Tone Wood Followup

[WRGKMC]

I figured I'd start a new forum for this. This is a guessing game. In the previous forum there were a few posters who thin the wood in electrics don't have any affect on tone. I happen to have three guitars that have the exact same mini Humbuckers. I recorded all three clean and all three with drive. My opinion remains firm. I say its fairly easy to hear the differences in wood tone with clean pickups running because they basically run like Microphones. When you add drive you flatten the peaks and overtones which are the things the ears need to distinguish the difference between guitars and the Pickups simply filter out frequencies you'd normally hear with your ears.

 

I will give you the three guitar types. I had a Dot with Mini Humbuckers, a Semi hollowbody Tele made of 100 Year old Walnut Top, Maple sides, and Rosewood back, Maple Tele neck, and one with a 100 year old Maple body and Maple Tele neck.

 

Let the guessing begin. I have frequency analyzer pictures of the instruments and audio files of the recordings. The recordings were done direct, no amp, no coloration of any kind. All I did was adjust the levels so they match. The second set are the same guitars with the same pickup settings, using both pickups, with drive added. I attempted to play the same chord progression on all tracks in the same key so the files that were run through the frequency analyzer weren't affected by playing the music in different keys which would have skewed the results.

 

I'll ley your ears and eyes decide. This is about as scientific as I can get at the moment while having a few beers on a Friday night after working in the studio so let the test begin.

 

Here are the tree guitars.

 

Guitar A https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1682170/IMG_1077.JPG

Guitar B https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1682170/IMG_1066.JPG

Guitar C https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1682170/IMG_1074.JPG

 

 

 

#1 Clean Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...31%20Clean.wav

 

#2 Clean Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...32%20Clean.wav

 

#3 Clean Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...33%20Clean.wav

 

#1 Driven Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1%20Driven.wav

 

#2 Driven Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2%20Driven.wav

 

#3 Driven Guitar https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3%20Driven.wav

 

#1 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...31%20Clean.jpg

#2 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...32%20Clean.jpg

#3 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...33%20Clean.jpg

 

#1&2 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...62%20Clean.jpg

#1&3 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...63%20Clean.jpg

#2&3 Clean Pic https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...63%20Clean.jpg

 

#1 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1%20Driven.jpg

#2 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2%20Driven.jpg

#3 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3%20Driven.jpg

 

#1&2 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2%20Driven.jpg

#1&3 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3%20Driven.jpg

#2&3 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3%20Driven.jpg

 

#1 Clean #1 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...1%20Driven.jpg

#2 Clean #2 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...2%20Driven.jpg

#3 Clean #3 Driven https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3%20Driven.jpg

 

Now the only thing I didn't get to track was the guitars using a contact mic to pick up the tones directly from the wood and compare it to the pickups.

I have that sucker hiding around the house someplace and I will give a thorough search for it tomorrow. I'm pretty beat up at the moment and its no big deal adding the tracks and pics as comparisons later in this post. Using the contract mic completely removes the pickup from the equation and you can compare the analyzer spectrums and see the two really aren't that much different other than the fact the pickups roll off the highs and lows, frequencies very noticeable to the ears. Hearing the differences in the midrange frequencies are difficult and do take a trained ear. Anyone who has done allot of recording and mixing will have less trouble making out the differences because that's what that art form is all about.

[guitarcapo]

The only way you're going to impress me is if you can listen to an electric guitar track be able to accurately state the species of wood that the guitar is made from. If you can't (and excuse this by citing other factors involved)....you basically admit that tonewoods don't matter because they are overwhelmed by other factors.

[stormin1155]

Cool demonstration! In my response to your last post I think I said something to the effect of wood does make a difference, but I have never been able to reliably predict what a guitar will sound like based on the woods used. Your demonstration supports both my position and yours. The three guitars sound different, but I wouldn't have a clue which is which based on the woods they are made of. Also, you have three different designs... semi-hollow made of laminated wood, semi-hollow (really chambered) made of solid woods, and one made of solid woods.

[Freeman Keller]

Since I think you did this mostly for me and because I know how much work it is to do any sort of comparison posting, first let me say Thanks. Second, before I make any comments I want to take enough time to really listen to the clips and look at the waveforms. That might require a beer or two on my part....

[WRGKMC]

The only way you're going to impress me is if you can listen to an electric guitar track be able to accurately state the species of wood that the guitar is made from. If you can't (and excuse this by citing other factors involved)....you basically admit that tonewoods don't matter because they are overwhelmed by other factors.

 

I fully plan on revealing which is which in a day or two after people have done some guessing. This is not a "got cha" post, its merely to have fun. If you read my other posts under the tone wood thread, you'll know I've done similar posts every year or so.

 

I posted what woods are in the guitars except for the Dot which I believe is made of maple plywood, center block of wood is likely maple and a mahogany neck with a rosewood fret board. The pics are listed in the post as well. Two are my own builds, and I modded the dot with adaptor rings for the mini humbuckers. The humbuckers have matching vintage impedances. The epi does have a fatter bridge then the others. The two hand built guitars have matching bridges electronics etc. Even the tuners are the same Grover 18:1 tuners. I used a blue tortex pick strumming the parts. I believe the strings are all the same brand as well 9/46 pure nickel SIT strings all having approx. the same amount of wear, so its not like one set is new and bright sounding.

[WRGKMC]

 

Since I think you did this mostly for me and because I know how much work it is to do any sort of comparison posting' date=' first let me say Thanks. Second, before I make any comments I want to take enough time to really listen to the clips and look at the waveforms. That might require a beer or two on my part....[/quote']

 

Well it was party because you asked but I thought it would be challenging for everyone. Since you're an acoustic guy you could do the same thing with acoustic guitars. Use a sound hole pickup on three acoustics, then record the three of them with a mic and do a comparison. I only have one acoustic at the moment and its just an old Alverez bang around so I really cant compare its tone to other instruments of the same kind.

 

 

 

 

[knotty]

 

I fully plan on revealing which is which in a day or two after people have done some guessing. This is not a "got cha" post, its merely to have fun. If you read my other posts under the tone wood thread, you'll know I've done similar posts every year or so.

 

I posted what woods are in the guitars except for the Dot which I believe is made of maple plywood, center block of wood is likely maple and a mahogany neck with a rosewood fret board. The pics are listed in the post as well. Two are my own builds, and I modded the dot with adaptor rings for the mini humbuckers. The humbuckers have matching vintage impedances. The epi does have a fatter bridge then the others. The two hand built guitars have matching bridges electronics etc. Even the tuners are the same Grover 18:1 tuners. I used a blue tortex pick strumming the parts. I believe the strings are all the same brand as well 9/46 pure nickel SIT strings all having approx. the same amount of wear, so its not like one set is new and bright sounding.

 

 

Not sure if you evaded the point of guitarcapos post or ignored it. Either way you missed it.

Whatever the graphs say , (and at best they can only prove different guitars sound different.) If you cant tell the difference in a real world situation then the difference is negligible.

[AJ6stringsting]

I have a Basswood body .1996 Dinky/Jackson with 24 frets,Floyd Rose tremolo, (N) Bill Lawrence L-250, (M) Dimarzio Fast Track 2 with a Dimarzio Evolution in the bridge with 500k ohms pots and a 47k ohms cap. This is a great 1980's Metal guitar, very Satch / Vai sounding.

 

 

I also have an Alder body 1997 PS-4 Jackson Dinky with 24 frets, Floyd Rose tremolo, ( N) Dimarzio Evolution , (M) Dimarzio Fast Track 2, (B) Dimarzio Evolution with 500k ohms pots and a 47k ohms cap. This guitar is very heavy handed, great for Speed Metal / Thrash playing because of heavy bass response and nice highs it generates.

 

Basswood and Alder are my favorites, but lately, Maple has gotten in my circle of tone woods.

[soundcreation]

why do you have to be able to "name the wood" for it to matter? guitarcapo and knotty you are both trying to put your own criteria on "what proves wood matters".

 

There is a difference. Just listen to the clips. If you can't hear a difference in all three of those clips both clean and distorted....then frankly...I'd have to say your ears are terrible. I mean it's totally obvious.

 

If you can hear the differences then my first point stands. You are simply "moving the bar" to fit your argument.

 

This is a "real world situation" and I can clearly hear the difference. Me not knowing which wood one is doesn't change the fact there IS a difference and IF I were recording a song that difference would play a HUGE role in my choice. So the argument that because I can't "predict the wood so it doesn't matter" is totally illogical.

 

For example if I were recording a smooth moody passage I would NOT choose guitar # 1. It's WAY too bright. I would choose guitar # 3 cause it has the most rounded balanced tone. That's wood mattering in real world conditions. No "other factors involved" at all.

 

 

 

 

Now....with regards to taking a shot at predicting the wood....which I am quite happy to try....and really don't care if I'm wrong......cause again...that does NOT change the fact there are clear differences between these guitars because of the wood and only the wood.....

 

I am going to make one qualifying statement....

 

while I'm thankful to WRG for doing all this...the effort is appreciated....one problem for me is his guitars are all woods I basically have no experience with in terms of what tones they are suppose to be. I bet if this comparison had been done with clips of alder vs ash strats I would get the answer right most of the time.

 

So here it goes......

 

From what I have read maple is a very bright wood. But then I've heard that walnut is too.....in spite of that I'll say...

 

Guitar 1 is the all maple. Very bright sounding guitar. (if it's the walnut maple I wouldn't be surprised)

 

2 and 3 are harder to tell. There is obviously a difference....guitar 2 is not as "round" a tone as guitar 3. Guitar 3 is the most balanced while guitar 2 is more peaky highs and low end with a bit of lack of mid range. yeah.....thinking about it....i'm going to say....

 

#2 is the tele style.....

 

and

 

#3 is the dot.

 

[knotty]

why do you have to be able to "name the wood" for it to matter? guitarcapo and knotty you are both trying to put your own criteria on "what proves wood matters".

 

There is a difference. Just listen to the clips. If you can't hear a difference in all three of those clips both clean and distorted....then frankly...I'd have to say your ears are terrible. I mean it's totally obvious.

 

If you can hear the differences then my first point stands. You are simply "moving the bar" to fit your argument.

 

This is a "real world situation" and I can clearly hear the difference. Me not knowing which wood one is doesn't change the fact there IS a difference and IF I were recording a song that difference would play a HUGE role in my choice. So the argument that because I can't "predict the wood so it doesn't matter" is totally illogical.

 

For example if I were recording a smooth moody passage I would NOT choose guitar # 1. It's WAY too bright. I would choose guitar # 3 cause it has the most rounded balanced tone. That's wood mattering in real world conditions. No "other factors involved" at all.

 

 

 

 

Now....with regards to taking a shot at predicting the wood....which I am quite happy to try....and really don't care if I'm wrong......cause again...that does NOT change the fact there are clear differences between these guitars because of the wood and only the wood.....

 

I am going to make one qualifying statement....

 

while I'm thankful to WRG for doing all this...the effort is appreciated....one problem for me is his guitars are all woods I basically have no experience with in terms of what tones they are suppose to be. I bet if this comparison had been done with clips of alder vs ash strats I would get the answer right most of the time.

 

So here it goes......

 

From what I have read maple is a very bright wood. But then I've heard that walnut is too.....in spite of that I'll say...

 

Guitar 1 is the all maple. Very bright sounding guitar. (if it's the walnut maple I wouldn't be surprised)

 

2 and 3 are harder to tell. There is obviously a difference....guitar 2 is not as "round" a tone as guitar 3. Guitar 3 is the most balanced while guitar 2 is more peaky highs and low end with a bit of lack of mid range. yeah.....thinking about it....i'm going to say....

 

#2 is the tele style.....

 

and

 

#3 is the dot.

 

 

I have never said there is no difference and of course you can tell a difference in his " test" .

My point about real world is that you dont do what he did and record with direct recording and flat settings, you adjust the amp and tweak the rest of the signal chain to suite your sound requirements. At least I do. Thats the whole point of electric guitar.

In my view a better test would be to take his 3 guitars and let me adjust the signal chain to suite any famous song we all know. I doubt anybody would identify them or tell them apart then.

Thats my point. Different - yes. So diferent you cant replicate with another wood - no. Not for me anyway.

 

[WRGKMC]

 

 

I have never said there is no difference and of course you can tell a difference in his " test" .

My point about real world is that you dont do what he did and record with direct recording and flat settings, you adjust the amp and tweak the rest of the signal chain to suite your sound requirements. At least I do. Thats the whole point of electric guitar.

In my view a better test would be to take his 3 guitars and let me adjust the signal chain to suite any famous song we all know. I doubt anybody would identify them or tell them apart then.

Thats my point. Different - yes. So diferent you cant replicate with another wood - no. Not for me anyway.

 

You clearly stated there were differences in the other thread. What would be the sense of manufacturers building so many different guitars out of different wood types if there weren't differences.

 

I could have used guitar amps miced of course. I do it all the time when recording. A guitar head, speaker type, cabinet size, air volume and wood type will affect the sound quality and frequency response. The differences between a small practice amp with poor fidelity may very well make all the guitars sound the same. On the other hand I do have several amps that can record completely clean or driven and I could use high quality condenser mics and make the same kinds of samples I've posted above so its simply a redundant process of recording the tracks with the amp in the chain.

 

The problem is you add coloration to the test and then we open up a whole bag of worms about amp tone. Unless others want to hear that as well, I figured that might be good for some other debate. You could question do different speakers in a cab sound that much different or does different tubes in the same head really produce a change.

 

In this test. the guitar pickup is essentially part of the amp circuit, not part of the instrument. It just happens to be permanently mounted to the instrument with a jack to make it convenient for the player to plug in. Prior to that they miced the instruments.

 

In any case I removed the amp from the chain to focus on the instrument only. By doing so I eliminated the rooms reflected tone which is another huge factor. Most guitarists tune their amps by ear to get good room reflection tones as well as the direct. That too can be recorded and measured with a good reference mic and frequency analyzer and in fact when you build a studio its important to test the room with that gear to find places in the room that are overly reflective or have standing waves that boost or cut frequencies that color the sound and treat the room to remove those offending frequencies. In my case I have a dead room with practically no reflections so I could test amps or record without those problems.

 

Again, my main point of this is to point out, driven guitars are harder to tell apart. If you look at the pics with the same guitars driven and clean you see the hills and valleys less dramatic with the driven tones. The curves occur in the same places, but they aren't as deep or high. This is caused by compression. The distortion prevents the peaks from occurring and they get flattened out like a steam roller. If I had added more saturation/compression I could have likely flattened out the response even more.

 

Oh, I went back and tried to find guitarcapo's post. I reread all your posts and couldn't find anything he posted in that thread so I must be blind of something. If you could post a link or repost it here, I'll be happy to read it. I didn't intentionally ignore it.

[WRGKMC]

why do you have to be able to "name the wood" for it to matter? guitarcapo and knotty you are both trying to put your own criteria on "what proves wood matters".

 

There is a difference. Just listen to the clips. If you can't hear a difference in all three of those clips both clean and distorted....then frankly...I'd have to say your ears are terrible. I mean it's totally obvious.

 

If you can hear the differences then my first point stands. You are simply "moving the bar" to fit your argument.

 

This is a "real world situation" and I can clearly hear the difference. Me not knowing which wood one is doesn't change the fact there IS a difference and IF I were recording a song that difference would play a HUGE role in my choice. So the argument that because I can't "predict the wood so it doesn't matter" is totally illogical.

 

For example if I were recording a smooth moody passage I would NOT choose guitar # 1. It's WAY too bright. I would choose guitar # 3 cause it has the most rounded balanced tone. That's wood mattering in real world conditions. No "other factors involved" at all.

 

 

 

 

Now....with regards to taking a shot at predicting the wood....which I am quite happy to try....and really don't care if I'm wrong......cause again...that does NOT change the fact there are clear differences between these guitars because of the wood and only the wood.....

 

I am going to make one qualifying statement....

 

while I'm thankful to WRG for doing all this...the effort is appreciated....one problem for me is his guitars are all woods I basically have no experience with in terms of what tones they are suppose to be. I bet if this comparison had been done with clips of alder vs ash strats I would get the answer right most of the time.

 

So here it goes......

 

From what I have read maple is a very bright wood. But then I've heard that walnut is too.....in spite of that I'll say...

 

Guitar 1 is the all maple. Very bright sounding guitar. (if it's the walnut maple I wouldn't be surprised)

 

2 and 3 are harder to tell. There is obviously a difference....guitar 2 is not as "round" a tone as guitar 3. Guitar 3 is the most balanced while guitar 2 is more peaky highs and low end with a bit of lack of mid range. yeah.....thinking about it....i'm going to say....

 

#2 is the tele style.....

 

and

 

#3 is the dot.

 

I do have three Strats made of different woods. Ones Adler, ones basswood and ones something else which I failed to identify before I repainted it. I could do the same tests but though they do have single coils in them they are different types of pickups. They all have different pick guards, ones a standard tortus pick guard, ones a gold anodized aluminum and ones a wooden pick guard I made because it required a custom cut.

 

Between the pick guards, and different pickups these guitars sound much too different so its not a fair comparison. I did a comparison here with those three before using a contact mic and it did produce very different frequency responses, mostly in the bass response. I compared the strings strummed against just knocking on the wood, which eliminated the strings and just recorded the wood resonance.

 

You're right when you say knowing which wood is which isn't that important. We get to know our instruments by playing them and when we want a certain tone we instinctually grab the beast that will give us that coloration. When you add in the EQing and gain effects different pickups can give us plugged into any number of amps and effects, the pallet for achievable tones does get much larger.

 

I will add, The three instruments in this case only have each other to provide contrast. The brightest may sound dull if there was a bright tele added as a comparison which brings about one important point. Its only important how an instrument sounds in contrast with others in a mix. If you're playing with a band and your instrument occupies its frequency range without allot of masking by other instruments, then you will stand out well in that mix. You don't need a wide high fidelity tone when playing with others and in fact you can wind up masking other musicians who themselves are trying to be heard in a mix.

 

Wide response is important when you're playing solo like an acoustic guitar because you want to fill all those frequencies where other instruments don't exist. you want to sound as full and broad as a full orchestra, a one man band with maybe a vocal or two.

 

In a rock band you have to limit the response, mostly midrange. Les Paul knew this when he built his log. He was competing with horns, saxes, clarinets, piano, drums bass, etc. Those instruments may have stopped playing while he soloed, and jazz guitar is fairly muted, but he found when he amplified it that didn't matter because he could still get those tones he got from a fat body jazz guitar using an amp to act as the acoustic sound chamber.

[billybilly]

The only way you're going to impress me is if you can listen to an electric guitar track be able to accurately state the species of wood that the guitar is made from. If you can't (and excuse this by citing other factors involved)....you basically admit that tonewoods don't matter because they are overwhelmed by other factors.

I'm pretty sure it's everyone's quest to impress you. What else is there?

[Quarter]

The tone of an electric guitar is the sum of its parts and electronic chain. Speaking to the guitar itself, the pickups and electronics contribute the lions share to the instruments voice. Woods, construction details, and hardware mass and composition all have an influence on the final output. Some more, some less, but all contribute and should not be discounted. And specifically to the woods contribution, I think of it as spice in the dish or maybe that subtle accent you might hear in someones voice. For those that can not or do not believe that these details make a difference in an instruments voice, its ok. As long as you have a guitar that you like and love to play, then thats the important thing. When you are in the groove and rocking your best guitar face, it really does not matter.

 

On the clips, my best guess is

#1 = C

#2 = B

#3 = A

[knotty]

 

You clearly stated there were differences in the other thread. What would be the sense of manufacturers building so many different guitars out of different wood types if there weren't differences.

 

I could have used guitar amps miced of course. I do it all the time when recording. A guitar head, speaker type, cabinet size, air volume and wood type will affect the sound quality and frequency response. The differences between a small practice amp with poor fidelity may very well make all the guitars sound the same. On the other hand I do have several amps that can record completely clean or driven and I could use high quality condenser mics and make the same kinds of samples I've posted above so its simply a redundant process of recording the tracks with the amp in the chain.

 

The problem is you add coloration to the test and then we open up a whole bag of worms about amp tone. Unless others want to hear that as well, I figured that might be good for some other debate. You could question do different speakers in a cab sound that much different or does different tubes in the same head really produce a change.

 

In this test. the guitar pickup is essentially part of the amp circuit, not part of the instrument. It just happens to be permanently mounted to the instrument with a jack to make it convenient for the player to plug in. Prior to that they miced the instruments.

 

In any case I removed the amp from the chain to focus on the instrument only. By doing so I eliminated the rooms reflected tone which is another huge factor. Most guitarists tune their amps by ear to get good room reflection tones as well as the direct. That too can be recorded and measured with a good reference mic and frequency analyzer and in fact when you build a studio its important to test the room with that gear to find places in the room that are overly reflective or have standing waves that boost or cut frequencies that color the sound and treat the room to remove those offending frequencies. In my case I have a dead room with practically no reflections so I could test amps or record without those problems.

 

Again, my main point of this is to point out, driven guitars are harder to tell apart. If you look at the pics with the same guitars driven and clean you see the hills and valleys less dramatic with the driven tones. The curves occur in the same places, but they aren't as deep or high. This is caused by compression. The distortion prevents the peaks from occurring and they get flattened out like a steam roller. If I had added more saturation/compression I could have likely flattened out the response even more.

 

Oh, I went back and tried to find guitarcapo's post. I reread all your posts and couldn't find anything he posted in that thread so I must be blind of something. If you could post a link or repost it here, I'll be happy to read it. I didn't intentionally ignore it.

 

 

I am not knocking your test I think its a very valuable basis for the discussion.

My point was simply that you designed a test to demonstrate the differences, as people requested.

 

If you used the gear at your disposal with different settings for each guitar, to make for example guitar 1 sound like guitar 3, how close could you get?

 

I think with my limited resources I could make it indistinguishable. Thats my point. I think I can make anything sound like mahogany or ash etc etc. So in that respect wood don't matter.

[Freeman Keller]

~~OK, here are my comments. Disclaimer - by now you've probably figured out that I don't know squat about electric guitars. I've been listening to them for fifty years (which also probably means that my hearing is shot) but I really haven't paid much attention to what the artist is playing other that its usually loud. I should add that I am 69 years old and have some documented roll off of my high frequency hearing. I've played acoustics for most of my life, but just recently built an electric and still trying to figure out how to play it.

 

My tastes in music run to blues, roots music, jazz, classical and some “classic rock”. I simply don’t listen to many of the contemporary genres – Metal, Thrash – all is just noise in my book. I grew up listening to Duane Allman and Jerry Garcia and Paul Butterfield BB and Buddy Guy and those people have colored my listening tastes.

 

I’ll add one more piece of background information – my education and career have been as an electrical engineer with my graduate study in simulation and control. I understand terms like “time domain” and “frequency domain” and I understand the importance of conducting comparisons in as close a controlled situation as possible.

I down loaded all three clean WAV's and saved them, along with the 1 vs 2, 1 vs 3, etc wave forms - having them on my PC lets me switch back and forth easily. I haven't looked at the pictures of the guitars and only quickly scanned their specifications. I've been playing the WAV's with Audacity - that way I can have three sessions running and start and stop each one for comparison - after all, that is what this is all about. I've listened both on my cheap little PC speakers and sound card, and with a pair of Koss K6 headphones, again thru the PC sound card. I didn't touch volume and tone controls are set flat. As I listened I made some notes on a piece of paper. (I’ll also add that I’m writing this in Word and I have not read any of the posts subsequent to W’s original one – I don’t want to be biased by any other discussion)

 

I haven’t listened to the overdriven clips – first because that isn’t a sound I particularly care for and second it adds one more layer of “non wood” to this study. Any time you drive the gain of an amplifier to the point where it clips the signal you area adding “an effect”. That isn’t why we are here.

My reaction: I hear three different sounding guitars. #1 is twangy, that's the only good term I can use to describe it. It sounds like what I would expect a Telecaster to sound like. Not my cuppa, but again that's not what we are doing here. #2 is more complex sounding, I guess I would call it a typical electric guitar sound (is that a Strat?), I get more overtones but still a bit of that twang. If I was to guess I might say it was the same guitar as #1 only on a neck pickup (with #1 being bridge). It’s probably the chambered Tele. Fwiw - I get the same relative volume from both #1 and 2.

 

#3 is different. It is warm and complex sounding, lots of overtones but with chimy sounding highs. It has almost an acoustic sound. Less volume that #1 and 2, but much richer. I’m not exactly sure what a “Dot” is (assume its one of the Gibson jazz boxes) but I’ll call this one the Dot.

 

[Freeman Keller]

~~Next I’m looking at the wave forms. There is a whole lot I would like to know about how they were created – in the acoustic world the guitar is usually driven by a frequency generator swept over the usual operating frequencies with some sort of transducer driving the bridge. Care is taken to ensure that the intensity of the driving signal is kept constant. The response is recorded by a quality microphone, usually positioned not at the soundhole but near the upper bout. Anyway, point is that the input signal and measuring system need to be carefully calibrated – W has not provided any information about how this was set up.

 

However, it really doesn’t matter if all we want to do is look at two or three waveforms and compare them. First, please not that both axis are logarithmic – the X axis is log frequency, the Y axis is magnitude in decibles. Also remember that the range of pure notes on a guitar tuned to concert pitch (A440) is 82.4 Hz for the low E string (E2) up to 1397 Hz for the high E fretted at the 24th fret (E6). All of the other strings and frets fall between those frequencies. Any frequency above 1.4 kHz is an “overtone” or “partial”, that is a harmonic of the fundimental. Lastly, at least in the acoustic world, when you see a peak at some frequency that USUALLY means a resonate frequency for the guitar – it could be the air column resonating or the top or some other part vibrating in resonance with the driving signal (one way to think of it is the guitar “wants” to vibrate at that note).

 

Last comment about the graphs – they are darn hard to read, particularly when two signals are superimposed on one graph. Better colors could have been selected and the traces should have been better labeled on the graph.

 

What do I think I see when I look at the graphs? Lets compare #1 and #2. Both have components below the low E string – that tells me the frequency generator was swept below 82 Hz (or something else is going on). #2 has a much stronger signal at 80 Hz, that tells me it probably will be bassier sounding. #2 has a flatter overall waveform from 80 to 1 kHz – that tells me the overall response is much more linear that #1. However #2 also has a lot of peaks at different frequencies – that tells me the body or something else “wants” to vibrate at those frequencies. Based on these waveforms, I would guess that guitar #1 is more damped, #2 is more lively. Given the little bit I know about electric guitar construction I would guess that #1 is a solid slab of wood, #2 most likely hollow.

 

Guitar #3 is a different critter all together. It has many more peaks in its sound profile – that tells me that lots of different parts of the guitar want to vibrate. A look at the #2 vs #3 waveform shows that it is significantly quieter than #2 (which seems to go along with my listening to the clips). My guess is that it is a completely hollow body – almost an acoustic in response.

 

There is one more piece of graphical evidence which W did not supply but which I see when I run the clips thru Audacity (unfortunately I can’t figure out how to save these waveforms to post them here). Audacity gives a running time graph of the waveform as the music plays – it is only the intensity (magnitude) of each note but it’s a bit like watching VU meters. Guitars 1 and 2 have similar waveforms – both are approaching the clipping point of 0 dB but they look remarkably similar. Guitar #3 has much lower peaks on the waveform (again, indicating that it is quieter). Audacity will let you transform any point in time into the frequency domain (so call Fast Fourier Transform, or FFT) but that is really only meaningful for individual notes (like one string played by itself).

 

So, from the graphical evidence, I would conclude that #1 is the solid body, #2 chambers, and #3 the archtop.

 

[Freeman Keller]

~~Next, lets look at the pictures of the guitars. IMG-1066 is a pressed top Gibson (constructed somewhat like the ES-175 that I’m cloning). I would expect the air resonance and fact that the top plate vibrates to give this guitar a complex sound with lots of overtones. It also has a somewhat different wiring scheme than the Tele’s – that tells me that the tone shaping circuit might be influencing its sound and possibly attenuating it somewhat.

 

IMG-1074 looks to be the chambered Tele (I can’t tell if its got an f-hole but I think it does). From the little I know I would guess that it is lighter weight than the solid body and would have more resonate frequencies, in particular an air chamber resonance (often called the Helmholtz frequency). This guitar has the usual ToM with stop tailpiece – I would expect that to impart significant drive to the top plate.

IMG-1077 is obviously the solid body. Interesting that both Tele’s seem to have ToM bridges with trapeze tailpieces – isn’t that kind of unusual?

 

A few more obvious differences – the Gibbie and Fenders have different scale lengths. To say that they all have “mini humbuckers” doesn’t take into account that there are different specs for humbucking pickups – Alnico 2 vs 5 magnets, different gauge wire, number of turns. We’ve already mentioned that the tone shaping circuits are probably different – even if they are the same electronic components do vary 10 to 20 percent in value. Strings may be different, picking technique might vary from one guitar to the other, even the shape of the body and how it rests against your arm and body will be different.

 

 

[Freeman Keller]

~~So, in conclusion, I want to thank W for all the work posting these clips and pictures. The good news is that I think I can hear a difference (I’m not totally tone deaf). I also think I can guess which is which based on the little bit that I know about electric guitars. I can certainly tell you which of the three I prefer (which is important if I was shopping for one). At this point I’m going to copy these comments from Word and paste them into HCEG, then later today I’ll read what others have said.,

 

ps - While this was a very interesting academic exercise, I didn't learn anything about tone woods

 

pps - would someone please identify which of those guitars has the "fat" tone. And for that matter, which has the skinny tone too.

[peskypesky]

unscientific test is unscientific

[WRGKMC]

I found my contact mic. Its only a cheap clip on used for plugging into a tuner so its hasn't got stellar fidelity and there's a little rumble here and there. I clipped it onto the headstock of the three guitars, recorded a clip with the same chords, then used the frequency analyzer on the three solo and as comparisons. One thing you'll notice is the transients in the solo shots are greater. This is simply the resolution setting in the analyzer program. I selected the smooth setting when comparing the clean pickups and contact mics which shows the largest peaks.

 

The contact mic extends the frequency response well up to 20K and there's a stronger bass response before it drops off. In the center you can see where the frequency peaks and valleys of the two are very similar. These are created by the wood and seeing the contact mics are picking up 100% wood tone and from the neck no less, its proof the wood tones do get back into the strings and influence the tones.

 

Contact Mic 1 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%201.wav

Contact Mic 2 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%202.wav

Contact Mic 3 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%203.wav

 

Contact Mic pic 1 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%201.jpg

Contact Mic Pic 2 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%202.jpg

Contact Mic Pic 3 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%203.jpg

 

Contact & Clean 1 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%201.jpg

Contact & Clean 2 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%202.jpg

Contact & Clean 3 https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...ONTACT%203.jpg

[WRGKMC]

~~So, in conclusion, I want to thank W for all the work posting these clips and pictures. The good news is that I think I can hear a difference (I’m not totally tone deaf). I also think I can guess which is which based on the little bit that I know about electric guitars. I can certainly tell you which of the three I prefer (which is important if I was shopping for one). At this point I’m going to copy these comments from Word and paste them into HCEG, then later today I’ll read what others have said.,

 

ps - While this was a very interesting academic exercise, I didn't learn anything about tone woods

 

pps - would someone please identify which of those guitars has the "fat" tone. And for that matter, which has the skinny tone too.

 

Thanks for taking the time to analyze that. I'm sure some can learn something from your post because you did take the time to listen and analyze it carefully. I'm sorry the Pics aren't better. I'm not sure if the program has changeable color or density settings. It uses different colors for the Peak and Average waveform views. In any case I'm not going to redo them at this point.

 

I've added the tracks with the contact mics so you can hear how different the woods sound from the bodies (necks) and not directly from the strings.

 

The clip on mic might does reveal more details but I'll likely identify the clips in a day or so.

 

[WRGKMC]

unscientific test is unscientific

 

The program used as a frequency analyzer is called Har Bal. Its one of the best of its type in the recording industry and is used for mastering recordings. If its not scientific enough there really aren't many others out there that come close to its accuracy. It samples the entire recording and gives you a static shot of the total frequency response.

 

I also own the best software program made for acoustic calibrations called RAL. Its a highly technical program mainly used for tuning halls, rooms, studios concert halls etc using a live mic. Its not really made for analyzing files that have already been recorded. Its the program guys with lab coats wear when doing acoustic tests and you really need to be an engineer to understand how allot of it can be used.

 

That's not really needed in a simple test like this however. Anyone can download similar tools to do the same tests I have here and you could even use your built in sound computer card to record at CD quality which is good enough for anyone's hearing. If you feel my attempts here weren't scientific enough for you then I will say I've used test gear like this for a good 40 years as an electronic tech and do know how to create an unbiased test. I have no reason to deceive anyone including myself. I suppose there will always be people prefer to see the glass half empty. I can do nothing about that other than to say you can download the same programs give it a shot yourself. If you think my results are inaccurate, prove they are wrong it. I'm sure everyone here would enjoy your efforts.

[knotty]

One thing I would really like to see are those tests on 2 seemingly identical wood solid bodies. If the test is valid the results should be identical.

That would prove the methodology.

[Freeman Keller]

 

Thanks for taking the time to analyze that. I'm sure some can learn something from your post because you did take the time to listen and analyze it carefully. I'm sorry the Pics aren't better. I'm not sure if the program has changeable color or density settings. It uses different colors for the Peak and Average waveform views. In any case I'm not going to redo them at this point.

 

I've added the tracks with the contact mics so you can hear how different the woods sound from the bodies (necks) and not directly from the strings.

 

The clip on mic might does reveal more details but I'll likely identify the clips in a day or so.

 

I'll listen to the clips when I get a little time - right now I'm kind of maxed out so it will probably be tomorrow. I haven't played guitar in several days (altho I've been working on several of the beasties) so tonight I just want to relax and play some blues.

 

It is important for me to not know the identities until after I've done whatever I can do. I'll just download the clips and pics and ignore the forum for a couple of days.