Maple vs Mahogany neck

[PelhamBlueFire]

I Genuinely Regret and Apologise if the Humour involved in Exposing these Inconsistencies has Dented the Veneer of Your Ego.

 

No need to apologise, honestly. You have not dented my ego, at all. You've exposed the flaws in my reasoning, and I know where I screwed up. I'm man enough to admit that right here and now. The music business has never, ever, managed to dent my ego. I simply trust my abilities, and I know what I want. The reason I said "no need for personal attack," was you were very convincing without going all like "you don't know what you're talking about." Because, I know science, I know physics, etc. I can explain what Will is explaining in his videos to anyone. So, I know the basic physics. But on the other hand, I also know what I'm hearing. Our senses shouldn't be ignored, and that's where I screwed up with that post. For that, I have to apologize.

 

Therefore, I am very open to the fact he might be missing something here. I am keen to learn what that could be. Because, as you correctly pointed out, our ears - the ears of musicians like ourselves - tell us different. Maybe, the opinion of Will and science in general, are missing that extra thing that people that work with the instruments notice when comparing various guitars. To me, that's interesting. That's worth keeping in mind. I'm sure I'm not the first that made leaps like I did here, and I won't be the last.

 

Thanks for your response to my ignorance and arrogance. Also, thanks for those words of support at the end. I wish you all the best, too.

[JazzGtr]

Wouldn't it be simple to just compare the ES 175 to the L4? I owned the 175 and personally found it to be too bright compared to my L5 which I eventually sold.

 

Jazz,

[Mr. C.O. Jones]

Funny, yesterday I whatched one of Will's videos because of another topic where Scott Grove was mentioned.

 

Call me crazy but sometimes I believe I have superpowers to detect lie's, and whatching one of those videos made me believe it again.

Here are the subliminal messages I heard.

 

He say's something like: Fender and Gibson own most guitar brands, doesn't matter what brand you buy, your money goes to these two mother****ers.

 

Later he starts talking about his own guitar brand.

Here is a link:

 

http://www.gelvingui...com/builds.html

 

Now the fun part, from this point on what I hear is:

Stop giving your money to those Mother****ers, better give it to me.

 

And another funny thing I found on his page is that HIS guitars are made of wood with highest tonal quality's!

I'm sorry WHAT? Now I'm confused.

First he say's tonewood is a myth created to make money, and suddenly when he builds a guitar the wood has tonal quality!

Someone please explain it to me.

[PelhamBlueFire]

Funny, yesterday I whatched one of Will's videos because of another topic where Scott Grove was mentioned.

 

Call me crazy but sometimes I believe I have superpowers to detect lie's, and whatching one of those videos made me believe it again.

Here are the subliminal messages I heard.

 

He say's something like: Fender and Gibson own most guitar brands, doesn't matter what brand you buy, your money goes to these two mother****ers.

 

Later he starts talking about his own guitar brand.

Here is a link:

 

http://www.gelvinguitars.com/builds.html

 

Now the fun part, from this point on what I hear is:

Stop giving your money to those Mother****ers, better give it to me.

 

And another funny thing I found on his page is that HIS guitars are made of wood with highest tonal quality's!

I'm sorry WHAT? Now I'm confused.

First he say's tonewood is a mith created to make money, and suddenly when he builds a guitar the wood has tonal quality!

Someone please explain it to me.

Yeah. Looking back now, I am seeing contradictions too. By the way, Will - hates (!) - Fender. He even calls them "his nemesis" in his Namm 2015 video. I thought that was kind of funny. Scott Grove - hates - Gibson, and really uses any opportunity to **** on our favorite brand. They are both arrogant in their own way, and they should be taken with a grain of salt. Wood...like every other little factor...contributes to the guitar's unique tone. I have been re-affirmed in this regard. I can't believe I let myself dragged into their bull that far. Gibson is a great, great company! My guitars I got from them were all well-crafted. I wonder what Will's guitars are like.

[kaicho8888]

Our guitars are mass produced commodities made to increase the Gibson's net profit! Yeah, one of thousands made.

 

Mass production means... the lower the material cost and abundant supply of materials, lower labor production cost to make, lower tooling cost, etc... the better the bottom line. Add great marketing and mystic, Gibson gets more sales and net profit!

 

We get a guitar and a thinner wallet. We enjoy and love playing the guitar. We invest in practicing countless hours, and finally feel like we are getting our "tone". Next thing, we unknowingly have collected guitars that we cannot give justice to play all of them! Face it, some of us got "GAS" to varying degree, and forums and the internet just fuels our weaknesses.

 

I'm an old "fart", and old school discussions were mainly on "how to play" the damn thing. Now, we unfortunately evaluate more with our eyes than our ears, poorly evaluate based on marketing and forum fan boys articles...we should evaluate using our ears. Unfortunate, getting to be 70 my hearing is not as keen anymore; so I love the looks of certain guitars... meaning I'm afflicted with GAS. Others rationalize this by saying "If something like certain tone wood makes you want to play more, then get it".

 

Play the damn thing and enjoy. LOL. Life is too short to worry about tone wood!

[4Hayden]

If the type of wood didn't make any difference they would make them out of press board/plywood , cheap wood equals cheap guitars

 

 

4H

[merciful-evans]

Maple necks:

 

I bought my Gibson guitar less than 2 weeks ago after doing a fair amount of research.

 

I was attracted to the 2015 Studio model of the ES-339 because of its maple neck and torrified maple fingerboard (not in spite of it).

One reason for opting for maple is because it’s harder. I would like to make this guitar work for its keep and a robust build is always a consideration for gigging.

 

I didn’t know how this would sound though. The next stage was to use my ears. I am accustomed to choosing instruments & amps with my ears.

 

I played the guitar I was to buy at Andertons (Guildford uk) alongside the 2014 Studio and regular ES-339s there. All differences in tone were very small. I was using a small Fender Tube amp on clean 90% of the time.

 

I could hear a small difference in every guitar, but could not further differentiate between the mahogany and maple models. I tried hard, but the anticipated difference between brightness & lows was not obvious. Not to me anyway. I played these guitars at various volume & EQ settings for close on a couple of hours.

 

The torrified (baked) maple fingerboard feels harder than rosewood as expected. I am not a fan of rosewood fingerboards, having worn ruts into the rosewood frets of 2 beloved guitars following 18 years of hard use, while ebony and maple fingerboards have not suffered at all.

I admit this is largely due to my untutored technique of pulling instead of pushing string bends. This bring my nails into direct contact with the wood, and the results of this abuse can be clearly seen in time.

 

However the maple I used before was lacquered (70’s Strat) while the Gibson is heat treated instead. I’m not sure whether this is to reduce absorption or to just darken the colour.

 

-evans

[arlum]

On the subject of tone woods it's a bit hard to use Gibson electric examples. Mahogany, Mahogany with Maple top and Korina cover 99% of Gibson's solid body product. Mahogany, Maple and Spruce cover most of the hollow and semi-hollow bodies.

 

I know I hear differences in tone woods and, since we're in the Gibson Memphis forum, I'd offer up a comparison of Gibson Memphis's ES-339 and Gibson Custom Shop's CS-336. While they have much in common they definitely sound like two different instruments. The main differences in construction have to do with body woods and pickups. Both are using excellent pickups. Burstbucker 1 and 2's in the 2015 ES-339 and Custombuckers in the CS-336. Both are lower output vintage voiced pickups. The wood used in their construction is completely different. The ES-339 uses a Laminate Maple, (Maple / Poplar / Maple), for the top, rims and back. The CS-336 used a piece of carved out Mahogany for the back and rims and solid Maple for the top. Find a dealer that has both available to try out and you'll hear a huge difference. The ES-339 sounds very very close to an ES-335 while the CS-336 sounds like the child of a Les Paul / ES-335 union. Play them both. Now close your eyes and let the sales person hand you one or the other. Even with your eyes closed and in spite of their similar shape and size you will easily know which one you're playing.

[badbluesplayer]

Everything Single Thing you Build In or Build Out of a Guitar will Affect at Some Level, or to Some Degree the way the Instrument Sounds, Feels, Plays and Looks.

 

Dear Anthony,

 

 

What I quoted here, is what I believe to be what's right. I might have been quite harsh with my claims like "wood doesn't affect the tone, at all." I must admit, I was taking that a little too far, and it stems from the fact I let myself get influenced a whole lot by this guy on Youtube, WillseasyGuitar. This guy goes over the physics behind tonewood, and the way he presents his stuff - I got to admit - is quite convincing. You might want to check his stuff, and his tests out. What Will does, is purely scientific...it's physics. And with the way he presents his case, physics don't support tonewood. That's why I got smacked in the face, because I used to be a big tonewood guy.

 

As you correctly stated, I am now deeply conflicted about this topic. On one hand, you have these guys like WillsEasyGuitar (luthier, owner of his own guitar brand) and Scott Grove using physics to debunk tonewood. On the other hand, I have my own ears and experience, along with your masterfully written piece here. Although, there's no reason for personal attack here. You don't need that, frankly.

 

Guitars and music are very important to me, and I actually make about half of my living with it. The other half is through my job at the university. And yes, science is a huge part of my regular job. See, that's where I become conflicted. One part of me is telling me to trust my gut, whilst the other part of me is sceptical. As I said to someone here, I will perform my own test in which all variables are 100% identical, except for the wood. If the sound changes, then yes, wood makes a meaningful difference. Then, I will come up with my own conclusions. I will leave it at that, okay. I'm not going to get into this any further, at the moment.

 

Dude - you gave yourself away by not being able to spell skeptical.

[badbluesplayer]

I guess my last crack wasn't that funny.

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: "Dude - you gave yourself away by not being able to spell skeptical. "

 

Quote: "I guess my last crack wasn't that funny."

 

 

 

Humour.

 

Is a Funny Thing.

 

It travels very badly indeed.

 

Across Countries, Borders and Cultures.

 

Internet information traverses these all too easily.

 

Causing miscommunication, misunderstanding and hot arguments.

 

This is why we always need to Practice Patience and Goodwill towards All.

 

And Realise that Humour is easily Misread and Misunderstood by Others in Different Cultures.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language.

 

It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

 

As a Historical Dictionary, the OED is very different from Dictionaries of current English, in which the focus is on the present-day meanings of words and their variants.

 

You’ll still find present-day meanings in the OED, but you’ll also find the history of individual words, and of the language traced through 3 million quotations, from classic literature and specialist periodicals to film scripts and cookery books.

 

The OED started life more than 150 years ago. Today, the Dictionary is in the process of its first major revision. Updates revise and extend the OED at regular intervals, each time subtly adjusting our image of the English language as it changes and morphs through time and culture.

 

 

 

Quoted Directly from the Oxford English Dictionary:

 

 

sceptical, adjective.

 

/"skEptIk(@)l/

 

Also (arch. & N. Amer.) skeptical. E17.

 

[formed as SCEPTIC: see -ICAL.]

 

1. Of a person: inclined to scepticism; dubious, incredulous. E17

.

‘A. Bishop Russell was sceptical about..vaccines..to cure obscure diseases.’

 

2. Of a doctrine, opinion, etc.: characteristic of a sceptic; of the nature of scepticism. M18.

 

• sceptically adverb L17.

 

 

 

The Quote Regarding "Bishop Russell" is the first ever known use of the word in a Published Document.

 

 

 

So.

 

In point of fact.

 

The Posters use of this Spelling is Entirely Correct.

 

As is yours with a "k" too, though it has greatest presence Worldwide, in North America.

 

 

I have a wonderful true story about Actor and TV presenter Stephen Fry in the Oxford University Press Shop, with the U.K.'s most formidable and respected Political Interviewer, Jeremy Paxman.

 

Here's how tough he is. Basically asking a Major Politician, if he told Lies. If you are prepared to take the time to watch, you will realise what a Masterpiece this is.

 

 

 

 

Here's the Story.

 

Stephen Fry wanted to purchase a Bound Edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary".

 

There are so many Volumes it would dwarf "The Encyclopaedia Britannica" and is so heavy it has to be delivery by a Large Truck.

 

So into the "Oxford University Press" Shop, walks Stephen, goes up to the counter and speaks to the young man behind it, "I would like to order a copy of the Bound Edition of the "Oxford English Dictionary".

 

"Yes Sir it costs £2,000. Please fill your name and the address for delivery, on this form. It may take about two weeks for the Dictionary to arrive, as they are often made especially, but we will advise you on the date, so please include your phone number."

 

Stephen was about to pay when he said, "I'd like to look around a while, can you hold that order, and I can pay for any extra books I buy, all at the same time by Cheque." Certainly Sir" he replied, I'll leave the order to one side, and it will all be ready, whenever you are, and I can simply add, whatever extra you purchase to the bill."

 

So then Stephen wandered around looking for some new books to stimulate his mind. He has a lot of books already, so understandably after looking around for quite a while, still couldn't find anything he really wanted to own. However, his gaze fell upon two copies of a new book concerning "Famous Canadian Political Quotes".

 

The very notion of this book seemed to tickle something inside him, and as he thought about it he rationalised, that in time, the books could have a rarity and scarcity value to someone, somewhere, that would make them greatly increase in value over their cost, (which was £15 each and there were just two copies in the Shop) and they would become an investment for him. He could use them, then sell them in many years to come, probably making a little money in the process.

 

 

 

So he returns to the counter carrying his two books, just as Jeremy Paxman walks into the Shop and briskly approaches the counter himself.

 

"Hi Steven" he greets the word enthusiast. "Hello Jeremy" Steven replies.

 

"What have you got there? Two books exactly the same, they must be a Good Read" Jeremy reasoned. "What's the title?"

 

"Well actually, they are entitled Famous Canadian Political Quotes" Stephen mumbled somewhat embarrassed to be found with them by the Interviewer.

 

"What" said Jeremy! "Look. It's a fact that the best quote ever made concerning Canada, Political or Otherwise, was made by Britney Spears, who said "I get to go to overseas places, like Canada.”

 

"What on earth do you want with a book entitled "Famous Canadian Political Quotes"?"

 

"As if there was ever such a thing in the first place?"

 

"Can you name me one" he quizzed?

 

 

 

Now I should explain.

 

That although in Political Interviews, Jeremy deliberately keeps as cool and calm as possible.

 

In real life, in the genuine heat of conversation, let alone argument or debate, his face goes a Deep Crimson Red Colour.

 

For some reason, the Cheeks of his Face become Rosily Flushed with a Deep Scarlet Tone, but its rather unfortunate that he possesses a rather Large Nose.

 

 

 

And this starts to Glow and then Shine with Perspiration, like the Nose of Rudolf itself.

 

 

 

Jeremy, was starting to Flush Up.

 

"Well, I've bought them as an investment you see" explained Stephen.

 

"In years to come they could be worth far more than I'm paying for them now, that's why I'm trying to get all the copies available here", It's why I've bought two, and it's not as if they are really expensive."

 

Turning to the young man behind the counter, and secretly giving him a knowing wink, Stephen said. "I'll just take these two New Books from your Store, what is the Total Cost Altogether? I'll write you a cheque."

 

Having overheard the conversation, made as the two Celebrities leant upon his counter, the young man being a sassy fellow played along with Stephens wink. "Well Sir the total cost of the books taken together is £2,030, please make your Cheque out to The Oxford University Press Shop, or I can Stamp it for you if you like."

 

 

 

"What!" Jeremy screeched, his Nose, Blazing Blood Red, with Fury.

 

"You mean to say you are going to play £2030 for two books of "Famous Canadian Political Quotes?" he fumed at the top of his voice.

 

"There isn't such a thing as a Famous Canadian Political Quote, Not in All of History. You must be mad to spend, what is that, £1015 each, for a thin little book, with a probably less than a hundred or so pages. You must be Bonkers!"

 

Rather enjoying himself now, Stephen replied, "well its not so much what they cost now you have to think of Jeremy, rather, it's what they may become worth later on as a financial investment in the form of rare books, over time in years to come, that is the way to look at it."

 

"How on earth do you expect" he screeched back with palpable emotional feeling, "to ever even get your money back when it's costing you £2030 for two slim, tiny books, let alone begin to actually make a profit? I just cannot believe you are spending that kind of money on that kind of book. It's completely beyond me!"

 

 

 

"Well here's the Cheque" said Stephen.

 

Convincingly writing it out in front of Jeremy, with tremendous verisimilitude for him to see, before passing it over the counter.

 

"Thank you very much for your assistance" he said, warmly smiling to the young man. "Lovely to see you again Jeremy. Good day!" Raising his Hat as he turned, to walk out of the door, into Oxfords High Street.

 

 

 

Now.

 

There's a funny postscript.

 

To this Completely Factual, Absolutely True Story.

 

Following this encounter, whenever Jeremy went to dinner with his circle of friends.

 

He would recount the story after dinner, and explain how Stephen paid £2030 for two copies of a book, no one has ever heard of, entitled " Famous Canadian Political Quotes".

 

 

 

Everyone would listen, completely amazed.

 

But Stephen would go to dinner with the same friends, a few week later and there's a whole big circle of them involved, altogether.

 

Then he would tell the Story, of exactly what actually happened, and how Jeremy came to be completely duped by this simple purchase of two books, after he had already ordered The Full, Bound, Edition, of the Oxford English Dictionary.

 

 

 

And Stephen makes them all promise.

 

Never to ever tell Jeremy!

 

 

 

 

Humour.

 

Is a Funny Thing.

 

 

Like Mahogany and Maple.

 

Presumptuous Perception can Form Part.

 

In Shaping How we Understand, What We are Hearing.

 

 

Depth and Breadth of Experience with Numerous Instruments Tells the Full Story.

[merciful-evans]

Are theologians still the masters of obfuscation?

[Zentar]

Everything in a guitar effects tone. The Les Paul uses maple caps over mahogany body to get a brittle maple surface to reflect a brighter tone. It's a key design feature in one of the worlds most famous instruments. Other guitar designs copy this maple cap design feature. Some even using hard plastic caps over mahogany body. The plastic cap simulates the maple cap attributes. Yes this gives different tone but still the plastic cap reflects the string vibrations.

Some PU coils work better with redwood fretboards than maple or ebony.

 

Maple can be an excellent wood for the neck and fretboard due to its strength and fret grabbing attibutes. Maple can grab a fret as well as ebony yet ebony isn't a grat neck material. You can make an entire eck and fretboard out of maple. How many mahogany fretboards have you seen?

Mahogony has great structural integrity but not great fret grabbing abilities due to its grain.

Maple is a terrific wood for guitars yet most guitars tend to integrate multiple wood types using the best features of each wood together in one package.

Redwood and mahogany have great tonal reflection which is why more guitars use those two than maple for the body in acoustics yet maple is used for bodies only not as much. It is where you use a certain wood species on a guitar that gives the guitar unique tonal qualities.

There are many baked woods and composite materials used for fretboards today but how well will these materiels hold a fret after 50 years?

 

If there were a single wood species that gave every tonal and structural quality we desire in a guitar better than any other wood we would all use guitars made exclusively from that one wood species. That one wood species does not exist because humans cant make up their minds what sounds best.

[merciful-evans]

Everything in a guitar effects tone. The Les Paul uses maple caps over mahogany body to get a brittle maple surface to reflect a brighter tone. It's a key design feature in one of the worlds most famous instruments. Other guitar designs copy this maple cap design feature. Some even using hard plastic caps over mahogany body. The plastic cap simulates the maple cap attributes. Yes this gives different tone but still the plastic cap reflects the string vibrations.

Some PU coils work better with redwood fretboards than maple or ebony.

 

Maple can be an excellent wood for the neck and fretboard due to its strength and fret grabbing attibutes. Maple can grab a fret as well as ebony yet ebony isn't a grat neck material. You can make an entire eck and fretboard out of maple. How many mahogany fretboards have you seen?

Mahogony has great structural integrity but not great fret grabbing abilities due to its grain.

Maple is a terrific wood for guitars yet most guitars tend to integrate multiple wood types using the best features of each wood together in one package.

Redwood and mahogany have great tonal reflection which is why more guitars use those two than maple for the body in acoustics yet maple is used for bodies only not as much. It is where you use a certain wood species on a guitar that gives the guitar unique tonal qualities.

There are many baked woods and composite materials used for fretboards today but how well will these materiels hold a fret after 50 years?

 

If there were a single wood species that gave every tonal and structural quality we desire in a guitar better than any other wood we would all use guitars made exclusively from that one wood species. That one wood species does not exist because humans cant make up their minds what sounds best.

 

For all I know thats exactly how it works.

 

and this guitar has a wonderful tone also

[Zentar]

Interesting plastic guitar.

 

Is maple the oly wood that can be used to make an entire guitar? Anybody know?

[Anthony Buckeridge]

Quote: "Are theologians still the masters of obfuscation?"

 

 

 

http://www.johnowencentre.org/

 

Welshman, John Owen, a Queens College, Oxford Educated, Puritan theologian, first mooted the "thought" expressed above, in a published work.

 

Puritan Owens, was driven away from Royalist Oxford because of King Charles I theological devotion to High Roman Practices, rigorously enforced by Archbishop Lauds.

 

Lauds, in physical stature a small man and rumored to be of somewhat questionable leanings, the Humor of the Day was widely stated. "To Give Great Praise to the Lord, and little Laud to the devil."

 

Queens College Oxford was known at the time for its plethora of Metaphysicians. (The Metaphysician attempts to Clarify the Fundamental Notions by which people understand the World, Existence, Objects and their Properties, Space and Time, Cause, Effect, and Possibility.)

 

A central branch of Metaphysics is Cosmology, the study of the Origin, Fundamental Structure, Nature, and Dynamics of the Universe. (Unsurprisingly Queens College was later on to spawn the widely read Cosmologist, Stephen Hawkins, a contemporary of mine, you may have heard of, who worked just a few hundred yards, from myself).

 

Somewhat ironically, the first ever published use of the "word" obfuscation, was wearily written by one Erasmus Darwin, the Busily Employed Physician of unfortunate King George III, (though it is not actually known whether Erasmus ever fully attained a Formal Medical Degree at all), and Erasmus was the grandfather, of Naturalist Explorer and Writer, Charles Darwin.

 

As an aside, King George III was a Great Enthusiast of Music, the Arts, Science and Culture in General. Amongst other Instruments, His Father played the Cello, which came into King George's possession. In fact the Luthier that looks after my personal Guitar Collection, repaired that priceless Historical Instrument, a while ago. It has a large Golden, Royal Portcullis painted on its Carved Back.

 

Like his grandfather before him, Charles neglected his Medical Education at Edinburgh and instead pursued Naturalist and Scientific Studies and Interests. Theologically a Unitarian, (believing in "One God" as opposed to a Trinitarian, "Three in One God"), Charles Darwin was absolutely delighted by the Logic of William Paley's Famous Book, "Evidences of Christianity" and Charles avidly studied Paley's further work, "Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence of the Deity".

 

This Book, still a Classic Even Today, made a Compelling Argument for Divine Design in Nature. It explained "Adaption" as God Acting through Laws of Nature. It is in the field of what is known as "Natural Theology" and provides Powerful Arguments for The Existence of God, based upon Reason and Ordinary Experience of Nature. This distinguishes it from "Revealed Theology" which is purely based upon Scripture itself alone and/or Religious Experience. (Of course, there are several other, lesser types of Theology.) But Charles Darwin, clearly came from the direct perspective of "Natural Theology" and earnestly looked for the "Divine Design in Nature".

 

Prior to growing his later, heavy beard, and with his protruding and overhanging super orbital ridge. When Charles Darwin looked in the mirror, it is true to state, his very Dramatic, Personal Look, appeared somewhat strangely, like an Orangutan. Undoubtedly a sincere and dedicated fellow, it is none the less also true to state, it is felt by many Across the World, that the dear chap later, seemed to be trying to make a Monkey out of Them. I don't believe this to be the case. But, regrettable though that might be.

 

I suppose it is vastly better than what certain people have drastically managed to accomplish by the projection of their imaginations.

 

Which is, to make a Monkey, out of Themselves!

 

 

 

What has any of this theology business to do with Guitars?

 

Well, in theological terms, we can best think of them as "Natural Theology" rather than "Revealed Theology".

 

So, the Greatest Guitar Designs don't simply appear with a Creative Bang, or as some would believe, are Instantaneously Invented, by Sheer Genius.

 

Even those that might genuinely seem to be so, are in Reality and Fact, the Result and Pursuit of Steady and Relentless Progress, of Trial and Error, of High Capital Investment in Research and Development, and of Strong Relationships with Direct Feedback from Notable Artistic Talent.

 

The Companies I personally have "an interest" in and am "associated with", typically produce 700 Prototypes, before any Show Product appears, and certainly before any Series Production intended for Consumers would ever be Manufactured intended for Sale. The Salient Point is, it takes a Lot of Time and Trouble and even the best of us make plenty of mistakes before any kind of Design or Manufacturing Perfection is Achieved.

 

 

 

 

Think of the Prototypes of the Gibson Les Paul.

 

 

 

Great Guitars.

 

Are the Clear Work of Overwhelmingly Intelligent Design.

 

Rather than by analogy, the "Chance" of a Typewriting Monkey, Producing Shakespeare's Sonnets.

 

Dedicated and Talented Individuals and Artisan Luthiers throughout the History of the Development of the Guitar, have Worked Continuously to Excogitate and Conceive a Superior Musical Instrument.

 

Unhappily, it has repeatedly been the case that where New or Untested and Unproven Science has been Enthusiastically Invested In and Actively Employed to Add Verisimilitude to Developing and Marketing New Products. History has Innumerable Sorry Tales of Commercial Failure to Tell, and continues to do the same Today.

 

 

 

 

In True Creativity.

 

There is a Further, Necessary Fundamental Ingredient Required.

 

That Completely Transcends, a Rigidly Strict Adherence to the Lone Facet of Scientific Theorising.

 

 

 

 

A Diamond has Many Facets.

 

But Essentially, has a Central Face.

 

The Design and Manufacture of Great Guitars.

 

Cannot be Properly Understood, Reduced and Distilled.

 

Down to the Common Denominator Facet, of a Scientific Theory.

 

It is First, Foremost, Fundamentally and Primarily an Art, and at its Highest and Best, the Pursuit of Artisan Craftsmanship.

 

 

 

 

The Central Face of the Jewel Reveals.

 

There is always a Fundamental, Creator Involved.

 

Is there a better dreadnought than the Gibson Songwriter?

 

Clearly, this is why we admire the work of people like Ren Ferguson.

 

The Creative Skill in Conception of the Exquisitely Experienced Craftsman.

 

And the Conception of Great Guitars, along with the Discovery of the Highest and Best Materials to use to Manufacture them, is the result of a Authoritative, Experienced and Creative, Artisan Talent.

 

In his Autobiography, Charles Darwin wrote: "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist." The following is The Oxford English Dictionary of a "Theist":

 

 

theist, noun.

 

/"hi;Ist/

 

[from Greek theos god + -IST.]

 

Orig., a person who believes in God or gods (opp. atheist). Now, a person who believes in one God who created and intervenes in the universe. Cf. DEIST.

 

the"istic adjective (1) of or pertaining to theists or theism; (2) rare of or pertaining to God or gods:

 

the"istical adjective = theistic (a)

 

 

 

 

Like Stephen Hawkins, (Stephen has personally stated in my hearing that the Big Bang Theory allows for the Existence of God), those that Study the Planets and Solar System tell us that we find that throughout the Universe, all the Musical Attributes we learn and know here on Earth also exist.

 

 

 

We could say that there are Universal Laws of Sound.

 

You probably know the verse from the Bible: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

You may also know that in the Original Language the Word used here is "Logos", a description of "Jesus Christ" one of whose Titles is, "The Word."

 

What you may not know is that the Greek word "Logos" also means "Sound". Interesting? I believe so. Here in The Holy Bible, written 2,000 years ago, we read that Sound Waves are at the very beginning of Creation.

 

Sound is a Part of the very Structure of the Universe, and thus adheres to the Natural Laws present throughout all Time and Eternity. Uncovering what those Natural Laws are, Working With Them, are then to me an Important Key to Make Music that conforms not to the transient vogues of momentary fashion, but can be traced back to Universal Laws of Creation and The Creator.

 

Modern Radio Telescopes have established that Space itself is filled with such Waves.

 

Because Space is almost a Vacuum does not mean that Sound does not exist.

 

 

 

Here's NASA to help you understand this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, Scientific Experts tell us 74 of the 78 Diurnal Tones, as Created by The Planetary Proportions, belong to the Major Scale.

 

Just like our Major Scale in Music. A configuration that no "chance" in the world will be able at all to convincingly explain.

 

And The Sound Spectrum of the Six Visible Planets covers Eight Octaves. Coincident with our Hearing Range.

 

Everything that exists is in a Constant State of Vibration. Everything.

 

Whose saying all this? Christian Fundamentalists you think?

 

No the Scientists, I'm quoting are Non Christian!

 

To boot, some will be Evolutionists!

 

Isn't that Wonderful?

 

 

 

 

The Fundamental Point is that, today with the aid of Radio Telescopes, Astronomers can allow us to hear the fact that in Space, there is Sound.

 

Yet over 2,000 Years Ago, The Holy Bible told us right at the start, precisely the same thing.

 

Isn't that Incredible?

 

 

 

 

It's important to realise that the Languages of Ancient Greek is quite unlike our own, where we utilise an entirely separate word for each and every element we describe.

 

Ancient Greek is an amazing language where a single word can completely encapsulate an entire picture and illustrate a complete concept. Thus, a single word alone can be Potently Powerful in Meaning.

 

So although Christians who look for themes running through the pages of The Holy Bible, popularly interpret "Logos" "The Word" as a Title of Christ, (of course quite correctly) in Ancient Greek, however, this word also means and encapsulates the concept "Sound".

 

This is not a difficult concept to grasp of course, because whenever we speak a word, we also create a sound. These things simultaneously and symbiotically coexist one with the other. You can't have one without the other. "In the beginning, was the Word." (Christ, Word, Sound). It is if you like, a form of picture of the Moment the Universe came into being.

 

 

 

 

Furthermore.

 

Another verse in The Holy Bible states that "Jehovah is our Song!"

 

This isn't talking of a Song about God, or a Song that Praises God, or even a Song that refers to Almighty God.

 

The word used here, this time in Ancient Hebrew, is the word "Zimrath", a word that is only used three times throughout the entire Word of God in just three separate verses.

 

Thus it's a word that has been especially reserved by writers for a particular reference. Whenever a word is specially reserved in The Holy Bible, there is something deeply significant that we are being told. So we need to pay rapt attention.

 

The word "Zimrath" indicates that "Praise, Song, Music, Melody embracing Instrumental Music" is involved, in these said references. And the word "Zimrath" is the root word from which we derive the word "Zamar". "Zamar" is the word which means to Pluck or Strike, not with a Plectrum, but specifically, with the Fingers of our Hands themselves. It is also today a name.

 

 

 

 

Anyone who seriously Studies The Holy Bible.

 

Inevitably must come away with the feeling that God is Very Partial to the Sound of Skillfully Fingerpicked Guitars!

 

But if we read that passage aright, we understand that Jehovah (God) is the very Spirit of Music itself, and that the Joy of Musical Instruments.

 

Their Sound and Their Playing, All Originally Springs From, and is bound up in Him.

 

In short. God Himself is Musical. The Source of All Original Sound!

 

This is the Concept that is encapsulated here.

 

Written in Ancient Tongue.

 

 

 

 

Of course.

 

Christians believe, we are made in the Image of God.

 

And The Holy Bible teaches us that, God Creates Sound, Joys in Song and The Playing of Instruments.

 

 

 

 

Ever wondered where your Innate Love of Music comes from? The Answers right there!

 

Ever wondered where your Innate Enjoyment of, and Compulsion to Sing comes from? The answers right there!

 

Ever wondered where your Innate Interest and Attraction to Musical Sound, and Desire to Play Musical Instruments come from? The answers right there!

 

 

 

 

Made in God's Image, the one that Created Sound.

 

We too Deeply Desire to do the same.

 

It's simply saying in essence.

 

That God is Musical.

 

And so are we.

 

 

 

 

Quote: " Everything in a guitar effects tone."

 

 

 

 

Like Life Itself.

 

The History of the Development of the Guitar.

 

Reveals that both Tonally and Aesthetically, Minor Parts made from Markedly Contrasting Materials, that have Wholly Differing Tonal Characteristics and Visual Colour's.

 

Actively Augment, Complement and Add Tonally and Cosmetically to Enhance the Core Materials utilised in the Major Components of The Fundamental Design of the Musical Instrument.

 

Refining the Relative Manner by Which these Differing Materials Actively Cooperate Symbiotically, both by Firmly Stabilising the Design for Tuning Reliability, and contra wise by Amplifying, Heightening and Intensifying Volume of Tone Projection by Profoundly Efficient Mechanisms that Increase, Powerful, Dynamic Vibration.

 

From Torres and Ramirez to Loar, McCarthy and Ferguson that Challenge is the Same.

 

But Today is about How to Develop Further Significant Improvement.

 

As Traditional Material Solutions Rapidly Decline.

 

In Sustainable Availability.

[merciful-evans]

60 year old designs still dominate the guitar market. Its not because they are the best designs IMO.

 

Although obvious for all to see, when researching guitars at the end of 2014 and this year, I was struck by the sheer scale of design copies out there. I knew there were a lot, but I had underestimated how dominant those old designs really are.

 

 

 

It’s sobering to realise that the overwhelming majority of e-guitars are copies of a handful of models designed in the 40s & 50s by Gibson & Fender.

 

 

 

At first I was bemused and idly wondered ‘why don’t they make anything a bit different?’ I now see that I was being naïve. The truth seems to be that these are what sell.

 

 

 

Who makes all these copies? Everybody does. The only notable exception I can bring to mind is Rickenbacker. This is probably because they are old, iconic and were in there at the first. But then so were Gretsch and they make a lot of Les Paul lookalikes.

 

 

 

Ok, there is a small difference between a ‘copy’ and a design style. A copy just tries to look as much like the original as possible, whereas with design style, the maker tries to put his own stamp on the product. The point is they are all derivative

 

.

 

We can all find exceptions. This minimalist design looks like a roof aerial. http://gittlerinstruments.com/

 

 

 

The main two style icons are obvious: the Fender Strat & Gibson Les Paul

 

 

 

After that, just as predictable are

 

Fender Tele & Gibson SG

 

 

 

These are then followed by the various Gibson semis, from the 335 on down.

 

 

 

But it’s those main handful that are being endlessly perpetuated, and it’s been going on for 60 years now.

 

 

 

Not all Gibson/Fender original designs caught on of course. Nor have later ones. I cant recall if Fender had any other than the Starcaster. Gibson’s tried several; Explorer, Thunderbird etc. but they were only intermittently in production.

 

Those too have been copied, but the copies fared no better than the originals.

 

 

 

Rickenbacker: There are some copies but the company takes a dim view of this.

 

http://pages.videotr...kenbackers.html

 

Maybe if they had a more relaxed attitude, Rick copies might actually be good publicity for the company and create more demand for the real thing?

 

 

 

I suppose this ultimately reflects on us. No matter what we as individuals like, this is what the collective us have decided upon.

[Zentar]

Why change a good design? Just copy it. I've always been amazed how every coffee cup in the world puts the handle on the right side of the cup.

[merciful-evans]

The designs of the popular guitars could all be improved

[Zentar]

The best music ever made was performed with current guitar designs. There is a guy on youtube who builds his own guitars using what he says are better designs yet I doubt you own any of his guitars. Put your money where your mouth is or give up parroting his quackery. This same guy on youtube says the choice of wood has no effect on a guitars sound. Ever listen to a steel guitar? This same guy says he does not like pine. I thought he said the choice of wood didn't matter?

[merciful-evans]

The best music ever made was performed with current guitar designs. There is a guy on youtube who builds his own guitars using what he says are better designs yet I doubt you own any of his guitars. Put your money where your mouth is or give up parroting his quackery. This same guy on youtube says the choice of wood has no effect on a guitars sound. Ever listen to a steel guitar? This same guy says he does not like pine. I thought he said the choice of wood didn't matter?

 

Dont confuse me with whoever it is that has upset you so on youtube.

 

Put my money where my mouth is? What is it are you asking me for?

 

I am expressing an opinion as you have done.

[sparquelito]

My thoughts, without any animosity or excessive emotion;

 

* I like a maple neck.

I can't explain why, but I truly do.

They feel right, they generally stay true for me, and I like the look and the touch of a maple neck (without the rosewood fingerboard).

 

* The sound, the tone, the expressive volume, all are tied to the wood pieces and parts of every guitar.

And the thing is, you can often pick up two of the exact same model of guitar, strum, pick, and play them, and they will each sound subtly different.

The woods, and the architecture of the way each guitar was fitted together, it all matters.

 

* Are there 'good woods' and 'bad woods'?

Probably.

Nobody wants a guitar made of balsa wood or press-laminate plywood.

But quite honestly, whether the body of a guitar was made of ash, sitka spruce, or alder, and the neck was crafted from pine or maple, sometimes it all works right and sometimes it's just a bit off.

It's like getting lucky in Las Vegas, or walking away without your shirt.

Each guitar is a gamble worth playing and exploring.

My latest Les Paul (the copper-top) has an ebony fingerboard, with no fret markers or inlays.

I can't explain why, but I really love it, and it feels nearly as good as the naked maple fingerboard on my Fender Telecaster.

 

* This is exactly why I usually advocate that you put your hands on and play (in person) every guitar you are considering buying.

With the exception of a Martin 12 string that I played in the store a few years ago, (but then went home with the same model, brand new and un-touched in the box), I have always tried to purchase something I have personally tried out.

Was there a chance that the same Martin would come out of the box and sound horrible compared to the one I played in the store?

Yes, albeit a slight one.

Not a gamble I usually like to take.

In my case, I got lucky. My 12 string is a jewel, and I love the way the woods work together, and how they throb and resonate when I'm playing onstage with the band (with the guitar amps mic'ed thru the PA).

 

So, in the end, is it wrong to favor one kind of wood over another?

A naked maple neck and fingerboard, versus a maple neck with the rosewood fingerboard?

Probably not.

In some cases it's a matter of personal experiences, in other cases its a matter of aesthetics and visual appeal, while in other cases it's simply a personal bias.

But we are all (each of us) a bit biased and opinionated.

Just pick a topic.

[merciful-evans]

My thoughts, without any animosity or excessive emotion;

 

 

 

So, in the end, is it wrong to favor one kind of wood over another?

A naked maple neck and fingerboard, versus a maple neck with the rosewood fingerboard?

Probably not.

In some cases it's a matter of personal experiences, in other cases its a matter of aesthetics and visual appeal, while in other cases it's simply a personal bias.

But we are all (each of us) a bit biased and opinionated.

Just pick a topic.

 

Sparquelito,

 

Thank you for both bringing the thread back on topic and having a calming input.

Since this thread has become mired in emotive diatribe, unsubstantiated assertions and bizarre convolutions, I will make clear my POV on the issue of 'tonewoods' in a separate thread. (Gibson Lounge: the 'T' word and why it shouldn't matter)

 

I have already made it clear earlier that I prefer maple as a neck material and the reasons why. I do however have 2 guitars with mahogany necks. They are great guitars too.

 

all the best

-evans

[Zentar]

Ebony, rosewood and maple have excellent fret grabbing qualities. Pine does not.

We know that there are tone woods in acoustic guitars yet we debate if there are tone woods in electrics.

You can make an entire electric or acoustic guitar out of maple. Other woods are incapable of being the single materiel used.

 

The type of wood used in electrics doesn't matter they say. Even countertop particle board can make a good electric guitar. How about cement? How about aluminum? How far are you wiling to take the tone wood analogy?

We've all seen acylic guitars Kieth Rihards and Joe Perry have played so there definitely is a wide range of materials and woods you can use to design fabulous guitars.

When you get to neck material the pine and the particle board are definitely not adequate to hold a fret or maintain structural strength.

It is the wood in the body of an electric guitar where the tone wood debate is raging. Everyone knows the neck is another creature.

How many would buy a guitar with a fiberglass body using a fiberglass coating over Styrofoam center like a surfboard is made? It would work but would it last 50 years like a Les Paul?

Would it permanently hold the bridge in place? Would a counter top fibreboard hold a bridge in place? See how I'm still talking about the body yet I've gotten away from the tonal aspects of the body materiel. I'm having to continually redefine and separate my theory into a more focused area.

You can't just focus on the tonal qualities in the body of a guitar because the body does more than one thing..

Once you make the claim that there is no tone wood in electrics you have to continue to narrow down what you mean. You cant even include the bridge in this debate because everybody knows a wood bridge effects tone in an electric so you must keep defining down your argument that tone woods don't exist in electric guitar designs. Its a very difficult argument to make that there are no tone woods and that is why that crowd gets so mad and starts calling everybody stupid. Will is over there on his Youtube channel even telling you who to vote for.

[merciful-evans]

Zentar,

 

The type of wood used in electrics doesn't matter they say. Even countertop particle board can make a good electric guitar.

How about cement?

 

 

How about aluminum?

 

 

How far are you wiling to take the tone wood analogy?

 

Well I don’t really care about it one way or the other. Even so I’ve still gone further than you have. All you had to do was google <cement guitar> and <aluminium guitar>

Since you are asking the questions, it would make sense that you want answers, but you haven’t even bothered to look.

 

I have been good enough to answer two of your questions (& can answer more). When are you going to answer mine in post #46 ? If you cant, I think an apology is in order. You have misrepresented me after all.

 

-evans