les Paul into a Marshall on the first Led Zep album, when in fact it was a Telecaster into a modded Supro?

Armed with that information, one can say, "Yeah, I hear that now; it really doesn't sound quite like a Les Paul, does it?" But we might not have thought that simply listening if it wasn't brought to our attention.

But few of us would claim that a Telecaster sounds just like a Les Paul. We know better.

We all might agree that, for example, Martin and Gibson acoustics sound different, and the tonewoods that can be used make them sound more different. Great. And we're pretty familiar with those sounds and differences that become apparent when we play the instruments.

Yet how many people can listen and off the top of their heads (without looking it up) know what acoustic guitar Tom Petty used on Wildflowers (it was an SJ200 Gibson made for him)?

If you know, you say, "Oh yeah, that's definitely a J200. I hear that." If you don't already know, chances are you might say, "WTF, beats me." Why? Until our memories are jogged, about all we can say is, "Yes, that's a steel string acoustic." We can go that far, but most of us need more info to answer the question.

Listening to sound is different from creating sound. How I get certain tones affects what you hear, and I do adjust my technique between certain instruments. However, whether the listener can identify exactly what I did to get them is sometimes questionable. Whether I can always tell you what I did? Sometimes not.

This is also why blind listening tests have their limitations. Our ear memory is pretty short when it comes to the details. Throw in a bunch of back and forth between A and B, and there will be some confusion and some ear fatigue. Pretty soon, everything sounds like everything else. This has been widely discussed, and the folks who conduct some of these tests will mention it up front.

The best way to appreciate the details of an instrument or amp is to live with it long term.
 
Last edited:
László said:
But few of us would claim that a Telecaster sounds just like a Les Paul. We know better.
Click to expand...

Most studio rats of my acquaintance, who've spent time futzing with guitar/amp/cab setups for "artists" over the last forty years, know that the best Les Pauls sound like big Telecasters :)
 
László said:
I agree. I have some random thoughts about amps.

Most here know I write and record music for TV ads, documentaries, etc. I've been at this work in the studio for 33 years now. I spend an awful lot of time listening for little details, cutting tracks, and mixing the stuff I write.

I've had dozens of amps, and currently have four in my studio: An HXDA, a DG30, a Mesa Lone Star and a Mesa Fillmore. They're very different-sounding amps. The HXDA is based on a late 60s Marshall Plexi; the Lone Star was designed with Fender Blackface topology; the Fillmore is built around Fender Tweed topology; and the DG's foundation is a mixture of AC30, Tweed and HiWatt topologies.

I have four speaker cabs - a PRS closed back 'Big Mouth' 2x12 cab with V30s, a ported PRS DG 2x12 cab with V30s, a Mesa 4x10 cab with Celestion Creams, and the Lone Star's 2x12 combo with Mesa/Celestion Black Shadows.

All of the amps feed into a KHE 8 x 4 amp and cab switcher; all of the cabs are fed by its outputs. I can feed any cab with any head at the touch of an electronic relay toggle switch, or via MIDI. It's a simple, quiet system with no tone suck to color the audio further.

I pay careful attention to grounding, so there's no hum and noise to interfere with the audio production, or factor in listening back later.

All of these amps and cabs sound quite different from one another live and in person. I doubt that anyone with hearing ability would claim that they all sound alike (but you never know). I love to play around and experiment with the amps into the various cabs, it's useful professionally, it's fun, and it's enlightening.

However, a funny thing happens with amps. I dial them in to my taste. I go for a version of 'my tone' colored by that particular amp. In other words, despite the differences, sometimes it seems my goal is to make them sound somewhat similar to one another.

A year or two later listening back to a track I did, can I always tell you which amp played which part? Usually -- but not always.

Expectations regarding certain sounds affect how we perceive audio. So to some degree identifying what gear produced a given tone has to do with sounds one expects to be produced by certain gear.

How many of us initially thought that Jimmy Page used a Les Paul into a Marshall on the first Led Zep album, when in fact it was a Telecaster into a modded Supro?

Armed with that information, one can say, "Yeah, I hear that now; it really doesn't sound quite like a Les Paul, does it?" But we might not have thought that simply listening if it wasn't brought to our attention.

But few of us would claim that a Telecaster sounds just like a Les Paul. We know better.

We all might agree that, for example, Martin and Gibson acoustics sound different, and the tonewoods that can be used make them sound more different. Great. And we're pretty familiar with those sounds and differences that become apparent when we play the instruments.

Yet how many people can listen and off the top of their heads (without looking it up) know what acoustic guitar Tom Petty used on Wildflowers (it was an SJ200 Gibson made for him)?

If you know, you say, "Oh yeah, that's definitely a J200. I hear that." If you don't already know, chances are you might say, "WTF, beats me." Why? Until our memories are jogged, about all we can say is, "Yes, that's a steel string acoustic." We can go that far, but most of us need more info to answer the question.

Listening to sound is different from creating sound. How I get certain tones affects what you hear, and I do adjust my technique between certain instruments. However, whether the listener can identify exactly what I did to get them is sometimes questionable. Whether I can always tell you what I did? Sometimes not.

This is also why blind listening tests have their limitations. Our ear memory is pretty short when it comes to the details. Throw in a bunch of back and forth between A and B, and there will be some confusion and some ear fatigue. Pretty soon, everything sounds like everything else. This has been widely discussed, and the folks who conduct some of these tests will mention it up front.

The best way to appreciate the details of an instrument or amp is to live with it long term.
Click to expand...

The only thing I would add to that is something that some guy on the Internet pointed out... We've never actually heard the actual guitar tone in the room where Jimmy Page recorded the guitar part on (insert album name here). We've only ever heard the tone that a studio engineer manipulated after a microphone in front of one single speaker heard that tone. (Drum setups and staircases not appearing in this picture.)
 
HANGAR18 said:
The only thing I would add to that is something that some guy on the Internet pointed out... We've never actually heard the actual guitar tone in the room where Jimmy Page recorded the guitar part on (insert album name here). We've only ever heard the tone that a studio engineer manipulated after a microphone in front of one single speaker heard that tone. (Drum setups and staircases not appearing in this picture.)
Click to expand...
True enough. The mic matters, and the signal chain matters.

But (there's always a caveat isn't there?)...you might be surprised about this one.

Page was the producer of all the Zeppelin stuff. He was not only in The Yardbirds having taken over for Jeff Beck, he had previously been an ace, first call, session player.

Glyn Johns was the engineer, but he took his marching orders from Page.

As the producer - I believe he spent his own money creating the first record - Page wasn't into manipulating his tone much. Here's his quote about recording guitar:

“The whole idea, the way I see recording, is to try and capture the sound of the room live and the emotion of the whole moment and try to convey that across. You’ve got to capture as much of the room sound as possible. That’s the very essence of it.”

It's not like he wasn't in control of shaping his tone the way he wanted it to sound, as musicians sometimes are with outside producers.

Even though Olympic Studio had the first Helios console, which definitely has "a sound," the EQ is simple; highs were shelved at 10kHz, mids and bass were semi-parametric. Switching in the bass circuit adds some heft even when the controls are set flat. There was no onboard compression, no low pass or high pass filters, no noise gates, etc.

Incidentally, I'm a firm believer in recording guitar with the mic far enough away from the amp to capture a bit of room. The tone is better (to me), less harsh, less 'tizzy', and more natural.

I have no idea how Page set up his mics, other than that quote, but in my room I like setting mics up 18-36 inches away from the grille, and much farther if I do stereo miking.

That way, you get a bit of room tone and capture the real sound of the amp and cab, instead of just the speaker. There are also times I'll use one of the stereo mic techniques to get a real 3-D sense of the tone. Generally, I go for the NOS technique (Netherlands radio technique developed originally for classical music; two single-diaphragm, cardioid condensers - most often small diaphragm but I have gone larger - set up with the capsules at a 45 degree angle exactly 30 cm apart). You have to use single diaphragm mics with this technique (not dual capsule mics like many large diaphragm condensers) or you get phase issues.

I use a mic bar with engraved degree markings so I don't need a protractor, and measure the distance between capsules with a standard cloth tape measure. It's simple and effective. Try it if you feel like giving yourself a sonic treat, and have the right mics. And it's even more dramatic with an acoustic guitar! :)

Too much information, right?? Hahaha! ;)
 
Last edited:
opnoob said:
Most guitarists don't understand the science.
Click to expand...
Good thing I have a physics degree then. :rolleyes:

Not sure there is any use in providing my "learned opinion" on the matter but:

opnoob said:
I will make it clear: the only thing that matters in an electric guitars in the string oscillation over the magnetic coils and then how that electric signal is transmitted by the controls and post-guitar effects.
Click to expand...
The electrical signal from an electric guitar is indeed generated this way, but:

opnoob said:
the string oscillation
Click to expand...
The wood and other components of any guitar affect the resonance and dampening of that string oscillation. Strings plucked by pick or finger eventually die out and stop moving: but how long it takes them to die out, and what frequencies are immediate and then linger (mostly odd or even harmonics) are all affected by what the strings are held in place by from nut to bridge. The string isn't a simple single sine-wave oscillation with wavelength of double the scale of the plucked note with an asymptotic drop to zero due to the string itself losing energy magically to the ether.

(This is also why certain materials are used for nuts and bridge saddles: the stiffer the material the better, but the compromise is also getting the least friction for string movement across the material.)

You send that electric guitar signal into an amp with overdrive/gain (which generates new harmonics from the clipping/"distortion" that occurs) and you might mask nuances of the original string oscillation, such that only/mostly the base frequency of the string is impacting the overall apparent tone. So for many player who play only high-gain stuff the wood probably isn't impacting their desired end-result tone.

The guitar "body" still needs to be a chunk of wood or other hard/rigid material that allows the string to resonate a reasonable amount (who wants a rubber guitar that deadens immediately? Throw a ball against a concrete wall, then throw a ball against a mattress propped against that wall...) and provides stability, and wood is a lightweight solution to that: metals end up being just too heavy if you make them the "same size" as any other electric guitar. And I'm not sure if anyone linked to it in this thread, but as to that "air guitar" that had a bridge mounted to a heavy-duty workbench and the nut mounted to another workbench: the "neck/body" was the workbenches and concrete floor combo, a very stable and resonance-inducing structure that happens to be physically displaced from proximity to the pickups.

And yes, the pickups (their winding and magnet configuration) act as a tone "filter" (like a set of parametric EQs) on the tone, as does all the other electrical/electromechanical bits between guitar strings and the speaker cone magnet. But that doesn't stop the produced signal being different if different woods or other materials aren't involved, more noticeable for "cleaner" tones (as discussed above).
 
shinksma said:
Good thing I have a physics degree then. :rolleyes:

Not sure there is any use in providing my "learned opinion" on the matter but:


The electrical signal from an electric guitar is indeed generated this way, but:


The wood and other components of any guitar affect the resonance and dampening of that string oscillation. Strings plucked by pick or finger eventually die out and stop moving: but how long it takes them to die out, and what frequencies are immediate and then linger (mostly odd or even harmonics) are all affected by what the strings are held in place by from nut to bridge. The string isn't a simple single sine-wave oscillation with wavelength of double the scale of the plucked note with an asymptotic drop to zero due to the string itself losing energy magically to the ether.

(This is also why certain materials are used for nuts and bridge saddles: the stiffer the material the better, but the compromise is also getting the least friction for string movement across the material.)

You send that electric guitar signal into an amp with overdrive/gain (which generates new harmonics from the clipping/"distortion" that occurs) and you might mask nuances of the original string oscillation, such that only/mostly the base frequency of the string is impacting the overall apparent tone. So for many player who play only high-gain stuff the wood probably isn't impacting their desired end-result tone.

The guitar "body" still needs to be a chunk of wood or other hard/rigid material that allows the string to resonate a reasonable amount (who wants a rubber guitar that deadens immediately? Throw a ball against a concrete wall, then throw a ball against a mattress propped against that wall...) and provides stability, and wood is a lightweight solution to that: metals end up being just too heavy if you make them the "same size" as any other electric guitar. And I'm not sure if anyone linked to it in this thread, but as to that "air guitar" that had a bridge mounted to a heavy-duty workbench and the nut mounted to another workbench: the "neck/body" was the workbenches and concrete floor combo, a very stable and resonance-inducing structure that happens to be physically displaced from proximity to the pickups.

And yes, the pickups (their winding and magnet configuration) act as a tone "filter" (like a set of parametric EQs) on the tone, as does all the other electrical/electromechanical bits between guitar strings and the speaker cone magnet. But that doesn't stop the produced signal being different if different woods or other materials aren't involved, more noticeable for "cleaner" tones (as discussed above).
Click to expand...
Yes because I was totally talking about you specifically. Most guitarists DONT understand the science. I don't know why you seem to have an issue with that. Most guitarists also don't have physics degrees.

I never said that nut or saddle materials don't matter. I said the wood doesn't matter to any significant degree. Literally any material that doesn't dampen the vibration of the strings will do the same job. We all realize that the wood is part of the entire system that is the guitar. The debate is whether the wood choice has a significant enough impact on the system to where people can actually tell the difference. If you want to get super technical, yes the wood has a non-zero effect on the tone. Just like a stone has a non-zero effect on the overall gravitational pull of the Earth. The point is, in blindfold test after blindfold test, musicians and normal people alike are not able to accurately distinguish between tonewoods to any statistically significant degree.

Yes the air guitar was mounted to something. And it proved that it can literally be anything so long as it was stable and didn't dampen the strings oscillation. It's the perfect argument against tonewoods actually. The problem is people think they can actually tell the difference between two theoretically identical guitars except in which one has a different wood. When in reality people are just telling the difference between two different guitars among other uncontrolled variables.
 
I have to admit, I was a little bit disappointed that it took a few pages for one of the hardcore "tonewood is a myth" types to show up. Usually on TGP they show up on page two, if not one.

@opnoob Since pickups are all that matter, why did you spend so much on that nice CU24 in your avatar instead of putting a set of 85/15s into a Harley Benton CST24 or similar PRS clone? Not trying to "gotcha" you here; I'm legit curious about your thought process here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tdroid
Delete
Replies
12
Views
280
Alnus Rubra
Alnus Rubra
6stringnate
Stain & grain Tremonti top
Replies
16
Views
320
Headset
H
jamjam1
PRS as first guitar?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
1K
Mozzi
Mozzi
S
Does Horsemeat play nice with other pedals?
2
Replies
25
Views
433
LaxActium
L
M
HFS VS HFS 2 - Which one is mine?
Replies
7
Views
331
JasonE
JasonE
Back
Top