I think your Comprehension of what I wrote *SUCK*, - No offence!! My first paragraph was more to disagree with the percentages you attribute to each part of the construction - I really disagree that the body accounts for 85% of the effect of Tone Wood on the sound. I would agree that the body may help with the sustain but I think the bulk of the tone wood effect is the wood that's under the string and the area where the strings transfer energy (ie the nut and bridge). Experiments have been done removing the bulk of the body wood until it basically resembles a Steinberg and also a slot in system for the 'body' (the wings and back) but still keep the bridge and pick ups so you don't need to swap all the electrics, bridge, nut, tuners, strings etc over to ensure that they were consistent. In these tests, the tone has barely changed - sustain has varied more than the tone so the bulk of the body doesn't have a massive 85% impact on tone but as we know, the maple on top of a Mahogany body does make a difference. I can only attribute that to the body in the area where the strings and bridge are - also the thickest part of the maple on a carved top like a PRS. Anyway, the purpose of my post wasn't to disagree about Tone Wood but to disagree with the percentages you attributed to the various areas. The rest of my post was also to reinforce why I believe in tone wood (and not to challenge your belief) and to explain to any other (not JUST YOU) who may happen to read my post as this thread is open to ALL why I believe in tone wood and, if they didn't agree, provide information and examples of where they could find out more - ie by looking for Steve Vai's videos where Tone Wood comes up, why some necks are better on some guitars but maybe worse on another. Really, the only part of my Post that was specifically to you was the very first Paragraph that I put your name to so you would see that I was disagreeing with the 'percentages' you had attributed to the various parts. I think the neck, the heel and the part of the body that has the bridge and PU's where the Strings are above - basically the part of the body that a Neckthrough build would fit, is the most important part of the Woods for the tone. The wings on the body don't seem to make as much difference to Tone but do for sustain and resonance - obviously when the wings are hollow, the guitar is more resonant. Now you can look at my post above and see what was directly for you and the rest was more for the other readers of this particular thread as to why I too believe in tone wood. The bulk of this is also to you (but also for others if they want to read it) as to why the majority of my previous was more for other readers as well as to give you more information as to why I disagree that the body accounts for 85% of the effect of tone woods 50% maybe with the neck and Fretboard accounting for the rest - a Maple neck Cu24 sounds brighter than a Mahogany/Rosewood neck. To avoid going off again as to why I believe Tone Woods have an effect and why I disagree with your percentages only (not disagreeing with you on the tone wood debate as BOTH my posts show), I will end this here. Hopefully now you will look at my posts and see that both are agreeing with you about tone wood, offering why I believe in it for you and any of the numerous others that may be reading this thread, and why I think your percentages are not correct.