Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Silver said:
I bet if you did blind testing of wood combinations in guitars of the exact same scale length, hardware and electronics... You'd see that people would not be able to distinguish between certain species of wood.

I'd probably go so far as to say that in blind testing... People probably wouldn't be able to distinguish between the tones of wooden guitars and synthetic materials, either.
Click to expand...

What people? Beginners with a tin ear and no experience actually owning vintage guitars?

Or experienced professionals who have learned what different woods sound like, not from reading about them on the internet, but from actually having owned dozens and dozens of classic guitars and becoming aware of those differences through their own experiences with those guitars?
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

In a blind test I can tell if it is indeed a guitar and whether it has strings on it, with 100% certainty. Because I'm a guru like that.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

If you ever build guitars, you'll see and hear for yourself. Anything you add to or detract from a guitar matters on the overall tone. I have built several Warmoth builds and homemade prototype guitars. Mahogany sounds nothing like Alder or Swamp Ash. Black Korina is also a different tone. I have built guitars with homemade copper pickguards and they sound different than my brass topped guitars. Whether or not there are those whom choose to believe, or not, perhaps they really cannot hear the difference.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I hate to post on this after only reading the first page (I know that is a cardinal sin of forums) but I always noticed that people tend to associate the tone of a specific type of wood with a guitar that it's used on. Like people say that mahogany is a darker wood and they always use terms that can be used to describe a Les Paul. Mahogany tends to be used on shorter scale (24 3/4) guitars with humbuckers, which is naturally darker than a 25 1/2 scale Fender with single coils, no matter what type of wood is on the Fender (all hardware being "traditional", i.e. pot and electrical values).

I have a 24 3/4 scale pine HSS Strat that has in all other ways standard construction and people wonder huow I get it to sound like a Les Paul by using pine. The scale makes that big of a difference. The scale of a guitar is the most overlooked element in the inherent tone of a guitar.

But if you are using Piezo electric pickups, feel free to throw everything I just said out the window. Those are the only pickups that pickup the vibration of the wood as well as the strings.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Then you'd make some recordings or have them played live. The participant would not know even that they were listening to different guitars.
Click to expand...

I couldn't listen to you and know whether your pickups were using A2 or A5. Does that mean that magnet types have no influence on the response of a guitar? Are magnets a lie fabricated by pickup manufacturers to sell you stuff?

If I listen to a recording and can't tell if the guy is playing a '59 or a Jazz, does that mean that when I play a guitar any differences I hear are confirmation bias?
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
I hate to post on this after only reading the first page (I know that is a cardinal sin of forums) but I always noticed that people tend to associate the tone of a specific type of wood with a guitar that it's used on. Like people say that mahogany is a darker wood and they always use terms that can be used to describe a Les Paul. Mahogany tends to be used on shorter scale (24 3/4) guitars with humbuckers, which is naturally darker than a 25 1/2 scale Fender with single coils, no matter what type of wood is on the Fender (all hardware being "traditional", i.e. pot and electrical values).

I have a 24 3/4 scale pine HSS Strat that has in all other ways standard construction and people wonder huow I get it to sound like a Les Paul by using pine. The scale makes that big of a difference. The scale of a guitar is the most overlooked element in the inherent tone of a guitar.

But if you are using Piezo electric pickups, feel free to throw everything I just said out the window. Those are the only pickups that pickup the vibration of the wood as well as the strings.
Click to expand...

I have a 25" PRS that sounds deeper and smoother and a 25" PRS that sounds has more upper midrange bite.

Guess which one has the mahogany neck and which has the maple neck?

I also have a 25" scale PRS that has a harsher, more immediate attack and one that has a softer, more compressed attack.

Guess which one is solid body and which one is semi-hollow?

I have a 25" PRS that has a rounder attack and a 25" PRS that has a more snap.

Guess which one is solid mahogany and which one has a maple cap?

Sometimes stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.



I also have a 24.5" Single Cut and it doesn't sound like my Les Paul, although it does have more of the Gibson vibe than my 25" scale guitars do. Makes sense considering that a Les Paul, SG and 335 don't sound the same despite having the same scale, hardware and pickups. IMO, the scale does impart a certain feel/response, but it's only one ingredient in a complicated recipe.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

some_dude said:
I have a 25" PRS that sounds deeper and smoother and a 25" PRS that sounds has more upper midrange bite.

Guess which one has the mahogany neck and which has the maple neck?

I also have a 25" scale PRS that has a harsher, more immediate attack and one that has a softer, more compressed attack.

Guess which one is solid body and which one is semi-hollow?

I have a 25" PRS that has a rounder attack and a 25" PRS that has a more snap.

Guess which one is solid mahogany and which one has a maple cap?

Sometimes stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason.



I also have a 24.5" Single Cut and it doesn't sound like my Les Paul, although it does have more of the Gibson vibe than my 25" scale guitars do. Makes sense considering that a Les Paul, SG and 335 don't sound the same despite having the same scale, hardware and pickups. IMO, the scale does impart a certain feel/response, but it's only one ingredient in a complicated recipe.
Click to expand...

That's right.

Also, you don't do a tonewood test or any other kind of a test by listening to someone else play.

You hold the guitar yourself, play it and listen with your own ears and feel the guitar resonating with your hands and body.

If you can't tell the diff between an all maple or all mahogany guitar blindfolded, it isn't because they sound and feel the same. It's because you lack the ability to hear and feel the difference.

Or because you refuse to turn that damned distortion pedal off.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I also have an Epiphone Standard and ES-175 with hot rodded humbucker sets wound by the custom shop so that they would be as close as possible to eachother, so that quality control would not be a factor. The pots were all 8 exactly 500k (I spent a lot of time going through pots to do this), the frets were all the same grade steel, both had Callaham bridge and saddles, and both had 11 gauge nickel strings, so there was little variability in the components. The only difference was solidbody mahogany versus hollowbody maple.

When played unplugged, you would have to be an idiot to say there was no difference.
When plugged in, there was a noticeable difference between the two, which I later attributed to not playing loud enough to completely mask the accoustic sound.
Next up is the important part, when directly injected into my computer to make a frequency response chart of the electrical signal there was little difference at all. I picked wth the same pickup at the same spot several times for scientific accuracy.

I later changed the ES-175 to a custom shop Eclair set, but before then I used them for different reasons. I'd play the 175 for jazz, because after all, it is a jazz box, and the Les Paul for rock. But it got me thinking that when I play the 175 I subconsciously pick closer to the neck and I consciously eq it to sound more mellow.

Even if it does make a difference and I had an error somewhere, it is a small enough difference that if you don't like the wood, you can just adjust your eq to compesate. Just be happy with your guitar, I'd rather have a nice guitar and be oblivious to the fact that it's made of say, plywood, than not buy it just on that sole fact. I'd argue the main reason why people buy guitars with nice woods is so they can have a nice guitar, not for the slight tonal difference that the gods of tone impart upon them.

Edit: Also, as was just stated, a damned distortion pedal renders this whole discussion pointless.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
I also have an Epiphone Standard and ES-175 with hot rodded humbucker sets wound by the custom shop so that they would be as close as possible to eachother, so that quality control would not be a factor. The pots were all 8 exactly 500k (I spent a lot of time going through pots to do this), the frets were all the same grade steel, both had Callaham bridge and saddles, and both had 11 gauge nickel strings, so there was little variability in the components. The only difference was solidbody mahogany versus hollowbody maple.

When played unplugged, you would have to be an idiot to say there was no difference.
When plugged in, there was a noticeable difference between the two, which I later attributed to not playing loud enough to completely mask the accoustic sound.
Next up is the important part, when directly injected into my computer to make a frequency response chart of the electrical signal there was little difference at all. I picked wth the same pickup at the same spot several times for scientific accuracy.

I later changed the ES-175 to a custom shop Eclair set, but before then I used them for different reasons. I'd play the 175 for jazz, because after all, it is a jazz box, and the Les Paul for rock. But it got me thinking that when I play the 175 I subconsciously pick closer to the neck and I consciously eq it to sound more mellow.

Even if it does make a difference and I had an error somewhere, it is a small enough difference that if you don't like the wood, you can just adjust your eq to compesate.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to adjust the eq of an all maple guitar to respond just like an all mahogany guitar.

I would never expect to be able to take my mahogany Taylor acoustic and by eqing it, make it sound like my rosewood Taylor either...even though they are the same size guitars.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

That's accoustic, I'm referring to electric guitars with electromagnetic pickups. On accoustic everything makes a difference, even the thickness of the finish.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Lewguitar said:
What people? Beginners with a tin ear and no experience actually owning vintage guitars?

Or experienced professionals who have learned what different woods sound like, not from reading about them on the internet, but from actually having owned dozens and dozens of classic guitars and becoming aware of those differences through their own experiences with those guitars?
Click to expand...

Experts would be fine.

The thing is that musicians are heavily invested in the idea that they can tell the difference, so your stance is no surprise to me.

It's not just guitarists either. Violinist adore Stradivarius violins but in scientific testing conditions were completely unable to tell them apart from other violins. They thought they could, obviously.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...radivarius-violins-and-new-ones/#.WVlogoHTVnE

And that's expert professional players actually playing the instruments.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Silver said:
Experts would be fine.

The thing is that musicians are heavily invested in the idea that they can tell the difference, so your stance is no surprise to me.

It's not just guitarists either. Violinist adore Stradivarius violins but in scientific testing conditions were completely unable to tell them apart from other violins. They thought they could, obviously.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...radivarius-violins-and-new-ones/#.WVlogoHTVnE

And that's expert professional players actually playing the instruments.
Click to expand...

Do you suppose that that test was conducted with modern reproductions of Stradivarius? Or do you think they just pulled a couple of random examples out of a pawn shop for that test?

To put it another way.... if I were to make a reproduction of a Les Paul... would it be any surprise that it sounds like a Les Paul?
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

It was a surprise to violinists. The idea that Stradivarius violins sound different, and better (than even modern day replicas), is a commonly held belief in the violin world.

Obviously this is not the same as testing, say, rosewood violins Vs whatever they're normally made from... But it is an example of the sort of study that could be done to test these ideas.

I'm mostly playing devil's advocate. My actual view is that overall there probably are differences between species but that there is more variation within species and more overlap between species than people give credit to... I've heard 'warm' telecasters and bright Les Pauls, etc. But then I've a vested interest in believing there is a difference... just bought a mahogany strat body, haha.

Nonetheless, all this talk of "I've played a dozen guitars so I know the definitive truth on this subject...' attitude that's going on just smacks of bad science.

There's a straightforward way to test this, and nobodies done it, so how about we all keep an open mind?

There would be so much benefit to us if we were more open minded about materials.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

And actually, in a lot of modern music, instruments are replaced entirely with plugins. A lot of the piano you here on tracks is not real piano, same with orchestras and string sections, bells/zylo/etc. Even guitar these days... see Native Instrument's Scarbee;


Of course, it's been happening with drums and bass for years, too. Mostly in non-rock music, to be fair. It makes you wonder just how discerning our ears really are.

Even in the rock arena though, I've seen people confuse Jimmy Page playing a Tele with him playing a Les Paul. Same with Jeff Beck, or even Slash with his Mockingbird. Lots of people can't tell the difference.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

But we, the people of guitar forums, have amazing ears and are always right #fact


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

This thread caused me to realize something. If tonewood makes such a minute difference as to cause people to debate if it even exists, how can it be big enough to be discernable in a band situation? This is even more true when you're playing live. Given that most people listening to a band can't tell a 59 from a JB, how many fans do you think will be able to notice the difference between mahogany and an acrylic guitar all other things being the same?
If you think wood makes a difference, it does, if you can't get into a creative groove because your guitar is made of plywood, than it most certainly has an effect on your tone. If you couldn't care less about the wood your guitar is made of, then it makes no difference. A guitar is a guitar, just play it and stop researching what specific recipe of plant cells is going to turn you from an amateur to a tone legend. I learned to play guitar on my teacher's Gibson and I sounded like crap, now most of my guitar's are $400 or less and I sound better now than I ever did on that Gibson.
Thanks for letting me share.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

How many rig rundowns do you see where the guitarist say all their guitars sound the same?
How many where they will describe each guitar and say things like "we decided to go with pickup-X in this one because it was just too bright with my usual pickup-Y"?

Vai doesn't know exactly what he's talking about?
Satch is just wrong about the finish even affecting the tone? After all these decades they still have it all wrong? lol
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Now finish affecting tone, I agree with that. Red is clearly the most sonically superior color. And nitrocellulose has a clear advantage over polyurethane. Studies have been done to prove that nitro guitars tend to be an ounce or two lighter all things considered over poly.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Clint 55 said:
Check the sound clips at 2:30 of the cardboard Strat. Sounds about 40% different because of the neck and body materials I would say, even over youtube.

Click to expand...

40% difference...wow...dude you are amazing! I listened to it on my M-Audio 8-inch monitor speakers and couldn't tell the difference. How did you do that? I wish god graced me with such golden ears like yours.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Interesting- I've played a bamboo guitar that was light and sounded amazing. In the end, I don't get bogged down in the tonewood debate, though. I pickup up a guitar, play it, make sure it is light and balanced and go from there. If it doesn't pass those initial tests before I even play it, I go no further. .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top