serious question: If wood species doesn't affect tone, then...

If the species of wood used in various parts of a guitar doesn't affect tone, then what accounts for the differences perceived by those that say it does?

it seems there are three possibilities:

1. Wood certainly affects tone, just not species. There is good ash and bad ash; good alder and bad alder. one poplar body might sound better than a swamp ash body, just because it's a better piece of wood.

2. things entirely other than wood (pickups, etc.)

3. psychological factors (no wood is actually better than any other, people just think this is the case).

thoughts?

wood effects tone and species effects tone, it just matters to what extent. some species are denser or less dense than others, and some samples within the same species are denser or less dense than others. everything effects tone from the neck, to the body, to the bridge, to the pickups, and probably to the tuners of some lesser extent. the only thing that matters is what YOU think sounds like "better tone" and what works best for you.

take two identical guitars of the same wood and same pickups, hell, the wood can be from the same tree, and they will sound different, all that matters is how much.

Jeez, not another one?


everything affects tone.

The end.

Wood type plays a role in tone, but it seems to be a subtle role.

With electric guitars, the difference in wood types seems pretty slight. To my ear, pickup selection, string type, amp placement and even tube type (in tube amps) make more noticable differences.

The difference in wood types seems more apparent in acoustic guitars. To me, adirondack-topped guitars generally sound clearer than sitka-topped, but the distinction is subtle, and I've noticed that with some guitars, it seems the other way around. Likewise, guitars with mahogany backs and sides seem "punchier" than those with rosewood, but I couldn't really define "punchier," at least not without two guitars to use in a "show and tell" type demonstration.

And "psychological factors" have influence too, especially in the age of the internet.

wood effects tone and species effects tone it just matters to what extent.

Yep.

as i see it, the order of "tone" ...

yer brain, yer fingers, the pups, the electronics, the rest of the guitar (wood, metal, plastic, strings, tuners, bridge, whatever and et al), the cable connector, modulation (fx, if any), the amp/speaker/tubes/transistors/digital/analog/whatever and et al.

but mostly, it's you.

hand your guitar over to eric c, bb, srv, jimi, django, joe pass, larry c, whomever, and they will all sound wonderfully like, well ... them ... and not you. :mrgreen:

....

Why wood a dealer ask such a question ? :eek:

Well anyway:


3. psychological factors (no wood is actually better than any other, people just think this is the case).

thoughts?


Yep, just because someone says it does, then it must be so, like all things. There are a LOT of intellectually lazy people in this world so the word on the street can become the gospel.

I just read the following:

as i see it, the order of "tone" ...

yer brain, yer fingers, the pups, the electronics, the rest of the guitar (wood, metal, plastic, strings, tuners, bridge, whatever and et al), the cable connector, modulation (fx, if any), the amp/speaker/tubes/transistors/digital/analog/whatever and et al.

but mostly, it's you.

hand your guitar over to eric c, bb, srv, jimi, django, joe pass, larry c, whomever, and they will all sound wonderfully like, well ... them ... and not you. :mrgreen:

....

and wish I had said it. Perfecto!

Millions of people buy a lottery ticket each week. If guitars companies say wood affects electric guitar tone to any level of significance then check your wallet for a lottery ticket.

If there's one there; you believe Ash is tonewood even though it's not used on any acoustic instruments - which says a LOT about it.

Also says that (and I firmly believe this) in an electric guitar the body wood is best not to be very resonant like Ash or Alder.

Makes a nice thwack on a ball though. :mrgreen:

But seriously - why didn't Leo use a tonewood for his guitars? And no - Ash, pine and Alder were not tonewoods until a frugal electrical engineer decided to make them that.

Shutup and play yer guitar. :grin:

All I know is a P-90 in my MelodyMaker(Mahogany) and one in My Dragon Tele(Swamp Ash) sound completely different. Mahogany is Very much darker than the Swamp Ash.

All I know is a P-90 in my MelodyMaker(Mahogany) and one in My Dragon Tele(Swamp Ash) sound completely different. Mahogany is Very much darker than the Swamp Ash.

Completely different guitars! Different electronics, scale length, bridge, etc. Too many variables to chalk it up to just the wood. Even though they both sport P-90s, not all P-90's are created equally.

Listen to Rob on this one!

Jeez, not another one?


everything affects tone.

The end.

Ya THINK? :-)

Even as a noob back to electric guitar I'm in the good wood/bad wood camp. I think it makes a big difference.

That said, having come from 20+ years perfecting my acoustic flatpicking technique, I think good tone ultimately comes from right hand technique. You can have every other duck in a row, but without good right hand technique, none of it is going to matter squat. Think of it like a horn player who doesn't have good breathing control.

IMO good tone starts at the elbow.

i thank everyone who responded. the reason i brought up a dead-horse topic was to get the opinions specifically of those who feel there is no variation caused by species. i'm planning to commission a build soon, and want to have as much info as possible, and it seems there is absolutely no consensus regarding this topic, though what some have said here makes a lot of sense.

Epic

and it seems there is absolutely no consensus regarding this topic,

That's one way of looking at it.

The second way is to recognize that each guy wants to emphasize his perspective and that involves giving a little more or a little less approval to the various other ways of describing a very subtle and subjective matter.

The real lesson from all this is, there are no hard and cold recipes to greatness in a guitar project; every single assemblage of parts is going to be a little bit different from the next and maybe a little different than we expect. There's a lot to be gained by being able to experiment and try a variety of combinations of pieces parts and try them out fully in different settings (and with different amps). One guitar sounds great because it is an ash body with a maple 1 piece neck, and the next guitar sounds great IN SPITE of the fact that it is an ash body, with a maple 1 piece neck.

Sorry, no short cuts. See, everyone is right, in whole or in part. And nobody has to be wrong for the other guy to be correct. :neutral:

Here's a thread on Straight Dope about this very topic. Interesting to see the myths and legends about guitar construction explored on a non-guitar site, I thought. Refreshing actually to those of us who get a bit twitchy when people band on and on about how maple boards are instantly recognisable on a record compared with rosewood and all the other rubbish.http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=613920

i thank everyone who responded. the reason i brought up a dead-horse topic was to get the opinions specifically of those who feel there is no variation caused by species. i'm planning to commission a build soon, and want to have as much info as possible, and it seems there is absolutely no consensus regarding this topic, though what some have said here makes a lot of sense.

Trust your builder. You are going to have to, anyway. You aren't paying this guy just for what he does, you're paying him for what he knows. A good builder has worked with all the choices out there, and heard the results. If it was my project, I'd specify only to the extent of appearance and the kind of sound I'm looking for.