A few specific questions about testing wood influence on tone

[Falloffthebonetone]

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

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.

Should be mentioned, the pickups on an SG are placed further back and closer to the bridge, especially the neck but the bridge is too. Some say that is what attributes the more honky/brightish tones SGs tend to have against Les Pauls with similar or identical electronics.

 

[voggin]

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.

True, a CV or two might assist our deliberations s the SD community jury.

 

[Tonewoods]

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.

I have a 4 year degree majoring in a hard science, with a minor in another hard science. I currently work in a hard science field in private industry. I live in the Northeast, am currently finishing up holiday vacation in the Southeast. I have green eyes and like chocolate.

If you choose to not believe (whatever) because I won't submit a detailed resume or dox myself, I couldn't possibly care any less.

What I do doesn't matter, though. Assume I shine shoes or shovel manure for all I care. This discussion hinges on the merits of the ideas.

 

[DreX]

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

Credentials don't matter. Either you make true statements, or you make false ones. Anything else is an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

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.

So you're saying that, if we prove we can't hear the differences among materials presented as chunks of 4"x4" with a string and a pickup on it, this also proves that we won't be able to hear the differences among those same materials presented in a format that more closely approximates a solid-body guitar?

 

[David Collins]

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

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.

This extends in to issues slightly different from the primary topic here though. There is the issue of whether particular wood species have consistent qualities which can be clearly described and outcomes consistently predicted. To this I would lean very strongly toward "no". There is simply too great of variance within any species of wood. Even if qualities of the wood do have some effect on final tone, and even if all other factors (size, design, components) were kept consistent, there would clearly be a wide range of qualities found within any particular species, and a good deal of overlap in outcomes compared to others. General trends, perhaps, likely. Absolute predictable qualities, highly doubtful.

Then there is the issue of whether there is any room for influence at all from wood properties, which is a very different question.

There are of course many manufacturers and vendors who make rather extraordinary and specific claims about the tonal qualities of woods they choose, and it works as marketing because the consumer can feel empowered as having some intentional control over the outcome by the design elements they choose. Once invested, they can have a stake in this decision and further promote the extraordinary claims of precise predictable effect as being unquestionable truth. They call those who question their certainty juvenile things like "tone-deaf", or perhaps "tonewood deniers".

This can have the unfortunate effect of inducing responses of equal and opposite certainty in others. Rather than taking a reasonable position of challenging extraordinary marketing claims with evidence based reasoning, there can be a knee-jerk reaction to paint the entire concept of any wood influence at all as a farce. This would be quite an extreme claim to make in my opinion, and while likely made out of frustration with the irrational extreme on one side, is none the less quite irrational in its own right.

My understanding of the focus here is whether different woods (whether of the same species or different) are capable of affecting a noticeable change in timbre or sustain of a solid body electric guitar plugged in, or more specifically, how could one construct a reasonable test to evaluate this.

 

[beaubrummels]

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

Credentials don't matter. Either you make true statements, or you make false ones. Anything else is an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Off-topic, but really? So would you hire someone with no experience or education if they were able to say enough 'true' statements to fool you? How would confirm their statements were true in the first place?

Credentials matter - a person's background and experience gives them a foundation, understanding and a toolbox to use for carrying out investigations, for proper handling of exceptions and unexpected occurrences in an experiment, for properly evaluating data and analyzing results. Someone who is merely able to assemble and regurgitate 'true' statements doesn't have the understanding or background to put those statements to effective use.

 

[Jeffblue]

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

Science of great tone is contrary to good Mojo. Jimi Hendrix, Phil Keaggy, Roy Buchanon, Mick Ronson, Bill Nelson and anyone else you care to bring up didn't give a rat's @$$ about hard evidence and science methodology..........they plugged in and played. Feeling the music won't help the scientist. Science can destroy the beauty of music.

 

[DreX]

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

Off-topic, but really? So would you hire someone with no experience or education if they were able to say enough 'true' statements to fool you?

Since we're not hiring anyone here, there's no point in taking that hypothetical any further.

How would confirm their statements were true in the first place?

You ask them to cite references. You don't ask them about their credentials, not only because it shouldn't matter to you, but because they could be lying.

Credentials matter - a person's background and experience gives them a foundation, understanding and a toolbox to use for carrying out investigations, for proper handling of exceptions and unexpected occurrences in an experiment, for properly evaluating data and analyzing results. Someone who is merely able to assemble and regurgitate 'true' statements doesn't have the understanding or background to put those statements to effective use.

Another person's credentials help them in their endeavors, their credentials don't help you in yours.

 

[David Collins]

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

Science of great tone is contrary to good Mojo. Jimi Hendrix, Phil Keaggy, Roy Buchanon, Mick Ronson, Bill Nelson and anyone else you care to bring up didn't give a rat's @$$ about hard evidence and science methodology..........they plugged in and played. Feeling the music won't help the scientist. Science can destroy the beauty of music.

Baloney. Sorry, but I have little patience for the anti-reasoning mentality.

You don't want to worry about it? Fine, don't. As a professional in this field which players come to when things aren't working as they'd like though, I can deliver results much more predictably, reliably, and efficiently due to my understanding of the physics involved than I could if I chose to live and work according to a philosophy of esoteric art and mojo.

http://youtu.be/zSZNsIFID28

If it's doesn't jive with you, great. I'm sorry for those who not only can't see the practical value, but also the incredible beauty that lies in the complex inner workings below the surface.

 

[beaubrummels]

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

If you choose to not believe (whatever) because I won't submit a detailed resume or dox myself, I couldn't possibly care any less.

What I do doesn't matter, though. Assume I shine shoes or shovel manure for all I care. This discussion hinges on the merits of the ideas.

You've made it matter with your attitude. You say the discussion hinges on the merits of the ideas, yet over most of these 9 pages you've spent far more of it using the anonymity of the Internet to fire insults at others and showing complete disrespect, and have provided very little that is substantial in the way of ideas with merit on the topic. That's where people wondering about your background came from - because you were firing insult after insult at people who have years, and even decades, of experience in the field of this topic, and you asserted yourself in this condescending manner, all without providing any data, research, or evidence of your experience, or other actual basis for your arguing. That's the problem.

 

[DreX]

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

So you're saying that, if we prove we can't hear the differences among materials presented as chunks of 4"x4" with a string and a pickup on it, this also proves that we won't be able to hear the differences among those same materials presented in a format that more closely approximates a solid-body guitar?

For the record, a 4x4 would be best avoided since few solid bodies are 4" thick, I'd go 2x12 perhaps to roughly represent a body, and maybe 1x2 for a neck. In this test, the subject is basically just "chunk of wood in the ballpark of a solid body guitar", and if there's a reason you'd never liken such a chunk of wood to an actual electric for the sake of this test, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, to see if the reason represents a caveat, a minor issue, or even completely defeats the purpose of the test.

It seems to me that if wood makes a difference, a rectangular sample of wood will exhibit that difference, and it shouldn't be necessary for the wood to even shaped like a guitar, since that shape is born of ergonomic considerations and not necessarily to draw out the delicious tone from the wood.

 

[beaubrummels]

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

Since we're not hiring anyone here, there's no point in taking that hypothetical any further.

Using this forum, you are effectively employing the assistance of others. It's not hypothetical at all.

Another person's credentials help them in their endeavors, their credentials don't help you in yours.

This is not a true statement. When you need to tap knowledge, you need to know what knowledge someone else has in order to determine if they are the right person to have the discussion with. A person's background and experience is part of determining this.

 

[Little Pigbacon]

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

Off-topic, but really? So would you hire someone with no experience or education if they were able to say enough 'true' statements to fool you? How would confirm their statements were true in the first place?

Credentials matter - a person's background and experience gives them a foundation, understanding and a toolbox to use for carrying out investigations, for proper handling of exceptions and unexpected occurrences in an experiment, for properly evaluating data and analyzing results. Someone who is merely able to assemble and regurgitate 'true' statements doesn't have the understanding or background to put those statements to effective use.

Credentials matter in the larger sense, but here there are things that matter more. When we're not really in a good position to "prove" our real-life credentials, such as they may be, the quality of our ideas, and how well we communicate them, are a lot more important.

 

[beaubrummels]

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

For the record, a 4x4 would be best avoided since few solid bodies are 4" thick, I'd go 2x12 perhaps to roughly represent a body, and maybe 1x2 for a neck. In this test, the subject is basically just "chunk of wood in the ballpark of a solid body guitar", and if there's a reason you'd never liken such a chunk of wood to an actual electric for the sake of this test, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, to see if the reason represents a caveat, a minor issue, or even completely defeats the purpose of the test.

It seems to me that if wood makes a difference, a rectangular sample of wood will exhibit that difference, and it shouldn't be necessary for the wood to even shaped like a guitar, since that shape is born of ergonomic considerations and not necessarily to draw out the delicious tone from the wood.

I don't know about that. For your purposes, probably not necessary at this time, but I think it would beg a follow on experiment as cutting holes in the wood, routing it, cutting chunks out of it could change how vibrations travel through it, and could even tune what frequencies it supports, which could change the results of the experiment. Could even make the results of a solid plank experiment less useful if the differences with shaped wood are significant.

 

[David Collins]

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

For the record, a 4x4 would be best avoided since few solid bodies are 4" thick, I'd go 2x12 perhaps to roughly represent a body, and maybe 1x2 for a neck. In this test, the subject is basically just "chunk of wood in the ballpark of a solid body guitar", and if there's a reason you'd never liken such a chunk of wood to an actual electric for the sake of this test, I'd be interested in hearing what it is, to see if the reason represents a caveat, a minor issue, or even completely defeats the purpose of the test.

It seems to me that if wood makes a difference, a rectangular sample of wood will exhibit that difference, and it shouldn't be necessary for the wood to even shaped like a guitar, since that shape is born of ergonomic considerations and not necessarily to draw out the delicious tone from the wood.

I would suggest at least a wider replica of the body. Bar vibrations can respond in notably different ways from plate vibrations. If you wish to include feedback influence in your tests (which is where I believe effects to be most notably apparent), the a broader surface area and a wider plate could be critical in revealing these effects.

Some examples of plate vs bar modes in a guitar- http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/guitars/coronet.html

 

[Tonewoods]

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

You've made it matter with your attitude. You say the discussion hinges on the merits of the ideas, yet over most of these 9 pages you've spent far more of it using the anonymity of the Internet to fire insults at others and showing complete disrespect, and have provided very little that is substantial in the way of ideas with merit on the topic. That's where people wondering about your background came from - because you were firing insult after insult at people who have years, and even decades, of experience in the field of this topic, and you asserted yourself in this condescending manner, all without providing any data, research, or evidence of your experience, or other actual basis for your arguing. That's the problem.

I really promised I wouldn't get sucked back in to any more idiotic 'discussion about the discussion', so you're welcome to the last word between us.

The (not at all uncommon) problem is that you are one of those people who is apparently hard-wired to reconcile all information through an 'authority'. There is a reason why your default cognitive mode is 'who is saying it' rather than analyzing what they're saying but since you are sensitive about feeling insulted, we won't talk about the 'reason' for that, since its not very flattering.

We see the same phenomenon in the absolute dregs of partisan politics. If you are a (D or R) and someone on the opposite side of the political spectrum does (insert something here), it is interpreted in the most negative possible way. If that same action is done by someone on (your same side of the political spectrum), it is interpreted an entirely different- and more favorable- way. Same facts, but a 'certain sort' of person relies on context clues more than an objective appraisal since... well... Lets just say 'because they just do' and leave it at that

Safe to say, though, that facts live and die on merit, ideas live and die on articulation and science- in a two party conversation- lives and does on the highest level of understanding possessed by the least educated party. Too much disparity and the discussion gets very, very pointless.

The fact I have a background in science is most definitely what formed and assists my opinion on this issue, but there are people who understand these concepts and are not scientists, either. If they came into this discussion, they too would be correct, you would remain incorrect irrespective of wherever you went to school or what you do for a living.

Paul Reed Smith is incorrect on the issue.
I'm sure there is a guy out there somewhere that sweeps a parking lot, who reads lots of articles on science and plays guitar, who is correct on the issue.

See how that works? Probably not. Oh well.

Last word is yours, state whatever you want but please, no more lame rhetorical questions trying to suck me back into 'discussing the discussion'.
Thanks.

 

[Mr. B]

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

I have a 4 year degree majoring in a hard science, with a minor in another hard science. I currently work in a hard science field in private industry.

Why don't you put all that science experience to good use and go conduct a scientific test of the effects of tonewood on amplified guitar tone? The we would actually have something of merit to discuss...

 

[Tonewoods]

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

Baloney. Sorry, but I have little patience for the anti-reasoning mentality.

You don't want to worry about it? Fine, don't. As a professional in this field which players come to when things aren't working as they'd like though, I can deliver results much more predictably, reliably, and efficiently due to my understanding of the physics involved than I could if I chose to live and work according to a philosophy of esoteric art and mojo.

http://youtu.be/zSZNsIFID28

If it's doesn't jive with you, great. I'm sorry for those who not only can't see the practical value, but also the incredible beauty that lies in the complex inner workings below the surface.

I appreciate people like you a great deal.

We may be on opposite (but perhaps not very far apart) sides of the ball, but its good to encounter people who may believe something but are more interested in fact and knowing for certain and don't exhibit disdain for reason.

 

[Tonewoods]

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

So you're saying that, if we prove we can't hear the differences among materials presented as chunks of 4"x4" with a string and a pickup on it, this also proves that we won't be able to hear the differences among those same materials presented in a format that more closely approximates a solid-body guitar?

Not certainly, but probably.
If it doesn't evidence itself under those sterile conditions but DOES manifest in a guitar, that means the mechanism of action that makes the tonewood 'tonewood'y' is some specific interplay between guitar-centric components and not just vibrating the wood itself, in the same general proximity to a string and pickup.

That seems EXTREMELY unlikely.
Less likely than the tonewood narrative itself.