Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

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

I don't see it as a "believer" vs "non-believer" thing at all.
Almost everyone agrees that at the source everything imparts a tonal quality,,,,,body, neck, fretboard, bridge.

The only thing people ever really debate is to what degree any of that matters once the signal is passed through a million+1 other parts and components.
We can all end up in Texas even though we're coming from all different directions,,,,,,but the journeys it takes to get there will all be unique.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

^ I don't doubt your personal opinion here - your million and one factors would indeed seem like they squash out the more subtle tonal influences. So your personal experience I would describe as the 'Line 6 spider' of tones - but not all of us kill off the organics in the tone, so the range of contributing factors reaching the speaker is exponentially higher.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Yeah hit a good pristine clean channel with several different guitars all loaded with the same pups and it's easy to hear (let alone feel) the differences.
Even through heavy tube drive the differences in low-end tracking are most apparent.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
Edit: Also, as was just stated, a damned distortion pedal renders this whole discussion pointless.
Click to expand...

I disagree with this. Some people think that if you add enough distortion that it hides everything, but IMO gain amplifies differences.

A lot of what I notice is in the guitar's attack envelope.... how fast is the pick attack? What frequency is the pick attack? How much delay between the attack and the sustain? Is the low end tight or flabby? Is the top end clear, sizzly or muddy? Is the midrange present or relaxed? Do leads scream or do they howl? Etc....

There's a lot of details I probably wouldn't notice through a clean amp that become painfully obvious when trying to palm mute distorted rhythm at 220bpm.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
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?
Click to expand...

IMO, that depends upon the band.

Obviously these videos show an SG and a Les Paul, but those IMO are the classic slab mahogany and maple cap sounds, which are pretty discernible in a mix.... depending upon the band of course.



Edit... WTF? The forum will only let me post one video at a time...
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I guess also another factor to add in here is to acknowledge the scope of the argument. The 'anti' camp seem generally misguided in thinking that we are saying every guitar must sound radically different.......or maybe thats a coping mechanism to try and make the argument simplistic enough to understand.

It isn't that simple.....nor linear, nor can wood be 'catagorised'. This is a snowflake type situation, where just about every guitar ever made is its own thing. Some are very similar to each other.....others are vastly different.
It is responsible for some the most unintentionally funny statements made by the cynics though.....like 'I have 2 guitars and they sound the same, so therefore wood is unimportant'. Nope, its just your complete lack of understanding of the scope of the topic showing - sorry.
This is truly where you have to have the capacity to learn from others' findings - as just your own are vastly insignificant. The wood cynic is by nature isolationist and lacks the capability to take on any data that doesn't support a predetermined outcome.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

My wood has lost a little bit of it's tone over the past 30 years ...
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Silver said:
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.
Click to expand...

My brother plays French Horn and was hired by one of those programs to play every note at varying volumes and styles...just because it is a plug-in does NOT mean it is not a real instrument...not all of those are Synthesized Sounds.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I'd just like to see scientific proof, either way. This comes up on every single guitar forum. I want an absolute percentage.
I don't think this is possible. So until then, it becomes people arguing for their experience.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

^ Thats the problem. Every guitar is a bit different. And what do you use as a baseline??? And that would assume that your guitar is shaped from one plank of wood.....not amalgamations of wood like every guitar contains.

And experience is just as valid as any other way. You could use physics as a basis for your theoretical proof.......and looking at it that way its a lay down misere.......for any scientist in this area there is no question at all - all physical elements will tweak the tone a bit.

As to how that works in the real world......how do you define any wood type?? Every bit is a little different - so which one do you pick as the 'stereotypical' generical tonal footprint. There is no such thing.
Hence the only proof is empirical, based on real world experiences. And lets face it.....we are looking at a real world effect here so THE best proof for it is always going to be....yep real world experience.

As someone wanting to create a convincing argument you have to sample as many experiences as possible to create the right amount of data. Thats why people who only selectively choose to believe data that supports a certain point of view are really only showing themselves up as poor reasoners and a total irrelevance for those actually wanting to make a serious examination of the subject.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I'm glad we revived this 10 year old thread. It feels obvious we've made a ton of progress in the topic and that we'll come to agreement in no time.


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

Chistopher said:
Edit: Also, as was just stated, a damned distortion pedal renders this whole discussion pointless.
Click to expand...

A distortion pedal, no matter how damned it is won't give your lost sustain (due to the woods/construction) back.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

AlexR said:
^ I don't doubt your personal opinion here - your million and one factors would indeed seem like they squash out the more subtle tonal influences. So your personal experience I would describe as the 'Line 6 spider' of tones - but not all of us kill off the organics in the tone, so the range of contributing factors reaching the speaker is exponentially higher.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's a personal opinion, just like your opinion and everybody else's that tone wood matters. By the way, the 'million' factors is an expression, a hyperbole, not to be taken literally. And FYI my rig is just gitar, pickup, a Laney combo amp, distortion pedal, a Zoom multistomp (Chorus only); an EQ (for extra bass) and a Lexicon rack (for delay) on the effects loop; no multiple rows of weird pedals like most of the guys here use. Very simple.

What's needed is a tool that measures the effect of wood or lack thereof on tone, independently and objectively.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

greekdude said:
A distortion pedal, no matter how damned it is won't give your lost sustain (due to the woods/construction) back.
Click to expand...

You have expoxy as your fret and brag about it. Please don't talk to us about sustain. Go make another Anthrax jam-along video or something.
 
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...

Don't worry about Lew. He thinks he has better ear than any body in this forum. Rumor has it that he actually replaced all the pickups on his guitars with SD Antiquity cause those mass produced version weren't up to standard. Oldtimers...
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Obsessive Compulsive said:
Yeah it's a personal opinion, just like your opinion and everybody else's that tone wood matters. By the way, the 'million' factors is an expression, a hyperbole, not to be taken literally. And FYI my rig is just gitar, pickup, a Laney combo amp, distortion pedal, a Zoom multistomp (Chorus only); an EQ (for extra bass) and a Lexicon rack (for delay) on the effects loop; no multiple rows of weird pedals like most of the guys here use. Very simple.

What's needed is a tool that measures the effect of wood or lack thereof on tone, independently and objectively.
Click to expand...
Very simple is guitar into clean amp.


And opinions (really 'experience') hold weight based on how they are formed. Not only is mine backed up by science (proof from those who actually know what they're talking about in this field), it also incorporates the various findings of practically everyone who I've come across on forums. Every bit of data is added in.......none of this 'ignoring people just because they say something I don't agree with'. If you say 'I haven't experienced any wood based tonal change'.......I accept that. It fits right in with my contentions that not every guitar is distinct. But also that you can mask differences. Your rig is important. Some rigs hide differences as do higher output pickups IME. I have a Fender 68 Deluxe RI with NOS tubes and an alnico speaker........you hear everything with that.

FWIW there are plenty of examples in the net for those with an open mind. It needs only 1 example of difference to prove wood affects tone. It needs almost every guitar ever made tested to prove wood doesn't affect tone. That is the extent of the argument here.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

AlexR said:
It needs only 1 example of difference to prove wood affects tone. It needs almost every guitar ever made tested to prove wood doesn't affect tone. That is the extent of the argument here.
Click to expand...

While you should be right the problem with this argument is that the point of debate changes all the time depending on who starts to be in the losing camp:
- first prove it does/doesn't affect tone
- then prove you can hear it
- then prove the audience hears it
- then prove it can't be compensated by other factors
- then prove a different wood is a good investment as apposed to adding a pedal
- etc etc

It all leads to nothing but it's entertaining.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top