Pickups for mahogany Tele???

[MrTondo]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Just to contribute a little to this discussion. As an Applied Physics MSc I can tell there is a certain thing physicists call coupled oscillators. It basically means the movement of the one oscillating (vibrating) part (in our case the string) is coupled to the vibration of the other one (the wood) and vice versa. With the tonality of the strongest oscillator determining the character of both oscillators as a main rule.

One famous example is that of an experiment by Dutch physicist and inventor of the pendulum clock Huygens. He noticed that although he set his clocks up to start at a different time and speed after a while they would exactly tick tack in sync. He found out that the frequency and timing of the ticking was determined by this big heavy clock he had, that all the other smaller clocks would follow that big one. They did not have to be connected, the (bearly noticable) vibration of the floor was already enough to synchronize them. And their mutual resonance was enough to keep them in pace

Our guitar functions similarly the vibration starts at the string and then is fed into the wood, but then the wood in turn communicates with the string and the two together determine the sound. The properties of the two of them together determine both the way the string vibrates and the way the wood vibrates. And the signal of the string is then picked up by our magnetic pickups and goes through all the electronics etc into our amp and speaker.

Then you can argue about how much of the sound is determined by which oscillator. Which of the two is the stronger oscillator? The only real way of settling this would of course be to measure it by taking out all the components (tuner/nut/strings/bridge, electronics and wires) out of a guitar and suspending them in air on a vibrationally isolated stand and tuning them to the exact same pitch, getting the same pickup-placement etc. and then listening to the difference in sound (or putting it into your spectrum analyser if you will). I wonder whether anyone has ever done this, I guess not. But what I do know is that there are woods that sustain better than other woods, this results in longer string ringout on a guitar, thus proving the influence of the presence of wood on the vibration of the string. Then it would be physically logical to assume that not only the duration, but also the timbre (tone) of the string vibration is influenced by the wood.

So that is where I stand. The wood matters, yet the most important parts are the pickups, speaker and amp, since we all can tell what we produce with them is not even remotely the same we hear when we play acoustically. So for the money I would go for either a speaker replacement, or a pickup replacement, which was why this thread was started anyway I believe. So let's get back to that.

 

[Funkfingers]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

"The glubulance of his globulence has reciprocated to a respectable conclusium, YOW, SCIENCE"

Easy there, white folks! ... y'know dat sort o' thing take a little while to woik up in yo' BROADWAY SITCHYATIUM!

You could be just like him tomorrow.

 

[jumble jumble]

Pickups for mahogany Tele???

On one hand you say it is impossible to conduct a truly scientific experiment, and on the other hand, you continue to make claims about wood's significance (or lack thereof) in the guitar's tone. You have not proven that wood is not a significant variable.

Yeah you can't prove a negative, that's one of the most basic pieces of knowledge you can have about logic. I can't prove there's no Easter Bunny. If I went on to an EasterBunnyFans forum and told them there was no Easter Bunny, they'd all ask me to prove it, and they'd all be wrong. You can't prove he's not real, it's not logically possible. But in the absence of any proof that he is real, we can assume he isn't.

Same goes for tone woods, if you insist they make a difference, it's safe to ignore you until your provide proof.

I did offer to post up clips made with guitars with different body woods and have people identify them, and of course that offer was declined.


Sent from one of my four iPads

 

[Dr. Vegetable]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

I honestly don't know how profound the effect of the wood really is, and I don't expect anyone to prove a negative. But don't ride in on a high horse presenting an unsupported opinion as "science" either.

I think MrTondo described it pretty clearly. The wood is part of the physical system that is making the string vibrate. One thing he didn't mention is that sustain is a function of frequency - some wood is going to sustain certain frequency ranges longer than others. The frequency fingerprint will change over time as the note decays, and to say that you can completely compensate for this effect by setting a few EQ knobs seems a bit naive. Once the frequency content has decayed, you can't bring it back.

Personally, I spend a lot of time playing each of my electrics unplugged, and maybe this gives me a different perception of the instrument than I would have if I practiced amplified. (Yes, I did say "perception.") I have a lot of different-yet-similar guitars, and I have come to recognize and appreciate the subtle effects of everything from bolt-on/set neck/neck through designs, string gauge, scale length, locking/floating and yes, even body material. For me it would be a consideration even if it couldn't be heard at the speaker, because I feel the difference when I play. And that's one thing I am certain can be heard.

I am sure the OP enjoys his mahogany tele, and will get better advice on pickup selection than he would if he had omitted the information, regardless of whether some folks feel it was unnecessary to specify the body material. Mahogany rocks!

 

[Dr. Vegetable]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

I did offer to post up clips made with guitars with different body woods and have people identify them, and of course that offer was declined.

No one's stopping you...

 

[MrTondo]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Just in order to prove the influence of the fact that these two oscillators are coupled, put a tuning fork to the wood of the guitar and see whether there is sound coming out of your amp (No? Plug that guitar in then!). Perhaps you have to up the volume a bit since it is not a huge signal for most guitars. This will prove to anyone (at least those skilled in the art of physics) that these two oscillators (that is the strings and the wood) are coupled. If you want to get a feel for how big the influence of the wood is, pick the same note on your guitar the tuning fork is putting out and listen to the differences (there will be a difference!). This way you get a feel of how big that influence really is.

I am so surprized at these discussions time and again. It is so intriguing to see people fight for what they believe in. While I think in general that is a good thing, it also sometimes is surprising to me how difficult it is for people to part with their 'truths', or even to open up to seeing stuff from another perspective.

 

[MrTondo]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

One thing he didn't mention is that sustain is a function of frequency - some wood is going to sustain certain frequency ranges longer than others. The frequency fingerprint will change over time as the note decays, and to say that you can completely compensate for this effect by setting a few EQ knobs seems a bit naive. Once the frequency content has decayed, you can't bring it back...

This is not the only factor coming into play with the influence of the tone of the wood. Much like our pickups, which are essentailly an LRC-system (if you don't know these electronics terms, never mind it's not as important to understand them as to be able to rock them) our wood has a specific resonance structure. This structure and its associated frequencies (that is the tonality of the wood) depends on several factors, such as shape, thickness, size, density and the wood structure and type. So that means, much like a pickup the wood is the most responsive near its resonance frequency and also much like a pickup it can be either very flat in frequency response, or very specifically focussed around its resonance peaks. This does not only play an important role in the decay of the note, but on all the notes it displays, that is the entire acoustical tone of the instrument.

And at all times these two things (the wood and the strings) are interacting, so when you can specify how big that influence and interaction is, you can say how much the tone wood matters. And like many here I think those interaction can definitely be heard by ear.

So Mahogany, nice and warm enjoy .

 

[chadd]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

I have a two piece mahogany tele body that I have hard a hard time finding pickups that sound good in it. The Jazz neck with adjusted pole pieces and lil 59 bridge in it now are the best that I have found. The lil 59 is a little thin but good enough for now. The Jazz in the neck was a little muddy until I raised the treble side pole pieces. I tend to play with a thicker distorted tone, so I have often had trouble finding a neck pickup that works well for me.

 

[LesStrat]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

MrTondo has offered the more scientific explanation without the condescension or "absolute truth" about tone woods.

My point earlier was that the claims of "science" were failing to meet the demands of the scientific method while at the same time accusing us of being dumb musicians incapable of understanding science.

 

[ItsaBass]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

MrTondo has offered the more scientific explanation without the condescension or "absolute truth" about tone woods.

My point earlier was that the claims of "science" were failing to meet the demands of the scientific method while at the same time accusing us of being dumb musicians incapable of understanding science.

ezzactly

 

[925SS]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Easy there, white folks! ... y'know dat sort o' thing take a little while to woik up in yo' BROADWAY SITCHYATIUM!

You could be just like him tomorrow.

He now be preparin some ugly sh*t, to make yo life even mo misable, than it already are, since dis batch be residin to render him imoble.
We does not know if it gwine werk yet, but we can always hope for the bess:bigeyes:

I think I'll head on out to the lobby fo som dim mashed tatoes

 

[Will S-T]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Furr Fcucks Sakke

The accoustic properties of any instrument
WILL have an inflluence upon the amplified sound.

And wood is part of that equation.

 

[Arius]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

On one hand you say it is impossible to conduct a truly scientific experiment, and on the other hand, you continue to make claims about wood's significance (or lack thereof) in the guitar's tone. You have not proven that wood is not a significant variable.

Straw man.

I never said it was impossible, because it is not. I said I cannot conduct it and I doubt any lab capable of conducting it would ever be granted funding for a complete peer review-worthy trial. I cannot prove it but logically there is nothing to suggest wood makes any difference discernible to the human ear. There is just no reason to believe that, based on the principles of how the signal is shaped and the many variables we know to matter, that tonewood is at all important among them.

Where is your evidence that there are many more lurkers that are not bots:?: Do you have actual data to support this claim?

It is common knowledge there are typically more lurkers of forums of this size than active posters. So many search engine queries asking specific questions lead to forum threads, and relatively few who read resulting threads actually register, much less contribute with regular posts.

You assert the importance of the variance in electronic tolerances, yet ignore variation in wood specs. You assert the significance of other variables while denying the possibility that the wood matters at all.

I don't ignore them. I assert that difference of wood is so insignificant as to not matter at all in the real world. A heavy plastic body or a carbon fiber neck will not sound discernibly different.

A real scientist investigates specific variables while controlling other variables, not ignoring them.

I'm tired of repeating that I would like nothing more than a controlled study where the only variable is wood. In the absence of that, we can look at how the signal of an electric guitar is shaped to conclude that wood, or body/neck composition in general, is among the least important variables.

Sure, you limited the scope to solid bodies. However, if your claim about wood is true, then it would apply to hollow bodies and e/acoustics as well. After all, the electronics are all that matters when amplified.

The difference with a hollow-body electric could very well be significant enough to make some perceivable impact on the output. That is why I exclude them. A solid-body electric has no soundbox and no vibrating soundboard.

Bottom line: a guitar is the sum of its parts. ALL of them play a role in the performance of the instrument.

Not an equal role. Not all parts will contribute enough to make a perceivable difference when swapped with components of the same type with different composition (the body wood or neck wood.)

History lesson: the "instrumentation" argument was made early in the electronic music era. You should be able to program music better than humans could play it. For the most part, this approach FAILED. Emotionless computers have difficulty producing music with feeling.

This lesson is completely irrelevant. Humans appreciate subtle variation, something that was not easy to accomplish in the early days of programmed music. With advances in sampling and physical modeling, "programmable music" is becoming more sophisticated, human-like and transparent such that you, and others, hear it all the time and do not realize it.

On a related note, I went to school with a guy who was technically quite capable when playing trumpet or piano. He hit all the right notes at the correct tempo and dynamic range. Yet his performances had NO feeling. He played the pieces very accurately, but I would never call it "music".

I have heard plenty of guitarists I would say the same about.

Translation: anecdotal data have value.

What an absolute train-wreck of a tangent...

 

[Arius]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

(*awaits the arrival of another scientist who is an expert on polymers who will prove to all and sundry that Dan Armstrong guitars were made from the wrong type of plexiglass and couldn't possibly sound any good due to molecular discrepancies of the chosen materials*)

I invite Toneplasticists to enter the fray.

 

[Arius]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Solid posts, MrTondo. While I do not suggest you misunderstand this aspect of my posts, others do seem to miss frequently that I qualify my assertions repeatedly with words like "perceivable" and "significant difference."

Someone posted in this thread or another (I'm juggling several arguments in several threads) that not only does the vibrating wood vibrate the pickup causing discernible differences in tone, but that the vibrating wood itself's changing magnetic field is also picked up directly by the pickup, causing another discernible difference in tone. I suggested if one is going to hold that that is important, one may as well say quantum chaos makes a discernible difference, or the effect on the magnetic field of the guitarist's hand moving above the strings makes a discernible difference. At some point, even the most strident Tonewoodologist must admit that some variables will be too insignificant to matter to the imprecise analytical instrument that is the human ear.

I think most would agree the changes to the magnetic field caused by movements of the guitarists arm or hand will not make a perceivable difference. I assert neither will the resonance of the wood.

I did offer to post up clips made with guitars with different body woods and have people identify them, and of course that offer was declined.

But it's so much easier to question my motives, my personal life and compare me to Hitler...

 

[King IzzO)))]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

You dorks are still entertaining clown shoes here?

Hey Gargamel, where do you stand on fretboard wood types?

Yeah, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[crusty philtrum]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Yeah, you don't have a leg to stand on.

No wooden leg(s) for that boy, of course. Wooden head perhaps, but not legs. I think we should call him EdWood from now on.

And anyone who claims to have followers has obviously got termites in their wooden head.

 

[jumble jumble]

Pickups for mahogany Tele???

Ad hominem. The grown-up way to win an argument.

 

[Dr. Vegetable]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

I'm tired of repeating that I would like nothing more than a controlled study where the only variable is wood. In the absence of that, we can look at how the signal of an electric guitar is shaped to conclude that wood, or body/neck composition in general, is among the least important variables.

Again, you are claiming to know the significance of variables that you openly admit you don't know how to measure. You have jumped to a conclusion without formulating a hypothesis and testing that hypothesis experimentally under controlled conditions. You have done no such experiment, nor can you point to any lab that has done such an experiment. You posit (again without any reason) that no lab would ever be funded to conduct this experiment anyway. And yet, you cling to your unfounded belief. Many here, with a lot of direct experience playing actual guitars, have also "looked at how the signal of the guitar is shaped" and we have come to a different conclusion.

So, what kind of guitars do you own? What style(s) of music do you play? What amp do you use? Do you even know how to hold a guitar?

 

[King IzzO)))]

Re: Pickups for mahogany Tele???

The guy is obviously trolling, JJ. It's a childish arguement, regardless of his eloquence, and I have no problem with it being treated as such.