Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

[Koreth]

I have two guitars, both cheap Guitar Center exclusive Ibanez RGs. They have similar, but not quite the same unplugged sounds. Now I realize that all other things equal, two guitars with the same setup, same hardware, made the by same luthier from the same wood cut from the same tree on the same day with the same tools, could sound different, simply due to the variable nature of woods. That aside, I was hoping if you guys could help me pick out what's likely accounting for the slight acoustic difference between the two axes and what I might do to bring some part one guitar's unplugged tone closer to the other's

Both guitars sound very similar to each other unplugged, and it's really only when they're played back to back that the I guess subtle differences become apparent. Both have a sort of soft-spoken warm smoothness, which I guess would mean penty of mids and rounded off highs? It's not a lively tone that jumps out at you, like say, a classic Tele, but I suppose that could be part of the cheap nature of the guitars. Compared to the RG5, the RG3 sounds thinner and brighter, almost plinky. Compared to the RG3, the RG5 sounds much warmer and fuller.

The Similarities:

• Made in Ibanez's Indonesia factory
• Basswood body
• 3 piece maple neck
• Rosewood fingerboard
• stock tuners
• Ernie Ball strings
• .010-.011 (maybe .012) neck relief
• 5/64(2mm)-4/64(1.5mm) action

The Differences:

• 10-56 tuned to Drop C (RG5) vs 9-44 tuned to E standard (RG3)
• Floatind Edge III tremolo (RG5) vs Strat-style fixed bridge (RG3)
• Locking nut (RG5) vs plastic nut (RG3)
• HSH (RG5) vs HH (RG3)
• Solid color finish (RG5) vs transparent red with quilt maple veneer (RG3)

I didn't bother with the electronics, as I'm just focusing on acoustic tones here, and AFAIK, the pots, switches, jacks, wires and pickups shouldn't have any affect on an axes acoustic tone.

My first thought would be the maple veneer on the RG3. But that doesn't make sense as it's a veneer. It's as thick as a credit card at best. Can not a 1/16th of an inch of maple really have that much of an effect on tone?

I chose 10-56 for Drop C as I'd grown used to 9-44 at E standard and wanted to keep the same tension, and it comes out about the same. The 10-56s at Drop C on the RG5 are only .2 pounds less tense than the 9-44s on the RG3. Now supposedly the higher tension of the longer 25.5" scale on Fenders is why they're brighter than Gibson's 24.75" scale guitars. But is .2 pounds of tension on the same scale going to make as much of a difference in brightness/warmth as .75" scale length is?

I thought about the different bridge setups, but if that's the cause, shouldn't it be the RG5 with it's floating Floyd-style bridge that's thin and plinky -- not the RG3 with it's fixed strat-style bridge? Sound's backwards to me. I thought that's why people spent good coin on big brass and titanium sustain blocks for their Floyds -- to fill out and warm up a tone that the Floyd had thinned.

An aside, the RG5 is noticeably heavier than the RG3. Now, I realize the Edge III is a big damn chunk of metal sitting in the guitar, but I'd think with all the wood taken out of the body to make room for it, the two axes would be closer to each other in weight. Is it the wood or the bridge that's so heavy?

I can't think of any other reason for the subtle difference in each guitar's acoustic sound than subtle differences in the wood and construction. Anybody else have any ideas?

Any suggestions for thinning out and brightening the RG5 or getting the RG3 a little warmer and fuller?

 

[blueman335]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

We had a guy here that said he bought two identical guitars, that had the same acoustic tone. Put the same PU's in each, and they sounded very different from each other. What our ears can hear from an umplugged guitar isn't necessarily what will come thru a signal chain of PU coils, pots, switches, cords, amps, and speakers. Our ears aren't that good.

Since you know that no two pieces of wood are identical, even if cut from the same tree, because of new growth, old growth, compression, water, sap, rings, mineral content, branchces, etc, occuring unevenly throughout the entire tree. Each piece that is cut is going to have a unique tonal signature. Some will sound similar, others won't. Wood is always a wild card. And the two guitars have different hardware, string gauges, and tunings, which you listed, so the question becomes: "why would anyone expect them to sound the same?"

Even if you could get the two guitars to have a similar acoustic tone, it's no guarantee they'll sound the same plugged in, which is what really matters. You could dump some time and money into these cheap guitars, and still not get what you want in the long run. Why not do what everyone else does, and use set-ups, pots, & magnets to modify the amplified sound? I've been on here for years and don't recall anyone tackling the tone process like this.

 

[David Collins]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

Everything makes a difference, and I think you're trying to qualify and quantify things that are just a bit too complex to easily do so. String gauge and tuning, of course makes a big difference. Bridge style, large effect. Nut type, fairly little effect, pickup arrangement, some but little effect when you're speaking acoustically. Finish and top laminate, little to no effect here. Differences between any two pieces of wood in the bodies and necks, likely a noticeable contributor.

As to what to do to make one sound more like the other, you're going to be chasing your tail for some time. Aside from similar designs and wood species, they are different guitars. You just have too many variables going on here, and there's no silver bullet that's going to drastically change the tone of one without a lot of modifications and experimentation, enough that you would be better off just getting rid of one if you don't like it and look for one you do instead.

Personally, I've never understood the motivation to fret over the acoustic tone of an electric guitar. When I want a good acoustic tone, I play an acoustic. When I look for what I like in an electric guitar, I judge the sound plugged in. Plus, I don't know why you would want the guitars to sound more similar - isn't that the reason for having separate guitars, to achieve distinctly different tones with one that can't be achieved with the other? It almost sounds like there isn't one that you love and the other that you want to bring more toward that timbre, but rather simply wanting to make the two of them more similar.

Not trying to discourage, but you have two different guitars. Take them for what they are. If you want to do something to change the tone of one more to your liking, you may or may not be successful after chasing variable after variable. You really don't have a lot of good controls between these two instruments to make reliable judgments as to which specific features are most responsible for the effects on tone you want to change. If you like to tinker for the sake of tinkering, perhaps it can be fun (and expensive) to swap out parts in chase of the effects you are after. In practical terms though, there are so many things that can be responsible for the qualities you do or don't like, that it can often be cheaper just to keep looking and trying out other guitars until you find one that already sounds like you want, or at least closer.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

Personally, I've never understood the motivation to fret over the acoustic tone of an electric guitar. When I want a good acoustic tone, I play an acoustic. When I look for what I like in an electric guitar, I judge the sound plugged in. Plus, I don't know why you would want the guitars to sound more similar - isn't that the reason for having separate guitars, to achieve distinctly different tones with one that can't be achieved with the other?

+1. Well said. One of my best-sounding guitars acoustically, was extremely difficult to get to sound good plugged in, and took 3 or 4 sets of PU's to finally do it. Many theads here have come to the conclusion that acoustic tone doesn't necessarily match amplified tone, which is sometimes frustrating, but it's only the amplfied sound that counts. Who plays an unplugged electric guitar on stage, at band practice, or in a recording studio?

As a guy with a few guitars, I want them to each sound a little different, or I wouldn't have them. Depending on the song, I may want a brighter, or warmer guitar, or more sustain, or more overtones, or a certain vibrato bar, etc. Variety is where it's at.

 

[Diocletian]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

As a guy with a few guitars, I want them to each sound a little different, or I wouldn't have them. Depending on the song, I may want a brighter, or warmer guitar, or more sustain, or more overtones, or a certain vibrato bar, etc. Variety is where it's at.

+1

We all know whatever guitar we play it'll end up sounding like US anyway, so it's nice to have guitars with different tonal qualities. IMO.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

A tremolo with a sustain block is a major sound changer right there. Even if hard on the deck.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Accounting for differences in tone between guitars

Restring both to have the same strings and tuning and they'll be closer. Granted the tension is nearly identical, but the thicker strings have more meat to them period, regardless of tension applied.

A maple veneer is still maple, which is not as soft/porous as basswood. Hence it's going to reflect acoustic tones more than the non-veneered top. Doesn't matter how thick it is, it's the material density. Tin foil across the surface will reflect sound more than the maple veneer.



Then you've got material density of the bridge. A low-cost v-trem is still made with a denser material than the pot metal low-cost Floyd-style trems are made from. Ergo, they will yield a faster response to string pluckage.