why 3 piece bodies?? - Page 2

jwells393 · April 3rd, 2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

....it's the original three piece guitar from 1939 - Les Paul's "Log". It's a piece of 4x4inch pine with two sides of an Epiphone guitar screwed on to it. A Gibson neck and Epiphone tuners. He took it to Gibson in 1941 and they laughed at him.

Of course Leo Fender wasn't in the guitar business in 1941 but it makes you wonder "What if he was and Les had gone to Leo instead?". How the guitar world would be different today.

Telemarkman · April 3rd, 2008, 06:46 PM

I read your article Tom, and as usual you make a lot of sense.

Type of body wood and number of pieces may or may not affect the tone of a solid bodied guitar, but there's no way of predicting in what way I guess.

You have to judge a guitar on it's own merits, but I guess a simply constructed guitar like a Tele has a bigger chance of maintaining an even quality throughout the line of production than does a more sophisticated constructed guitar.

Tom S · April 3rd, 2008, 06:52 PM

Thanks for looking, Telemarkman. You will probably the first and last.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telemarkman

Type of body wood and number of pieces may or may not affect the tone of a solid bodied guitar, but there's no way of predicting in what way I guess.

A wonderful statement. While I didn't always feel this way, I now believe it with 100% certainty.

jwells393 · April 3rd, 2008, 07:16 PM

I let my Opera Browser speak function read it to me. I think it all went over my head.

pengipete · April 3rd, 2008, 07:35 PM

Don't put your self down Tom. Your article is entirely readable and makes a lot of sense.

I'm of the opinion that as long as the woods are not wildly different in terms of density and average grain structure, the only reason for choosing one piece of wood over another is cosmetic.

Even with multi-section timber, the glued joints are as stromg or even stronger than the natural weak points along the grain and the glue, once set, should be a better conductor of sound waves than the wood due to its solidity.

If tone was the most important factor in the construction of solid bodied guitars then few of us would be using wood anyway. Other natural or artificial materials would be used that would provide better aand more consistant wave transference without the other problems associated with wood such as it's reaction to heat and humidity.

Wood is a cheap, plentiful and sustainable material that looks attractive, supports a variety of finishes and is easy and safe to work. It is also regarded by many as the "right" material for guitar building and guitarists can be a very conservative bunch when it comes to their instruments.

boris bubbanov · April 3rd, 2008, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom S

http://home.comcast.net/~guitaramp/Guitar/Tonewoods.htm

Cool article, Tom.

Definitely something to chew on. Thanks.

JDRNoPro · April 4th, 2008, 12:09 AM

Well written, Tom. From a scientific/technical perspective the points you make suggesting body wood species/construction should have minimal impact on the tone of an electric solid body seem valid. My ears tell me that it seems to be more than minimally significant, however. Perhaps the tonal difference between guitars is more a product of other variances in parts and assembly but is attributed to wood differences because that's easier to identify - dunno. Some things I've wondered about :

1) How much can the density vary within a single piece of wood? Sawing experience suggests to me that it can vary quite a lot.

2) What effect does moisture content have, all other things being equal?

3) Could it be that body wood impacts tone for reasons different than vibration transmission to/from pickups, etc? Rather, the body affects how the neck vibrates/resonates, which would seem to be more important due to the more direct connection to the vibrating string. Depending on specific charactaristics, the body could act either as a resonator or damper attached to one end of the vibrating neck.

Perhaps fodder for your next article...............

April 3rd, 2008, 07:16 PM	#44 (permalink)
jwells393 Doctor of Teleocity Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Albuquerque, USA Age: 64 Posts: 12,245 101 Photos	I let my Opera Browser speak function read it to me. I think it all went over my head. __________________ Jack's Disclaimer: When I say something.... always ask yourself ..... "What the hell does he know?" _ Guys - learn to disable the flash on your digital cameras.

April 3rd, 2008, 06:46 PM	#42 (permalink)
Telemarkman Friend of Leo's Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Norway Age: 61 Posts: 4,719	I read your article Tom, and as usual you make a lot of sense. Type of body wood and number of pieces may or may not affect the tone of a solid bodied guitar, but there's no way of predicting in what way I guess. You have to judge a guitar on it's own merits, but I guess a simply constructed guitar like a Tele has a bigger chance of maintaining an even quality throughout the line of production than does a more sophisticated constructed guitar.

April 3rd, 2008, 07:35 PM	#45 (permalink)
pengipete Tele-Afflicted Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Gloucester U.K. Age: 47 Posts: 1,572	Don't put your self down Tom. Your article is entirely readable and makes a lot of sense. I'm of the opinion that as long as the woods are not wildly different in terms of density and average grain structure, the only reason for choosing one piece of wood over another is cosmetic. Even with multi-section timber, the glued joints are as stromg or even stronger than the natural weak points along the grain and the glue, once set, should be a better conductor of sound waves than the wood due to its solidity. If tone was the most important factor in the construction of solid bodied guitars then few of us would be using wood anyway. Other natural or artificial materials would be used that would provide better aand more consistant wave transference without the other problems associated with wood such as it's reaction to heat and humidity. Wood is a cheap, plentiful and sustainable material that looks attractive, supports a variety of finishes and is easy and safe to work. It is also regarded by many as the "right" material for guitar building and guitarists can be a very conservative bunch when it comes to their instruments.

April 4th, 2008, 12:09 AM	#47 (permalink)
JDRNoPro Tele-Meister Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Orrington, ME Age: 58 Posts: 431 1 Photos	Well written, Tom. From a scientific/technical perspective the points you make suggesting body wood species/construction should have minimal impact on the tone of an electric solid body seem valid. My ears tell me that it seems to be more than minimally significant, however. Perhaps the tonal difference between guitars is more a product of other variances in parts and assembly but is attributed to wood differences because that's easier to identify - dunno. Some things I've wondered about : 1) How much can the density vary within a single piece of wood? Sawing experience suggests to me that it can vary quite a lot. 2) What effect does moisture content have, all other things being equal? 3) Could it be that body wood impacts tone for reasons different than vibration transmission to/from pickups, etc? Rather, the body affects how the neck vibrates/resonates, which would seem to be more important due to the more direct connection to the vibrating string. Depending on specific charactaristics, the body could act either as a resonator or damper attached to one end of the vibrating neck. Perhaps fodder for your next article...............