- Joined
- Feb 11, 2009
- Messages
- 23,315
- Reaction score
- 19,159
- Location
- NJ (The nice part)
- Guild Total
- 112
Well you can have your opinion about wood in solid bodies but if I tell you I can't hear the difference between a Sitka topped and an Adirondack topped acoustic does that make me the heretic?
I might suggest your experience with a piezo on an acoustic does not generalize to a guitar and pickup that were built from the beginning to be electric.
If you want to explore wood differences you might try mahogany and maple Starfires. If you can't hear a difference then there is no point in looking for wood options in solid bodies. But if you can hear a difference than you might have a wood preference in solids. If nothing else a lot of people pick their solid wood based upon the weight of the guitar. If you can't do three one hour sets with it then the tone probably doesn't matter.
I'll simply say this: if wood doesn't affect tone, then why does an SG sound different than a Les Paul? Also, certain woods have different sustain and resonance. You don't think those translate to the pickup? If the note sustains longer isn't that sustained note different than one that doesn't sustain?
The biggest similarity across the board is the wood, mahogany to be specific. Mahogany is a warm, resonant tonewood with a rich brown color. Both the Les Paul and the SG have mahogany bodies and set mahogany necks. This, combined with the Gibson humbuckers, is what gives both guitars that thick, fat tone
Really though, the amp and effects can easily negate or change and difference you hear which is why any guitar Billy Gibbons picks up on stage sounds like Pearly Gates - they're all EQ'd to do so. :encouragement:
Pickups can have "microphonic" tendencies: picking up the resonance from the wood besides just having their magnetic fields tickled by the strings.There is no mention of picking up ambient wood resonance at all. Now, I guess one could argue that the wood will change the way a string vibrates. But that feels like a desperate attempt to make a point.
That's a fair point. But at the end of the day, wood is still wood and pickups are still pickups. According to Humbucker (a magnetic pickup): "A vibrating guitar string, magnetized by a fixed magnet within the pickup, induces an alternating voltage across its coil(s)."
There is no mention of picking up ambient wood resonance at all.
IDK. Design maybe? I honestly have never done an A/B compare, but what I read tells me -- whatever makes the difference -- it can't be the wood:
1. I have three S-300's. Two of them are as identical as Guild could make them except that one has an ash body and maple neck while the other is all mahogany. They sound distinctly different, and the difference is exactly what I would expect. Comparatively speaking, the ash/maple instrument is snappy and clear while the mahogany version is smoother and fuller with a bloom that you might not notice until you play the ash/maple one.
Hello
Any physical object has its resonance spectrum. Depending on material - size - shape - things attached to it like hardware and paint. So i am firm believer, that the wood body and neck plus hardware together affect on how the string vibrates - sustain & overtones. After that come pickup and amp and they do their own magic.
This is quite easy to check - if your local music store has ONE quality solid body and one El-Cheapo. Play them both unplugged and compare.
I think part of your skepticism may come from an incorrect understanding of what a pickup picks up in the real world. I have several pickups that also pick up finger noise, the thud of a string on a fret and tapping on the body. Damp the strings and try making noises and you should be able to hear examples (at least if you use headphones). It's not just electromagnetic even though that is the theoretical ideal.
LOL - the design... of an all wood instrument? If the design of the wood can change the tone, why can't the density (or any other factor)? If the wood doesn't matter, then why does a semi-hollow sound different than a solid body? Why does a hollow body sound different then both of those? It's just wood, right? If wood doesn't matter why aren't they all made from balsa wood to limit weight? Or Maple to be beautiful? Or plastic because it just doesn't matter?
No offense, but you've convinced yourself of something and are now engaged in arguments about it after stating, "I confess to be totally ignorant about electric guitars."
Is that finger noise on the wood? Or the strings? If you dampen the strings with one hand and tap on the wood with the other, does it make a sound you can hear on a humbucker? That's an honest question. I am curious about the answer.
I think you missed my point. I was saying that -- since the SG and Les Paul were made out of identical wood -- and since they sound different, then it would be reasonable to assume that the difference in sound is not coming from the wood itself, but rather something else.
If I make a cake with exactly the same cake batter and put one in a cake form and one in a muffin pan, and you tasted them and said: "Hey these taste different" we wouldn't think the cake batter was making the difference... would we?
I've been posting on the internet for almost as long as "Al Gore invented it."
This is a discussion, not an argument. The difference is my mind is open, and I am trying to understand. An online argument would be if I were trying to prove myself right.
Given the large amount of research done on stringed instruments there is no doubt in my mind that wood, construction techniques, strings and several other factors effect the sound of an acoustic instrument. I think a lot of people agree with me. The question seems to be whether observing with a pickup changes which factors contribute. I will say I can hear differences in solid body instruments that are played but not plugged in, but none of those experiences were controlled enough to say the only factor contributing to the differences was the wood.
TBH, it probably doesn't even matter. I'm just curious.
DThomasC said:1. I have three S-300's. Two of them are as identical as Guild could make them except that one has an ash body and maple neck while the other is all mahogany. They sound distinctly different, and the difference is exactly what I would expect. Comparatively speaking, the ash/maple instrument is snappy and clear while the mahogany version is smoother and fuller with a bloom that you might not notice until you play the ash/maple one.
This as close to a good example as I think we can reasonably expect. You don't happen to have a soundcloud of the identical piece being played on both, do you? I would like listen and see if my ear can pick up the difference.
Says the guy that seems to actively resist accepting observations from intelligent people that have already given this matter a great deal of thought.
I think you missed my point. I was saying that -- since the SG and Les Paul were made out of identical wood -- and since they sound different, then it would be reasonable to assume that the difference in sound is not coming from the wood itself, but rather something else.
If I make a cake with exactly the same cake batter and put one in a cake form and one in a muffin pan, and you tasted them and said: "Hey these taste different" we wouldn't think the cake batter was making the difference... would we?
I've been posting on the internet for almost as long as "Al Gore invented it."
This is a discussion, not an argument. The difference is my mind is open, and I am trying to understand. An online argument would be if I were trying to prove myself right.
I stopped doing online arguments a long time ago...
You're a gentleman.Sorry, I'll behave.
Indeed.We can always count on Al to be the voice of reason.