It is out of sync which is what causes the string wave to decay differently because of mass/material difference. The pickup is reading the sine wave at one point along the string, at the point of attack it is so big then starts decaying immediately but it is just picking it up at that one point as it changes (sustain) Anything that changes the speed of the wave changes the sound just as the speed of the wave form changes as you get closer to the end point of the wave and its reflection. I am thinking to hard now

_________________
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

Thomas Jefferson

Hi Ninja! Hi all! Wow, this is some debate I gather! Interesting...



I have some (limited) experience in audio technology and sound recording, and have done a tiny bit of reading on the matter of acoustics, tone and sound in general. Partly because of building a recording studio and having to secure audio isolation, and partly because of the proces of recording, mixing and mastering audio. Please let it be noted that I am in no way an expert.
Also please excuse my crude explaning, technological terminology is hard for me, in German or in English!

But I have some input maybe.

As soundwaves "flow" through any piece of material they cause it to stir. A material like felt or wool have very little mass and hardness, and will have very little sustain. Because of the flexibility of the fibres involved, energy flowing through in form of soundwaves is quickly absorbed.
Hard material like steel or bronze will ring longer, as the soundwaves working inside the material cause it to "be moved" with little energy loss. Thus "echoes" the energy in slowly declining lengths and volume for a much longer time than for instance with wool.

So far we have established these basic principles:
Material is "stirred" by energy (a knock, a pluck of a string), causing the medium around the material (say air or water) to be stirred too. Sound is emitted.
Energy moving the material is limited, and absorption of energy in different materials differ too. Thus: different mass, different loudness, and different decay. These I will call the resonance factors.

Now to the guts of what I'm getting at.

Any given soundwave consists of different frequencies combined. And material has certain frequencies that it absorbs best, and other frequencies it does not absorb easily. This is what can maybe be labelled as "tonal characteristics". Energy from a manual triggering (pluck, knock etc) results in sound, which then again inside the ringing material is absorbed in a very complex way, meaning "parts" of the tonal spectrum (certain frequencies) are absorbed, others take longer to decay.
This means we have established why different materials emit different sound characteristics. And why Alder sounds different than Mahogany, for example. These I shall call the tonal factors.

Now, is arguing that an electrical instrument is not (or very little) altered or modulated by the material on which the hardware is mounted, feasible? We'll see.
An electric guitar made of any given material will emit sound. So far we concur. More resonant material combinations (hollowbody) will make an electric guitar sound louder or weaker. At first, you will say, does this only apply to the unplugged status, and not to the electrified and amplified. But keeping in mind the way material accepts and passes on energy, I come to a slightly different conclusion: The energy, passed through a conglomerate of materials that a modern elctric guitar is, will be transported as tonal phases and frequencies, again interfering with itself in phase interference and frequency kills, and this now altered signal is passed to the strings again. These move across a magnetic inductuous (is that a real word?) field which gathers information through the vibrations it detects from the moving string.
The energy now passed on is electrical, and from this point on can much easier be titled as "information". The information now passes through windings of wire, volume- and tone pots and into an amplifier, where a reverse process takes place: electrical information moves a magnet which moves a speaker cone which again moves air, which can be detected by our ears as sound. Electricity does not transport tonal characteristics. These can not be written or read as electrical information.
Uhh. So far, so good.
Now to the punchline.
Our dear friend Nikininja claims, that whatever the material of the guitar, should the hardware and PUs stay the same, the electrical signal produced by strumming the strings will stay the same. As we can by now figure out from our arduous theorems, we can safely say: He is right.

Why? Because the acoustic and therefore energetical interference stops at the magnetic field. IF you imply, that there is no energetic (meaning acoustic or otherwise) back-loop connection from amp to guitar!
That is where I claim my admittedly bad theorisation (another non-word there, I guess) can add to the discussion of "tone" to be percieved even in amplified status. Because as soon as the sound escapes the amp, it immediately "backfires" on the guitar through soundwaves, which move it and again cause tonal alterations. So for instance if you're standing right next to the amp in the same room, and you're playing a note and the guitar moves around in front of the speaker you can cause feedback which normally appears as a high-pitched tone. I claim that is the part of the waveband that hasn't been absorbed by the multitude of materials involved, and has created a cycle through the involved gear. This may not be mistaken as tonal character. It is a spectral matter.

Therefore, playing a guitar in one room, and tracking the amp in another will have you near interference-free and probably the clearest signal you'll ever get from your guitar. In this case it doesn't matter what material your guitar is made of.

SO, let's recap.

Material of which a guitar is made has influence on (not amplified):

All resonance factors (loudness, dynamics, longitude ("sustain"), speed of decay (quick plunge or slow decrease of volume) plus
All tonal characteristics (Alder, Ash, Mahogany, etc.).

What you get through the pickup is influenced by:

The resonance factors, (how long it rings, how loud, which note) and by the amp & FX. Spectral alterations to amplified signal appear with "feedback".

Now, some may ask: "But how can we modulate our "sound", then?" You can. Through better pickups you get a better dynamic reaction to every nuance of your playing, the sustain, and to the frequency spectrum (probably best described as "saturation" of the signal and is down to less loss of energy in the coils). Through different amps you can then modulate the actual sound to a much greater amount. Effects add even more possibilities.


As I said before, I may be wrong. And I would love to hear a pickup-manufacturer's view on the matter, and also an amp builder if possible. I also encourage further thinking, for I can't lose the feeling that I got lost in the middle of this very long post. If I find out I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it and also very happily so. I always like to add to my small pond of knowledge.
So, my fine folks, fire away!

regards,

-Nutter

_________________
I started out with nothing, and still have most of it.

Golly I didn't realize I was stirring up a rerun of The Crusades ! ....

My question simply had to do with tonal differences between ash vs alder. I guess in the end it ultimately comes down to personal choice. I'm sure there are merits in both directions and I wouldn't argue that once you introduce variables like pups, amp, bridge, neck etc. it will change even more. I have to believe there are some differences but perhaps they are so subtle as to not be noticeable. I've owned many strats in my 30 years of playing but as I said, never paid much attention to the wood. FWIW, I should add that I'm not building this critter from scratch. I'm assembling it from purchased parts. If anyone has additional advice on how to best go about this, what to avoid, etc, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks all for your passionate thoughts !

Guys before this thread goes any further at all please let me clarify something.

I have not posted on this thread with the intention of upsetting or making any enemies. I have simply stated my view. All I ask for is, if I am wrong explain to me why, in a way I can understand. (yes bang the bones on the cave wall)

As Xhefri says we all have a peculiar relationship with our instruments and interact with them in different ways. No one can tell you that the way you sense/feel/interact with your guitar is wrong.

Not my intent at all.

_________________
No no and no

You are referring to this old thread where I gave my views (on page 3) regarding the impact of neck woods on one's tone. Essentially, I asked which position reflects the "Tone of the Wood"? (I loved Ceri's responses to my posts, BTW.)

I had a revelation about the whole "tone woods" thing when I considered the very different tones available on a Strat with just a flick of the switch.

My bottom line is this: I believe that the tone controls on my Marshall play a much (MUCH) greater role in my electric tone than what woods are used in the body or fingerboard.

I think people pay too much attention to the acoustic tone of their solid-body electric guitars. I also think that most people don't have good enough amplifiers.

_________________
Member #26797
My other guitar is a Strat.

Exactly and reading through that thread you will obviously see my change of heart on the whole subject. Once a ardent tonewood supporter that went to the lengths of recording his ugly mug. To someone who won't be told otherwise.
Why you may ask?
I found discrepancies in my test. I found plenty of reasons why one guitar should sound brighter than the other. Unintentional harder picking, different setups on the pickup heights, over emphasis on certain strings. I'll gladly admit my mistakes if I can learn from em. I did set the action as close as I could get but somehow overlooked pickup height.
If nothing else the whole thread proves that I did misguidedly believe the whole tonewood debacle. And should go some way to emphasising why I now think the way I do now.

Also I dont think any of this is down to amps, I really dont, although not all play single channel Marshall's. You just can't help some folk.

I really think it is entirely down to people equating unamped tone with amped tone. Their not even on the same continent to each other. It's far more like Forbidden Planet to the house round the corner.

Like I said previously, the way people interact with and interpret their guitars. The way their set up, the ideas they preconceive about them.

_________________
No no and no

Ok...because we are having a hard time agreeing on anything...lets start the whole problem over...except backwards this time (and simplified):

1.) Can we all agree that the final product (sound/tone) is emitted from the speaker in the amp? I believe we can all agree on that so I'll go ahead and continue.

2.) Can we all agree that the sound coming out of that speaker is made from an electronic signal coming from the amplifier? I don't think anyone will argue this. If you do, please chime in on where my logic falters.

3.) Can we all agree that the amp is receiving this electronic signal from the input cable?

4.) Can we all agree that the signal being conducted through the cable is running from the output jack into the input jack of the amp?

5.) Can we all agree that this signal at the guitars output jack is an electronic current that is being transferred from the guitar's electronic components (tone/volume pots, capacitors, etc.)?

6.) Can we all agree that this electrical signal, which is being received from the electrical components, is arriving at the components from the wires which connect the components to the pickups?

7.) Can we all agree with the concept that those pickups are able to create this electronic signal by means of magnets which can tell the speed/depth of the vibration of the metal strings?

9.) Can we all agree the the speed/depth of the vibration of the strings is controlled by the length of the string, changed by shortening the length (fretting up the neck)?

10.) Can we all agree that the string when vibrating comes into contact with A.) the fret B.) the contact point on the bridge?

......


Point out to me where my logic is wrong.

Please, someone explain how any of those 10 steps, at any point, is effected or influenced by the material of the body (or even neck for that matter).

This is how you will prove you are right, if you can prove the simple matter which is your argument: that the wood contributes/influences the sounds in any way at all.

Same hardware and pickups (looked into their website). I can hear the difference quite clearly and to my ears it's more or less the way the manufacturers describe it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0jfoPbNlT8

Well, probably I went a little overboard with my post there! Sorry about that.
But the video JohnnyL posted shows they have the same sound, the second one (the blue guitar) is just a bit louder. Probably the set-up?

-Nutter

_________________
I started out with nothing, and still have most of it.

Ah, to hell with it

I'm gonna go play my guitar.

-Nutter

_________________
I started out with nothing, and still have most of it.

I think the OP chimed in with the most logical explaination when it comes to tone in general...personal preference....it's where it all ends...everytime.
The only thing that matters in my choice of guitars and amps....or toilet paper.
And then!...we might think we sound incredible,but what about the listener?
YMMV

NIKI,

I though about this a great deal last night. I went home to try and find my copy of "Science and Music" by Sir James Jeans. I bought it recently because I was interested in why humans find certain frequencies pleasing and some unpleasing, why a sharp is sharp and why a flat is flat etc. but alas the book has hidden itself in some lost corner of my house, I could not find it.

He is my first question of the day and regarding the bridge block effect on tone. How does a thicker steel block alter the tone of the instrument. Yes it is in contact with the string, but why would a thinner block sound different. Given a guitar is tuned identically. How is that difference transfered to the string.

_________________
I remember when we were free!

At this point I am wondering how any component other than electrical components manifests change to tone. Why does a guitar with a brass nut sound different. Or why does the material of the trem bar alter tone. Sure they contact the string but so does a steel nut and a cheepie zinc alloy trem bar.

While the position of the 5 way switch certainly changes what he amp recieves, I think the difference is where the pickup is placed and it relation to the arc of the string.

You guys have great arguments, and Niki I appreciate your patience, but I still think there is something at work in the wood.

I cannot explain it yet.

_________________
I remember when we were free!

I did in fact notice that change of heart .

Did you ever make that guitar out of plywood?

_________________
Member #26797
My other guitar is a Strat.