The ‘T’ word,

[merciful-evans]

The ‘T’ word, and why it shouldn’t matter.

This thread has spun off from the ‘maple or mahogany neck’ discussion in the Memphis area. It concerns the ‘T’ word ;)

tonewoods

 

1/ I honestly don’t know the truth of the matter.

2/ It’s not very important to me. (this is the main thrust of this OP)

 

However, I have been playing for 45 years and have formed the following unverifiable views concerning solid body guitars:

 

A/ I am inclined to think the wood used in guitar construction does make a difference. If I am right, I would say it’s a small difference and cannot account for the vast differences we hear between one instrument and another.

 

B/ I think the design of the instrument is of more significance than the body & neck materials used.

 

The above opinions A & B are not important; not even to me. If I find compelling evidence tomorrow to alter those views, I will do so without ordeal.

 

Nevertheless I see people get very uptight about this, IMO disproportionately so. It has become an article of faith to them, and I mean that literally.

 

From the other thread:

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.

 

 

Our guitars will sound the same regardless of the reason why they sound as they do. Why become distraught about it? I suspect it may be because it validates the earlier decision to spend a lot of money on certain guitars.

Even if that's so, It’s still not important; or not to me anyway. So here is an example of what I mean:

 

 

The last guitar I bought was a Gibson. I bought it because I liked it, and I still do. But I when I bought it I was fully aware that it *wasnt as good* as another guitar that cost me 5 times less a few months earlier.

 

So IMO, the monetary cost of a guitar is needn’t be proportionate to its musical value. I feel lucky to have a choice of 4 guitars suitable for gigging. The Gibson is one of them and is highly valued irrespective of its cost.

 

*wasnt as good* = is a subjective term and can also be expressed as 'not liked as much'.

 

 

The most significant problem with the detractors who claim that tonewoods are a myth is that they are also highly passionate & sensitive on the subject. If they were really secure in their views, they would remain calm.

 

all the best

 

-evans

[Guest Farnsbarns]

The jist of this post seems to be that you don't care about the issue of tone woods so neither should anyone else. That I do disagree with.

 

I, like you, buy guitars when I like them, not when the spec tells me I should but I am still interested in the why's and the therefores. Not passionate, but interested. I will therefore choose how, when and with whom I discuss it. You are welcome to join in, or not, at your leisure.

 

Those who are passionate have every right to be and can also choose how, when and with whom they discuss it as far as I'm concerned.

 

I'm not sure how you draw from this passion that the expressor of the view is insecure in their thoughts on the matter. This might make you appear as an antagonist to some. Just saying.

 

As an aside, I recently saw the first utterly compelling evidence I've ever seen that wood makes a difference. One video with a man who attached exactly the same hardware to two planks (I mean the same hardware, transfered it across) and the difference was not only pronounced but just as conventional wisdom on the subject would predict. Another with a man, so e wood, and a music box. These might have been one vid now I think about it, can't remember.

[Murph]

I'm going to have to somewhat agree with you here. I've played Country with my "The SG" which is a multi piece walnut body with a ceramic "velvet brick" humbucker. And Les Pauls.

 

People play rock with Telecasters all the time. I have a Tele and played tons of classic rock with it.

 

I'm going to subconsciously fiddle with knobs and stuff until my brain gets the tone it wants no matter what guitar (and amp) I'm playing.

 

A he11uva lot of tone is in the right hand if you are right handed.

[merciful-evans]

I'm not sure how you draw from this passion that the expressor of the view is insecure in their thoughts on the matter. This might make you appear as an antagonist to some. Just saying.

 

maybe its the limit of my imagination? I could be missing something.

 

I wont know until someone puts forward a more persuasive explanation .

[sparquelito]

Evans,

 

I agree that the type of wood makes a difference in how one solid-body electric guitar sounds versus another, but (that said) equally important to a solid-body guitar's unique tone are the type of pickups, the gauge of strings, the overall guitar set-up, the quality of the electronics soldering and shielding, and the individual player's touch.

 

By contrast, an ACOUSTIC guitar derives the lion's share of it's unique tone to the type of wood used to construct the guitar, particularly on the front face of the instrument.

(Kaman felt this to be true when they went with the composite bowl for their Ovation guitars years ago, a truly cookie-cutter manufacturing move, but relied upon the wood on the face of the guitars to ensure a warm and quality tone.)

 

The body of my Telecaster is made of pine, of all things.

The main feature of the pine, in the case of my honey-burst finish, is how pretty it is.

And that guitar sounds nearly spot-on like any other Telecaster I have ever heard, most of which are made of Alder, Poplar or Basswood.

Some enthusiasts will quickly point out that if you want that Tele 'twang, your guitar has to be made of swamp ash.

I can't say I agree.

 

I myself am not fond of the expression, 'tonewoods'.

It sounds vaguely snooty and aloof.

 

If anybody asks me what type of wood my guitars are made of, I will most likely say, "I don't know. Would you like to pick one up and play it? I'll pick this one up, and we could have a jam!"

 

['Scales]

Both my Gibson made solid body electric guitars have one-piece Honduras mahogany bodies and necks with Brazilian rosewood fingerboards. my playing pretty much sucks equally on either.

[sg50]

Does anyone know the story of the Taylor guitar made from shipping pallets? I'm told that it sounds great. It is an acoustic, so it must have been the tone wood.

[pippy]

Both my Gibson made solid body electric guitars have one-piece Honduras mahogany bodies and necks with Brazilian rosewood fingerboards....

You might want to consider getting a CITIES certificate for each guitar if you ever plan to leave (and re-enter) the country, Scales...........and I'm being serious.

Braz Rosewood has been 'Grade 1 Listed' since '92.

I know a few European dealers in the world of antiques who, leaving the USA after a trade fair, have not just had their stock siezed but destroyed (incinerated) because they didn't have the requisite paperwork in place.

 

Just sayin'...

 

P.

['Scales]

cheers, I have heard of that but know nothing much about it. Thankfully my days of international work transfers are probably over and being in Oz we don't cross borders regularly as you would elsewhere, and to be fair the guitars are nicely made and of highly thought of materials but not worth much - still I don't welcome the thought of them being destroyed!

[kidblast]

I would think, by now,, someone would have come up with the definitive test on Tonewoods to put an end to this debate. But alas, no one has, and the debate rages on. but hey I love a good debate! (as long as it doesn't get needlessly ugly like it tends to in other forums)

 

I will say this, my SG standard (2012 490t&498r pickups) sounds quite different from my Les Paul Standard (1995 490t&498r pickups.)

The les paul has a bit more of richer tone than the SG does. Why?

 

is it the carved maple cap?

did the formula of the pickups change?

is it the difference in the thicker hunk of mahgony?

something to do with the rosewood board on the paul vs torrified maple on the sg (you'd think the SG with the maple fretboard would brighten up)?

 

I just know it sounds, different. But two different guitars should sound different. They all sound and feel different to me.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't care why, because I just dig playing all of them, and I believe, regardless of electric or acoustic most of the "tone" is in the hands (I agree with Murph)

[pippy]

Does anyone know the story of the Taylor guitar made from shipping pallets? I'm told that it sounds great. It is an acoustic, so it must have been the tone wood.

If the shipping pallets were made of Pine (as was probable) then it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; Pine shares many similarities with Spruce (and Fir) which has been the most widely used timber for acoustic guitars' soundboards for centuries...

 

'Tonewood', as can be seen in this thread, is an emotive topic and, with the right company, can lead to many hours of pleasant discourse over a pint or six.

 

Many highly experienced players revere vintage hand-carved-solid-spruce-topped semi-acoustics such as Gibson's L5CES and Byrdland yet many of the same companies semi-acoustic guitars - such as the ES-175 - are made with plywood tops. So does it really matter that much what material the top is made from?

 

I goes without saying (says he; saying it) that all woods possess the ability to produce a certain amount and type of 'tone' once fashioned into an instrument. Some woods are generally considered to be 'better' at this than are others - hence the widespread use of Spruce etc...etc...

The problem as I see it is that two guitars made using exactly the same types of wood to exactly the same design and using exactly the same fixtures-n-fittings can sound very different from one to the other.

 

WHY?

 

And it is at this point that I sit down with Farns and Flight, cradling our pints of DoomBar, to discuss the Whys and the Wherefores...

 

P.

['Scales]

Murph/Kidblast - I'm looking at an old issue of guitar player magazine. they are interviewing Brian May... (no copywrite infringement intended)

 

Q: "For a guy who uses such unique gear and gets such a distinctive sound, are you at all surprised how much of your tone is in your hands?'

 

BM: "I think most people's tone is in their fingers. I was quite shocked when I played with Hank Marvin. I always thought his tone was all about his guitar. He picked up my guitar (i.e the Red Special) and immediately it sounded like Hank Marvin. And I think we all have to expect that. There's only so much we can do - its what's in the fingers, the spirit, and the mind. I probably sound like me on any rig"

 

 

.... good enough for me.

['Scales]

edit - double post

[btoth76]

Hello!

 

I have three Les Pauls (as many of You may know), three entirely different ones:

 

1.) A chambered Les Paul Studio.

2.) A Classic Custom with a nine-hole relieved, two-piece body.

3.) A one-piece, solid Recording made from British Honduran mahogany.

 

All of them have mahogany necks (three-piece on the Recording).

 

When I play them unplugged, the latter two doesn't sound significantly different. The chambered Studio is bright and noticably louder than the other two.

 

So wood matters. It's density.

 

Cheers... Bence

[pippy]

I will say this, my SG standard (2012 490t&498r pickups) sounds quite different from my Les Paul Standard (1995 490t&498r pickups.)

The les paul has a bit more of richer tone than the SG does. Why?...

If it comes to that, KB, my R9 (unplugged) sounds very different from my R0 and my pair of 1960 Classics both sound different again.

Each of these pairings share identical timbers and constructional techniques yet the differences are clearly there to be heard.

I'm not surprised in the least to read that your SG and LP differ significantly.

 

And yes; the vast majority of the end-tone is derived from the player's fingers and technique.

Me playing Farns' R8 makes a very different noise from Farns playing Farns' R8 through the same amp set to the same settings in the same room.

 

P.

[pippy]

...He picked up my guitar...and immediately it sounded like Hank Marvin. And I think we all have to expect that...

I couldn't agree more.

 

There was a similar interview with Joe Bonamassa where he related the story of when Clapton had agreed to join him on stage at the Royal Albert Hall to play "Steppin' Out" (from the 'Beano').

For the original, famously, Clapton used a 'burst through a Marshall. At the RAH E.C. played a Strat through a Fender Twin.........and yet he sounded exactly like he did on the album.

 

Pip.

[merciful-evans]

I would think, by now,, someone would have come up with the definitive test on Tonewoods to put an end to this debate. But alas, no one has, and the debate rages on. but hey I love a good debate! (as long as it doesn't get needlessly ugly like it tends to in other forums)

 

I will say this, my SG standard (2012 490t&498r pickups) sounds quite different from my Les Paul Standard (1995 490t&498r pickups.)

The les paul has a bit more of richer tone than the SG does. Why?

 

is it the carved maple cap?

did the formula of the pickups change?

is it the difference in the thicker hunk of mahgony?

something to do with the rosewood board on the paul vs torrified maple on the sg (you'd think the SG with the maple fretboard would brighten up)?

 

I just know it sounds, different. But two different guitars should sound different. They all sound and feel different to me.

 

 

At the end of the day I don't care why, because I just dig playing all of them, and I believe, regardless of electric or acoustic most of the "tone" is in the hands (I agree with Murph)

 

Yes. SGs do sound quite different to LPs. It’s nice that we have that choice of tone between models. It almost kind of lends a ‘charm ’ to the way these things sound. To me music is the most elusive of arts in terms of understanding its effect on us anyway.

 

I also think its great that Murph can use both SG & LP for country. That’s something I’d really like to hear.

 

Another thing I became more aware of only yesterday. After using the same picks for at least 20 years, I bought a bunch of different ones to try out (Including one that cost $35), and was surprised at how they affected sound.

These are different designs & weights. I’m now finding there is no one perfect design. The differences I could hear were in volume, clarity/definition, extraneous noise and (to a lesser extent) tone.

 

As for wood. I said elsewhere that when trying out ES-339s (which of course are semi-hollow bodies) I could hear differences in every guitar, but I couldn’t differentiate between the maple & mahogany necks. I knew which was which, but could find no commonality of tone to identify them.

 

-evans

[Silvercrow]

Well, I'm no scientist and I certainly can't explain my opinion (and OPINION IT IS), but I believe that woods, probably more correctly wood densities, do matter in solid bodied electric guitars when played through an amplifier. (That was a mouthful).

 

I THINK / BELIEVEthis has something to do with it;

 

Strings oscillate depending on gauge, material and length, how they are attached, how they are set into motion (plucked or struck, if you will). The strings are attached to the guitar and cause the guitar body and probably other parts, to resonate or vibrate. As the body resonates or vibrates, it has to have some effect on the strings that are attached to it. Therefore, strings vibrate> cause the body to vibrate / resonate > which causes some effect on the strings (sustain? alteration of vibration?) which in turn cauases the body to vibrate / resonate > and so on.

 

Of course, I may be fulla...something or other!

 

All I know for sure is that over many years of buying electric guitars- some sounded dead or dull when played acoustically- others were "alive" and vibrant- eminating harmonics in sympatico with string attack. Those that sounded good acoustically, also sounded good "plugged in". Those that sounded dull / lacking vibration and sustain, sounded not-so-good plugged in.

 

In the end, probably resonance has more to do with it than "types" of wood. I for one also wish that someone would take the time to do some exhausting scientific research on this! HOWEVER, it may be determined that a certain density of particle board laminated with formica sounds equal to / better than unobtainium wood and suddenly the only thing that the manufacturers will be able to upcharge for will be asthetics...

 

Brian

[pippy]

I THINK / BELIEVE...

I agree pretty much 100% with every point you make in the whole post, Brian.

 

More specifically I believe the tonal differences found in examples of the same model can be attributed to the characteristics of each individual piece of wood used in the construction of individual instruments.

You cover this in the section where you deal with some guitars which you find sound 'alive' whereas others sound 'dead or dull'.

IMX (with Les Pauls in particular) one of the biggest 'tell-tale' signs is the sympathetic (or the converse) vibrations felt by the fretting-hand along the length of the neck.

Some might feel exactly like a baseball bat; inert. Others might feel as though they had a decent-sized electric current running through them...

 

To make matters far more complex we can consider the body-mass of the mahogany blank used for the body.

In the case of solid-body LPs with an 'alive' predisposition those with less mass tend to possess different characteristics from the heavier guitars.

If I may quote from the April 2008 edition of "the ToneQuest Report" (which compared and contrasted six all-original 1959 'bursts);

 

"...we did believe that (some guitars') relatively light weight was uniquely contributing to an extraordinarily vibrant sound in a style that was audibly different from the heavier 'bursts. The fact that the notes seemed to jump so forcefully and 'faster' from some of the lighter vintage '59s was impossible to ignore. Not necessarily a 'better' or 'worse' sound, but sufficiently different..."

 

Pip.

[SteveFord]

Yes, the choice of wood certainly matters, especially in the acoustic world. Play a Martin D-18 and then play a Martin HD-28 and the differences are readily apparent.

 

For electrics, I'd say it's the density of the wood along with the amount of wood used to make the body.

 

One day I had an SG Classic and a Les Paul Special out, both having P90s and both strung with the same gauge and brand of strings. The difference in sound between the two was very pronounced with the SG having a much brighter and vibrant sound. I don't think the ebony fret board on the LP had much to do with anything as the sound differential was the same when the strings were just strummed open.

 

The SG sounded better but I sold it and kept the Les Paul. Go figure.

 

The Les Paul Junior (slab body, double cutaway) has it's own unique sound which I believe is due to the amount of wood used for the body. More than the SG, less than the LP Special.

 

How much does the carved cap matter on the regular Les Pauls? Gibson seems to think it matters quite a bit. Is it the different wood, more wood or a combination of the two?

 

Perhaps someone can comment on the laminate versus carved top guitars?

[merciful-evans]

Yes, the choice of wood certainly matters, especially in the acoustic world. Play a Martin D-18 and then play a Martin HD-28 and the differences are readily apparent.

 

That's a given. No doubt about the role of woods on acoustics Steve.

 

When I chose my Fylde guitar. There was a beautiful sounding maple (light wood certainly) back & sides flattop that really impressed me. I'd never heard anything quite like it. However, when I played it harder it didnt 'respond'. It just rattled a bit.

 

So I eventually settled for a more conventional rosewood back & sides model. This was a better fit for my playing.

 

Of course all these guitars (I was at the old Fylde premises trying out '2nds') had a softwood top.

[kidblast]

How much does the carved cap matter on the regular Les Pauls? Gibson seems to think it matters quite a bit. Is it the different wood, more wood or a combination of the two?

 

It mattered quite a lot to Lester, he insisted on it..

 

as we know.. he rejected the "new" les paul design (which was in fact the SG)

 

I'd have to go with Les himself on that call.

 

so -> It matters!

 

which puts a pipe wrench into the whole "wood don't matter" argument!

 

[matiac]

I personally wouldn't care if it was made of yak poo and paper towels, if it sounds, plays and feels good in my hands, well ultimately that's all that really matters isn't it? Don't really care what name's on the peghead, where it was made, or how much it cost. In the realm of 'tone', price means absolutely nothing, construction material means nothing (to an extent), most times a brand name is nothing more than a status symbol...

[Tman]

I'm all about 'T'.

[kidblast]

I personally wouldn't care if it was made of yak poo and paper towels, if it sounds, plays and feels good in my hands, well ultimately that's all that really matters isn't it?

 

 

I'm not sure how the yak poo and paper towels would do.. I mean the poo has to stink, and the paper towels could be a problem if you sweat a lot.