Defining a guitar's sound

[Jerry NT]

Many years ago I had a Gibson J-200. I now own a J-45 that is, to my eye, shaped like a dreadnaught.

I've owned two Martins, a D-18 (sold it to buy the J-45 and and amplifier both) and a 000C16.

 

There is a difference in the tone of these guitars. I would say that the Martins ring where as the Gibsons hum. I like the tone of each, but they are different.

The Gibsons sound like Gibsons and the Martins sound like Martins. This is despite the fact that the J-45 and the D-18 are both mahogony and the J-200 was maple.

 

How would you describe this difference? Any thoughts as to why?

[JasmineTea]

There was a guy around here called d03nut who started a thread called "toneWORDS". Did'nt seem to me like we got anything done on that thread. I think your asking a good question.

• ..I always wonder why Gibsons have that whitish color on the inside...?

[solitaire]

Well to begin with there are sort of two beliefs in guitar making: The "Martin way" where fast and dynamic attack is key (considered better for fingerpicking and soloing), and then there is the "Gibson way", where timbre and rumble is favoured (mostly rythm and struming). On top of that you got all these different factors, like shapes and sizes, tonewoods and bracing techniques will give you.

[slider]

solitare: I like your post. nails the topic for me.

I am a flatpicker for the most part. trying out Gibsons and Martins I chose a Martin DC16GT for the response I heard from my attack.

[Jerry NT]

 

Originally posted by solitaire Well to begin with there are sort of two beliefs in guitar making: The "Martin way" where fast and dynamic attack is key (considered better for fingerpicking and soloing), and then there is the "Gibson way", where timbre and rumble is favoured (mostly rythm and struming). On top of that you got all these different factors, like shapes and sizes, tonewoods and bracing techniques will give you.

 

 

That gives insight. I know that my Gibson actually sounds very similar either fingerpicked or strummed. It sounds much better strummed than the small Martin. The Martin 000C16 is a fingerpicking instrument.

The D-18 was definitely a bass canon and you could well understand why Martin Dreadnaughts are bluegrass instruments.

(D-28s more so.)

[solitaire]

Originally posted by JasmineTea

My Martin with mahogany description would go something like this: Dry, bright, woody, warm.(I have 000-1 and a D-16GT)

They're white on the inside because they're Maple bodied .

 

Actually, in a sense the Gibson is a mellower guitar, but it's also bright to some degree. Should you eg compare a Maple Martin J with a Gibby J-180 series you'll find the Martin warmer and thicker than the Gibson.

 

Gibson in the world of acoustics is in a way like Marshall in the world of amps: Some people don't get the idea of them and tend to think they're inferior to their competition counterparts. Depends on styles and likes, really. As a comparison, I guess that goes to show that if you got high IQ, people either find you a genious or a nutcase - you're still that gifted person.

 

And JT, you know few Martins have FS bracing now-adays. Upper 40's, Vs, GEs and LEs have all FS. I do agree though the tonewoods and bracing is lighter on Martins and Martinesque guitars than Gibsons and their likes.

 

In a few words: Martin got bite, Gibsons got soul - I love them both.

[Jerry NT]

 

Originally posted by solitaire In a few words: Martin got bite, Gibsons got soul - I love them both.

 

 

Good expression.

[d03nut]

I'm still floatin' around here on the HC, waitin' for an opportune moment to strike again with yet another thread that'll basically go nowhere.

 

That being said, the "toneWORDS" topic did generate some interesting and thought provoking responses. As always, in such matters, the technological side of things is the major bottleneck, i.e. we can talk tone forever but ultimately to have a more "standardized or precise" way of describing tones we would need someone to actually initiate some sort of data-gathering system..........

 

Wait a minute, sorry. I lost sight of the original topic. My conclusion: really, one type of wood/brand/guitar does not suffice. We all need more than one guitar. Mahogany is mahogany, rosewood rosewood.......you get the picture.

 

Either way, enjoy.

[d03nut]

I'm still floatin' around here on the HC, waitin' for an opportune moment to strike again with yet another thread that'll basically go nowhere.

 

That being said, the "toneWORDS" topic did generate some interesting and thought provoking responses. As always, in such matters, the technological side of things is the major bottleneck, i.e. we can talk tone forever but ultimately to have a more "standardized or precise" way of describing tones we would need someone to actually initiate some sort of data-gathering system..........

 

Wait a minute, sorry. I lost sight of the original topic. My conclusion: really, one type of wood/brand/guitar does not suffice. We all need more than one guitar. Mahogany is mahogany, rosewood rosewood.......you get the picture.

 

Either way, enjoy.

[slider]

I understand your drift. on another forum we were talking vibrato and steel guitar. it wasnt until someone with an engineering degree (and a great musician too ) demonstrated with an ocilliscope sound waves and hertz cycles. it clearly showed how one method of vibrato was different from another.

he included sounds bites. totally thorough stuff.

 

I am not built that way. I dont need a scientific measurment to decide things for me.

[JasmineTea]

I still think the "sonic sig" thing is a good idea, they use it with microphones, and it would be useful for all these people who buy on line..overseas.

[LDF]

 

Originally posted by JasmineTea I still think the "sonic sig" thing is a good idea, they use it with microphones, and it would be useful for all these people who buy on line..overseas.

 

 

I second that! The online guitar site that implements and perfects this idea will be the King. In fact, there should be a variety of sound bites for each instrument (not model, but individual instrument). It would be a great boost to one's confidence in a purchase.

 

....hey I should go into business....

[d03nut]

Let me go through this one last time. IMHO what's needed for a more uniform description of tones is as follows (more or less sequentially):

 

someone puts up a famous song for analysis......we all listen to the acoustic guitar part.....from a table of descriptive terms each one of us picks the words that best describe the tone we're hearing........after a predecided number of "votes" has been reached -or whatever other criteria- the polls close.........the tone that you've heard now has a name attached to it, e.g. woody, reached by general concensus of the guitar community......from now on that will be the reference tone whenever someone wants to know what woody sounds like.

 

No more comparing two or more guitars under differing circumstances. All things can be made a little more "equal" when there are predetermined sounds that we can go back to in order to compare our tones with. In a manner of speaking, this approach is sort of like what tuning your guitar is all about......I realize this last statement requires more explanation but truth be told it's saturday night and I'm lazy.

 

One last thing: in order to make the above approach work we must agree to make one rather broad assumption: that it's inherently easier to the human ear to compare 2 tones (especially when one is recorded and already has a descriptive name attached to it) to find whether or not their similar than to take 2 guitars and do a side-by-side comparison of their tones and then to come up with words to describe their sound. With this latter approach the problem is two-fold because of the "language" issue whereas with the former we mostly have to deal only with the differences in our audio perception -the language problem has already been taken care of.

 

Hear what I'm sayin?

[solitaire]

And then wood varies depending on which tree or which part of the tree a specific piece is taken. Strings (brand, alloy and guage)also have an adverse effect on how we aproach a tonewood.

 

I do believe though you could eg. produce a synthetic Martin sound, determine size and shape, add the Rosewood flavour and top it off with the string of your choice - that would give you an idea what the instrument would sound like, and you might even get the characteristica in variables. Wouldn't be too hard to figure that out, maybe Line6 could do that for us and the acoustic industry.

[slider]

I wonder if the same application of describing flavors of wine

could be used here.?

 

my 84 strat USA made of alder aged for twenty five years has a

full tanniny sharp sound with a mellow smokey long finish.

[flip333]

Also, have you noticed some guitars "growl" on the low notes more than others?

 

Guitar Growl: a low frequency resonance with multiple overtones.

[flip333]

Homey don't do dat

[flip333]

Actually Tioga, it would be interesting to see this analysis comparing your guitar with a guitar sold on TV at night by that guy in the black hat.

[d03nut]

Tioga_Man, I'm glad to see your enthusiasm for the subject. But like I mentioned in my original post, we're going to need someone who is technically savvy when it comes to these things, both in terms of sound analysis as well as the computer-related stuff. I know I can't be that person, maybe you are though. Incidentally, I can't even download stuff with my computer. Long story......

 

All I know is that I, and many like me, will continue to read -and invest- about guitars so a more unified vocabulary would be definitely an asset to all of us.

[Jerry NT]

Warm - opposite of cold. How is a sound warm? I guess that is a term about the way the tone makes you feel, warm and fuzzy.

 

Mellow - Not harsh? Usually a person can get a mellow feeling from "chilling". But possibly it might mean no bright harsh sounds. I know that all good guitars mellow somewhat with age.

 

Muddy - What some call "mellow and warm" others might consider to be "muddy". I think that this might conjure up the thought of lack of distinctiveness. Lack of definition of the higher frequency tones. This would be to me like having dead strings.

 

Bite or bright - The charactor of emphasising higher frequencies. Opposite of muddy.

 

Bell like - As it indicates, a ringing sound.

 

Rumble - The emphasis of lower frequencies that roll on. A extreme example to me would be the sound of a semi going up a hill or a helicopter passing overhead. Maybe a better example would be a huge church bell.

 

Distinctiveness - When various notes ring clear. You can hear all notes play individually.

 

Any more definitions?

[solitaire]

 

Originally posted by Tioga_Man But that only matters after we come to a common definition of the ToneWORD...which is what we're trying to come to grips with. After we all have a common understanding of what "dark" sounds like, then we can say things like "Gee, that guitar sounds dark, even with the maple construction...must be something in the bronze alloy strings or the wierd bracing"

 

Will we ever get one? I mean we've all tasted grilled meat so we all have an idea what a smoky taste is like. With eg saxophones we can differentiate a clear sax from a smoky one. With guitars, there are just so many variables.

 

I remember once I described my Guild D-212 (was it on HC reviews) as being "pearly-sounding" and I had great response from that. By description I could foretell the possible sound of my Koa OM guitar but that's as long as I knew what Rosewood and Mahogany sounded like in the first place, applied to the 000 size sound.

[solitaire]

 

Originally posted by Jerry NT Mellow - Not harsh? Usually a person can get a mellow feeling from "chilling". But possibly it might mean no bright harsh sounds. I know that all good guitars mellow somewhat with age. Muddy - What some call "mellow and warm" others might consider to be "muddy". I think that this might conjure up the thought of lack of distinctiveness. Lack of definition of the higher frequency tones. This would be to me like having dead strings. Bite or bright - The charactor of emphasising higher frequencies. Opposite of muddy. Bell like - As it indicates, a ringing sound. Rumble - The emphasis of lower frequencies that roll on. A extreme example to me would be the sound of a semi going up a hill or a helicopter passing overhead. Maybe a better example would be a huge church bell.

 

In my oppinion all of these distinctions could apply to a Maplebodied Gibson SuperJumbo, even though some by description sound contradictive. You could even enter Harsh into its description to some degree.

 

A Rosewood Martin is more Chime like, a rounded almost tubular sound which is even more pronounced with DMS strings.

[Jerry NT]

 

Originally posted by solitaire Will we ever get one? I mean we've all tasted grilled meat so we all have an idea what a smoky taste is like. With eg saxophones we can differentiate a clear sax from a smoky one.

 

 

 

To me, a smokey sound from a sax conjures up a smokey jazz club in the Big Apple (in an old time movie.)

 

I guess all this is why we would want to try out a guitar before we bought one. Unless it is a well known brand, then we are buying a pig in a poke. (Even in well known brands and same models, there is variance.)

 

Best sounding guitar I've ever played: a Collins OM model at Charley's Guitars in Dallas. Close to that: a Gibson J-200. Both of them close to 3K.

[flip333]

I once played a Martin 000-15S that was "creamy" and "balanced" to me. I then played an old cheap Sigma dreadnought that was "boomy". The low notes on it were just too annoying after playing that 000.

 

A "bright" guitar does not attract me like a "mellow" guitar. That is why I like Martins.

[Jeremy M]

Maybe a good exercise would be to listen to Tony Rice & David Grisman's 'Tone Poems.' Each song is played with a different guitar (straight into a microphone--no preamps/Fishman pickups/gizmos).

 

Of course, almost any guitar in Tony Rice's hands is going to sound sweet--even a $10 Mongomery Ward flat top. But, it gives you some idea of how different guitars sound. Before you read about the guitars, see if you can guess what is being played. Some, you won't be able to because you've never heard of them. I would've swore track 12 was a Martin, but it turned out to be a Gibson Adv. Jumbo. I normally don't care for the sound of a Gibson--too muddy, but that has just been in those chain stores where new strings were probably in order--but, this one sounded wonderful.

 

Maybe someone could start a thread that discusses the 'tone' of each song and you guys could give your impressions. That way, everyone is on the same page.