Help me understand guitar wood tone

big kurka

New member
So I've been getting help in another post with trying get one of my guitars to sound halfway decent and the how does your guitar wood sound subject came up. Well to be perfectly honest I don't think I truly know or understand it. Like how do you know if your guitar is dark, warm, bright, thin, flat sounding etc... when its not plugged in to a amp. For example, lets say you have a new guitar to you with no pickups in, how would decide what pickup to use from a more technical point rather than this guitarist uses this pickup so I'm going to use the same pickup. Then there's the other part dealing with tremolos and them making the guitar sound thin.
If you know and can explain it I would be very interested and appreciative what you have to say.
 
Like how do you know if your guitar is dark, warm, bright, thin, flat sounding etc... when its not plugged in to a amp.

You don't. And don't believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Sure, there are *some* characteristics that translate through to the amplified tone, but the unplugged sound is really a poor indicator of a guitar's amplified tone.

Even plugged in, the "type" of wood isn't going to be a good indicator of a guitar's tone. Two identically equipped "mahogany" Les Pauls produced at the same time, but from different pieces of wood, will sound somewhat different from each other. One may actually be rather bright, while the other is relatively warm sounding. Likewise, you can easily have an Alder guitar that is warmer and fuller sounding than a similarly constructed Mahogany guitar. Wood "type" isn't the only "tone" factor at play.

Furthermore, just because a guitar resonates or "feels" more lively unplugged does not necessarily mean that it will sound "better" plugged in.
 
Last edited:
You don't. And don't believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Sure, there are *some* characteristics that translate through to the amplified tone, but the unplugged sound is a poor indicator of a guitar's amplified tone.

Even plugged in, 2 identically equipped "mahogany" Les Pauls will sound similar, but also slightly different from each other. The "type" of wood they are made of isn't the only "tone" factor at play.

Furthermore, just because a guitar resonates or "feels" more lively unplugged does not necessarily mean it will sound "better" plugged in.

I agree with this. I am new to this forum, but definitely not new to guitars. I've played and owned a lot of them over the years.
Honestly, I've learned to completely disregard guitar-wood related buzzwords, super-exotic woods and the widely accepted tropes for bright and sparkly or dark and warm or whatever-sounding woods.
When picking a new guitar, I am basically buying a well-made neck that can be setup properly and a decent fretjob, everything else just needs to fit in to the "project", shape-wise and/or aestethically. Good hardware is a plus, but pickups, pots, tuners and nuts rarely stay stock.

The feel of the neck, the weight and comfort of the body, those are much more important than simple wood specs: mahogany vs poplar vs ash vs basswood vs anything.
Atleast in my humble 20ish years of experience: a lot of things affect your tone. Bodywood is not NOT on that list, but is far less important than people like to believe.
 
Ok make sense, but are there any common things like a floyd rose that might make you start with a particular pickup over a different one. If so why? Or would you just put in a set of known pickups and try it and see if you need a pickup with more highs or lows?

Also since I'm asking about guitar tone it seems like everyone has there own definition of the different tone terms. I've heard some people describe fat as more mid heavy and others as more bass heavy. So like what do all these different term actually mean like thin, warm, flat, woofy, dark, tight, loose thick, airy etc....?
 
Well, if it comes with pickups, and I don't like them, I figure out what I don't like. Maybe it is the EQ, maybe the output. I figure out what is in there so I move in the opposite direction. If it is a guitar I am building with no pickups, I start with a set that I am familiar with, then I can either keep them or find which direction to move in. I generally don't care what my favorite artists like, though.
 
Ok make sense, but are there any common things like a floyd rose that might make you start with a particular pickup over a different one. If so why? Or would you just put in a set of known pickups and try it and see if you need a pickup with more highs or lows?

Yeah, I mean, you don't see a 335 with a Floyd rose often, nor a Strat with three ceramic humbuckers. But then again, some people really like weird stuff like that. I guess that's not a tonal thing, more of a personality thing.
What would you like your pickups to sound? Try out or listen to (hq audio only ofc) samples of pickups, go from there.
Some traditional wisdom CAN be a good starting point, but it doesn't need to limit you. ;)

Also since I'm asking about guitar tone it seems like everyone has there own definition of the different tone terms. I've heard some people describe fat as more mid heavy and others as more bass heavy. So like what do all these different term actually mean like thin, warm, flat, woofy, dark, tight, loose thick, airy etc....?

Those are guitar people words, not strictly defined technical terms, and can mean different things to different people.
For instance, of those words you mentioned, which ones would you use to describe your Tele neck pickup, and which ones for the Schecters bridge pickup?
 
Yep, in my humble understanding, guitar wood is a big can of worms, to take with a big grain of salt, to say the least. :-)

Not that materials don't count: their interaction is just more complex than expected, often counterintuitive and "idiosyncrasies" defy generalizations.

That being said, here is something that I find interesting to read, coming from a luthier : https://www.frudua.com/electric-guitar-wood.htm
 
You don't. And don't believe anyone who claims otherwise.

Sure, there are *some* characteristics that translate through to the amplified tone, but the unplugged sound is really a poor indicator of a guitar's amplified tone.

Even plugged in, the "type" of wood isn't going to be a good indicator of a guitar's tone. Two identically equipped "mahogany" Les Pauls produced at the same time, but from different pieces of wood, will sound somewhat different from each other. One may actually be rather bright, while the other is relatively warm sounding. Likewise, you can easily have an Alder guitar that is warmer and fuller sounding than a similarly constructed Mahogany guitar. Wood "type" isn't the only "tone" factor at play.

Furthermore, just because a guitar resonates or "feels" more lively unplugged does not necessarily mean that it will sound "better" plugged in.


Don't tell professional players that. They're convinced that the guitar that sounds the best unplugged will sound the best plugged in.
 
So I've been getting help in another post with trying get one of my guitars to sound halfway decent and the how does your guitar wood sound subject came up. Well to be perfectly honest I don't think I truly know or understand it. Like how do you know if your guitar is dark, warm, bright, thin, flat sounding etc... when its not plugged in to a amp. For example, lets say you have a new guitar to you with no pickups in, how would decide what pickup to use from a more technical point rather than this guitarist uses this pickup so I'm going to use the same pickup. Then there's the other part dealing with tremolos and them making the guitar sound thin.
If you know and can explain it I would be very interested and appreciative what you have to say.

I agree you can't tell much of anything about the tone of a guitar without plugging it in. (EDIT: electric guitar, that is)
IMO one can sometimes learn a bit about what to expect in its feel that way, though.

IME electrics that sounded loud unplugged have often seemed to be the ones that came alive best at volume - but not always.
I've owned some that felt dead initially, then became tone monsters at band volume. A few of those I still have.
There have been others that stayed dull and required arena-gig levels before they'd begin to take off and fly.
Anyway, that's about liveness, not tone.

IMO evaluating tone in an individual guitar is a skill that comes mostly from personal experience.
Once you've owned and gigged a few of similar design and construction, it's much easier to identify the distinctions.

There are some objective factors that make for obvious differences, like singlecoils vs humbuckers.
And then there's the Floyd Rose, which usually does subtly thin out a guitar's tone a bit.
But I think it's hard to imagine that shading simply from reading about it.
I think one can't fully grasp the differences until you've owned one with a Floyd and another like it without.
Or, ideally, been familiar with a guitar before and after it was converted to a Floyd.

Tone judgement is almost entirely subjective; even the vocabulary we use is nebulous.

Over the years many famous musical personalities have said, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture."
Talking about tone is perhaps not quite that disconnected, but it's pretty vague.
 
Last edited:
I agree with this. I am new to this forum, but definitely not new to guitars. I've played and owned a lot of them over the years.
Honestly, I've learned to completely disregard guitar-wood related buzzwords, super-exotic woods and the widely accepted tropes for bright and sparkly or dark and warm or whatever-sounding woods.
When picking a new guitar, I am basically buying a well-made neck that can be setup properly and a decent fretjob, everything else just needs to fit in to the "project", shape-wise and/or aestethically. Good hardware is a plus, but pickups, pots, tuners and nuts rarely stay stock.

The feel of the neck, the weight and comfort of the body, those are much more important than simple wood specs: mahogany vs poplar vs ash vs basswood vs anything.
Atleast in my humble 20ish years of experience: a lot of things affect your tone. Bodywood is not NOT on that list, but is far less important than people like to believe.



Yea. Then you get just 1 Eric Johnson that claims he can hear the difference between a 61 and a 54 Strat and tell you what wood they're made of and who assembled it on what, day and even where they were in the shop. All from hearing it played.

And that alone can and does outweigh any proven facts saying otherwise to so many people who, see him as some guitar whisperer. That's where things are f-ed up. You get thousands of parrots repeating this crap that EJ talks as if it's gospel. Smh. Why? Because he's Eric Johnson and it matches what they want to believe about how guitar pickups work and how they do or don't interact with wood in a solid body guitar.

Seriously. You'd be astonished at how many guitar players don't know how a pickup works or have a fundamental misunderstanding of how they work.
 
Last edited:
The tone qualities we associate with various wood types are just generalizations - IMO they're true only in the aggregate sense.
Yes, mahogany tends to be warmer than maple, and maple tends to be brighter than mahog.
Maple also usually tends to feel stiffer, while mahogany has a bit more give.

That does NOT mean that a particular piece of maple or mahogany is going to conform to expectations.
Wood can vary a whole lot from one piece to another, even in the same species. Or in the same tree, for that matter.

I used to travel once a year to buy new guitars at a big store where they knew who I was and they'd let me try every Les Paul they had.
I'd spend a couple of hours trying two dozen or more, find a few that really spoke to me, and take my pick from those.
Mostly I was looking for lively necks rather than a specific flavor of tone, but any naturally dull or thin sounding ones didn't make the cut.

One thing I learned for sure was that nearly identical guitars - same year, model and specs - sometimes can be miles apart tonewise.

You can't look at a guitar and say whether it's going to sound scooped or middy, bright or dark, deep or thin or fat.
You can anticipate that a certain design and wood choice is likely to be brighter or richer in the mids, but that isn't at all certain.

The only way to tell for sure is by playing the individual instrument, through an amp - preferably a familiar amp - with some volume.
Because its identical twin could have a very different voice.

IMO there's a lot about a guitar's (or a pickup's) personality that is only revealed with a good tube amp at volume and moderate gain.
Even high quality gain by itself is not enough - a certain amount volume is necessary for some subtleties to reveal themselves.
I have guitars that may sound pretty similar when played at home, yet behave quite differently at band volume.

To those who only play clean, or at home volumes, maybe the wood really doesn't matter much.
All I can say is, for me it's different.
 
Like with anything on the Net, a problem with tonewoods is "blanket statements" and their intellectual basis : radical opinions.

For example, the following video would easily convince people that materials don't matter at all in an electric guitar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n02tImce3AE

But when he plays an "air guitar" with strings in the void between two tables, the necessarily resonant hardness and mass of body + neck are replaced by those of the two tables used...

... and I think that a guitar made of balsa would convince people that wood matters, after all. :-P


As a "constructive" contribution, I'll share below a pic that I've already posted several times here and there. It translates roughly the miked acoustic resonance of two real Gibson Les Paul's (mahogany body, maple top) and a Korean Epi Les Paul (whose body was made of chunks of non mahogany wood, under a veneer).
This pic gives at least an idea of some common traits & differences noticeable in two "identical" instruments effectively made of the same materials and in the same factory, at ten years of distance.
And FWIW, the Epi wasn't sounding at all like the Gibson's with the same pickups: a RC filter was added to it in order to tame the peak @ 4khz and to bring back the missing mids. :-)

AcousticRzgibsonVSepiLPs.jpg - Click image for larger version  Name:	AcousticRzgibsonVSepiLPs.jpg Views:	0 Size:	46.2 KB ID:	6184547

EDIT - Among mad vids, I like this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFOAH685KYE
 
Last edited:
Yea. Then you get just 1 Eric Johnson that claims he can hear the difference between a 61 and a 54 Strat and tell you what wood they're made of and who assembled it on what, day and even where they were in the shop. All from hearing it played.

And that alone can and does outweigh any proven facts saying otherwise to so many people who, see him as some guitar whisperer. That's where things are f-ed up. You get thousands of parrots repeating this crap that EJ talks as if it's gospel. Smh. Why? Because he's Eric Johnson .......

Because it's easy to forget about Jack Pearson or Mike Rutherford, world-class guitarists who proudly play $200-300 Squier strats, and play them every bit as good as EJ plays his sacred wood Strat.

Again. Wood doesn't NOT matter, but a slew of variables are at play when talking tone. I think pickups, amps, strings, a twist of a knob here and there, and YOUR tone, your fingers and your picking, all affect it to a greater extent.
 
It's common to talk about wood tone, but I don't think it's common to determine the tone of the wood first and then figure out what pickups it needs. The vast majority of people just pick what pickups they want and then adapt later if necessary. There has only been 1 time ever where the wood messed up the tone for my guitar.

I'd say if you want to get deep into the optimizing pickups with guitar woods, you just have to try the different species and get a feel for their general characteristics. Then you can kind of ballpark what you'd like to assemble. But in general, I think people just think what kind of pickup they want and stick it in there.
 
Also since I'm asking about guitar tone it seems like everyone has there own definition of the different tone terms. I've heard some people describe fat as more mid heavy and others as more bass heavy. So like what do all these different term actually mean like thin, warm, flat, woofy, dark, tight, loose thick, airy etc....?

Tone-descriptive words mean totally different things to different people and there's no accepted standard at all.
Most of us seem to agree that brightness has to do with treble, but that's about all the consensus we've got.

It doesn't help that there's a lot of overlap between tone and feel - big lows can feel tight or loose.
I like loose vintagey lows in a pickup, but when they're too loose for a certain guitar I'd call them woofy.
And with too much gain, woofy can turn into tubby - which isn't always a bad quality, unless you need tight chug.
Again, though, that's as much about feel as sound.

My primary tone words:

I'd say fatness lives mostly in the low mids. Vowel tones (oooh, aaah, eee) make up the mid-mids. Snarl & cut are in the upper mids.

To me, presence lives mostly in the low treble, brightness in the middle treble, sparkle in the high treble, and air in the highest of highs.

For me, warmth means gentle or subdued highs, usually combined with rich mids.

Darkness refers to a lack of highs, and thinness speaks to a deficiency of lows & low mids.

I'd say thick is similar to fat, but involves a broad hump throughout the low mids and mids, rather than just a bump in the low mids.
There's another aspect of thickness and/or fatness when you play high up the neck. Not always the same as it is on the lower notes.

Those are just my personal word choices though, not well-defined terms; other players might assign completely different meanings.

Again, much of our vocabulary is about feel and tone both. Certain pickups have an especially fierce character.
Some pickups are said to be dry, others are described as juicy. Good P90s have bark.
I can't define those specifically, yet to me they convey meaning; I've come to associate those qualities with a certain sound and feel.
I had one pickup which in that particular guitar could only be described as scratchy. Not just bright and thin, but also harsh.

Some words have more than one accepted meaning when talking tone - ironically, definition is one of them.
We use it for a sharp pick attack that helps give articulation and precise timing to every note you play.
We also talk about string-to-string definition, where each individual note in a chord remains distinct from the others.

And there are descriptors for dynamic character; people talk about fast or vintage attack, and about bloom on sustained notes, or clean stops when playing power chords.

Words for texture get even more hard to nail down. To me, wooly is quite different from woofy. I've heard some pickups referred to as smooth, yet I've also heard that word in conjunction with the treble voicing on others. Gain can be smooth, or rough, or buzzy, or even grainy.

Sorry to have gotten so wordy here in the middle of the night. I get carried away sometimes.

My main point is, when we talk tone, we aren't usually talking just about sound.
 
Of course, the tones of woods differ - play a Tele unplugged and then a Les Paul. They will be very different. It's my theory that all electrics are acoustic guitars first. They can't help but be that way as the vibrate. But the chain of sound from the player's fingertips and his pick all the way to the speaker cone make up the final sound. There is no hard and fast rule - it's the combination and the interaction that yields the sound.

All rules are general - no specifics, and there are always exceptions. You can process it, filter it, etc. About the only thing you can't do is add something that's not there. If there is a 500hz hole in your guitar sound - nothing will add it back in, only hide it.

Some of you may remember the story of Ted Nugent asking Edward Van Halen if he could play Ed's rig. Of course, Ed obliged and to Ted's surprise...... He still sounded like Ted, not like Ed.

Per Eclectricsynergy... Some folks equate tones with food. We've all heard "sweet" applied to tones. "Crunchy" for good rhythm tones. I often think of good lead tones as "chewy". We all know what "cheesy" means.

Studio ace Skunk Baxter recalled Dolly Parton asking him to keep to "green, sparkly" tones... He had a tough time figuring that one out, but she was pleased with the result.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top