Will pickups detect wood types (acoustics etc) ?

I recently heard a comment from someone who said that guitar pickups (being magnets) really dont care what type of woods and materials your guitar is made of ONCE IT'S PLUGGED IN because they are magnets and therefore wether you have alder, ash, mahogany, maple or rosewood etc, it's makes no difference to the electrical sound whatsoever once the guitar is plugged in. He also claims that experiments with an oscilliscope can prove this.
I'm wondering how true this is, and if it is true, then electrically, wood types are irrelevant. :confused:
True ?
Discuss.

Ask that person to explain how the same pickup mounted on a solid body and a hollow body sound so completely different.

mmm although I assume there would be a difference in the solid vs hollow etc; is that the responsibility of the wood though ?

There are so many little things that make a big difference in the way a guitar sounds.

Something as small, and simple as the nut slots being incorrectly cut can have a very noticable affect on the sound.

When you combine that condition with all the other variables that go into a guitar, each having the potential to alter the sound significantly, it becomes obvious, to me anyway, that a particular guitar sound is "the sum of it's parts."

That said, going through all the tiny details in the way a guitar is built, and then set-up, you can change the sound of a guitar simply by making adjustments and refinements.

However, these changes are NOT guaranteed to make improvements in the tone. Just changes.

All this aside, everyone evaluates tone differently and hence the effects of making changes will be percieved by everyone differently.

The best thing any player can do is get to know what they like. Forget about what everyone else says, and go about the business of learning to play better. A guitar of great tonal potential is still useless in the hands of someone uncapable of releaseing that potential.

mmm although I assume there would be a difference in the solid vs hollow etc; is that the responsibility of the wood though ?

Wood, plastic, solid, hollow. Whats the difference if the pickup is (according to this person you know) just a magnet.

This was interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEAjPaxpVOw&feature=plcp

I had a self made guitar. A long piece of Maple w the brass bridge/string holder mounted at the end of the board. Aluminum fingerboard ala Todd. So called thru the body neck. I glued on SG shaped wings for the body out of Pine. Then I switched to Mahogany. Big difference in sound, even w a metal fingerboard and the strings mounted totally on a one piece of Maple. Anyone who can't hear body wood either has bad ears or a psychological concept of sameness a hell of a lot broader than mine.

To really bring out the wood sound, hard mount the p/up to the body w wood screws and washers for height shimming. Brass doesn't rust and sounds good.(I'm not saying steel sounds different,I've just used brass.) The p/up vibrates along w the body, so the time lag between that and the direct string sensing gives a real 3D accoustic space vibe to the sound.

Bottom line is the wood will make a difference as many other parts will. The resonance from energy waves from the strings moving through the magnetic fields gets effected by many things to some degree. All the parts come together to create the sum, even the hands that play the stings effect the tone.

SHORT ANSWER - No (according to my beliefs)

LONG ANSWER - Who knows. It's all speculation anyway.

CORRECT ANSWER - Who cares. No matter who is right at the end of this discussion your guitar will still sound the same.

It really depends on the pickup. A proper waxed potted Fender pickup will not sense acoustic tones to a large degree.

A Teisco pickup on the other hand, not factory potted, will pickup both. The coil is slightly vibrating like in a microphone, hence the term microphonic. I had ones where you can easily speak into them and you sound like Darth Vader through the amp. They usually sound rather good, but they feedback like a mic too lol. The wood probably has more impact with pickups like that.

It really depends on the pickup. A proper waxed potted Fender pickup will not sense acoustic tones to a large degree.

A Teisco pickup on the other hand, not factory potted, will pickup both. The coil is slightly vibrating like in a microphone, hence the term microphonic. I had ones where you can easily speak into them and you sound like Darth Vader through the amp. They usually sound rather good, but they feedback like a mic too lol. The wood probably has more impact with pickups like that.Thats the hard mount vibe... Even w a floating p/up the body wood always transmits its tone to the strings and the p/up always picks that up. Obviously the p/up doesn't pickup the wood directly, but the friend is saying that p/ups always sound the same, which is sky blue ridiculous, since no 2 guitars sound the same.Or what is his point ? If hes looking at a scope he needs to look at each harmonic seperately, then he'll see a difference.

Surely the pickup only uses the movement of the string to shift those electrons round, but the wood is perhaps affecting the way the string behaves when plucked?

We all know a PAF in a Les Paul sounds different to a PAF in a Strat, so while the wood (and/or other constuction features) might not directly affect the pickup, it presumably affects what the pickup is reacting to.

The pickups are mounted to the wood, the strings are mounted to the wood, the tuning keys are mounted to the wood, the bridge is mounted to the wood, the strap buttons are mounted to the wood, everything on the guitar is mounted to the wood.

In fact (go ahead, argue this - I'll be off playing the damn guitar and sound just like me, k?) everything on the guitar is mounted to everything else on the guitar and ALL these parts will in some way affect the vibrations of the strings in some way. Even if your vaunted measurement system fails to measure it. Even if you don't think so.

The better the pickups, the more *I* can notice this. *you* may listen wherever you wish. Your friend with the oscilloscope likes pushing your buttons.

You crazy guys - no, wood has no effect.

Those arguing that the wood affects vibration of the guitar and therefore the tone? Really?

How much do you think a loud bass and kick drum through a PA, in a crowded room, with a sprung stage affects the vibration of your guitar?

The answer is - a hell of a lot more than the wood. So does your guitar sound different live than in a studio? Does it fundamentally alter the tone?

People think mahogany is warm because Les Paul's are made of mahogany and they have: humbuckers. Teles are ash and they have: bright single coils.

It's the power of suggestions and the gullibility of most guitarist that keeps this particular marketing trick alive.

I've said it before - I'm a fan of Mark Knopfler. He has played and recorded Strats made of Ash, Alder, Birch and Mahogany.

If anyone can tell me - purely by listening - which wood is used in which song on the first three albums, you can have all my guitars.

Mugs, the lot of you.

Im thinking of marketing a wood simulator pedal, settings of mahogany, alder, ash and basswood. Yours for £500 - it will definitely improve your tone. Any takers?

So, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between a Les Paul with a humbucker and a Tele with the same humbucker. Is that what you are suggesting? All you will ever hear from a guitar is the sound of a string and whichever pickup is under it? Really?

Does a bolt neck vs glued in sound any different?

*EDIT*

This isn't intended as confrontational, although it might kind of look like it!:smile: It's just that everything I have experienced about different guitars is that the construction makes a huge difference. I have even installed the same pickup in multiple guitars and been surprised by just how much they retain their own character, alongide that of the pickup.

So, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between a Les Paul with a humbucker and a Tele with the same humbucker. Is that what you are suggesting? All you will ever hear from a guitar is the sound of a string and whichever pickup is under it? Really?

No - bridge, scale length etc play a part. But Tele made of mahogany would sound like a Tele made of ash all other things being equal.

I made a joke of it - but don't you think it odd that in the world of modelling no-one models wood? Why? Because there's nothing to model - no one can detect a difference that can be registered by the human ear.

Psychoacoustics plays a big part in it. Our ears are amazing things and shape what we hear depending on our mindset.

If you live by a trainline, eventually you stop hearing the trains. Literally stop hearing them, not just stop noticing them. Your brain instructs your ears to filter out the sound of trains.

If you try to listen for something - expecting mahogany to sound warm for instance - your brain will "listen" for warmth and find it. That's why some people "hear" wood when they know what the wood is, but no one does when they don't and no scientific instruments can detect differences. You do "hear" a difference - but it's an audio illusion, like an optical illusion.

Sorry if im pissing on people's chips, but this is one of those rare guitar questions that really does have a right answer - wood makes no difference to sound on an electric. It's proven beyond doubt and not really worth dragging up time and again.

"Im thinking of marketing a wood simulator pedal, settings of mahogany, alder, ash and basswood. Yours for £500 - it will definitely improve your tone. Any takers?"

:lol: That's a great idea. You could have a 'grain' knob for open and closed and a 'finish' knob for nitro or poly!

I've copied the edit I made above, as I was obviously making it as you posted!

This isn't intended as confrontational, although it might kind of look like it! It's just that everything I have experienced about different guitars is that the construction makes a huge difference. I have even installed the same pickup in multiple guitars and been surprised by just how much they retain their own character, alongide that of the pickup.

It is kind of pertinent though, as the pickup moving example would be my main take on this. Exact same pickup, which I pulled from a really chunky sounding Les Paul. I fully expected that pickup to sound just as mean in the Strat, but it didn't. It sounded like a slightly thicker version of that Strat. And for all the pickups I've put in that Les Paul, it has always been a variation on that first tone it had.

We agree that other elements of the construction will affect the way a guitar sounds (you mention the scale length and bridge above) but none of those directly affect the pickup itself. They must somehow affect what gets to the amp though.

I agree that the 'tone of wood' is not the science it's cracked up to be. I've had some experiences which fall into the mold (an ash Tele with a maple board which was too bright, and one with an alder body and rosewood board which remedied the situation) and those which don't (an SG which was nasal and wiry, and a mahogany thinline tele which was as snappy as hell). I won't say that 'mahogany will make a guitar warmer', but I would still say that a particular piece of wood will shape the way a guitar sounds to some degree, despite not directly affecting the pickup itself. A concrete guitar must sound different to a plastic one, right?

A concrete guitar must sound different to a plastic one, right?

Although that seems, on its face, to be a reasonable common sense analogy it's about the same thing as saying that driving an automobile made of Jello is going to be a lot different than driving one made of steel. Although that is certainly true Jello, just like concrete, has absolutely no characteristics that relate in any meningful way to the performance of automobiles, or guitars for that matter.

Something tells me a Jello car would corner slightly differently to a steel one... at least crashing it would be more fun!:lol:

Strong opinions on this issue. Personally, it's an interesting topic, but certainly nothing to get upset about. SH, You make several good points about how our brains influence our impressions, but the same can be applied to training our ears to hear certain things. Like how debate team members can decipher speech at about 4 times the average rate, if you spend hundreds of hours listening specifically to the attack response (first ~1/4 second?) of various guitars, you'll start to notice the differences. Either way, your ears will hear it, and your listening experience is affected in some way. Body material has something to do with that. Certainly, much less an issue in a live environment. Much of what people claim they hear in a guitar with one body wood versus another could merely be chalked up to bass resonance and damping.

All other things being equal, I too would defy anyone to hear the difference between an average Mahogany and Alder body. Since each piece of wood is slightly different, even with identical wood types, any perceived differences would more likely be attributed to the individual specimen. I know from my own experience, and it's worth trying yourself, that (all other factors equal) a Paulownia bodied guitar sounds noticeably different than your average Alder, Mahogany, or Ash body. I've mentioned before that it makes sense that the neck would contribute more to tone/sustain/response than the body.

Finally, Where has it been proven beyond a doubt that wood type makes no difference? I'd really like to see the study, or test that "proves" that, because my fairly well-trained ears tell me otherwise. Years ago, I read in a book by a renowned Japanese luthier that early solid body tests conducted with various materials showed marked differences. I've also read that within reason, specific wood species/cuts have specific resonance and damping qualities. The difference in the example I give at the end of my previous paragraph is actually pretty obvious. No ear training would be required to tell.

We haven't even discussed the springs, tubing, hard foam used to mount 99.9% of all PU's which isolates the PU from the wood to some extent:grin:

What to take it to the molecular level?

Strong opinions on this issue. Personally, it's an interesting topic, but certainly nothing to get upset about. SH, You make several good points about how our brains influence our impressions, but the same can be applied to training our ears to hear certain things. Like how debate team members can decipher speech at about 4 times the average rate, if you spend hundreds of hours listening specifically to the attack response (first ~1/4 second?) of various guitars, you'll start to notice the differences. Either way, your ears will hear it, and your listening experience is affected in some way. Body material has something to do with that. Certainly, much less an issue in a live environment. Much of what people claim they hear in a guitar with one body wood versus another could merely be chalked up to bass resonance and damping.

All other things being equal, I too would defy anyone to hear the difference between an average Mahogany and Alder body. Since each piece of wood is slightly different, even with identical wood types, any perceived differences would more likely be attributed to the individual specimen. I know from my own experience, and it's worth trying yourself, that (all other factors equal) a Paulownia bodied guitar sounds noticeably different than your average Alder, Mahogany, or Ash body. I've mentioned before that it makes sense that the neck would contribute more to tone/sustain/response than the body.

Finally, Where has it been proven beyond a doubt that wood type makes no difference? I'd really like to see the study, or test that "proves" that, because my fairly well-trained ears tell me otherwise. Years ago, I read in a book by a renowned Japanese luthier that early solid body tests conducted with various materials showed marked differences. I've also read that within reason, specific wood species/cuts have specific resonance and damping qualities. The difference in the example I give at the end of my previous paragraph is actually pretty obvious. No ear training would be required to tell.

Good post and good questions.

Absolutely right - there is as much difference between one piece of alder and another as there is between some alder and some ash. There can be no tone association with wood type.

You ask where the proof is - there are several examples of scientific testing of wood types in electric guitars and all come to the same conclusions: any differences are so minimal as to be meaningless.

Heres one

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

There are others - but I'm watching the germany Portugal game now so you'll have to wait ;-)

No - bridge, scale length etc play a part. But Tele made of mahogany would sound like a Tele made of ash all other things being equal.

..............

So you are saying the bridge will make a difference but the wood won't?

You essentially have two different questions that get confused when folks ask about guitars of different woods sounding different.

1). Does Mohoghany sound like X, Ash sounds like Y, and Alder sounds like Z?
2). Does differing components of a guitar make the pickups sound different?


When folks talk about wood sounding a certain way, they almost always recite tired old cliches like mohoghany is warm and Ash is twangy because it is extremely difficult to articulate the sounds we hear. In reality, one piece of Ash will sound different than the next, and one piece of mohoghany will sound different from the next. So you honestly can't say that Mohoghany sounds like X and Ash sounds like Y. Most woods we use for tele bodies are what I like to call tonal analogs, so they are all pretty much going to fall within the normal range of what a guitar sounds like.

Good post and good questions.

Absolutely right - there is as much difference between one piece of alder and another as there is between some alder and some ash. There can be no tone association with wood type.

You ask where the proof is - there are several examples of scientific testing of wood types in electric guitars and all come to the same conclusions: any differences are so minimal as to be meaningless.

Heres one

http://www.stormriders.com/guitar/telecaster/guitar_wood.pdf

There are others - but I'm watching the germany Portugal game now so you'll have to wait ;-)

The article you cited is anecdotal at best. The experiment in question was not performed very well, and no data was actually presented, only excel graphs. There were no statistics performed, and since he only used one example of each wood, you can't say that the differences(lack of differences) is due to wood type or individual variation between the wood. In fact, you can't actually come to any sort of conclusion using this paper because he doesn't present any numbers or statistics. This paper was most likely written by an undergraduate as a report, not as a peer reviewed piece of scientific literature.

My personal belief on the matter is that body does effect the way a guitar sounds, but its not because its Ash, Alder, or Mohoghany. Its how the body respondds to the total sum of the parts.

I would love to read the results for a real experiment though.

Indirectly, via the strings response to the wood (as well as other factors that influence the strings.) That's my view anyway.



... but certainly nothing to get upset about.



Those are fightin' words!

So you are saying the bridge will make a difference but the wood won't?

Yes - the bridge is in direct contact with the strings and significantly effects the vibration (ie floating tremolo vs Les Paul style fixed bridge)

As I pointed out, this isn't opinion its scientific fact.

The article you cited is anecdotal at best. The experiment in question was not performed very well, and no data was actually presented, only excel graphs. There were no statistics performed, and since he only used one example of each wood, you can't say that the differences(lack of differences) is due to wood type or individual variation between the wood. In fact, you can't actually come to any sort of conclusion using this paper because he doesn't present any numbers or statistics. This paper was most likely written by an undergraduate as a report, not as a peer reviewed piece of scientific literature.

My personal belief on the matter is that body does effect the way a guitar sounds, but its not because its Ash, Alder, or Mohoghany. Its how the body respondds to the total sum of the parts.

I would love to read the results for a real experiment though.

True - still significantly more evidence than anything presented to show wood does make a difference.

As I mentioned before, playing live will cause a million and one vibrations in your guitar that are hugely more significant than wood choice. Them factor in the pickups, the amp, playing style, effects, the room.

If you step back from the mojo, it's really just common sense that the argument for wood affecting tone is nonsense.

Again - all my guitars and £10,000 pounds for anyone who can tell what wood Mark Knopflers Strats are made of without looking it up. Impossible - you know it's impossible, but somehow you cling to the idea that wood sounds different.

Be honest with yourself, it's nonsense if you really think about it.

True - still significantly more evidence than anything presented to show wood does make a difference.

As I mentioned before, playing live will cause a million and one vibrations in your guitar that are hugely more significant than wood choice. Them factor in the pickups, the amp, playing style, effects, the room.

If you step back from the mojo, it's really just common sense that the argument for wood affecting tone is nonsense.

Again - all my guitars and £10,000 pounds for anyone who can tell what wood Mark Knopflers Strats are made of without looking it up. Impossible - you know it's impossible, but somehow you cling to the idea that wood sounds different.

Be honest with yourself, it's nonsense if you really think about it.

Your speculation presented as fact is what is nonsense sir.

No experiment can hold up to comfounding variables, and that is why sceince has evolved to isolate and test a single variable.

Knopfler will pick the guitar he likes based on its sound and playabillity, so you have no basis of comparrison as to what he would sound like on a guitar that he thinks sounds bad.

You also keep throwing around terms like evidence and significant, but all you are presenting is speculation. If you want to argue in terms of facts and evidence, please present some.

http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J1220.pdf

Still waiting for a report that shows a differece

Your speculation presented as fact is what is nonsense sir.

No experiment can hold up to comfounding variables, and that is why sceince has evolved to isolate and test a single variable.

Knopfler will pick the guitar he likes based on its sound and playabillity, so you have no basis of comparrison as to what he would sound like on a guitar that he thinks sounds bad.

You also keep throwing around terms like evidence and significant, but all you are presenting is speculation. If you want to argue in terms of facts and evidence, please present some.

Not true - often Knopfler would just pick up the guitar at hand. For instance, using Jack Sonni's Schecter Strat on One World.

To be honest, common sense and a seconds thought would suggest wood makes no difference to tone in an electric guitar, so the onus is on those suggesting an unlikely correlation between wood and tone to prove it exists - rather than on the doubters to prove it doesn't.

I've shown two experiments that show no evidence of tonal difference. Imperfect or not, that's still 100% more evidence than you've presented to support your fanciful theory.


It's like arguing fairies must exist because science hasn't proven they don't. It's your theory that lacks common sense, so it's up to you to provide the proof.

Your speculation presented as fact is what is nonsense sir.

No experiment can hold up to comfounding variables, and that is why sceince has evolved to isolate and test a single variable.

Knopfler will pick the guitar he likes based on its sound and playabillity, so you have no basis of comparrison as to what he would sound like on a guitar that he thinks sounds bad.

You also keep throwing around terms like evidence and significant, but all you are presenting is speculation. If you want to argue in terms of facts and evidence, please present some.

So far, your evidence is that some people who have never tested it think that different wood might sound different.

Where does that fit with your strict adherence to experimental science methodology?

It should be obvious to anyone with any common sense that the vibrational qualities of wood are insignificant compared to electrical amplification, vibration from amplified low frequency sounds etc

So apart from vibrations, what is it that makes wood affect the tone?

To be honest, believe what you want - its like arguing evolution with a creationist. There comes a point where you just think **** it - if it makes you happy, believe in Santa Claus if you want.

Not true - often Knopfler would just pick up the guitar at hand. For instance, using Jack Sonni's Schecter Strat on One World.

If Knopfler didn't like the way that guitar sounded, I bet he wouldn't have used it.

To be honest, common sense and a seconds thought would suggest wood makes no difference to tone in an electric guitar, so the onus is on those suggesting an unlikely correlation between wood and tone to prove it exists - rather than on the doubters to prove it doesn't.

I've shown two experiments that show no evidence of tonal difference. Imperfect or not, that's still 100% more evidence than you've presented to support your fanciful theory.

You have presented absolutely no evidence.


It's like arguing fairies must exist because science hasn't proven they don't. It's your theory that lacks common sense, so it's up to you to provide the proof.
You were the one that claimed to have scientific proof. I just asked to see it.


You just presented another article that has no scientific merit what. In fact, its a science fair project that presents no numbers or statistics, and thanked her parents for supervising her use of power tools.

You can question my common sense all you want sir, but you just presented a middle school science fair project as proof of your views.

People who don't hear the difference are actually fortunate. They are spared the effort and expense of finding what they consider a great tone for themselves with wood being a part of the tonal equation. if you don't hear it, that's OK.

For those of us who do know the difference, the quest for a tone that we like is a lot of fun and very rewarding when all the elements come together in such a way that pleases us.

I will not be swayed into thinking wood does not make a difference in the final sound. I just have way too many years experience in building and playing guitars to prove my understanding. But the operative here is "my understanding."

Those who disagree aren't "wrong" in my eyes. They've just had different experiences supporting their belief. It only gets ugly when someone presents their belief as irrefutable and absolute fact.

You just presented another article that has no scientific merit what. In fact, its a science fair project that presents no numbers or statistics, and thanked her parents for supervising her use of power tools.

You can question my common sense all you want sir, but you just presented a middle school science fair project as proof of your views.

Again, your proof is better?

People who don't hear the difference are actually fortunate. They are spared the effort and expense of finding what they consider a great tone for themselves with wood being a part of the tonal equation. if you don't hear it, that's OK.

For those of us who do know the difference, the quest for a tone that we like is a lot of fun and very rewarding when all the elements come together in such a way that pleases us.

I will not be swayed into thinking wood does not make a difference in the final sound. I just have way too many years experience in building and playing guitars to prove my understanding. But the operative here is "my understanding."

Those who disagree aren't "wrong" in my eyes. They've just had different experiences supporting their belief. It only gets ugly when someone presents their belief as irrefutable and absolute fact.

Emperors. New. Clothes.

You believe you hear the difference? I'm happy for you.

To a avoid any red herrings, I've presented some evidence - it might not be Nobel prize winning but the kool aid drinkers have presented none.

All the talk of tonal difference is based in vibration, which suggests to me that those who believe it have never played live or they might have experience of what vibration really means.

Look, believe what you want and spend your money on "Tonewood". Me, I'll continue to get paid for playing the guitar and make as much money with my basswood Tele copy as I do with my mahogany vintage Les Paul.

My ears are good enough to get paid for what I do, so I'll trust them and let you make your own mind up.

First, I'm talking about the difference the guitar has on the vibrations of the string. Unless a pickup is left "unpotted", I don't believe there is any perceivable acoustic transfer through it. That being said, the Soper test is not really a scientific one. It's good that the pieces of wood are significantly different densities for the test., but it's only one factor -- elasticity/rigidity being probably more significant. Still, it's near impossible to get accurate results between two different guitars.

There are several overlooked variables, like:
-I also don't see how the string was exited. Did I miss something? Was an average taken with a rotating plucking mechanism?
-What of the attack response? I like to see an impulse response measurement as well.
-How much would pick type/material and angle minimize, or exaggerate the characteristics of each body?
-How will a resonance at a given frequency, even with the pickup at the exact same distance, skew the result?
-How much of the measured differences are simply due to a slight difference in neck angle, or particularly coupling tension? How would you quantify the coupling between bodies of different hardness. There's also coupling surface area to consider. The Alder might have significantly more coupling area due to it's tighter grain? Those factors alone may explain most of the measured difference.
-How accurate is the measuring software? Some metering softwares have been notoriously inaccurate.

Even considering all these factors, the graphs clearly show ~6db average variations all over the place! How the author concludes those are insignificant is beyond me. What perplexes me is how the differences appear inconsistent from string to string? Perhaps since the harmonic series doesn't occur in the same place per string, they don't excite the same resonance points in the body? A more accurate graph may have been helpful in that case. One thing I'm not surprised to see is the ~10db difference in the 3-4kHz region on the G string. Again, I don't get why it isn't more consistent across the strings?

If the results are actually accurate representations of just the change of the body, impossible as that would be to achieve, I would conclude that there is definitely a significant enough difference to be perceived. Even though the differences are less than a few db in most places, they don't line up at the same frequencies, implying that the different pieces of wood have different resonance points along the spectrum. It's possible that is the case, but we don't know, because I don't believe the data is accurate for the reasons mentioned above.

So far, your evidence is that some people who have never tested it think that different wood might sound different.

Where does that fit with your strict adherence to experimental science methodology?

It should be obvious to anyone with any common sense that the vibrational qualities of wood are insignificant compared to electrical amplification, vibration from amplified low frequency sounds etc

So apart from vibrations, what is it that makes wood affect the tone?

To be honest, believe what you want - its like arguing evolution with a creationist. There comes a point where you just think **** it - if it makes you happy, believe in Santa Claus if you want.Are you actually serious ? Go get some Maple boards, Mahogany, Ebony, and Bass. Tap them. The species sound like themselves. You really can't tell Maple from Bass,Mahogany from Ebony?. Then theres something wrong w your ears.Now whether the difference is important is something else. Read my example where just changing the wings on a thru the body, metal fingerboard made a big difference.I have Mahogany and Maple 'Bergers w uniform graphite necks that are all the same. Compare the Maple bodies to the Mahogany w the same bridges and p/ups and all the Maple sound like Maple , the Mahogany like the other Mahogany.You don't have to pause to know which you re hearing. I think you re just being contrary for its own sake.

My ears are good enough to get paid for what I do, so I'll trust them and let you make your own mind up.

Well I was going to stay well out of this argument (or whatever this has become) from now on, but you're hardly playing a 'winning card'. If your opinion is validated by getting paid to play then, err, well, so is mine and probably some others here. Where does that leave us all?

The discussion element (and what I thought was playful joshing) has totally gone out of this, and I think I will too. See ya fellas.

Well I was going to stay well out of this argument (or whatever this has become) from now on, but you're hardly playing a 'winning card'. If your opinion is validated by getting paid to play then, err, well, so is mine and probably some others here. Where does that leave us all?

The discussion element (and what I thought was playful joshing) has totally gone out of this, and I think I will too. See ya fellas.

I get paid to build guitars for people who get paid to play guitars. I am not sure how that fits in though. :mrgreen:

I agree. I don't think it's worth getting worked up about.

Another factor I forgot to mention is that the bridge pickup position will register less variation in resonance, than will the other positions, due to the much smaller vibrations and the lack of harmonic content compared to the other positions. I'm not sure if it's more the inherent harmonic response of specific cuts of wood species, or just how the ratios of density, elasticity, and damping of those woods affect resonance and sustain that we may be hearing. My guess is that it's more the later concerning magnetic pickups.

oh no...

You crazy guys - no, wood has no effect.

Those arguing that the wood affects vibration of the guitar and therefore the tone? Really?

How much do you think a loud bass and kick drum through a PA, in a crowded room, with a sprung stage affects the vibration of your guitar?

The answer is - a hell of a lot more than the wood. So does your guitar sound different live than in a studio? Does it fundamentally alter the tone?

People think mahogany is warm because Les Paul's are made of mahogany and they have: humbuckers. Teles are ash and they have: bright single coils.

It's the power of suggestions and the gullibility of most guitarist that keeps this particular marketing trick alive.

I've said it before - I'm a fan of Mark Knopfler. He has played and recorded Strats made of Ash, Alder, Birch and Mahogany.

If anyone can tell me - purely by listening - which wood is used in which song on the first three albums, you can have all my guitars.

Mugs, the lot of you.

Im thinking of marketing a wood simulator pedal, settings of mahogany, alder, ash and basswood. Yours for £500 - it will definitely improve your tone. Any takers?

Awesome! 6/10! You lose four stars for exuberant pugnaciousness, but otherwise excellent!

Awesome! 6/10! You lose four stars for exuberant pugnaciousness, but otherwise excellent! Are you agreeing w him or just offering to be one of the guys pulling on his shoulders.

Are you agreeing w him or just offering to be one of the guys pulling on his shoulders.

That would be a 'no'

next!

This was interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEAjPaxpVOw&feature=plcp

While I think the wood does make a very small difference, this video pretty much explains the bulk of it. Yes that Steinberger with small body but with zero fret and heavy duty bridge will sustain more than similar pickup in a regular bone/plastic nut guitar with regular bridge. I wouldn't think a more massive guitar would make that much of a difference such as the double neck. The string will be affected first by the pickups, then the bridge, and lastly by the wood but I wouldn't worry about the wood being a major factor.

Something tells me a Jello car would corner slightly differently to a steel one... at least crashing it would be more fun!:lol:


I'll take that strawberry flavored Toyota in the back of the lot thank you. LOL

I've seen some of that guy's videos before. Sorry, but he didn't prove anything. His tests are some of the furthest from scientific I've ever seen. Furthermore, I could hear a difference when he picked the guitar up off the floor. It's very slight, but the bass got a bit "deeper" with the guitar suspended. You may not hear any difference when the center of the body is resting on your belly, but you might if you press it against your body with your elbow, and grasp the neck firmly. Less so with a denser body and neck, due to a lower impedance match between the denser wood and your body.

What you hear through the pickup is even less significant, but basic physics definitely apply. I hear a slight difference in resonance when I grasp my Parker NiteFly neck in different places when listening up loud through headphones with certain amp sim tones. I even noticed a slight bass resonance increase when I removed the rear trem cover. Everything has some affect. Some changes are more significant than others. Not saying I can identify woods, or anything like that, but it's all part of the whole picture. When the response of the instrument through the amp is right, I find it more satisfying to play, because it's doing more of what I want.

I think it's time to call a troll a troll.

I think it's time to call a troll a troll.

No, not at all. It was a genuine question and I'm genuinely interested in finding out.
I'm presently waiting for a response to the question from two sound engineer friends of mine.
(will post their responses when I get them).

Heres 2 more example of body effecting sound. I took a Sqiure body w a vibrato bridge. I removed the springs and then filled the spring route and around the block w a mixture of sand and epoxy. Killer sustain, but killer ice pick in the ear/breaking glass for the new sound..,,,I took a Sears Silvertone. Good sounding guitar. I coated the entire surface w the Sand + Epoxy mixture. Its now the best sounding guitar I've ever heard. Incredible bass response and sustain. The top on a Les Paul does the same thing to an extent. I guess I'll have to force myself to watch the video to see how the guy deludeds himself. Scopes and graphs are great for why and what your hearing, but you don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.

No, not at all. It was a genuine question and I'm genuinely interested in finding out.
I'm presently waiting for a response to the question from two sound engineer friends of mine.
(will post their responses when I get them).

Sorry man I wasn't referring to you. :mrgreen:

If body mass didn't matter, an SG would sound like a les paul

Yeah. Good example. I've known several people who claim body, neck, fingerboard wood makes no difference in tone. I've heard it claimed that only the sustain is affected. Those same people claim that a semi-hollow design does affect tone, not just sustain. It's a fine point. What of chambering? Where do you draw the line? I think the inherent resonant qualities of various woods/cuts do contribute, but it's probably less significant or consistent than most think, and they may be confusing it with the affect of the simple damping, elasticity and density factors of said body.

There are plenty of great sounding inexpensive woods. No reason to spend an arm and a leg for good response, and just because a body is made of a certain wood, doesn't mean it will respond as expected. It has to be properly dried and selected by someone who knows what to look for. I think Poplar is a plentiful consistent and cheap alternative to Alder. Those are two wood types you'd have a schmekie of a time hearing the difference between. I've mentioned that I liked the GFS P-wood body I tried a lot, but it's not the be all end all. The sustain is impressive for it's weight, but the highs are pretty soft (damped), like good basswood.

If body mass didn't matter, an SG would sound like a les paul

Maybe they would if every SG and Les Paul had exactly the same set of tone control settings with exactly the same pickups with exactly the same amount of windings etc. and they were both played by the same individual.

wasn't there a concrete tele on the build challenge thread awhile back ?

Maybe they would if every SG and Les Paul had exactly the same set of tone control settings with exactly the same pickups with exactly the same amount of windings etc. and they were both played by the same individual.
Well ,I can say I have more guitars than Need & im always winding pickups & I swap pickups daily & all my guitars are wired 50's wiring all with the came pots & caps & swapping the Same set of pickups from my sg to my epi les paul or my dean 79v & using MY hands (All 3 of these guitars have been rewired but have the same tune o matic bridges,grover tuners.......& they all have there own personality , the main difference is the les paul ,with it's thick midrange signature tone,

When all the parts groove together, it's a wonderful thing.:cool:

Maybe they would if every SG and Les Paul had exactly the same set of tone control settings with exactly the same pickups with exactly the same amount of windings etc. and they were both played by the same individual.

The SG and Les Paul, if not the same, certainly sound a lot like each other when you compare and contrast them to a tele or strat. The differences I have heard probably come from what strings I put on them or subtle differences in the pickups. One thing that seems to sound the same, regardless of which guitar it is in, is an EMG 81 humbucker. I can see where a powerful pickup like that would find the feedback really easily in something like a Casino vs. the Les Paul, but tone-wise, what one hears is largely the pickup. When I heard a Kay hollowbody similar to the Casino with a Duncan Invader in it, the clean tones were the same as if it was in a superstrat. But trying to put any distortion on it with volume would just create a mess of feedback on the Kay. While not a common combination, the heavy metal pickup in a full hollowbody did get that massive tone. Now if you stuffed rags in the hollowbody, like vintage BB King, then you could crank up the volume and distortion and pretty much rock out.

I simply don't know how Ted Nugent got the volome and distortion he did with his hollowbodies. Great tone though.

Ted stuffed them w dead animals and copies of Fox news contributors books.

I wonder how long it will take for this thread to get locked

I had a self made guitar. A long piece of Maple w the brass bridge/string holder mounted at the end of the board. Aluminum fingerboard ala Todd. So called thru the body neck. I glued on SG shaped wings for the body out of Pine. Then I switched to Mahogany. Big difference in sound, even w a metal fingerboard and the strings mounted totally on a one piece of Maple. Anyone who can't hear body wood either has bad ears or a psychological concept of sameness a hell of a lot broader than mine.

The point is you could directly compare woods .most of us cant .We can only compare different guitars and then pickups,amps .Many times we can compensate with a quick dial in on the amp or pedal adjustment .Its really not worth busting a blood vessel over .We hopefully find our muse and keep it .Sure wood must make a difference but with other factors thrown in its just one part of a complicated equation .I just find and buy guitars I like ,get fed up with them and move on .I could never get away with it with wimmin but i can with guitars:lol:

The Readers Digest condensed version: anything that affects the strings harmonics, volume or frequency will be sensed by the pickup. That's excluding microphonics which is really a defect of the pickup anyway..... :smile:



.

I'm not going to formally take sides here, but rather present some facts:

1. The species of the tree (ash, alder, poplar, basswood, etc.) does not even come close to fully defining the relevant characteristics of a particular piece of lumber -- those are heavily influenced by such factors as the tree's age and condition at harvest time, how much sun and moisture the tree got over its life, the curing ("seasoning") process, and from where in the tree the piece was cut. Lumber is not an engineered material, it occurs naturally and is not uniform like brass or polycarbonate. Expertly selecting and curing wood is a rare and challenging skill -- and the criteria for selecting lumber for a Telecaster body vs. a pretty and durable coffee table are quite different!

2. Turn up the amp volume loud enough and any effect of body and neck wood will usually be overwhelmed and masked by other factors -- remember, the loudspeaker is what actually radiates the sound, and what it receives electrically is defined by the amp and the preceding signal chain much more than the much subtler influence of body and neck wood. That said, if you turn down the volume (e.g. to play with a piano trio or accompany a singer who plays acoustic guitar), you will be much more likely to hear the differences wood can make -- they are *easily* audible at that sort of comfortable level, with the volume set below the point where the amp starts to be overdriven to an audible extent.

3. There is much more to the effects of wood than the relative density that determines the guitar's weight. In recent years I've had three MIM Tele bodies, all very heavy -- the California Fat body (alder) was a "stone," so the only influence from wood that was audible came from the neck and the resulting guitar was far too bright. The Deluxe Nashville body (also alder and very heavy) was just fine and perfectly usable with the very same neck, and the MIM Standard body (poplar) was even better -- it's now reunited with its original neck as my #2 guitar. I sold the "stone" and gave the MIM Nashville to my younger son. I could easily hear those differences, but other than that "stone" I doubt if I could have at rock & roll stage volume -- that's where what's happening in the electrical signal chain will predominate. Cliches like "heavy guitars sustain longer" and "light guitars sound sweeter" don't stand up to real life experience, or at least to mine -- I've encountered way too many exceptions.

4. In an electric guitar, the basis for the final sound is established by the transducer, which comprises the strings and the pickup(s). The wood (both body and neck) plays its role by influencing the spectrum the strings deliver to the pickup(s) -- that influence happens through absorption of certain frequencies due to resonances. With a "stone"-like body and neck, the strings are on their own (as they are in a pedal steel), and at the other extreme the body and/or neck can be *too* resonant, resulting in a guitar that might sound lovely unplugged but suffers from too many dead spots in the electrical frequency and/or harmonic spectrum to sound good when amplified. For an electric guitar that sounds good at any volume from bedroom practicing through piano trio all the way to rock & roll roar, you'll want one somewhere between the two extremes -- resonant enough to offset the intrinsic brightness of the strings in a pleasing way, but not so resonant as to dampen string motion excessively and/or kill the desirable harmonics necessary for sufficient "sparkle" and "air" in the notes.

Bottom line from here: wood makes a difference, but its effect can't be accurately predicted just by naming the tree species, and the relative significance of that effect is reduced as amp volume increases and/or pedals are involved in the signal chain. To retain the wood's influence, turn down your amp and mic it through a good PA -- set the guitar and amp knobs for the tone you want, and set the PA faders for the house volume, monitor level, and room coverage you need to be heard (and hear yourself) clearly in the overall mix.

imo, for a solid body guitar, it's not at all about the wood genus, it's primarily about the resonance factor. given the same neck, hardware, pickups and electronics - two bodies each of ash, alder, whatever, can be of such vastly different densities where one will sing and the other will sink. however, in the long run, it's the pups and electronics that matter most. ymmv.

Bottom line from here: wood makes a difference, but its effect can't be accurately predicted just by naming the tree species,
True ...I have built guitars from mahogany & the same species of mahogany
I have used some that has been very light weight & some very heavy & a difference in tone

Its a sonic spectrum and you can get an example from species A that sounds a lot like species B. Alder and Maple are sometimes fairly close. But youre not going to find Basswood that sounds like Ebony and vice versa. Because you re dealing w both transmission and absorbsion, like editorjuno recounts, weight isn't really the main tone factor (Lead for a bridge?) To my ears, from direct experience, yes, each piece of wood is unique, but its rare for an example of a species to sound like something other than that species.If woods , wood to anyone thats fine. Theres another thread where a guy thinks all p/ups sound the same. Boy is he lucky.

ok, you twisted my arm, I'll chime in. The properties of the wood do have an effect on the system. That is simple physics. The significance of this effect is debatable though. It may be audible for some, it may not be for others.

The problem with trying to put together a credible study is the sheer magnitude of variables involved. The data set would be absolutely massive given all the combinations you would have to put together. Another obsticle is uniformity. Can you put together an easily repeatable process that mitigates human intervention and/or error? It's probably more trouble than it is worth to really do this experiment the right way.

Make 10 oak bodies, 10 alder bodies, 10 ash bodies, etc. with the exact same dimensions, no finish.

Use one neck (the same neck on all of the bodies), the same pickup in the same position (directly to a jack for simplicity), the same bridge, etc, on all of the bodies. (Naturally not at the same time). Make sure the distance from strings to pickups etc. is constant between bodies.

Record songs from all bodies to the same sound card with the same settings, and of course the same player. Or maybe one should use open tunings and a robotic arm to strum the strings, for greater consistency. That would eliminate the player, arguably one of the biggest variables.

After the electric sound from all bodies have been recorded, use double blind testing to find out if the differences between wood types are significantly larger than the differences between individual guitars of the same wood type.

It'll be a stupid amount of work, and you may not learn much from the experiment, even if you execute it perfectly, but hey! At least you'll end up with a lot of bodies! :mrgreen: And what little you learn may be considered sound knowledge (*rimshot*), unless you somehow botch the methodology.

Make 10 oak bodies, 10 alder bodies, 10 ash bodies, etc. with the exact same dimensions, no finish.

Use one neck (the same neck on all of the bodies), the same pickup in the same position (directly to a jack for simplicity), the same bridge, etc, on all of the bodies. (Naturally not at the same time). Make sure the distance from strings to pickups etc. is constant between bodies.

Record songs from all bodies to the same sound card with the same settings, and of course the same player. Or maybe one should use open tunings and a robotic arm to strum the strings, for greater consistency. That would eliminate the player, arguably one of the biggest variables.

After the electric sound from all bodies have been recorded, use double blind testing to find out if the differences between wood types are significantly larger than the differences between individual guitars of the same wood type.

It'll be a stupid amount of work, and you may not learn much from the experiment, even if you execute it perfectly, but hey! At least you'll end up with a lot of bodies! :mrgreen: And what little you learn may be considered sound knowledge (*rimshot*), unless you somehow botch the methodology.

You just have to go a little further, and a little bigger, to get a more reliable data set. 10 of each body isn't enough of sample size. You will need a large sample size to attempt to account for the variances between different bodies of the same wood type. You would also want to run the tests against different pick attacks, different neck/fretboard materials, scale length, bridges, ect... to get a more comprehensive overview. To really be able to conclusively attribute an effect to the wood properties you need to establish that those properties/effects are present in various setups. The effect may be mitigated or amplified given a different set up, but it should still be present if the effect is inherent to the wood properties.

I worry that using the same neck over and over again might cause some variability in it's integrity, seeing as how you are constantly bolting and unbolting it. Also the fit in the various neck pockets concerns me.

You absolutely would have to take the picker out of the equation to be able tog et any kind of standardized input.

The problem with this is that to really test this you need to eliminate all the variables you can. You wouldn't really be testing guitars anymore so much as planks of wood. Seems to me like you might be able to rig up a jig for a particular set up that you apply to different planks of wood and measure how the resonance of that wood effects the output. But even then, at best, you still might only be able to establish correlation and not causation.

But it just seems like an awful lot to do about nothing. Now, if someone wanted to pay me to do this research, I would jump at teh chance. Why, I might would even assemble a team of TDPers to assist me in my data collection. So to any of the wealthier members out there, if you've got the money, I've got the time and we can attempt to settle this.

I've seen some of that guy's videos before. Sorry, but he didn't prove anything. His tests are some of the furthest from scientific I've ever seen.

Yeah, no kidding. Laying a guitar down on a carpeted floor is supposed to involve the vibration of a 6k sq.-ft. house?

Wood makes a diff in tone.

I had a guitar I bolted together with a Paulownia wood body.

I didn't care for the sound, it was really thin, so I took all the hardware including neck off and put it on a regualr swamp ash body.

Sounded like a totally different guitar.

Only change was the body. It was such a big difference that a deaf man could tell between the two.

Wow...never hear Paulownia sound thin. Furthest thing from it in my experience. Wonder what was up with that? Bad neck and/or bridge coupling maybe?

I have two Tele's w/ the same pickups. One is a semi-hollow swamp ash, the other is a maple top w/mahogany back. Both have maple necks w/ rosewood boards, bone nuts and the exact same bridge. They sound very similar, but they are different. The maple top one has clearer highs and more detail in the midrange. It's a subtle difference, but it's there.

Some of you guys are...interesting.

Take examples to an extreme and truths will manifest themselves: Make a guitar out of rubber. Does it sound different? Does it sound different through the pickups? (if you replied "yes" keep reading. If you replied "no" then you're done. You can go play in the street)

So what the strings are attached to affects the vibration of the string, which is picked up by the...pickups, yes, very good. So now that we've established that the material used in the guitar neck and body does affect the sound of the guitar through the pickups, the only thing left to argue is to what degree. If you don't care about it, that's fine. Go play in the street with the kid who answered "no" earlier.

Next is whether the pickup can sense the wood microphonically. I say yes to an extremely small degree, mainly controlled by the mounting method. Tap on your pickups. Can you hear it through the amp? Tap on the guitar. Can you hear that? That tells you a little bit about the degree in which your pickups are affected by the actual vibrations of the wood. But tapping is much more violent than the actual vibrations of the wood so once you start playing, the microphonic wood capture is extremely far down in the signal.
Everything makes a difference just decide whether you care or not.

Some of you guys are...interesting.

Take examples to an extreme and truths will manifest themselves: Make a guitar out of rubber. Does it sound different? Does it sound different through the pickups? (if you replied "yes" keep reading. If you replied "no" then you're done. You can go play in the street)

So what the strings are attached to affects the vibration of the string, which is picked up by the...pickups, yes, very good. So now that we've established that the material used in the guitar neck and body does affect the sound of the guitar through the pickups, the only thing left to argue is to what degree. If you don't care about it, that's fine. Go play in the street with the kid who answered "no" earlier.

Next is whether the pickup can sense the wood microphonically. I say yes to an extremely small degree, mainly controlled by the mounting method. Tap on your pickups. Can you hear it through the amp? Tap on the guitar. Can you hear that? That tells you a little bit about the degree in which your pickups are affected by the actual vibrations of the wood. But tapping is much more violent than the actual vibrations of the wood so once you start playing, the microphonic wood capture is extremely far down in the signal.
Everything makes a difference just decide whether you care or not.

hey frank - better to be interesting than insane. :mrgreen:

your post is spot on, sir.

....

I've got two Tele's set up as follows:
first guitar.......
Burgundy Metallic Mist
Ash body
Maple neck w/ Rosewood fingerboard
Sklar humbucking Tele bridge pickup (like a P bass pickup)
Brass bridge w/ barden brass saddles

Second guitar.....
Lake Placid Blue
Alder body
Maple neck with a Maple fingerboard
Duncan 53 tap Tele bridge pickup
Vintage bridge with Glendale Saddles (brass with a aluminum E/A saddle)

I've recorded them with one panned left and one panned right.
Same settings and everything ,You cannot tell them apart.
I really wanted them to be different darn it!

What Frank said.

EDIT - sorry, missed a page and didn't realised we'd moved on!

However...

Being a solid and a semi-acoustic owner, I'd say construction and unplugged resonance can have a marked difference on the frequencies that are accentuated when the guitar's plugged in.

I'm presently waiting for a response to the question from two sound engineer friends of mine.
(will post their responses when I get them).

.... and could'nt you of guessed it ? - neither of them have a clue :roll:

I have played around a nice bit building guitars & even tried building solid body guitars from Aspen & poplar & wood does make a difference in tone & sustain ,If you don't think so ,You might look into getting one of these pickups installed
http://www.google.ca/imgres?q=hearing+aid&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1680&bih=955&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnsr&tbnid=-0Tw-gssKHMp4M:&imgrefurl=http://lifingtechnology.com/hearing-aid-reviews-crucial-details-one-should-know/&docid=u72PKxQi1r73CM&imgurl=http://lifingtechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/13.jpg&w=500&h=375&ei=vO_cT6WpDqb76gGD9eHGCw&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=173&vpy=313&dur=144&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=163&ty=103&sig=100806462280354799008&page=1&tbnh=123&tbnw=164&start=0&ndsp=42&ved=1t:429,r:9,s:0,i:165

:neutral::roll:

Some of you guys are...interesting.

Take examples to an extreme and truths will manifest themselves: Make a guitar out of rubber. Does it sound different? Does it sound different through the pickups? (if you replied "yes" keep reading. If you replied "no" then you're done. You can go play in the street)

So what the strings are attached to affects the vibration of the string, which is picked up by the...pickups, yes, very good. So now that we've established that the material used in the guitar neck and body does affect the sound of the guitar through the pickups, the only thing left to argue is to what degree. If you don't care about it, that's fine. Go play in the street with the kid who answered "no" earlier.

Next is whether the pickup can sense the wood microphonically. I say yes to an extremely small degree, mainly controlled by the mounting method. Tap on your pickups. Can you hear it through the amp? Tap on the guitar. Can you hear that? That tells you a little bit about the degree in which your pickups are affected by the actual vibrations of the wood. But tapping is much more violent than the actual vibrations of the wood so once you start playing, the microphonic wood capture is extremely far down in the signal.
Everything makes a difference just decide whether you care or not.

I just found myself agreeing with a Duncan guy. Will wonders never cease? Seriously, Frank, thanks for the concise and sensible rundown -- I guess some truths aren't quite as self evident as Thomas Jefferson's to some folks....

http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2007/Projects/J1220.pdf

Still waiting for a report that shows a differece

Sorry to be late to the party... But this is your proof? In the last section, 'Help Recieved', this is the first thing that was said. "My father supervised my use of power tools and helped edit my write-up; My mother helped edit my work and helped me put together the display..."

Some of you guys are...interesting.

Take examples to an extreme and truths will manifest themselves: Make a guitar out of rubber. Does it sound different? Does it sound different through the pickups? (if you replied "yes" keep reading. If you replied "no" then you're done. You can go play in the street)

So what the strings are attached to affects the vibration of the string, which is picked up by the...pickups, yes, very good. So now that we've established that the material used in the guitar neck and body does affect the sound of the guitar through the pickups, the only thing left to argue is to what degree. If you don't care about it, that's fine. Go play in the street with the kid who answered "no" earlier.

Next is whether the pickup can sense the wood microphonically. I say yes to an extremely small degree, mainly controlled by the mounting method. Tap on your pickups. Can you hear it through the amp? Tap on the guitar. Can you hear that? That tells you a little bit about the degree in which your pickups are affected by the actual vibrations of the wood. But tapping is much more violent than the actual vibrations of the wood so once you start playing, the microphonic wood capture is extremely far down in the signal.
Everything makes a difference just decide whether you care or not.

imo, what frank typed is where all of us need to be with regards to this topic.

the business of "guitar tone" has been hyped through the decades and none of the myths, bs and total nonsense are ever solidly put down, as they should be.

there are MUCH more IMPORTANT things about "guitar tone, and that pretty much starts and ends with the human touching the strings. ymmNv.

Yeah, somebody pointed that out. Someone also mentioned about building a guitar of rubber. I'd guess acoustic impedance matching, or lack there of, probably matters a lot. Rubber wings attached to a solid steel neck through may have little, or no affect on tone/sustain -- whereas even though the rigidity is at least as high, rubber may significantly affect a carbon fibre neck through. I'd think a mechanical engineer would know the answer to that.

i'll say it again - the wood genus doesn't matter, the wood density, grain and tissue does. i look for resonant wood. that happens quite readily with most lightweight woods. there was an era when 3# "swamp ash" tele bodies were abundant and cheap, and that's about all i used. now that kinda wood is like unobtanium and i use, and prefer, paulownia. that's really all there is to this topic matter. this gets to be like beating a dead horse. o'n'o.