Tonewoods Redux

László

Too Many Notes
Joined
Apr 26, 2012
Messages
34,607
Location
Michigan
I was watching some random YouTube stuff and stumbled onto this. During the interview, Grissom was asked about his Korina DGT and talks a little about how it sounds different - less bass, less treble, more midrange - than the classic mahogany/maple combination.

I've found exactly the same tone difference with most Korina guitars. It's similar to all-mahogany, but a little less 'warm'.

Just thought I'd share this because there was a recent thread. The video is really about whether (if a choice must be made for $ reasons) to spend the budget on guitar or amp, and why, which is also an interesting discussion. Grissom comes down on the side of spend it on the guitar first, but that a lot of pros come down on the other side, too.

 
The video is really about whether (if a choice must be made for $ reasons) to spend the budget on guitar or amp, and why, which is also an interesting discussion. Grissom comes down on the side of spend it on the guitar first
Great video. Five Watt World often has worthwhile content.

Following up on your comment, at this point in the segment Grissom talks about how you can often get around limitations of the electronics of the amp with pedals but that people underestimate the difference the speaker makes.
 
I should mention something I've been thinking about:

For those who say the wood has no impact on tone, and it's only the electronics that matter, how do you explain the differences in tone between hollow body, semi-hollow body, and solid body guitars with the same electronics, or thicker bodied guitars, such as some of the PRS models that are all equipped with 58/15 LTs?

I'd say the pickups are affected by the difference in how the wood resonates with a hollow body, just as the pickups are affected by how different solid body woods resonate, but if there's a different theory, let's hear it. The woods and construction modulate the way the string vibrates, the pickups pick that up, as well as the pickups being microphonic. But: If you think that hollow, semi hollow and solid bodies sound the same, let us know.

We know from the Dana Bourgeois video Greywolf posted that different woods have measurably different velocity of sound. I'd say that matters, and that you can hear it even when comparing ebony to IRW to BRW to maple fretboards. Same with maple vs mahogany vs rosewood necks. They all sound different.
 
Last edited:
I should mention something I've been thinking about:

For those who say the wood has no impact on tone, and it's only the electronics that matter, how do you explain the differences in tone between hollow body, semi-hollow body, and solid body guitars with the same electronics, or thicker bodied guitars, such as some of the PRS models that are all equipped with 58/15 LTs?

I'd say the pickups are affected by the difference in how the wood resonates with a hollow body, just as the pickups are affected by how different solid body woods resonate, but if there's a different theory, let's hear it. The woods and construction modulate the way the string vibrates, the pickups pick that up, as well as the pickups being microphonic. But: If you think that hollow, semi hollow and solid bodies sound the same, let us know.

We know from the Dana Bourgeois video Greywolf posted that different woods have measurably different velocity of sound. I'd say that matters, and that you can hear it even when comparing ebony to IRW to BRW to maple fretboards. Same with maple vs mahogany vs rosewood necks. They all sound different.
Hollowbody guitars and solidbody guitars only sound different in the room or if mic'd. The electric signal portion of the signal is generally identically other than the solidbodies usually having better sustain due to less energy loss from the body vibrating. Of course we are talking if there are two hypothetically identical guitars only differentiated by the hollowness of the body (please dont come at me with anecdotal experiences that differ because you played one particular hollowbody guitar and it sounded different from one solidbody guitar...). I think hollowbodies are great for room players, where you get to experience the resonance. If you're recording through the pickups or playing on stage they sound mostly the same *to my ears* (will add this part to try and avoid the complete forum meltdown LOL).
 
Hollowbody guitars and solidbody guitars only sound different in the room or if mic'd. The electric signal portion of the signal is generally identically other than the solidbodies usually having better sustain due to less energy loss from the body vibrating. Of course we are talking if there are two hypothetically identical guitars only differentiated by the hollowness of the body (please dont come at me with anecdotal experiences that differ because you played one particular hollowbody guitar and it sounded different from one solidbody guitar...). I think hollowbodies are great for room players, where you get to experience the resonance. If you're recording through the pickups or playing on stage they sound mostly the same *to my ears* (will add this part to try and avoid the complete forum meltdown LOL).
Let me disclaim any intend to troll this topic, and offer this only since this is really the purpose of this forum!

There is no doubt in my mind that EVERYTHING affects the tone of a guitar. WRT to the body construction, it ABSOLUTELY changes the fundamental tone of the guitar, particularly in note bloom and high harmonic content. Try a pinch harmonic on a solid body 594, then try it on a semi-hollow 594, then try it on the hollowbody 594 with the same pickups, woods and amp settings. It gets harder to do! The treble sustain goes down. Now, this applies more on the lower-gain end of the tonal spectrum. Add high gain to any part of the signal, either in front or inside the amp, and the nuances become buried in clipping and distortion, sure. You can play doom metal on a Gretsch no problem, just crank the F7CK out of all the knobs and no one will b!tch about the Bigsby! The rig will definitely close doors. Imagine discerning guitar woods through an Octafuzz. Yup. Impossible.

Now, when you're pushing all that through a microphone in a recording studio, every stage offers a loss in translation, even down to the position of the microphone, its phase with the rest of the recording, all that sh!t. It's almost unfair to compare guitars in a recording setting at that point. I think if there's a difference to be discovered, you'll feel it most in the cockpit, and how that translates to the ear is a matter of whose ears are working. Tough one to measure.

I think if you could accurately capture the stereo image of the room playing the instrument, you can better pick up the small details; and there's no doubt that the low gain acoustic player will offer the most of this in a small setting. It really sounds great, doesn't it?
 
I should mention something I've been thinking about:

For those who say the wood has no impact on tone, and it's only the electronics that matter, how do you explain the differences in tone between hollow body, semi-hollow body, and solid body guitars with the same electronics, or thicker bodied guitars, such as some of the PRS models that are all equipped with 58/15 LTs?

I'd say the pickups are affected by the difference in how the wood resonates with a hollow body, just as the pickups are affected by how different solid body woods resonate, but if there's a different theory, let's hear it. The woods and construction modulate the way the string vibrates, the pickups pick that up, as well as the pickups being microphonic. But: If you think that hollow, semi hollow and solid bodies sound the same, let us know.

We know from the Dana Bourgeois video Greywolf posted that different woods have measurably different velocity of sound. I'd say that matters, and that you can hear it even when comparing ebony to IRW to BRW to maple fretboards. Same with maple vs mahogany vs rosewood necks. They all sound different.
I own two Epiphone Les Pauls with the same Probucker pickups. One is the standard Mahogany solid body, the other is a semi-hollow, made of a mahogany body and laminate maple top.

They sound about identical. The only difference is that one is significantly lighter than the other.
 
Hollowbody guitars and solidbody guitars only sound different in the room or if mic'd.

We've built a lot of guitars among our team here, and the few semi-hollow S-types we built ended up getting junked. They all sounded so different from our normal solid-body guitars (in a non-positive way) that they were judged sub-standard. That was through any amp we tried them with. We may try it with T-types next, I gather, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the effort.

It doesn't matter whether further experimentation would have yielded a better result: what it does do, however, is to disprove the contention that hollowing them out doesn't make a sonic difference when amplified. It may even just be a single-coil thing, but that isn't the point at issue.
 
Last edited:
We've built a lot of guitars among our team here, and the few semi-hollow S-types we built ended up getting junked. They all sounded so different from our normal solid-body guitars (in a non-positive way) that they were judged sub-standard. That was through any amp we tried them with. We may try it with T-types next, I gather, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the effort.

It doesn't matter whether further experimentation would have yielded a better result: what it does do, however, is to disprove the contention that hollowing them out doesn't make a sonic difference when amplified. It may even just be a single-coil thing, but that isn't the point at issue.
I've noticed a lack of sustain on hollowbody guitars. Which also undoubtedly changes how tone is perceived ie not allowing time for notes or harmonics to bloom. It's interesting to hear that they sounded outright worse to you from a tone perspective though.
 
We've built a lot of guitars among our team here, and the few semi-hollow S-types we built ended up getting junked. They all sounded so different from our normal solid-body guitars (in a non-positive way) that they were judged sub-standard. That was through any amp we tried them with. We may try it with T-types next, I gather, but I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the effort.

It doesn't matter whether further experimentation would have yielded a better result: what it does do, however, is to disprove the contention that hollowing them out doesn't make a sonic difference when amplified. It may even just be a single-coil thing, but that isn't the point at issue.
Do the tele. I built myself one but didn't route behind the bridge and didn't cut an F-hole. Sustains just as well as any other tele I've built.
 
Hollowbody guitars and solidbody guitars only sound different in the room or if mic'd. The electric signal portion of the signal is generally identically other than the solidbodies usually having better sustain due to less energy loss from the body vibrating. Of course we are talking if there are two hypothetically identical guitars only differentiated by the hollowness of the body (please dont come at me with anecdotal experiences that differ because you played one particular hollowbody guitar and it sounded different from one solidbody guitar...). I think hollowbodies are great for room players, where you get to experience the resonance. If you're recording through the pickups or playing on stage they sound mostly the same *to my ears* (will add this part to try and avoid the complete forum meltdown LOL).
People come away from lots of sensory experiences with different conclusions. I respect your musical voice - heard your track in the other part of the forum - and you of course must decide these things for yourself. It's your music, you do a nice job. It doesn't matter to the music itself whether we agree about certain audio things.

We're gonna do what we do. Music is something we share. All to the good! In the end, what matters is the music, not whether guitar A sounds different from guitar B due to its wood and construction and blah blah blah. Do what works for you, and keep up the good work!

So admittedly, this is an academic discussion except as it applies to what I do for a living in the music business, where I need my ear-brain-hands to do certain things in order to get paid.

I'll give a little background as to how I've reached my opinions.

None of what follows makes me right, but it does reflect the a decent amount of professional experience and why I'm confident about interpreting sound.

As you probably know from other posts, I'm lucky enough to get paid to compose, play, produce and mix music for national TV ads, indie films, and documentaries. I also often do the audio postproduction final mix of Voiceover or dialog, sound effects, and music.

Over the years I've created tracks for a few projects that won some nice awards.

Sometimes my work takes me to new, interesting places unrelated to Ad-Land or TV Documentary-Land.

I produced, co-wrote, and recorded the music for the video that opened every show of a Carrie Underwood tour a few years back. I've done music for Epcot Center. One documentary I did is part of an exhibit at the Detroit Historical Museum, but it was done for TV and earned an Emmy. I've been lucky to have had these wonderful opportunities.

I'm also a synthesist, sound designer and classical musician. I've done foley recording in the field. If it's audio...chances are I've been involved in it.

At some point a few years back, PRS did a website article about how I use their products in my work. Gave me a swelled head for a minute or two!

I've been recording myself and others in this business for 33 years. That includes hundreds and hundreds of guitars, amps, etc. I've written for, conducted, recorded and mixed symphony players in sessions, too. Hey, some ads and films need orchestras (and in that context I've got kind of an amusing story about the first time I conducted symphony players for a Budweiser ad that ran in the Olympics that I'll tell some time).

In the context of our discussion, I've had to learn to listen deep into the details of a track, a mix, an audio post session. That's the first step one takes making the move from 'decent mixer' to getting the bigger projects - if one is lucky.

I've guest lectured about this stuff many times - at Audio Engineering Society meetings, the University of Michigan School of Music, etc. They ask me, I go. I love to share what I've learned about music and audio over the years.

Before I got into the music world, long ago, I practiced law (yes I realize that this makes me an even worse know-it-all).

So I'm also asked to guest lecture or participate in round tables about music production and music rights in law schools' entertainment law classes. Lawyers generally have no idea how music is produced and recorded, how sessions are handled, etc. They should have this info in order to handle their eventual work. They also need to know when and how musicians divvy up the rights to a piece of music.

Sometimes ad clients want me to arrange licenses for pop songs for their ads. So I do that, too, and deal with major label folks and publishers. I'd rather do music, but I love the folks I work with, and if that's what they need, I know how to do it and say 'sure'.

I'm that weird guy who can say I've composed music for Fortune 500 and professional sports teams' ads, and also negotiated song licenses for these same clients' ad projects.

I've done my thing in my own studio, and the audio post studios here in Michigan, but also in the famous studios in NYC, LA, Chicago, and in cities in Europe. I've gotten to work with the most wonderful people in the world - great musicians.

In doing all this stuff, I've recorded hundreds and hundreds of guitars, amps, and other instruments. I hear the difference in a recording between various guitars, hollow or solid builds, woods, bolt-on or glued necks, etc, and that's the source of my TOO MANY opinions! :eek:

That does not make me any better at hearing acuity than you - that's a different topic. You can have the information enter your ears, but the brain still has to process and interpret it, and experience day after day after day is the thing that teaches your brain what to concentrate its attention on,

Here's an analogy: When you hear a song you want to learn, perhaps you can concentrate on the guitar parts and push the other instruments and vocals to the back of your mind. Many of us do this.

In a similar way, after many years in the studio, a person can learn to concentrate on one particular frequency band of an instrument, the amplitude of its resonant frequencies, etc, etc. It's a matter of experience and concentration, thus interpreting what your senses are bringing you as well as merely hearing.

Now, you might say, "But can't your brain also fool you?" I'd say yes. It can. But I get paid to not be fooled.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top