Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

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

Little Pigbacon said:
Aside from being curious about the science -- and thinking I'd be a good choice to help bring the science to the topic -- I don't really care what the truth is. I continue to act as though tone woods matter, because it's fun. I'm cognizant and appreciative of the placebo effect. It's like wearing designer underwear: Nobody else is going to see it, and it may not directly affect anything as you go about your day, but the confidence boost it gives you is quite real.
Click to expand...

This is the smartest thing I've read on this forum in a long time, second only to your signature of course.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
I'm just saying that there are so many people out there who don't give certain guitars a chance on the sole basis of the wood that it's made of. There are tons of people who won't buy a poplar guitar (or basswood back in the day) because they hear people say that it's a bad wood.
Click to expand...

Conversely, someone who doesn't believe that wood makes a difference might not bother to give other guitars a try because he believes wood is just for looks.



Look... I get where you're trying to go with this, but I have three versions of pretty much the same guitar (different necks, different bodies), and the reason I have them is because they all do something unique. If I followed your logic I would've chosen the nicest looking one and I wouldn't have bothered getting the other two.
 
Last edited:
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

All the great jazz guitarists in history from Charlie Christian to Joe Pass must have used rosewood fretboards because they're Nancy Boys huh.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Gibson first used flamed Maple caps not because maple has some magic tonal qualities, but because it looks hella cool with a trans finish. They also chose Mahogany because that's what people were used to from Gibson accoustic guitars. Fender used Pine because it was cheap and abundant (they later switched to Ash and Alder because Pine was too soft). Ibanez used Basswood because they use to just make cheap imitations of other guitars and they wanted to stretch their profit margins, after they got higher quality and more original instruments, they kept it because it worked for their purposes.

Electric guitars weren't very poplar :D back in the day, so the modern day sultans of guitar manufacturing had to make instruments cheap enough that the public would want to buy an instrument that has yet to prove itself in the world of music. They then advertised these as the most tonally superior woods available for an electric guitar.

If you are of the camp that doesn't believe wood makes a difference, feel free not to read this bit.

You can then argue that these woods are so superior today because the amps and pickups of the day were designed around the woods that were originally used.

I could throw in how the appearance of the guitar makes a huge difference, but I'll save that for another lecture.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

The appearance (shape/design) does make a difference broseph. That's why strats and teles or LPs and 335s sound differently even if you use the same pickup in each.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I wrote legit 6 paragraphs about that post, but then I realized I wasn't adding anything to the conversation. I'll leave it up to someone 10 years down the road to answer all our questions. But until someone gets some solid science on it, this thread is going nowhere. Stay strong, we will reach a day when we achieve a peaceful resolution to if wood, shielding, or capacitor brands make a worthwhile impact on tone.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
Electric guitars weren't very poplar :D back in the day,
Click to expand...

2d1f06aa4573a7e59380f84e941915f8.jpg



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

Little Pigbacon said:
Aside from being curious about the science -- and thinking I'd be a good choice to help bring the science to the topic -- I don't really care what the truth is. I continue to act as though tone woods matter, because it's fun. I'm cognizant and appreciative of the placebo effect. It's like wearing designer underwear: Nobody else is going to see it, and it may not directly affect anything as you go about your day, but the confidence boost it gives you is quite real.
Click to expand...

That means you agree that wood doesn't matter.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
I wrote legit 6 paragraphs about that post, but then I realized I wasn't adding anything to the conversation. I'll leave it up to someone 10 years down the road to answer all our questions. But until someone gets some solid science on it, this thread is going nowhere. Stay strong, we will reach a day when we achieve a peaceful resolution to if wood, shielding, or capacitor brands make a worthwhile impact on tone.
Click to expand...

There is already solid science behind it but it's classified cause it will potentially bring the whole music and guitar industry down.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
Gibson first used flamed Maple caps not because maple has some magic tonal qualities, but because it looks hella cool with a trans finish. They also chose Mahogany because that's what people were used to from Gibson accoustic guitars. Fender used Pine because it was cheap and abundant (they later switched to Ash and Alder because Pine was too soft). Ibanez used Basswood because they use to just make cheap imitations of other guitars and they wanted to stretch their profit margins, after they got higher quality and more original instruments, they kept it because it worked for their purposes.
.
Click to expand...
If you're talking the LP, then it was under opaque paint for 6 years.
And they only sought out flamed over plain after customers requested it.

The prototyping for the LP went through dozens on dozens of wood combos and depths. It is totally incorrect to say they just used x as it was already used. There was a specific tonal outcome and they found it with a specific depth maple cap on top of a certain depth mahogany back
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
Gibson first used flamed Maple caps not because maple has some magic tonal qualities, but because it looks hella cool with a trans finish.
Click to expand...

From '52 to '57 the maple cap on a Les Paul model was pained in a solid colour... gold.

It came with one because that's what Les Paul wanted (more sustain). He actually wanted it reversed (maple body/mahogany cap), but it made the guitar too heavy.

FWIW - during the same time period the more expensive Custom model was solid mahogany. The maple cap came on the cheaper guitar....



Fender used Pine because it was cheap and abundant (they later switched to Ash and Alder because Pine was too soft).
Click to expand...

Fender used pine because he had it lying around his shop. The first Fender guitars were the 3/4" wood used for amplifier cabinets laminated together until they were big enough to form a body. And you're right, it was too soft.

Alder and ash were used because it was cheap, abundant. and worked well for solid body electrics.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I don't know if tonewood affects anything music wise, although it sure does have an effect on how (un)pleasant people can be on forums.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

I'm flabbergasted how many people think there's no difference between components as basic as a maple and rosewood fretboard. There's a reason why every jazz player for over half a century used rosewood instead of maple, because it's warmer.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Obsessive Compulsive said:
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.
Click to expand...

that was scientific, back to some classic Anthrax now :)
(BTW its not epoxy any more, its solder now, and it sustains great, sustain problems are rarely on the 1st fret FYI )
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Clint 55 said:
I'm flabbergasted how many people think there's no difference between components as basic as a maple and rosewood fretboard.
Click to expand...

I'm that plus bewildered lol. Ebony vs Rosewood vs Maple boards all have distinct timbres that are instantly and easily recognizable.
The general wide-held descriptions of each hold-up near all of the time IME.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Chistopher said:
I'm just saying that there are so many people out there who don't give certain guitars a chance on the sole basis of the wood that it's made of. There are tons of people who won't buy a poplar guitar (or basswood back in the day) because they hear people say that it's a bad wood.
It's also annoying when people complain about a guitar being too bright and they say "ahh, it must not be the Ash pairing well with the pickups." When in reality it's just the wrong pickup.
Click to expand...

I won't buy guitar made basswood or poplar, simply because it's so soft. I sure would end up breaking it somehow.
 
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .

Jacew said:
I won't buy guitar made basswood or poplar, simply because it's so soft. I sure would end up breaking it somehow.
Click to expand...

That's a legitimate grievance about specific wood. I once met a guy who had a guitar made of Brazilian Kingwood, not because of the sound it imparts, but because it is among the hardest woods out there. I'd take a guitar with strong wood that sounds "decent" over a guitar with wood of mythical quality that would end up with a broken neck if you so much as looked at it wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top