Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
- Thread starter Artie
- Start date
nexion218
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
If only you made it with the exact same caps on the pot... "A+" for the efforts though!
If only you made it with the exact same caps on the pot... "A+" for the efforts though!
Chistopher
malapterurus electricus tonewood instigator
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
The difference between a .022uf and .015uf cap on a pot run wide open will make a negligible difference in this application, but it does beg the question of what other variables may not have been taken in account for this experiment.
The difference between a .022uf and .015uf cap on a pot run wide open will make a negligible difference in this application, but it does beg the question of what other variables may not have been taken in account for this experiment.
nexion218
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Yep, I do understand that.
But coming from a research background I must say that I had learnt it the hard way that if you run an experiment with "negligible" differences, you can never be sure about what information the results hold. So the safest bet is to take that "negligible difference" out of the equation.
Also, having the slightest difference in the experimental setup will not silence those speaking against the case... There are some rabid mythbusters-to-be out there! I once found a video in which the guy did a proper (and I mean PROPER) experiment with tonewoods, multiple of them and he even used a piece of a door, only to conclude that while there are differences, those must stem from the difference in playing while recording the test clips, so basically he said that a piece of door will sound the same as mahogany or alder. Go figure.
Yep, I do understand that.
But coming from a research background I must say that I had learnt it the hard way that if you run an experiment with "negligible" differences, you can never be sure about what information the results hold. So the safest bet is to take that "negligible difference" out of the equation. Also, having the slightest difference in the experimental setup will not silence those speaking against the case... There are some rabid mythbusters-to-be out there!
I once found a video in which the guy did a proper (and I mean PROPER) experiment with tonewoods, multiple of them and he even used a piece of a door, only to conclude that while there are differences, those must stem from the difference in playing while recording the test clips, so basically he said that a piece of door will sound the same as mahogany or alder. Go figure. 
NegativeEase
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I appreciate the attempt, but I suggest the scientific method here -using only one variable at a time -otherwise it's not as valuable of a video.
I appreciate the attempt, but I suggest the scientific method here -using only one variable at a time -otherwise it's not as valuable of a video.
NegativeEase
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
I think even the caps should be the same -if he's going to go to the trouble to make a quality comparison -absolutely one variable at a time would be much better -otherwise it's still questionable and debatable.
I think even the caps should be the same -if he's going to go to the trouble to make a quality comparison -absolutely one variable at a time would be much better -otherwise it's still questionable and debatable.
Chistopher
malapterurus electricus tonewood instigator
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
The specific pot values, scale length, pickup height, and the specifics on the bridge and strings aren't mentioned either.
The specific pot values, scale length, pickup height, and the specifics on the bridge and strings aren't mentioned either.
NegativeEase
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Totally Agree. also, to really dial this in, the strum force needs to be consistent. build a jig with a drill or something -:lmao: that may be too far.
Totally Agree. also, to really dial this in, the strum force needs to be consistent. build a jig with a drill or something -:lmao: that may be too far.
Blille
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
https://youtu.be/jC2VB-5EnUs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
https://youtu.be/jC2VB-5EnUs
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
NegativeEase
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Haven't seen that one before, totally cool. but I've seen many lesser attempts.
Haven't seen that one before, totally cool. but I've seen many lesser attempts.
GuitarStv
Sock Market Trader
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Most pots used in guitars are +-10 (or worse) %. Using the same value 500k pot can give you a 550k value and a 450k value . . . which will sound quite different. Probably best to use fixed resistors that measure exactly the same.
Most pots used in guitars are +-10 (or worse) %. Using the same value 500k pot can give you a 550k value and a 450k value . . . which will sound quite different. Probably best to use fixed resistors that measure exactly the same.
NegativeEase
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Also, one note on No load pots, don't confuse gain with tone. I used to have a No Load pot on my Tele, that after a lot of bench tests revealed the tonal things I like were the slight gain bump at the amp -not an inherit tonal difference as much (make sense?), which a could also be accomplished with a regular Volume pot and a slight extra compensatory gain bump at the amp -meaning, it's easy to just keep your regular volume pot and get a similar effect using the amp.
However, No load on a tone pot can be dramatic, however I found on a Telecaster that extra No Load Tone pot bite added was often a bit much for a live performance, but I liked using it in the studio for tone options.
Also, one note on No load pots, don't confuse gain with tone. I used to have a No Load pot on my Tele, that after a lot of bench tests revealed the tonal things I like were the slight gain bump at the amp -not an inherit tonal difference as much (make sense?), which a could also be accomplished with a regular Volume pot and a slight extra compensatory gain bump at the amp -meaning, it's easy to just keep your regular volume pot and get a similar effect using the amp.
However, No load on a tone pot can be dramatic, however I found on a Telecaster that extra No Load Tone pot bite added was often a bit much for a live performance, but I liked using it in the studio for tone options.
DavidRavenMoon
New member
Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
The structure of the guitar affects how the strings vibrate. The pickups reproduce this. The amount of stiffness (Young’s modulus) affects the tone as well as how much energy the wood (or other material) can absorb. This is known as the loss coefficient.
Harder woods have less loss coefficient so they absorb less energy (vibrations) from the strings. There’s this funny notion people have about wanting to couple the vibrations of the strings with the body, as if that magically produces sustain or “tone,” but it does the opposite. That’s why solid body guitars were invented, and why they sound different from a hollow body or acoustic guitar.
The reason why a heavy Les Paul has more sustain than a banjo is precisely because the body has a lot of mass, so the energy from the strings mostly stays in the strings. It’s a mechanical impedance mismatch. That’s a low loss coefficient. This produces a long sustaining note, but very little acoustic output.
Now look at a banjo; most of the energy from the vibrating string is transferred into exciting the drum head. You end up with a loud acoustic output, and almost zero sustain. This is because the strings lose vibrational energy to the head. When the energy is gone they stop vibrating.
This illustrates how the structure and material effect how the instrument sounds.
A hard, heavy wood like rock maple or ebony is going to sound very different from a soft lightweight wood like swamp ash or basswood. This is because different materials have a different loss coefficient and Young’s modulus. They will have a resonant frequency and absorb more energy in those areas. Often like a comb filter (the frequency plus harmonics).
Also to illustrate that it’s not just the pickups, putting humbuckers in a Strat doesn’t make it sound like a Les Paul. An SG with the exact same pickups will also sound different.
If it were just the pickups there wouldn’t be so many different guitars on the market because they would all sound the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
The structure of the guitar affects how the strings vibrate. The pickups reproduce this. The amount of stiffness (Young’s modulus) affects the tone as well as how much energy the wood (or other material) can absorb. This is known as the loss coefficient.
Harder woods have less loss coefficient so they absorb less energy (vibrations) from the strings. There’s this funny notion people have about wanting to couple the vibrations of the strings with the body, as if that magically produces sustain or “tone,” but it does the opposite. That’s why solid body guitars were invented, and why they sound different from a hollow body or acoustic guitar.
The reason why a heavy Les Paul has more sustain than a banjo is precisely because the body has a lot of mass, so the energy from the strings mostly stays in the strings. It’s a mechanical impedance mismatch. That’s a low loss coefficient. This produces a long sustaining note, but very little acoustic output.
Now look at a banjo; most of the energy from the vibrating string is transferred into exciting the drum head. You end up with a loud acoustic output, and almost zero sustain. This is because the strings lose vibrational energy to the head. When the energy is gone they stop vibrating.
This illustrates how the structure and material effect how the instrument sounds.
A hard, heavy wood like rock maple or ebony is going to sound very different from a soft lightweight wood like swamp ash or basswood. This is because different materials have a different loss coefficient and Young’s modulus. They will have a resonant frequency and absorb more energy in those areas. Often like a comb filter (the frequency plus harmonics).
Also to illustrate that it’s not just the pickups, putting humbuckers in a Strat doesn’t make it sound like a Les Paul. An SG with the exact same pickups will also sound different.
If it were just the pickups there wouldn’t be so many different guitars on the market because they would all sound the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
DavidRavenMoon
New member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Chistopher
malapterurus electricus tonewood instigator
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
That's because the bridge is mounted to a membrane that is 100th of an inch thick in a spot no where near the fundamental, second, or third harmonics (i.e. more destructive than constructive interference). Compare this to a 2.25" thick Les Paul which easily has at least 300 times the mass of a banjo membrane, meaning that the bridge dampens a considerably less amount of the string's vibration decrement will be considerably less than a banjo. This decrement is by it's very nature logarithmic, which is why replacing a the membrane on a banjo to something more rigid can easily make it sustain twice as long, but doing the same thing with a guitar body will have a considerably less obvious effect. It's also why, all else being equal, two acoustics with different woods will have vastly different tones, two ES-175s with different woods will have a less substantial difference, and two Les Pauls will have even less.
To put that all in layman's terms, the difference between two species of wood in the same guitar is quite a bit less extreme than a banjo versus a guitar, but you guys (or at least guy, I doubt too many people read this far into this post) already new that.
Now given that already small acoustic difference is transformed into an electric signal through pickups, which even at their best are the opposite of transparent, the question is "Is this difference noticable, and if so is it substantial?". And that's before the tone gets colored even further by effects, amplifiers, speakers, and microphones.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
That's because the bridge is mounted to a membrane that is 100th of an inch thick in a spot no where near the fundamental, second, or third harmonics (i.e. more destructive than constructive interference). Compare this to a 2.25" thick Les Paul which easily has at least 300 times the mass of a banjo membrane, meaning that the bridge dampens a considerably less amount of the string's vibration decrement will be considerably less than a banjo. This decrement is by it's very nature logarithmic, which is why replacing a the membrane on a banjo to something more rigid can easily make it sustain twice as long, but doing the same thing with a guitar body will have a considerably less obvious effect. It's also why, all else being equal, two acoustics with different woods will have vastly different tones, two ES-175s with different woods will have a less substantial difference, and two Les Pauls will have even less.
To put that all in layman's terms, the difference between two species of wood in the same guitar is quite a bit less extreme than a banjo versus a guitar, but you guys (or at least guy, I doubt too many people read this far into this post) already new that.
Now given that already small acoustic difference is transformed into an electric signal through pickups, which even at their best are the opposite of transparent, the question is "Is this difference noticable, and if so is it substantial?". And that's before the tone gets colored even further by effects, amplifiers, speakers, and microphones.
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
Well, I guess it's FINALLY settled then.
There are tonewoods and toneless woods; there are tone shapes and toneless shapes; there are tone skins and toneless skins; there are tone bridges and toneless bridges; there are tone strings and toneless strings; there are tone pups and toneless pups; there are tone amps and toneless amps; there are tone speakers and toneless speakers. And everything in-between! And to top it all off, there are ears that hear tones and ears that don't.
God bless all musicians and the human race. And thank God that we are all different and have different tastes in music, esthetics, and ???.
Well, I guess it's FINALLY settled then.
There are tonewoods and toneless woods; there are tone shapes and toneless shapes; there are tone skins and toneless skins; there are tone bridges and toneless bridges; there are tone strings and toneless strings; there are tone pups and toneless pups; there are tone amps and toneless amps; there are tone speakers and toneless speakers. And everything in-between! And to top it all off, there are ears that hear tones and ears that don't.
God bless all musicians and the human race. And thank God that we are all different and have different tastes in music, esthetics, and ???.
beaubrummels
Well-known member
Re: Check out this "tonewood" statement . . .
You get yourself a knockoff factory second mystery wood Strat body and hand route it for a Humbucker in the bridge and a reverse Tele bridge in the middle.
You get yourself a knockoff factory second mystery wood Strat body and hand route it for a Humbucker in the bridge and a reverse Tele bridge in the middle.