The endless wood / tone arguement

Parralax view

New Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
649
Location
Honolulu, Hawaii
In other places on the net where PRS isn't so respected or cared about, a constant argument is on about tone woods and their effect on a guitars tone. Some say it's hogwash and post pictures of folks playing concrete guitars.. ok, it sounds like a guitar, it may sustain, but really... a concrete guitar for f's sake?! Be my guest Einstein....

So, in the interest of what PRS people think who I frankly feel are more informed about the finer aspects of guitars, woods, finishes etc. I would ask what the members think of woods. Do they add to sustain, do they make the guitar vibrate in ways that are translated into signal or vibration?? I personally strum my silent hanging guitars now and then and the only one that rings with some open sustain and clarity and actual sound is my McCarty. The rest, yeah they do too to varying degrees, but most of it is springs or plastic covering routs, etc. I'm just curious because some who've never been out of their bedroom with their instruments are telling those that have that they are mistaken. So what does the PRS community think of this item?? Be nice...:flute:
 
Ok i'v heard people say the same thing about the fact that wood don't matter. But it doesn't! Especially to the guys that have hotter then he'll pickups and gain up the waz, with more feedback than music. But to me it does. Especially when it's a master peace of a guitar. You can't explain it to people or show them on YouTube. It's somthing that once you've bought a guitar that has specific wood and so forth only then you know. And if people don't understand well then that's what it is.
 
Absolutely makes a difference - wood and construction. For example, my SE Custom 24 is much brighter than my S2's because of the maple neck.
 
It so obviously makes a difference that those who deny it simply can't hear, or don't know what to listen for.

I've proved it time and time again, and at this point, I'm done arguing about it. It's real, it matters, and it's significant. Period.
 
+100 for Les. All I know is I have three PRS guitars and each of them have a different sound....unplugged. To my surprise, the CE 22 is most resonant and acoustic like sound unplugged by a mile. Hopefully it is mojo wood that is doing it and I can sell it for millions (kid in college - second payment due on christmas).
 
Not only does wood type affect sustain, but it also affects the overall tone characteristics of the guitar. That, along with design, construction, hardware, electronics, pickups,etc,etc.........the list goes on.
That's why so many guitars sound so different from each other.
 
As my good friend Ken Parker likes to say, "It's a long f**kin' equation."

It's also a situation where most people's idea of an acceptable scientific verification is woefully inadequate. Although there actually exists one "production" guitar, the Teuffel Birdfish, which is designed in such a way that a simple change of wood species is easily accomplished, otherwise there is no way to isolate the body wood (or any other part) for comparison without having to deal with a lot of confounding variables.

Fortunately there are other ways to test the question, "Does wood matter?" in a scientifically appropriate way. Guitar builders do this informally as a matter of course. Let's say, for example, someone builds a bunch of guitars (n in this case is substantially larger than the number of guitars most civilians encounter in a year, or a lifetime), all with the same basic design & components but some of them have bodies of Wood Species X and some of them have bodies of Wood Species Y. Of course each guitar is going to have its own individual sound, but if the builder is paying attention, (s)he may well notice some consistent differences across the two wood species. That leads to the kind of thing builders will say when a customer asks, "so what's the tonal effect of going with a rosewood neck instead of a mahogany neck?"

It never fails, though: someone posts one of these quotes from a builder on a forum, and some pseudo-scientific dude posts some YouTube video to "prove" wood doesn't make any difference in an electric guitar.

Those don't ever prove anything. Nor do the attempts to reason "scientifically" with arguments based on the fact that a traditional electromagnetic pickup only senses the vibration of the strings. That's true, but if you apply that reductionistic thinking, you'd have to conclude that if you put the same set of strings and the same pickups on any two guitars they should sound the same. Ummm... ...no. Not if you have ears to hear, anyway.

The only way to answer the question "does wood matter? enough so that it's audible?" experimentally would be to set up a formal difference test. Easy enough to do, just get maybe 40 guitars, all of the same basic design & component spec with the only clear difference being one part -- again let's say the neck (or the fretboard, either one but we have to pick one) -- make some fraction (probably at least 1/5) of the guitars with Wood Species X and the rest with Wood Species Y. Now for the fun part: some one plays all the guitars. Someone else (probably a bunch of someone elses) listens to the guitars in the room, in real time, blind (i.e., without being able to determine the wood species visually or by touch), and identifies each guitar as "X" or "Y." For that matter, it might be even better if the listeners don't know what they're listening for except to identify the guitars as belonging to "Group A" or "Group B" -- they don't need to know beforehand it's wood that they're listening for.

With this pile of data it's pretty easy to do a statistical test that will tell us whether there's an observable difference.

Since we've gone to all this trouble, we might well want to record all the guitars -- properly would be nice -- because then we could repeat the experiment indefinitely via the recordings. As well, we could do what Les has suggested, which is to look closely at the resulting waveforms; there is plenty of software which will give a perspective that is quite useful and rather different from the holistic manner in which most of us hear.

Anyway, suppose someone actually does all this work. (why hasn't it been done already? well, think about how much this experiment would cost. especially if we wanted answers about neck wood, fretboard wood, AND body wood? who's gonna pay for it? how much does it really matter in the grand scheme of things, especially given that a lot of builders have already done all this work in situ and decided, hell yeah, wood matters, but how much and to whom is always going to be an open question) What do we have in the end?

Well we certainly don't have an, easy solid, predictive proof in the sense that "If I build a guitar with body wood species X, it's going to sound like Y." What we have is a general tendency that can be used predictively only within a certain range, i.e., we can confidently say, It will probably sound a little more in this direction...

...which is what we have already, if you're paying attention and you talk to enough different guitar builders.
 
Last edited:
i honestly feel people who make this comparison have never worked with wood in any fashion and have not taken in the attributes of the material. IF it has mass and density it will have its own characteristics when translating sound, heat, and light. whether it is wood, a leaf or your favorite (insert item name here). Prsh has showed it in his ted talks and rules of tone video. Some may say i am crazy with this science talk but so call me crazy. OF course there will be other factors one can use to shape and construed that translation which makes for magical things like steel and an ebony fb on top of ribbon hog neck!!!!.
 
Yes, wood matters. What is left out of the wood matters conversation all to often is the social acceptance of some species over other species regardless of how good tonal properties may be. Many acceptable wood options are left out of the clique because they do not look pretty enough, fail to have an exotic name, come from an exotic location, or have not yet been hyped or exploited yet because of profitability. I know, this might sound familiar to some, like a Hollywood celebrity. Say, Norma Jean for example. Who is that you might ask? A young woman who was unknown until she was exploited and changed her name to Marilyn Monroe. Then she was the best thing since sliced bread. Their are wood species out there right under your nose, that kick but tonally, or at least hold their own. They do not get a shot because no company, small or large wants to risk investment in the face of the lack of acceptance of a wood that is not so pretty. Has nothing to do really with tone, just social B.S., money, and some degree of hypocrisy. Yes wood matters, but there are other factors involved.
 
Yes, wood matters. What is left out of the wood matters conversation all to often is the social acceptance of some species over other species regardless of how good tonal properties may be. Many acceptable wood options are left out of the clique because they do not look pretty enough, fail to have an exotic name, come from an exotic location, or have not yet been hyped or exploited yet because of profitability. I know, this might sound familiar to some, like a Hollywood celebrity. Say, Norma Jean for example. Who is that you might ask? A young woman who was unknown until she was exploited and changed her name to Marilyn Monroe. Then she was the best thing since sliced bread. Their are wood species out there right under your nose, that kick but tonally, or at least hold their own. They do not get a shot because no company, small or large wants to risk investment in the face of the lack of acceptance of a wood that is not so pretty. Has nothing to do really with tone, just social B.S., money, and some degree of hypocrisy. Yes wood matters, but there are other factors involved.

True story.

Ken Parker, of Parker Fly fame, sold his company (and the rights to his name) about 10 or 12 years ago. He eventually decided to return to his first love, which is building archtop acoustic guitars and, typical for him, advancing the form in sonic & functional ways. His perception is that, for the most part, current-day archtop builders take the basic recipe and build strategy for granted and focus more on the visual elements. (especially the fancy inlays!)

Anyway, I reconnected with Ken back in 2010 and, as I lived about an hour from his shop, I became his test mule -- when he finished a guitar (he builds about 5 or 6 a year) he'd call me up and ask me to come down and play it for him. Things led to stuff and I eventually commissioned one of my own. During the time I was pondering the possibility of doing that, Ken acquired a hunk of wood that had been a beam in the original R.J. Reynolds tobacco drying barn in Lexington, KY, built in the 1850s. The wood was tulip poplar, which was once common as dirt across the southeastern US, and grew unusually tall and strong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liriodendron_tulipifera

Ken made a few test pieces and it blew the doors off all the tests he uses to determine if a particular piece of wood is going to make a good guitar. He shared his excitement with me -- and I saw the wood in the state in which he acquired it. (it was definitely a big old beam) Oh, one other relevant fact: IT'S GREEN. As in the color green, sort of an olive green. A bit iridescent when cut and planed and sanded. OK, so, Ken wants to build an archtop out of this stuff. The back & sides & neck veneer, that is; the top is spruce for the same reason everyone uses spruce or something like it for acoustic guitar, violin, etc. tops -- it's the best wood for that particular job which has been determined through centuries of experimentation. Here's the problem: Ken's guitars are all individually commissioned, and the starting price is $30K. Anyone who is in that market (and that's a pretty small number of people, for several obvious reasons) is most likely going to be pretty conservative when deciding how to spec a musical instrument with that sort of price tag.

In my relatively privileged position (mainly as a KP "insider") I told Ken, I love the concept. Build me the SECOND one. Happily, that's exactly how it played out. Moreover, when Ken finished the first one, not only did I get to play it, I did so in Ken's hotel suite at the NAMM show where (a) he had one with mahogany and one with maple along for the ride, and (b) there were a bunch of amazingly good pro guitar players who came by to check them out. So not only did I get to play each of the three to my heart's content, I got hear really good players play them. And I got to jam with some of those really good players so I could hear the green/poplar guitar in the context of playing-with-other people. After that I was 100% confident that the poplar would work for me. I sent Ken a deposit, he got to work, and the rest is history.

Here's a photo of one of the jam sessions. The other guys are Jay Roberts (yes, that's Howard's son) and Lexington, KY's own Ben Lacy. Two world-class players.

Kingsley_Jay_Ben.jpg
 
BTW: to bring this discussion back home a bit after a lengthy digression involving another builder, IMO one of the many great things about the Private Stock group at PRS is their willingness to experiment with different woods. :)
 
BTW: to bring this discussion back home a bit after a lengthy digression involving another builder, IMO one of the many great things about the Private Stock group at PRS is their willingness to experiment with different woods. :)

I love that PRS - and yes, especially Private Stock - is willing to experiment with so many things!

By the way, in that picture, there are three world-class players, not just two. ;)
 
Go watch Paul's TedTalk and tell me that different woods don't make a difference. To me, the wood is just one of the puzzle pieces that creates Teh Tonez.

But in short - yes dead trees make a difference, you won't get the same sound by making a guitar out of a coffee can.
 
This "argument" ended for me back when I discovered for myself that different woods ( and everything else that makes a guitar/instrument...) effects the final voice, or 'tone'.
Each and every instrument is unique.
 
I asked because I too think it makes a difference. I just have encountered those that put forth the pickup / string idea as the only matter of tone. I think them wrong, not because I have a PRS guitar I am trying to rationalize, but it just seems common sense to me that wood is going to make a difference sonically.
 
Back
Top