Wood choice for extended range.

[Angryman1522]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

You mean the strings? The pickups just sit silent by themselves. (except for any background hiss)

The size and density of the guitar's materials(whatever they be) and all added things touching (guitar-hardware&bolts,screws,ect.) directly effects the string's vibration.

Yes, you know full well I meant the strings... come on. I said as much, below. Which still makes no case for the wood impacting the sound, but hey, believe what you wish. No skin off my balls

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Angryman1522]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Proof is called physics.
You cannot have any physical movement without the structure allowing that physical movement affecting its quality and duration.......equal and opposite reaction and the like.


So you are saying you don't believe physics affects guitars.

Whether a string vibrates longer does not change the end result of the actual perceived note, but by all means, add some more hyperbole to this, so guitar manufacturers can keep selling you on their premium products that will make magic come from your guitar.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[dave74]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Yes, you know full well I meant the strings... come on. I said as much, below. Which still makes no case for the wood impacting the sound, but hey, believe what you wish. No skin off my balls ��

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

So you notice no difference in the low-end response of a full-maple w/ebony vs a full-hog w/ebony, both with the same strings/setup/pups?

 

[Angryman1522]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

So you notice no difference in the low-end response of a full-maple w/ebony vs a full-hog w/ebony, both with the same strings/setup/pups?

Yes I do. When i turn the bass on the amp up

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[AlexR]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Wrong.

Each material has its own properties. Surely even you should know if you strike a metal vs wood you will get a different sound. This is fundamental and basic stuff.
This difference is a damping of some energy and a strong reflection of others. Tuning forks are a strong example of this......and application of energy resulting in a strong fundamental tone and timbre.
Change the shape and size, change the note.
If you built a big one and strung a string across it, hitting the fork would result in the string vibrating at that same fundamental frequency plus a bunch of harmonics.

Its the same with any material. It will have a fundamental frequency.....its something anyone can test - even you.
This is supported by a whole lot of testing over many years.


So whats your side.......because that is something that has been no more than baseless hyperbole so far

 

[dave74]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Yes I do. When i turn the bass on the amp up ��

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Not quite the same, but I do agree it's more relevant than wood choice, even though I can easily feel and hear that the guitar's materials are also relevant.

 

[Angryman1522]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Unplugged, I agree 100%

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Angryman1522]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Wrong.

Each material has its own properties. Surely even you should know if you strike a metal vs wood you will get a different sound. This is fundamental and basic stuff.
This difference is a damping of some energy and a strong reflection of others. Tuning forks are a strong example of this......and application of energy resulting in a strong fundamental tone and timbre.
Change the shape and size, change the note.
If you built a big one and strung a string across it, hitting the fork would result in the string vibrating at that same fundamental frequency plus a bunch of harmonics.

Its the same with any material. It will have a fundamental frequency.....its something anyone can test - even you.
This is supported by a whole lot of testing over many years.


So whats your side.......because that is something that has been no more than baseless hyperbole so far

Ok neckbeard, you win. I imagine that's what you're lusting after. I hope you'll find the courage to go on living knowing people like me disagree with your opinion. When you became condescending, I stopped reading what you wrote...so basically everything past the first sentence. Good day, sir.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[AlexR]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

So I take it you don't have the courage to stand up for your point of view then. I didn't shy away from explaining myself when you became snide.

 

[GoldenVulture]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

In an electric? Show me the proof that it DOES  What part of the wood is sending a signal through the pickups, through the wires, to the output jack, to your TS cable, through those wires, and to your amp. Oh that's right: no part of the wood. Wood makes a difference in the sound of unplugged electrics and acoustic guitars. It's really just basic electronics. Sorry, I guess?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Your basic premise [Electric guitars take their tone from the pickups, period. "Tone wood" on an electric is a lie. ]
Show me where there's 100% electronic communication. There isn't. There is always an acoustic element present. If there wasn't you wouldn't get feed back no matter how loud you turned it up. Guess what, any electric guitar will feed back given enough gain.

You've come into this thread and trolled " Tone woods don't matter " because that's your opinion. It's irrelevant to the OP's Post and the rest of the thread. You ought to go be angry and cranky some where else and stop wasting others time with you mis-information opinion.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

In an electric? Show me the proof that it DOES What part of the wood is sending a signal through the pickups, through the wires, to the output jack, to your TS cable, through those wires, and to your amp. Oh that's right: no part of the wood. Wood makes a difference in the sound of unplugged electrics and acoustic guitars. It's really just basic electronics. Sorry, I guess?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Vibrations of the string can be affected and absorbed through the wood. I have played guitars that are identical in every aspect including pickups and they sound different. Granted you can tell that by are very similar but one may sound slightly more bass heavy or such. Tone wood does affect the guitar whether you want to admit it or not.

 

[NoOnesFang13]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

I have a 7 string with a mahogany body/spalted maple top and a wenge neck with an ebony fretboard, SD Pegasus and Sentient pickups. That combination of woods works well together for my guitar, I do however with I went with a longer scale length but overall the guitar sounds great (more of a feel issue for me on the scale length). Korina would be a good choice for body wood with maybe a wenge/bubinga neck and a 27" scale.

 

[MkIII Renegade]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

The tone of neck thru guitars is definitely dominated by the neck wood. The wings are largely irrelevant other than for than looks. So choose your neck wood based on the kind of response that matters most to you.

 

[dave74]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

On many neck-thru guitars the bridge (at least with floyds) is indeed mounted into the body-wings,,,,,,not the neck-plank.
It's unfortunate IMO that less builders are using neck-planks that are wider in the body-section, so that the nut and the bridge-posts are both mounted into the neck-plank.

 

[elelpe]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Choose wood that feels good on your hand and fingers for the neck and fretboard. Choose wood which its weight makes you comfortable. And don't forget about the look. Let whatever pickups, electronics, parts of your choice etc and your rigs take care the rest. When it comes to wood, I care more about the density and weight personally, not so much about the species. Even mahogs from the same tree have different density and weight. Make sure you have a strong and stable neck.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

On many neck-thru guitars the bridge (at least with floyds) is indeed mounted into the body-wings,,,,,,not the neck-plank.
It's unfortunate IMO that less builders are using neck-planks that are wider in the body-section, so that the nut and the bridge-posts are both mounted into the neck-plank.

Most neck through a that I have seen have been the opposite. The bridge is mounted to the neck plank, not the body wings.

 

[dave74]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Most neck through a that I have seen have been the opposite. The bridge is mounted to the neck plank, not the body wings.

Ibanez, Carvin, BCR, ect... (not talking about custom shop stuff),,,,,they all use neck-planks that are basically the same width as the fret-board, not as wide as the post on a floating trem.

 

[AlexR]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

The firebird perhaps has the widest neck shaft of any thru guitar.

 

[Johnny the Kid]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

Ibanez, Carvin, BCR, ect... (not talking about custom shop stuff),,,,,they all use neck-planks that are basically the same width as the fret-board, not as wide as the post on a floating trem.

I admit that's I could be wrong and am misremembering. I'm not a liar, but I can be wrong.

 

[dave74]

Re: Wood choice for extended range.

I admit that's I could be wrong and am misremembering. I'm not a liar, but I can be wrong.

That's how they are "supposed' to be.
Not like this;


I mean for tone it might do better at getting the body-wings involved, but for those floyd-posts I'd much rather have them embedded in maple, especially if the wings are basswood or alder. Mahogany is quite durable even though it's softer than maple.