How much does body weight affect tone? (from zombie thread)

[pilgrimsdream]

I talked to a boutique custom bass maker about this.

He told me that some wood is heavier due to higher moisture content. In that case, wetter woods kill sustain and resonance. I'm sure not all woods are heavier because of moisture content, but that may be a factor......

 

[TeleTown]

2008?

 

[sir humphrey]

Edit: zombie!

 

[digiprod]

The weight of the guitar's body as it pertains to "tone" is nowhere near as important as the amp, the room, the talent of the guitarist...

Ron Kirn

I could not agree more. I like them lighter as I like them lighter... nothing to do with tone

 

[TwangToInfinity]

imo the body is of the least value of the tone.

and imo talent player/music talent does not either.

 

[Tonemonkey]

imo the body is of the least value of the tone.



and imo talent player/music talent does not either.

So .... you, Clapton and Satriani will sound the same playing thru the same rig? Hmm. So touch, picking, style, technique makes no difference to tone?

Interesting.

 

[TwangToInfinity]

no we as players wont sound the same, that is the players sound.


the guitars tone is still the same no matter who plays it of if even a robot plays it.

each guitar has its own tone.

 

[Tonemonkey]

How much does body weight affect tone?

no we as players wont sound the same, that is the players sound.





the guitars tone is still the same no matter who plays it of if even a robot plays it.



each guitar has its own tone.

So explain to me how an inanimate object has "tone" without the actions of a "player"?

Edit: OK, I get your point, but you are trying to "prove the existence of God"! A guitar has to be "played" to elicit any "tone", and what's more (as we're essentially talking weight and electric guitars) needs amplification and the extra factors that brings into the equation. Buy your equation, different Amp, same essential tone. Tricky ground to prove, except using "Faith".

 

[Snake Danger]

I'm clocking in at roughly 215lb and my tone sucks. Take that for what you will.

 

[TwangToInfinity]

heh yea no.

oh i am not trolling or anything like that.

it is an opinion thread and i gave my opinion and some logic behind it.

im not trying to prove anything ,not selling anything or trying to change anything in anybody elses mind.

i am fine with people having their own opinions, actually its real cool. and as a bonus they can give a lot of insight into diff ways/reasons of thinking.

*ok i see your edit now

the thread isnt guitar weight it is about the body weight.

still i dont belive the weight matters to much regarding the tone.

 

[Paul in Colorado]

I'm clocking in at roughly 215lb and my tone sucks. Take that for what you will.

You beat me to it!

 

[Hiker]

It's an age old question about an instrument's weight and the delivered sustain. For some, it's about finding their dream guitar in a weight range below 8 lbs. (or 3.62 kg)

When people say, or act like a guitar that weighs over 7.5 lbs. is on the heavy side, I'm reacting like huh? Everyone has their preferences!

 

[BartS]

Most luthiers don't work with wood dried to less that 6% so the moisture content isn’t a factor of weight. Weight of wood is effected more by things like density than anything else. The higher the density normally the heavier or harder it is. Also neck woods tend to have a higher density but things like the ability wood takes in moisture from the air via humidity making the shrink and expand plays a park in this that's why woods like hickory tend to only be used for things like axe handles and smoking wood. I may be other things and may be a bit more than wood properties but that's the best I can explain it maybe someone else will chime in and do a better job.

On electrics mostly things like bridge quality and material effect the sustain. On acoustics mostly Voodoo effects it more than anything else. Acoustics I still don't understand. Some of it's things like where the braces on the inside are placed, bridge woods, over all craftsmanship.

On guitars that aern't built great from the start you can do things to increase the sustain with wood like use a heavier wood for a top. Like a maple top. If a guitar is built right in the first place it won't make a difference that's not to say don't build guitars with maple tops. Maple has a great grain structure and can be used to do things like balance a guitar that's going to be neck heavy and it looks great too.

Me I prefer a medium to heavier guitar. Nothing wrong with a lighter guitar either. I just like to know it's there.

 

[Ronkirn]

This whole “dance” around weight, sustain, and resonance is based on completely incorrect assumptions..

First.. Sustain…

for a note to sustain, there has to be a mechanical arrangement that prevents, or at least restricts the string’s ability to dissipate energy (vibrations) into the body/neck of the guitar, and allow it to excite the transducer for an extended period of time making electrical signals that can be converted into sound.

This was what lead to the massive bridges, nuts and hunks of metal screwed to the back of headstocks in the 70’s - 90’s. . . coupled with bodies made of neutron star material, because back then the prevalent assumption was, Heavy = better sound and/or longer sustain…

While such did increase sustain, it violated any contributions the construction of the guitar could add to the sound, thus the tone was austere, bland, ‘bout as boring as cold grits. But since this was the primordial age of pedals… with all the FX in the chain, no one noticed how sucky the sound was, until the trend toward “playin’ clean” developed, and all of a sudden someone somewhere bypassed all the electronic toys, and plugged directly into the amp… and uttered the words, “Whut thu??? where’s my tone?”

Somewhere ‘round the late 80’s, guys, particularly the guys playing the shredders, started noticing us hillbillies were getting really warm pleasant sounds from our teles, etc.. without more electronic thingys than found in the Space Shuttle…

I personally think this is the predicate to the explosion of the Tele’s popularity” . . the little booger sounds so damn good played clean…The reason, at least the assumed reason was, they didn’t have all that shrapnel screwed to the bridge ’n nut.. so the “resonance” could shine through…

So now… “resonance” became the “buzz word” .. gotta have resonance… and, of course, someone somewhere, suggested lighter wood is more resonant… that couldn’t be more wrong…

it goes back to the origin of species.. Guitarus electicapiens, written by Chucky “Blood Diver” Darwin, guitarist for Iron Australopithecus afarensis.



It was just another day in the life of Lloyd Loar, in the late 20’s… he’d been toying with the possibility of screwing a pickup to a guitar so it could be amplified, and compete sonically with all the other instruments guys were playing… so he took the idea to his boss.. the suits running Gibson…

The took a quick look, and said, nah, we don’t need any such contraption… go make the F-5 Mandolin…

“bout the same time a guy named George Beauchamp was toying with the same idea… that lead to his meeting a guy named Rickenbacker… His company, the Ro-Pat-In Company began manufacturing a contraption, that was euphemistically called the “frying pan”. and that’s it.. the birth of the ‘lectric guitar… Shortly thereafter Ro-Pat-In Company became Rickenbacker guitars.

Well.. that little development was like a slap in the face of the Gibby guys… so they said, “Hey, me too . . someone screw a pickup to a guitar ’n call it the ES 150”, ES for Electric Spanish, 150, for 150 bux, including amp… So how come a ES 335 costs 3000.00 these days?? Oh well.. back to it..

So anyway… Gibson, who every one knew, now had an electric guitar also, since few knew Ro-Pat-In Company, Gibson got a lotta the credit..

One big problem… so bad, it almost killed the idea. . . the damn thing was so resonant, (< there’s that word) any sound in the room would get amplified through the amp, including anything being played on the guitar. It was so bad, the amp was typically located in a separate room.

My point here guys…unending, massive resonance isn’t the solution, in most cases it’s the problem, and at best it’s only ONE of many factors that must be considered, used and balanced appropriately to produce a guitar that sounds like something “you” can live with.

But… back on track..

Resonating bodies were the bane of the electric guitar for almost 20 years, until a youngster, of 34, decided he’d see what he could do…

Shortly thereafter, Les Paul had created “The Log” an electric guitar specifically designed to eliminate resonance. The Dawggone thing worked… so he glued two “wings” on it so it had a shape similar to a guitar and approached a radio repairman, that was making lap steels to see if he wanted to make ‘em.

The radio repairman, Leo Fender, said nah, and here things get murky…

no one knows if Leo, at this point saw the log, and had the idea for the Broadcaster, released the following year, or if Les saw Leo’s lap steels, and thought, “Hum, slap some frets on that baby, ’n a couple of wings and ya gotta non resonating electric guitar…”

It doesn’t matter… and if ya wanna argue the point go to stuffthatdontmatterbutwecanargueallweekabout.com ’n argue there.

But.. lightweight resonant wood is no more the solution, than special paint is… everything has to be considered, and those qualities balanced against all others…

Getting back… again… for the wood to resonate, something has to make it do so… resonating wood is moving wood… the only thing that can supply motion to the wood, is the vibrating string… if the string is dumping motion into the wood, to make it resonate, that energy is directed AWAY from the transducer that is there to convert vibrations into electrical impulses.

As the vibrations are dissipated into the wood, the length of time the string can vibrate as a sufficient amplitude to produce a useable signal are reduced. This reduces the sustain… that’s not an opinion, that is based on the most basic fundamentals of physics… and that’s not gonna change until after the next “Big Bang” ( if then) . .. expected in about 14 billion years, so deal with it.

So, Resonance is the diametrically opposed opposite to sustain in a guitar. There has to be a compromise to arrive at a workable note’s sustain, vs the resonance of the body.

The weight is only a factor, in as much, the heavier the guitar’s body, the less the strings vibrations can cause it to vibrate.. that’s based on one of Newton’s Laws of Physics, so go argue the point with a physicist.

Oh.. and one lsat point for those hanging on to light weight = resonance…

Rosewood, one of the more dense (heavy) lumbers has been recognized for it’s sonic qualities since day one… it is also commonly used where resonance is paramount, in the Xylophone… to make the bars that are struck to produce the note… you will note, never is Lightweight Swamp Ash used to make Xylophones…


It’s not the weight that makes it resonant, it’s the qualities of the lumber…

Just something to consider as y’all are chasing your tails in the quest for tone..

Ron Kirn

 

[telex76]

I like light Teles. All mine sound great, very nice tone. Does lightweight mean great tone? For me it does and that's all that matters.

Hard to get any kind of tone from a guitar you don't want to pick up.

 

[hemingway]

It’s not the weight that makes it resonant, it’s the qualities of the lumber…

Just something to consider as y’all are chasing your tails in the quest for tone..

Ron Kirn

Your post makes perfect sense to me till I get to this bit. I've previously read your argument that the body of the guitar is only there to stop the other parts falling on the ground and doesn't affect the sound all that much.

Now it seems you're saying that different woods affect resonance (note I do NOT use the word 'tone')?

Now if we're still saying that, in the whole list of things that affect a guitar's voice, the resonant qualities of the body wood are pretty minor - they're there, but they're minor - I see what you're saying.

If you're not saying that, though, do you have any thoughts on what the more resonant body woods are, apart from rosewood?

For what it's worth, I do think that the resonant quality of the wood is a lot less important than: your skill, your pickups, your amp, etc, and that there's a lot of people believing in too much witchcraft out there. But it's fun throwing this stuff around.

 

[J-man]

Don't worry about it. All this tone chasing stuff is missing the point IMO. Get in the ballpark of the sound you want then concentrate on the actual music.

 

[hemingway]

Don't worry about it. All this tone chasing stuff is missing the point IMO. Get in the ballpark of the sound you want then concentrate on the actual music.

I'm not worried - as I said, it's fun - and it's good to learn from people who know more about this stuff than I do.

 

[J-man]

I'm not worried - as I said, it's fun - and it's good to learn from people who know more about this stuff than I do.

I was responding to the OP.

 

[kjt1776]

I myself believe in tonewood. But not to the extent that most others will try to describe it. Everything a guitar is made of and how it is built is what will decide tone. Also how it is played by the player. It always seems like everyone tries to come up with a one and done explanation for tonewood. If all things were equal between two guitars except the material of the body I think the difference might be noticable and maybe not so noticable depending on the human ear. I think sustain would be affected most since more denser woods should in theory produce better sustain. Everything else aside I believe nut size and matieral as well as bridge and material as well as setup, would have just as much effect. Not sure if anything I said makes since. I build my own guitars, when I start a design I consider what woods/materials I want to use. But in the end no matter how I want to hear it in my head it is always a little different because each instrument has somewhat of its own soul unlike anothers.