Any way to predict the tonal character of a body before a build?

[Meowy]

On the one hand very interesting how this became more of a discussion of guitar physics by a knowledgeable few and a bunch of ill-informed pseudoscientists

...but (except for Soloways's posts) lacking in practical, anecdotal information

(not a knock on anyone, but it is just where the discussion went)

[Will Chen]

If that was the case then things like this wouldn't do anything.

Changing the mass of any sympathetically vibrating object can potentially have an effect on the whole but can not in any way reflect energy. Didn't that company go under? If it was such a revolutionary device which delivered what it promised, I'd think they would've sold by the boat load...

[billybilly]

Personally, I have found wood to make a huge difference, hence, no two guitars sound the same even with the same electronics, cosmetics, etc...

For the best sound, Alder should be light, Mahogany should be heavy. Heavy Swamp Ash will be more defined in the highs and lows and scooped whilst lighter Swamp Ash will be slightly more rounded within the sound spectrum, but not much. I like lighter Swamp Ash if I can get it, for slightly more mids, and I mean very slightly. However, it still doesn't give you mids like Alder. Not that Alder is all mids, just more so than Swamp Ash.

This is based on personal experience, not something I read off a website.

[Pope on a Rope]

 

Think about throwing a rock in a lake near a wall. The ripples from the wave hit the wall and bounce back because the the two are diametrical forces. I believe the string to body relationship is sympathetic as energy is transfered not reflected. If it was reflected back, the body would not resonate at all. The energy transfered to the body is dampened infinitely.

 

 

What you believe is incorrect. The string to body relationship is more reactionary than it is sympathetic. Throwing the rock into the water caused an action to occur, the ripples. The rock wall, reacted to that energy by resisting it. The ripples in the lake reflect off the rock wall because of resistance. Resistance is variable, not all or nothing, it can be varied.

 

Depending on the materials used to construct the guitar, some frequencies will be resisted more than others. Frequencies that overcome the resistance will resonate away into the air and into your body, the frequencies that are resisted, feed energy back to the strings.

[dattebayo1]

His notion of 'fixed points' just isn't true. His rational is flawed right down to it's core.

 

Disco

 

And as far as the origional question goes- Swamp Ash, despite being porous, is actually quite dense- theoretically giving you crisp upper highs and tight bass response, with deminished mids...

 

I imagine...

 

90% of the sound- as people have already said- is down to pickup choice i feel. Edit: It's that remaining 10% that calls the difference between an SG and a Les Paul

Probably a good wood with a low gain humbucker/ p90 i imagine, as it might clean up the mids??

 

I've a degree in Quantum Mechanics... I still have no idea, hahahaha

[chadd]

Personally, I have found wood to make a huge difference, hence, no two guitars sound the same even with the same electronics, cosmetics, etc... For the best sound, Alder should be light, Mahogany should be heavy.

 

I've found that lighter mahogany tends to resonate much better than the heavy stuff. Since I prefer that, I think the lighter Mahogany sounds better. Just goes to show that preferences will vary as much as the wood itself.

[chadd]

I imagine... 90% of the sound- as people have already said- is down to pickup choice i feel. Probably a good wood with a low gain humbucker/ p90 i imagine, as it might clean up the mids??

 

The wood type becomes less and less important as you crank up the distortion. So the type of music you play will be a big factor in the discussion as well.

[dattebayo1]

The wood type becomes less and less important as you crank up the distortion. So the type of music you play will be a big factor in the discussion as well.

+1

Good point, hadn't thought that far ahead, haha

[Meowy]

As an interesting and amusing sidenote, I just found a guy on TDPRI making a Tele out of concrete

http://www.tdpri.com/forum/tele-home-depot/201180-2010-tdpri-%24210-challenge-concretecaster.html

I can remember back in my school days in science class having discussions about making a boat out of concrete. Most people would immediately dismiss the possibility that it would "sink like a rock"

And then they quickly eat crow after it being brought to their attention that battleships / naval vessels are made of steel. As a broad generalization - with sea vessels, its about bouyancy; with guitars it is about resonance

[twotimingpete]

obviously pickup type and amp matter most, but another thing that matters more than wood type, at least in my opinion, is the scale length. this makes a noticeable contribution to the characteristics of the guitar and is one of the defining differences between fenders and gibsons that some people may not realize.

[Meowy]

obviously pickup type and amp matter most, but another thing that matters more than wood type, at least in my opinion, is the scale length. this makes a noticeable contribution to the characteristics of the guitar and is one of the defining differences between fenders and gibsons that some people may not realize.

 

 

Not just scale length, but also string tension

[Will Chen]

What you believe is incorrect. The string to body relationship is more reactionary than it is sympathetic. Throwing the rock into the water caused an action to occur, the ripples. The rock wall, reacted to that energy by resisting it. The ripples in the lake reflect off the rock wall because of resistance. Resistance is variable, not all or nothing, it can be varied. Depending on the materials used to construct the guitar, some frequencies will be resisted more than others. Frequencies that overcome the resistance will resonate away into the air and into your body, the frequencies that are resisted, feed energy back to the strings.

 

 

It's been a long time since I've read up any acoustics, but I don't recall really any discussion of resistance which I believe to be more associated with electrical signal path than sound waves in which reactions were typically described as being reflected or absorbed. Discussing the resistive versus absorbsion properties of an object like like similar arguments to me. But I digress, perhaps you are correct.

[wartoxin]

I'm confused about these issues after reading all this so correct this if it's wrong, but this is my estimate of the factors in sound:

 

-strings vibrate and transfer vibration to hardware and wood

-hardware and wood have a direct effect on the string by contact

-sound created also vibrates string, so wood etc has an indirect effect

-pickups are mostly affected by magnetic reaction, but they are vibrating themselves and picking up sound waves.

 

As for pickups/amps being a factor, that all depends, I would think there are pickups and amps that simply output exactly what is input, or close enough that we don't hear the difference.

 

I've read that wood qualities like pores matter a lot not just density. I also think the actual body mass or total mass matters a lot, so you can't just saw half off and get the same thing, but then we could get into surface to volumeratio and shape and so on.

[dattebayo1]

I'd just like to contribute this before i'm off to bed:

 

I like my telecaster

 

Complicated as it may seem

[Runn3r]

...answer to OP ...

...imo YES

...tonal character of electric guitar amplified by magnetic pickups is related in a direct manner to the mass of the body
(this is why the finish of guitar matters LEAST cos it is in actuality ...of very little mass)


...given the same neck/and all electronics are used for the sake of 'experiment', where only the body is changed...


...i would expect the heavier body to sustain longer with a thinner 'voice' and the lighter body to resonate more(appearing to contain more midrange and thus 'warmth') but sustain less and the 'voice' to become progressively 'woolier' as mass is decreased---> 'wooly' is my wurd to describe thick midrange frequencies...at typically slightly greater amplitude than the treble frequencies

...the 'woolier' it is ...the more midrange


...thus da 'wooliest' sound would be a hollowbody cos it has the least mass...these guitars often in 6 lbs or less range

...then ya get the alder/poplar type guitars ...which is typically 6-7 lbs

...and then the thick bodied 'heavy' guitars ...usually around 8 lbs and more

and the thinnest(most extreme midrange scooped sound) but most sustaining sound would be from heavy body ...say all maple or all rosewood ...say 10 lbs ....



...however,,,fwiw .,..the neck of electric guitar contributes more to overall sound of amplified guitar ...than the body imo

[EADGBE]

I have an unfinished swamp ash body. Weight is ~ 4lb 14oz,which I know is not particularly light or heavy - somewhere in the middle ground Is there any way from the pore or grain structure or any other "markers" or tests to predict if the body will tend to be bright or dark? I'm sure there is a way to tell. Builders would not take a pot luck approach to buying lots of wood / blanks. I guess I am asking how can you tell...? EDIT: PS, I don't mean maple is bright, mahogany is warm, etc. I mean for a given specimen of a certain variety of wood (in my case Swamp Ash). I ask because I am ordering a custom pup and would like to balance my magnet choice appropriately. Problem is I do not have most of the other parts yet so I do not have a complete instrument to try out with another pickup as a baseline.

It should sound someplace in between bright and warm. Similar to a strat or super strat depending on what kind of pickups you use.

[EADGBE]

The sound that an electric guitar makes is mostly due to the pickups.....and maybe the amp.

Not true. Wood is the biggest determining factor on what a guitar will sound like. I'm not saying you have to have a big beautiful piece of koa, or mahogany, or korina, etc. Looks doesn't have anything to do with it. Neither does expense. But certain woods just seem to sound better than others. I like to stay away from really light or really heavy woods. And especially plywood. Because really stiff woods like plywood tend to lack bass or warmth. Because a little flexibility is needed to help bass frequencies/fundamentals to form.

[McCain]

Moisture content? I'm guessing moisture kills tone as well as absorbs sustain in all woods, so dry/seasoned wood is probably most important factor between woods of the same type and grain structure.

[garthman]

I can prove that you choose to be close-minded. The earth was flat.... once upon a time

Well now, I simply ask for a proof and you descend into personal insults. Isn't it you who is being closed-minded? I have merely challenged the "sacred cow" notion that the type of wood from which an electric guitar is made makes a difference to it's sound. I receive a few comments back saying it does and offering various explanations (some plausible and some down right ludicrous) and within a couple of dozen posts the insults start to fly. OK:

(1) A magnetic pickup works by amplifying an electic current produced by the flux in the magnet field caused by the string vibrating above its poles. It does not and cannot detect any vibration in the wood. It could, conceivably, detect a vibration in any other component of the guitar that contains a ferrous metal (eg. the bridge assembly, etc) but these are relatively distant from the PU compared to the strings (which, of course, are a couple of mm above the PU) and, additionally, they are much more massive than the strings so the amplitude of any vibration - which, of course will have been damped by the wood - will be much less than the string itself.

(2) Therefore, any effect that the wood does have on the sound of the guitar must be due to either (a) any secondary vibration caused to the string by sound travelling through the body of the guitar and/or (b) vibration of the PU itself also caused by sound travelling through the guitar body. In the case of (a), surely any secondary vibration would be very small due to the damping effects of the solid wood body and would be minute in comparison to the primary vibration caused by plucking the string that for practicable purposes it can be ignored. Similarly for (B), the PU is much more massive than the string so any (damped) vibration of it will also be minute compared to the string and can also be ignored for practible purposes.

Of course one could argue that there will be some affect however small - and I cannot deny that - but the effect of the electronics is far, far greater than any effect the wood can confer to the sound.

Although I did study physics up to 1st year university level it was a long time ago so my maths skills are not what they used to be but perhaps there is someone out there that could provide a proof? - one way or another? - until then I shall remain skeptical.

BTW, call me eccentric if you like, but I don't worry too much about the effects of relativity when I drive my car either

[paulskirocks]

Well, meowy, you got a dozen replies on the other forum, and 4 pages here! Any conclusions?

[mrbrown49]

Do me a favor. Go home. Plug in your guitar and tap on the cover. Every pup is somewhat microphonic. Point: It's not as simple as it seems. Then tap on the wood with your fingers off the strings.

 

Well now, I simply ask for a proof and you descend into personal insults. Isn't it you who is being closed-minded? I have merely challenged the "sacred cow" notion that the type of wood from which an electric guitar is made makes a difference to it's sound. I receive a few comments back saying it does and offering various explanations (some plausible and some down right ludicrous) and within a couple of dozen posts the insults start to fly. OK: (1) A magnetic pickup works by amplifying an electic current produced by the flux in the magnet field caused by the string vibrating above its poles. It does not and cannot detect any vibration in the wood. It could, conceivably, detect a vibration in any other component of the guitar that contains a ferrous metal (eg. the bridge assembly, etc) but these are relatively distant from the PU compared to the strings (which, of course, are a couple of mm above the PU) and, additionally, they are much more massive than the strings so the amplitude of any vibration - which, of course will have been damped by the wood - will be much less than the string itself. (2) Therefore, any effect that the wood does have on the sound of the guitar must be due to either (a) any secondary vibration caused to the string by sound travelling through the body of the guitar and/or (b) vibration of the PU itself also caused by sound travelling through the guitar body. In the case of (a), surely any secondary vibration would be very small due to the damping effects of the solid wood body and would be minute in comparison to the primary vibration caused by plucking the string that for practicable purposes it can be ignored. Similarly for (B), the PU is much more massive than the string so any (damped) vibration of it will also be minute compared to the string and can also be ignored for practible purposes. Of course one could argue that there will be some affect however small - and I cannot deny that - but the effect of the electronics is far, far greater than any effect the wood can confer to the sound. Although I did study physics up to 1st year university level it was a long time ago so my maths skills are not what they used to be but perhaps there is someone out there that could provide a proof? - one way or another? - until then I shall remain skeptical. BTW, call me eccentric if you like, but I don't worry too much about the effects of relativity when I drive my car either

[paulskirocks]

BTW, call me eccentric if you like, but I don't worry too much about the effects of relativity when I drive my car either

I like to drive as fast as possible, to the point of time standing still, being completely compressed, and being all mass... That is why guitars live longer when you shred...

[_pete_]

Do me a favor. Go home. Plug in your guitar and tap on the cover. Every pup is somewhat microphonic. Point: It's not as simple as it seems. Then tap on the wood with your fingers off the strings.

 

 

 

Not only that, if you yell into the pup you will hear it through the amp.

 

Like I said earlier, if tone was only in the pups, all guitars with the same model pup would sound exactly the same.

[Meowy]

Well, meowy, you got a dozen replies on the other forum, and 4 pages here! Any conclusions?

 

 

Yes: everyone is an expert :poke:

[Meowy]

Well now, I simply ask for a proof and you descend into personal insults. Isn't it you who is being closed-minded? I have merely challenged the "sacred cow" ... Although I did study physics up to 1st year university level it was a long time ago so my maths skills are not what they used to be but perhaps there is someone out there that could provide a proof?

 

 

Saying that you are being closed minded is not a personal insult. It is an observation that I think is perfectly reasonable.

 

The givens that you challenge are hardly a sacred cow, they are facts based on decades or more of empirical data.

 

You said you took physics, but still you challenge very elementary phsical laws. I would predict that you would challenge any written proof so I offer the following:

 

Take a set of reasonably articulate pickups and install them in a maple, alder or ash bodied guitar. Play.

 

Now take the same set of pickups and install them in a mahogany or rosewood guitar. Play. Observe that the overall tone in the first guitar is noticeably brighter than the latter