A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

[Tonewoods]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Except this

care to answer the quantum physics question yet?

That people cannot walk through walls and your position is maybe they can, per quantum theory?

I'd say its a great illustration of the sort of intellectual vantage one might expect with a tonewood believer.

Seriousoy though. Bon voyage. I'll respect DreX's wishes to have his thread back starting right now.

 

[LesStrat]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

But that's what science does. It advances theories and then tests them. Ultimately, if sufficient results are gathered to support the theory, it will be peer reviewed and published in an appropriate scientific journal. Only then will it be considered 'proven'. That is what I understand to be science.

You tell us that you are "advancing science" - please show it to us, because otherwise you are only offering us more unsubstantiated theories, something that it would seem you are accusing others of doing.

He did. Some guy published his "research" on uT00B. His videos have been reviewed by his peers.

Here is a photo of the deliberations during the peer review:

 

[Chris of Arabia]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

I dunno, man. I've given Drex quite a few 'Like's; he's been pretty focused on the science and has had some good posts.
Every sign of us keeping our personal agendas in check and trying to get at the truth is encouraging.
For example, I like "guitar woods" and think they're cool. It would be nice if there were something to the lore about what various types of woods sound like. You know, all science-y like. But a bunch of us hanging out here and shooting spitballs at each other isn't going to establish much in the way of facts, either way.

Do you guys have any paper left? I'm out of spitballs.

Oh, I quite agree. I'm curious as to whether either position has merit, I just don't think it possible to isolate the "wood" per se, in a manner that's meaningful within the confines of an actual guitar; the variables in that context are uncontrollable. I do think that you can do it to a limited degree in the way that the Strandberg piece was written, though even that could be improved upon; FFT graphs fine, but an audio comparison via YouTube? At least present it at 44.1k to red book standards to download - but then what play it through?

Realistically though, do I play a piece of rosewood, or do I play a guitar that features rosewood in its construction? I have played and owned many guitars. Some I still have (those that I like), others I have passed on, could not justify, or have disposed of. Those I have are made of many, many different things, but I like the way they sound, as a finished entity, with not a concern in the world as to what those many, many things are made of. I do care that they play well, that they sound good, and I'll readily admit, that they look good too (to me).

I could care less what a scientific experiment deduces, because a guitar isn't the result of science, it's the result of a particularly narrow field of engineering utilising a hefty proportion of a naturally variable material as its base, and very basic geometry in its application.

 

[kramersteen]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Isn't there already a modern electric guitar called the Teuffel Birdfish that has bars of wood that are exchangeable to alter the tone on the fly? Anyone explain that? I mean the strings and action and pickups and everything else would be literally identical as you are unscrewing and screwing back on different bars of wood that come with it to get different tones out of it. No need to slack the strings or move anything, just A and B, even easier than changing a pickup. Point of the design, if it didn't matter enough, why bother with the bars? Why bother shipping it with a set of alder and a set of maple to double up or mix and match? Why bother with the design if it DIDN'T change? Getting a hold of someone with one of these would finish the debate once and for all wouldn't it? They could even do a demonstration. Like this one you can download from their site with the HB3 with both the maple and the alder bars exchanged playing the same riff.

http://www.teuffel.com/english/sales/soundcheck.htm
3mbs go ahead and download so you can have a listen. Even under all the gain, I can notice a bit more of a scoop and more subdued low end to the maple, which isn't something I necessarily expected as I thought maple would make the notes sound more pronounced all around, but it actually surprised me and that is probably the best thing I can say about it when it comes to scientific results. There's even a guy on youtube who captured the wave forms and noted the different peaks.

Of course, nobody here will be convinced unless Robocop was the one playing the guitar and he went back in time so he could play it at the exact same time so the earth was in the same place in the universe and the humidity was just right while Neil Degrasse Tyson, Eddie Van Halen, Charles Xavier, and Jesus discuss it for weeks afterwards in an isolation chamber at the bottom of the sea by consistently erasing their own memories and rerecording themselves giving their opinions on it each time and then discussing those opinions until they reach a consensus on Groundhog day. That way they can see if the Groundhog sees his shadow; if he does that means 60 more years of debating this topic.

:knockedou

 

[beaubrummels]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Tonewoods, would you mind making your own thread? There's no rule that says you have to stay on topic, but I was hoping this thread would be about scrutinizing the particulars of a tone wood test, not scrutinizing "tone wood believers", and I don't want this thread to get locked as a result.

Back on topic, here's some interesting reading for consideration.

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/fi...lename/Acoustical_properties_wood_Bremaud.pdf

 

[Snake Aces]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Except this



That people cannot walk through walls and your position is maybe they can, per quantum theory?

I'd say its a great illustration of the sort of intellectual vantage one might expect with a tonewood believer.

My intellectual vantage thanks you for your time.

 

[LesStrat]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

DreX, I think your ideas are interesting for the purpose of studying wood. I don't know how well it can be applied to guitars, but it IS a starting point. In order to control confounding variables it is necessary to study different variables separately. Your first stage of simply comparing wood types is a nice place to start.

 

[David Collins]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Drex, my approach may seem extreme, but there are two primary motives behind this.

First, the further you move from a full embodiment of a functioning instrument, the more reasonable questions can be raised whether test results will follow through in final application. Say you had a thin neck with no frets or truss rod, and you ended up with null results. It is well established that these missing factors contribute to neck stiffness - could their absence have left the neck so loose as to dampen and eliminate notable changes which could have been found with a stiffer neck? Or say you used a square 12"x12"x1" (sorry, I don't recall the numbers you proposed) and returned positive results. It is clearly established that thin square plates can develop resonant modes notably different from thicker stock of irregular shape and different surface area:thickness ratios. Can any doubt be raised if the model accurately reflects the level of effect you may find on a conventional guitar body? If the parts weren't CNC'd to the same program or cut on the same pin router templates, how precise a match are they in thickness and shape? If they didn't at least run through the planer consecutively and get cut to shape stacked or to a single precise router template, then reasonable questions could be raised whether slight dimensional discrepancies may not have contributed to the outcome.

These are a few iny examples of doubts which could be left unaddressed, and I could easily see dozens more to be raised around these and many other factors. It's not just the construction methods mind you, but the drive and observation techniques, and suitable proof that results are repeatable to within a narrow range of error with the same materials before you can have any confidence in differences observed between different materials. I've done a lot of tests of similar nature, and when you start trying to find flaws in your own methods (which every honest tester should), tests can quickly turn in to much more complicated endeavors than most may expect.

As to whether these and other doubts are justified, that's a tougher question. Unfortunately to answer that question though, it can be necessary to construct further models or design further tests to determine if those factors need to be considered or can be reasonably excluded. In this case, I believe it would be simpler to just include all factors which could remotely be of any influence, and diligently maintain them as constants.

My second motive is one of value. For some it may just be a bit of curiosity to settle an issue to their satisfaction. That has little value for me, unless the source and degree of effect can at least be reasonably approximated. If it were determined that a difference could be detected between a piece of ash and of alder, I would like to know if the source of the change were in density and mass alone, or other stiffness/resonant/damping qualities predominantly present in the species. Without this breakdown you have no way to say whether a heavy piece of ash or lighter piece of alder would maintain qualities typical of their species, or cross over to be the inverse in comparison. Or if the primary source of change were density rather than total mass, this could guide wood selection in a particular way that chambering could not reasonably account for. Or if the source lies in other properties, choices likewise could be guided differently. Then there is a whole range of issues which could come up with neck woods as well.

If you just want to do a quick test of curiosity, I can appreciate that. I would not expect the results to stand as any final absolute answer though, but rather a slightly more well controlled anecdote than typical. I also find little value in this myself however, as it would not contribute so much to ability to make informed decisions which will predictably lead to consistent results.

I just don't take controlled testing lightly, and if you are serious about it, it inevitably gets pretty complicated.

 

[DreX]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Drex, my approach may seem extreme, but there are two primary motives behind this.

First, the further you move from a full embodiment of a functioning instrument, the more reasonable questions can be raised whether test results will follow through in final application. Say you had a thin neck with no frets or truss rod, and you ended up with null results. It is well established that these missing factors contribute to neck stiffness - could their absence have left the neck so loose as to dampen and eliminate notable changes which could have been found with a stiffer neck? Or say you used a square 12"x12"x1" (sorry, I don't recall the numbers you proposed) and returned positive results. It is clearly established that thin square plates can develop resonant modes notably different from thicker stock of irregular shape and different surface area:thickness ratios. Can any doubt be raised if the model accurately reflects the level of effect you may find on a conventional guitar body? If the parts weren't CNC'd to the same program or cut on the same pin router templates, how precise a match are they in thickness and shape? If they didn't at least run through the planer consecutively and get cut to shape stacked or to a single precise router template, then reasonable questions could be raised whether slight dimensional discrepancies may not have contributed to the outcome.

These are a few iny examples of doubts which could be left unaddressed, and I could easily see dozens more to be raised around these and many other factors. It's not just the construction methods mind you, but the drive and observation techniques, and suitable proof that results are repeatable to within a narrow range of error with the same materials before you can have any confidence in differences observed between different materials. I've done a lot of tests of similar nature, and when you start trying to find flaws in your own methods (which every honest tester should), tests can quickly turn in to much more complicated endeavors than most may expect.

That's still over complicating things. If the test shows a result, then is says "wood matters in a very simple, basic experiment", and then questions as to whether truss rods magnify or diminish any such effect becomes a side question for another experiment, which isn't hard to do, you'd simply test a neck with and without a truss rod and see what differences appear, if any.

Other complications are not complications until they are. The test might prove inconclusive for one reason or another, but there's no point in jumping ahead to an outcome that hasn't presented itself yet.

 

[GoldenVulture]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Its a dumb question. Lets say I'm a janitor and leave it at that.

This is probably the only " truth " you have typed.
It's obvious from your ignorance of commonly used terms or misrepresentaion of scientific principle that you have the science training of a child. Basing your whole case on " holier than thou " presumptive assertions and denigration isn't very scientific and either are you.
Your whole premise about this subject is flawed from the start.
" stupid is the new genius. "

Go forth and spread your crusade against the stupid tone wood believers. My guess is you'll make about as much impact as moondust particles.:wave::lmao:

 

[Tonewoods]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

(since this is related to testing efficacy and not anything about anything else

DreX has it correct.
One of the first ways to test essential elements of "a variable" is to isolate that variable down to its purest form. If you are wondering whether or not a certain frame member can withstand a certain sort of mechanical stress, you don't have to build the entire space shuttle to figure it out. You isolate the variable and test that first. If you get an affirmative, THEN you proceed with further inquiry but if you get a negative, you have your answer.

Constant mongering of tangential/immutable/irrelevant (x) variables can be a major cancer on any scientific inquiry, but as a practice its vastly more popular with lay-theorists than anyone who actually comprehends how science really works.

 

[David Collins]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

I can see your point Drex. Still, from my perspective any element which may omitted for simplicity, which may influence the results in either direction, should not be omitted unless other models or tests suitably demonstrate their influence to be negligible. Plus I do view blind tests with real playing to be important to this sort of testing, so would prefer to include capacity for this in addition to sampling of artificially driven signals.

 

[hydro]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

He did. Some guy published his "research" on uT00B. His videos have been reviewed by his peers.

Here is a photo of the deliberations during the peer review:

Hey Les ease up man. That's me in the third row.

 

[DreX]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

I can see your point Drex. Still, from my perspective any element which may omitted for simplicity, which may influence the results in either direction, should not be omitted unless other models or tests suitably demonstrate their influence to be negligible. Plus I do view blind tests with real playing to be important to this sort of testing, so would prefer to include capacity for this in addition to sampling of artificially driven signals.

That's a good point, and identifying those complications is a good starting point for clarifying how the basic result applies to a complicated guitar, but like Tonewoods said, you have to start basic to get as close as possible to a pure, "true" statement, and then work your way up the complexity ladder from there. If the frequency response measuring method yields a clear result and is conclusive, either with a typical single coil pickup or an inducer pickup, it would be fun to take things further and determine how much other materials impact tone, such as metal versus plastic pick guards, pot metal versus steel bridges, etc.

This sort of test rig that utilizes an excited steel string might also represent a better method of comparing pickups, one reason I haven't done induction coil testing on pickups lately is I discovered (seem obvious in hindsight) that the magnet strength doesn't alter the peak resonance of the coil, and yet we all know the magnet type has a huge impact on how a pickup actually sounds, so that was a big blow to the induction coil method.

Some of my questions weren't directly answered, but after considering all the observations you and others have made, all my questions have been answered.

 

[hydro]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

In all seriousness, this seems like the kind of problem in which the attempt to observe a phenomenon actually changes the outcome. Like Schroedinger's cat or something. The big issue to me is that you are trying to measure a system; and a human player is part of the system, and he/she will react to subtleties in differences between guitars, including the wood they are made of. I'm not a scientist, or a luthier, but I have been playing guitars for almost 40 years and I can tell you that for a fact - even if the only thing the wood changes is how inspired I get from playing a really beautiful axe.

That's why I agree with Drex and others on here who are thinking of interesting ways to isolate the human element both of playing or listening. Once you determine there is a physical principle behind the idea that different woods create a different signal when reproduced through an electromagnetic pickup, with other variables minimized or at least made statistically insignificant, you can bring in the human part and see whether anyone can actually notice or not.

I betcha they can, but hey, I'm just a guitar player....

 

[ItsaBass]

A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

Seeing as they locked- then apparently 86'd all together- the other thread which itself was pretty benign and on topic, I kinda suspect this is a church of believers. We all saw what the Admin posted as far as his 'beliefs' on where tone comes from. That's kind of a problem. It leaves us with the Galileo dilemma; those in a position of authority actively hostile to fact, so express the truth and get burned at the stake or just leave it alone.

Thank you.

As for testing, it's pretty much impossible for any one person to do at home, in a way that provides valid results. The hard part is not comparing different samples to each other. That's easy. The hard part is taking the results and making them actually/legitimately prove something in a general sense. It's proving that each of the samples being tested is truly representative of its species as a whole, and that all other variables have been somehow equalized. For instance, grain patterns, weight, moisture content, where the wood was grown, and innumerable other factors. To do a species to species comparison, you must first be able to select samples that accurately represent the average behavior of each species. If you don't perform that enormous and expensive series of experiments first, then all your results can do is to show the differences between the individual samples used in the species comparison, not generalize species versus species on a larger scale.

To clarify, I don't believe that the material used to make a guitar has no effect. I just think that the generalizing by species that people do is nothing but a bunch of repetition of old legends. There are too many factors that go into making an individual piece of wood behave the way it does. There is too much variation from piece to piece, and no two pieces are truly identical. I believe that certain physical characteristics of a body material can affect the tone, but that these characteristics are not controlled as easily as simply choosing a certain type of wood. Choosing a species is not necessarily choosing a certain tone. It isn't that simple IME.

 

[ExplorersRock]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

(since this is related to testing efficacy and not anything about anything else

DreX has it correct.
One of the first ways to test essential elements of "a variable" is to isolate that variable down to its purest form. If you are wondering whether or not a certain frame member can withstand a certain sort of mechanical stress, you don't have to build the entire space shuttle to figure it out. You isolate the variable and test that first. If you get an affirmative, THEN you proceed with further inquiry but if you get a negative, you have your answer.

Constant mongering of tangential/immutable/irrelevant (x) variables can be a major cancer on any scientific inquiry, but as a practice its vastly more popular with lay-theorists than anyone who actually comprehends how science really works.

You obviously believe yourself to be one of those who "actually comprehends how science really works." Would you care to share with us what seperates you from the "lay-theorists"? Perhaps even giving us a glimpse into your scientific education and background. I am curious to know if your credentials are self-appointed or not.

 

[David Collins]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

In all seriousness, this seems like the kind of problem in which the attempt to observe a phenomenon actually changes the outcome. Like Schroedinger's cat or something. The big issue to me is that you are trying to measure a system; and a human player is part of the system, and he/she will react to subtleties in differences between guitars, including the wood they are made of. I'm not a scientist, or a luthier, but I have been playing guitars for almost 40 years and I can tell you that for a fact - even if the only thing the wood changes is how inspired I get from playing a really beautiful axe.

Which is exactly what this type of test should aim to investigate. Of course wood does seem to have an undeniable impact on tone, but voodoo bracelet with a "special embeded hologram seems to also have undeniable impact on strength and balance, and snake oil sugar pills an undeniable effect on health. This is because as humans (as much as some may not want to admit it), we are prone to placebo effect, to impart differences in outcome by our enthusiasm or beliefs about a change, or our filtering of data to better match our perceptions or recollections to fit our beliefs and expectations. It's part of being human, and no one can avoid it.

So tests can be devised to investigate whether these changes are caused by the test variable directly, or if more of the change comes from our own bias or beliefs. Controlled lab testing with drivers and scopes, double blind listening tests, lots of different approaches.

I've worked in this field a long time, and even with a critical eye and ear have witnessed a good deal of evidence leading me to the opinion that chassis materials can affect greater influence than others may believe (as is their right). As a good skeptic though, I will refrain from proclaiming absolute certainty until more reliable evidence and controlled testing comes through, and am happy to accept results whichever way they may point.

 

[kramersteen]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

You obviously believe yourself to be one of those who "actually comprehends how science really works." Would you care to share with us what seperates you from the "lay-theorists"? Perhaps even giving us a glimpse into your scientific education and background. I am curious to know if your credentials are self-appointed or not.

Haha yeah drex

 

[Myaccount876]

Re: A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

To clarify, I don't believe that the material used to make a guitar has no effect. I just think that the generalizing by species that people do is nothing but a bunch of repetition of old legends. There are too many factors that go into making an individual piece of wood behave the way it does. There is too much variation from piece to piece, and no two pieces are truly identical. I believe that certain physical characteristics of a body material can affect the tone, but that these characteristics are not controlled as easily as simply choosing a certain type of wood. Choosing a species is not necessarily choosing a certain tone. It isn't that simple IME.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I think about wood as well. I think the wood can make a difference, but the generalizations of wood species are pretty broad, and I think they can be pretty inaccurate at times. I think a lot of it comes from having expectations, and fulfilling those expectations. Could a piece of African mahogany still be warm? Of course, but I don't think it's guaranteed to be warm-sounding. SGs on paper should be pretty dark guitars, with a mahogany body/neck with a rosewood fretboard, but a lot of the ones I've played had plenty of brightness to them. I believe it has to do with the body thickness (an obvious physical aspect), the dual cutaways, wood density (which will vary between every piece) etc. If wood makes a difference, it is still only part of the equation. I don't have the experience or ability to test every type of wood and prove what makes the biggest difference, so I'll just play guitar.

DreX, I apologize for asking a question that probably has already been answered (I can't bring myself to read through the 8 pages of the petty arguments in this thread), but do you plan on eliminating some extraneous variables by picking body woods of the same shape? Density? Possibly unfinished bodies? etc. I'm sure you already know the basic ones such as same strings/same hardware/same amp/same cables/same mic placement/same loudness/same EQ. I'd also suggest testing different body woods with the same neck, and then different neck woods on the same body. Personally my first step in trying to design the test would be eliminating as many extraneous variables as possible to ensure validity.