The Subtractive Theory of Tone

[László]

I think that's a corollary, not the main theory. The main theory is analogous to Les' description of synthesizer voicing. Basically, you start with a string stretched across two fixed points. You pluck that string with fingertip, fingernails, a chip of (whatever), and the string vibrates. Everything on the physical structure of the guitar itself subtracts energy from the strings' vibration in one way or another, the net result of which is, generally speaking, a filtering of the sound. So that's the starting point, the basic assumption from which everything else follows.

From that perspective, yeah, in some respects you want to "minimize the things that subtract from the sound" -- e.g., if maximizing the duration of the strings' vibration ("sustain") is a goal, which it certainly is in PRSh's worldview, you want to minimize anything that makes the strings' vibration die out more quickly. But you might also want the filtering to happen in ways that "sound good" in which case you might want to filter some things a little more strongly, i.e., increase something that subtracts from the sound in a certain way, maybe to reduce the response in some part of the frequency spectrum relative to the response in other parts for a more balanced voice.

Exactly. When I refer to subtraction, I mean as in subtractive synthesis, where frequency and formant filters, envelope filters, and resonant filters operate on the waveform.

In other words, where you DO want the effect of the filtering that takes place.

 

[kingsleyd]

I don't believe for one second... ...[that]the type of screws used to attach components make any difference at all.

That might depend on which components the screws are used to attach, and what else is going on in the immediate vicinity. I bet the type of screws used to attach the vibrato plate on a Strat or PRS-type vibrato make a fairly noticeable difference.

I had an interesting conversation about a year ago with a professional guitarist friend about his longtime #1 guitar. An accident necessitated replacing the whole fingerboard. A mutual friend of ours, a really good custom builder, did the work. With a lot of nervous input from my guitarist friend. A seemingly major part, right? (OK, OK, I don't want to get into a whole discussion about the effect of fingerboard wood on the overall voice. I'll just say one word for the doubters: cantilever.) After the fretboard replacement, the guitar went back into regular use on the road. Only problem was that it didn't sound right. My friend thought it was just a matter of breaking in the new fretboard (even though the wood used was well aged) and having the glue age, but after a year or so there was no noticeable improvement. He was starting to believe that he'd never get his #1 back.

One day he was tweaking something that involved removing one of the pickups, only to find out that our mutual friend had done him a "favor" and replaced the springs that go over the screws that hold the pickups more or less in place with surgical tubing. So he grabbed some springs and undid that little surreptitious mod. Guess what? The guitar sounded right again, and has ever since.

So you don't necessarily know what's going to matter until you find out (often by accident) that some seemingly trivial bit actually does matter. My friend's conclusion, which was actually something he'd previously discovered, is that it sounded best to him when the pickups were held loosely in place, just barely enough to keep them from falling out entirely or banging against the strings. But he plays with unusually heavy strings and relatively low gain. Someone who plays with unusually light strings and a lot of gain might want those pickups (and covers) as tight as the whole assembly can be.

 

[Basauri]

I respect that theory and I see cristal clear differences among my PRS, my Fender and my Gibson. I have no doubt that my PRS has a unique sound, full of harmonics, wide open, with a twangy/percussive response all due to premium materials and dedicated craftsmanship... but I cannot say that my other 2 guitars sound worse. They sound different, each one has its unique voice: PRSs is balanced musicality, Fender is clearness, and Gibson is growling warmth.

I respect Paul's dedication and his amazing guitars are the living proof of his efforts, but IMHO the substraction theory has a fail: it doesn't exist that "ideal guitar" and never did.
Wood is something that grows imperfect, and you cannot reproduce 2 exactly identical guitars, or obtain an exact sound or frecuncy responses, so the ideal model is uthopic and therefore, wrong.

 

[rugerpc]

I respect Paul's dedication and his amazing guitars are the living proof of his efforts, but IMHO the substraction theory has a fail: it doesn't exist that "ideal guitar" and never did.
Wood is something that grows imperfect, and you cannot reproduce 2 exactly identical guitars, or obtain an exact sound or frecuncy responses, so the ideal model is uthopic and therefore, wrong.

Careful.

The "ideal guitar", as you put, it is the basis of the theory for comparison purposes, not because it actually exists.

No one, including PRSh, is saying that they will ever get there. The goal is incremental improvements - a completely attainable goal.

 

[Basauri]

Careful.

The "ideal guitar", as you put, it is the basis of the theory for comparison purposes, not because it actually exists.

No one, including PRSh, is saying that they will ever get there. The goal is incremental improvements - a completely attainable goal.

And that's my point, maybe I didn't explain it well. PRSh talks about substracting, but He's improving and incrementing. He takes premium materials and squeezes them until get the best of it. For me that's not substracting

 

[kingsleyd]

And that's my point, maybe I didn't explain it well. PRSh talks about substracting, but He's improving and incrementing. He takes premium materials and squeezes them until get the best of it. For me that's not substracting

The improvements are all about subtracting less [than in the previous version] from an idealized [but impossible] system in which the energy created by the plucking of the string(s) does not dissipate at all. The idea of subtraction is rooted in the physics of the guitar itself, not in comparison to some previously existing guitar.

 

[rugerpc]

I believe he looks at it as striving to find and engineer the least subtractive materials and building methods.

 

[Basauri]

Exactly, and He does it amazingly well. But when he explains the theory (at least in the videos I've seen) he enfatices on an ideal sound, a inner exact tone response of the wood, a perfect drying and cristalization... and that focus is what is wrong imho.
But, and I repeat, in spite of explaining it better or worse he is producing masterpieces and it's impossible not to see/hear what He's reached