The Wood Doesn't Matter ...

gjmalcyon

Senior Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
4,179
Reaction score
2,417
Location
Gloucester County, NJ
Guild Total
13
Last edited:

geoguy

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
3,519
Reaction score
1,640
Location
metrowest MA
They must have built some real clunkers of guitars for this study, if rosewood wasn't readily distinguished from maple.

Or, used off-the-shelf low-end Taylors.

.
.
.

Kidding!

I perceive the results of that study to be different from "the back wood doesn't matter". My take is that a skilled luthier who is familiar with the attributes of the six wood species used in this study, can build a good-sounding instrument from any of those six woods, because he/she knows how to work with those woods to obtain the best sound from each of them.

Also, I thought it interesting that one of the graphs shows maple & walnut to rank lowest in the guitarists' preferences. Both of those woods would likely have drier tones, whereas the two rosewoods, mahogany, & sapele would be warmer sounding (and more similar to each other).
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
No big "revelation" to me, because I think the conclusion itself is flawed, what does "negligible" mean?
In fact why the hell they even threw "playability" into the picture baffles me.
What does "playability" have to do with "voice color"?
A red herring intended to beef up the hypothesis, methinks.
I think we've all pretty much agreed for a l-o-o-n-g time that the top is the single most critical element in sound character, and a figure of 99% might be hyperbole but it wouldn't surprise me.
Analogy time:
Can you taste 1% of salt in a cup of water, vs, say, 1% of oil of peppermint?
If nobody volunteers I'll try to remember to do it this weekend.
In the meantime I bet even 1% difference is enough to be audible and "color" the individual sound of a given instrument.
Also: while the study was at least based on instruments constructed as identically as possible by the same builder, nothing was said about the credentials of the 51 guitarists performing the "playability" exercise nor why only 31 of them performed the "sound color" discrimination test.

May I also present an analogy in the paper industry, where there are virtually infinite shades of "white"; but there's an industry standard acceptance that whites are categorized in 3 different "shade" categories.
Depending on what agents are used to bleach and whiten paper, especially plain copy paper, it can appear pinkish, bluish, or even slightly greenish, especially under flourescent light.
There's a whole paper-making science dedicated to creating papers that are "neutral" for optimum results with color lasers and inkjets, that's one reason that stuff sells a for a premium if you've ever wondered.
Papers that are punched up in the blue end of the spectrum to artificially brighten them wind up making flesh tones look gray and muddy.
Is it such a stretch to comprehend how the frequency-reflecting characteristics of a given body's tone wood color the sound of an instrument, perceptibly?
Does anybody here really think it's just a myth propagated by instrument builders that mahogany, rosewood, and maple all have different resonating and frequency reflecting characteristics?
Then why can I hear such a vast difference in sustain and clarity of notes between my buddy's G37 maple archback compared to my own D25 mahogany archback?
Do you know why maple is perceived as "jangly"?
Because it tends to reflect all frequencies with equal emphasis, but the human ear perceives a bass tone at a given amplitude as being much quieter than a treble tone of the same amplitude.
Our ears are built to need bass frequencies to be amplified just to perceive them as being equal amplitude to mid and treble freq's, in fact we're tuned to the midrange of the human voice.
And are so sensitive as to be able to distinguish between hundreds of different human voices.....
'Hog tends to emphasize midranges and rosewood tends to emphasize overtones, and each of those characteristics does color how a given guitar sounds.
And if there's a difficulty in hearing those differences it's either due to an uneducated ear and/or flaws in the testing model including construction flaws that obscure the tonewood's voice character.
OK, rant over, I say the experiment's flawed, I'll check back later for "reactions".... :biggrin-new:
 
Last edited:

F312

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
2,760
Reaction score
958
No big "revelation" to me, because I think the conclusion itself is flawed, what does "negligible" mean?
In fact why the hell they even threw "playability" into the picture baffles me.
What does "playability" have to do with "voice color"?
A red herring intended to beef up the hypothesis, methinks.
I think we've all pretty much agreed for a l-o-o-n-g time that the top is the single most critical element in sound character, and a figure of 99% might be hyperbole but it wouldn't surprise me.
Analogy time:
Can you taste 1% of salt in a cup of water, vs, say, 1% of oil of peppermint?
If nobody volunteers I'll try to remember to do it this weekend.
In the meantime I bet even 1% difference is enough to be audible and "color" the individual sound of a given instrument.
Also: while the study was at least based on instruments constructed as identically as possible by the same builder, nothing was said about the credentials of the 51 guitarists performing the "playability" exercise nor why only 31 of them performed the "sound color" discrimination test.

May I also present an analogy in the paper industry, where there are virtually infinite shades of "white"; but there's an industry standard acceptance that whites are categorized in 3 different "shade" categories.
Depending on what agents are used to bleach and whiten paper, especially plain copy paper, it can appear pinkish, bluish, or even slightly greenish, especially under flourescent light.
There's a whole paper-making science dedicated to creating papers that are "neutral" for optimum results with color lasers and inkjets, that's one reason that stuff sells a for a premium if you've ever wondered.
Papers that are punched up in the blue end of the spectrum to artificially brighten them wind up making flesh tones look gray and muddy.
Is it such a stretch to comprehend how the frequency-reflecting characteristics of a give body's tone wood color the sound of an instrument, perceptibly?
Does anybody here really think it's just a myth propagated by instrument builders that mahogany, rosewood, and maple all have different resonating and frequency reflecting characteristics?
Then why can hear just a vast difference in sustain and clarity of notes between my buddy's G37 maple archback compared to my own D25 mahogany archback?
Do you know why maples is perceived as "jangly"?
Because it tends to reflect all frequencies with equal emphasis, but the human ear perceives a bass tone at a given amplitude as being much quieter than a treble tone of the same amplitude.
Our ears are built to need bass frequencies to be amplified just to perceive them as being equal amplitude to mid and treble freq,, in fact we're tuned to the midrange of the human voice.
And are so sensitive as to be able to distinguish between hundreds of different human voices.....
"Hog tends to emphasize midranges and rosewood tends to emphasize overtones, and each of those characteristics does color how a given guitar sounds.
And if there's a difficulty in hearing those differences it's either due to an uneducated ear and/or flaws in the testing model including construction flaws that obscure the tonewood's voice character.
OK, rant over, I say the experiment's flawed, I'll check back later for "reactions".... :biggrin-new:

Seems to be sound reasoning.

Ralph
 

richardp69

Enlightened Member
Gold Supporting
Joined
Aug 11, 2009
Messages
6,007
Reaction score
5,965
Location
Barton City, Michigan
Although my guitar playing skills are below average, I think I have a pretty good ear and there's a huge difference (at least to me) between a Maple, Mahogany and Rosewood dread or Jumbo.
 

AcornHouse

Venerated Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
10,212
Reaction score
7,206
Location
Bidwell, OH
Guild Total
21
There are two main ways to design the back: reflective and reactive. In a reflective back, the only interaction is any reflection of the sound waves. These tend to be thicker, heavily braced backs. But in a reactive back, the thickness and bracing is designed to incorporate the back.

If you hear a distinct difference when the back is dampened against your body, than when it is canted to remain free, then you better believe the back, and its wood choice, is having an effect.
 

Nuuska

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
6,028
Location
Finland
Guild Total
9
Hello

At first I thought - "What the heck - I can hear it." - but then - being scientifically curious - started to read it - it was quite interesting up to point where they were rating "sound quality" - hurraah - most guitars got good sound quality - but it was not separated or whatever the right word is - to good "this" or good "that" sound. There are so many good and pleasing sounds that radically differ from each other.

At that reading point I grew tired of it and thought "BS" - if some of you read further and found something I missed - please tell me.

EDIT

Acornhouse : in this test we suppose that each guitar is held the same way - naturally we all know it makes BIG difference in sound how we hold it. squeeze it, hold our strumming/picking arm over the body, hover/rest palm on bridge etc.
 
Last edited:

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
There are two main ways to design the back: reflective and reactive. In a reflective back, the only interaction is any reflection of the sound waves. These tend to be thicker, heavily braced backs. But in a reactive back, the thickness and bracing is designed to incorporate the back.
New concept to me, thank you! I always thought the primary function was to reflect, and the body wood characterized the frequency spectrum of the reflected sound waves.
Where do you put archbacks?
"Reactive", even though (I think) there's unquestionably a parabolic focusing effect?
Mine (D25 and F65ce) are definitely muffled by body contact.
The D40 seems less so; but your description seems to place it in the "reflective" category, or are you talking about mass of the back itself as opposed to actual shape?
I'm still intrigued by the difference between archback and flatback sound to the point I actually prefer the D40 for some tasks now, and the BIG construction formula difference is the back, if one allows latitude for possible bracing and thickness of materials differences.
D25's definitely lighter.
But the D40 definitely produces the least distortion when recording.
This has been speculated about for a long time. Antonio Torres (father of the modern classical guitar design) made one with paper maché back and sides to test his theory that material was immaterial to the tone. https://www.classicalguitardelcamp.com/viewtopic.php?t=29408
Brad
The way I always understood it was that the purpose was to prove that the top is responsible for the overwhelming percentage of sound quality, not that the back material was "irrelevant"
Hello
At first I thought - "What the heck - I can hear it." - but then - being scientifically curious - started to read it - it was quite interesting up to point
Right, I actually didn't read the "real" paper until after my first post.
Interesting, yes, but I also question whether there was a hidden agenda on the part of the authors to "scientifically"justify the use of non-traditional tonewoods.
The repetition of the premise that the "traditional" tonewoods are unsustainable is irrelevant to the hypothesis that body woods don't matter.
So why bring it up?
CAN sonically satisfying instruments be made from non-traditional tonewoods?
Sure.
I think this was created simply to provide some ammunition to refute diehards who don't believe anything but the traditional woods will suffice.
And does "negligible" difference mean NO difference?
No.
 
Last edited:

Christopher Cozad

Senior Member
Platinum Supporting
Gold Supporting
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
2,414
Reaction score
1,425
Location
near Charlotte, NC
...I always thought the primary function was to reflect...
It *always* was, mostly. But for an eccentric few, builders have heavily braced backs for decades, with so-called "ladder-braced" backs being ubiquitous to this very day. Rigid backs coupled to rigid sides act as sort of a prop hand to the star performer of the concert, the so-called "soundboard".

Lightly braced active (or re-active, as Chris suggests) backs play a part akin to a guest star or supporting role.

The next time you de-string your Guild, hold it by the neck up your ear and, using the side of your thumb or a knuckle, lightly rap the soundboard below the bridge, listening to the sound the wood makes. Rotate the guitar and repeat the tap test on the back (target the area(s) between the ladder braces). Note how much higher the pitch is.

Active backs are typically tap-tuned to a harmonic of the soundboard, often ringing lower than the soundboard. As with the selection of your top wood, the selection of the back wood very much plays a role in the resultant sound of such a constructed guitar.

...I'm still intrigued by the difference between archback and flatback sound...
Your archback back is more active than your ladder-braced back.

I just happen to have a photo comparing a back belonging to our beloved brand with a much lighter-braced creation...

backs-compared.jpg
 

JohnW63

Enlightened Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
6,293
Reaction score
2,217
Location
Southern California
Guild Total
4
At one time, I was considering sending a broken Ovation 12 sting back to Ovation for a rebuild. An Ovation guy who hangs out in AGF and of course, the Ovation Fan Club forum, was able to make custom wood choices, when he sent guitars back to the New Hartford shop and ended up with very nice guitars. So, I started looking around for sources of nice tops that would fit the bill and get the top built out of it. At one point, I contacted Kathy Wingert, her in California and asked some questions about wood and where to get it. After the disappointment of reading that all the GOOD wood was gobbled up by the long time customers before any hit the streets, ( She said that was a hard thing to get around ,when she started building guitars. All the good stuff was spoken for ! ) she said one thing that stuck with me. She thought Ovations were well build and sounded good, until you played them loud enough to hear the back. So, an Ovation has a back shape SPECIFICALLY designed to reflect the sound loudly and evenly. Since it's not wood, it doesn't really color the sound, but it DOES contribute to the sound, or Kathy wouldn't be able to hear it's contribution.

I'll never be able to afford one of Kathy's guitars. It was awful nice that she took the time to email me back and forth.
 

Nuuska

Enlightened Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
6,028
Location
Finland
Guild Total
9
. . . .. Since it's not wood, it doesn't really color the sound, but it DOES contribute to the sound, . . ..

Hello

What's the difference between coloring the sound and contributing to the sound.
Certainly if you could replace Ovation's bowl with stainless steel - exactly same shape - or cast concrete - or any material - including wood - you would end with different sounding guitar.
 

fronobulax

Bassist, GAD and the Hot Mess Mods
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
24,708
Reaction score
8,836
Location
Central Virginia, USA
Guild Total
5
What's the difference between coloring the sound and contributing to the sound.

Good question. My guess is that "contributing to the sound" makes it louder. Coloring the sound changes the frequencies present and their relative amplitudes. An analogy to a "clean" amplifier probably works. Adjusting the volume "contributes" to the sound. Adjusting the tone controls (or equalizer) "colors" the sound.
 

adorshki

Reverential Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
34,176
Reaction score
6,790
Location
Sillycon Valley CA
The next time you de-string your Guild, hold it by the neck up your ear and, using the side of your thumb or a knuckle, lightly rap the soundboard below the bridge, listening to the sound the wood makes. Rotate the guitar and repeat the tap test on the back (target the area(s) between the ladder braces). Note how much higher the pitch is.
Thanks, will try to remember to try that.
My only flat-back is the D40, Corona built, which owing to its weight I always assumed was built about as heavily as your F212 (MASSIVE back braces in that thing!, lol!)

Your archback back is more active than your ladder-braced back..
Something I noticed about my D25 very early in the game was that if you simply speak close to the soundhole it catches the sound and begins to resonate with it, to the point that if I sing one of the string pitches the for a few seconds that string will actually start sounding.
Never experienced that with any other guitar before that, I took it as a good sign.
:glee:
(And it works with the D40, too, but not quite as "efficiently"; takes little longer and louder to get 'em going and they die off right away when the input's removed)


Coloring the sound changes the frequencies present and their relative amplitudes. An analogy to a "clean" amplifier probably works. Adjusting the volume "contributes" to the sound. Adjusting the tone controls (or equalizer) "colors" the sound.
That's what I mean when by "coloring": the way a given body wood changes the waveform(s) it's reflecting, it's what allows us to distinguish maple from mahogany.
Or why your Starfire bass can yield certain sounds your Jetstar can't, and vice versa.
"Close", maybe, but always that "something" that you know you only get from one or the other of 'em.
And in this case maybe not even due to the body woods as much as the actual difference in construction, hollow-body vs solid body.
Or how about the ever-popular " What strings" question: nobody ever disputes that strings color the sound.
Probably even more than the body wood in most cases.
Which reminds me:
Unless the strings on the guitars in the subject experiment were D'Addario EJ-16's, the whole thing's worthless, they didn't use the right strings.
 
Last edited:
Top