Hey! Cool! I got my first "pick" over there!





The quotes above are taken from just a few of the posts I've read on various forums regarding the "tone wood" and "resonant frequency" debate. I mean no disrespect to the individual posters, and the comments are incomplete; just snippets taken out of context to illustrate what I see over and over. Do a search using the terms "tone wood" or "resonant frequency", and you can read them all for yourself. So, I would like to express what my experience has taught me regarding this misunderstood yet widely discussed subject.
Lots of people poo-poo the value of resonant frequency, weight, tone woods and other terms when discussing what makes a difference in the tone of solid-body guitars. Yet there is a science to musical instrument construction, a set of values or measurements that will produce a predictable and repeatable result in the finished instrument, with minor differences, time after time. It isn't random! Luthiers who actually design and build instruments will attest to this. I understand that everyone hears something different when they play their guitar, and I do believe the person who says they can't hear the difference between this or that wood. Everyone does not have the opportunity to experiment with enough examples, building enough guitars to learn this for themselves through the practice. And it is easy to be skeptical about something that you don't understand through personal experience. But if there was no basis in fact for using quality tonewoods in a solid body guitar, you would
a) not pay a premium for them,
b) they would not be the choice of luthiers throughout history worldwide,
c) there would be no difference between an ash or alder Stratocaster or Telecaster.

Builders of fine acoustic instruments would beg to differ as well. The tone that comes out of a well-made solid wood acoustic guitar is superior to the tone of a laminated guitar, no question.
Another example would be the difference between a laminated top vs. a solid top on two otherwise indentical archtops. Why do they sound different? Because of the ability of the solid top to vibrate or resonate more than the plywood one can. This is at the far end of the spectrum when compared to a solid body guitar, but the science is the same. And it is science, because it is repeatable and predictable. Even in a solid body guitar.
Don't let yourself think it is all smoke and mirrors; weight, wood species and resonant frequency are important factors in determining what a solid-body guitar will sound like acoustically. And the acoustic quality of a solid body is not insignificant; it is what separates great guitars from mediocre ones of the same type, based on the subjective, but well accepted qualities we listen for. Piano tone, depth, openness, quack, bell-like, chimey, etc - the tones we love are all effected by the acoustic qualities of the body. Of course there are other things that are very important components of the tonal character of your guitar, like the pickups, but the wood it is made of is not insignificant. It is the foundation that the other components' characteristics depend on to do their part.
Here's a simple experiment: take a Strat pickup you're used to out of the body, and plug it straight into your amp. Hold it over the vibrating strings at the same distance it was when in the guitar, and it will sound much thinner than it did when it was mounted. That is the absence of resonance.
So, just what is "resonant frequency"? It is the frequency that an object responds to by starting to vibrate, or resonate, at that same frequency. Everything that can resonate in any way has one. There are weapons that project low frequencies so powerful that they can kill a human, because our bodies will respond to those frequencies. So, somewhere among the many frequencies produced by your strings are frequencies that produce a "sympathetic vibration", or resonance, in the instrument itself, which feeds back into the string. It can be heard in the raw wood by a luthier who knows what he/she is listening for. Stradavarius knew this, and so does Paul Reed Smith. It's called "tap tuning", and it is based on the resonant frequency of the wood in question.
Some points to ponder:
Why does a hardtail sound different than a trem equipped Strat? And why did Fender quickly dump the cost-saving choice of a top-loaded Tele bridge? It's because the strings are more solidly connected to the wood with a hardtail, and the wood's resonance enhances the vibrating string's ability to "bloom", or vibrate in a specific way. And this contributes to the tone of that guitar.
Does an SG sound exactly like a Les Paul?
If you look at the classic '60's models, an SG Standard and a Les Paul Standard are identical in every respect with the exception of the body. Same neck, fingerboard, electronics, hardware, bridge, even the same wood with the exception of the maple top on the Les Paul. Yet they do not sound the same, because the bodies contribute differently to the sound the guitar produces. Resonance, due to weight, mass and other stuff, is the reason.

I understand why people may think that these things don't really make any difference, especially in an electric guitar. And the debate will not end here, for sure. But you will never, ever, make a piece of 17-ply laminated wood (which is about 20% glue) sound like a piece of solid alder on your Strat. You may prefer the sound of one or the other, but it is a fact that solid "tone wood" produces what is universally accepted as better "tone" than a piece of plywood.

_________________
"There's an arse for every chair"

5 guitars
7 amps
4 dogs

Ashtone,

WARNING: if your looking for a calm rational discussion on this topic on this fourm you might want to reconsider. It would be nice but..........

Sincerely,
OL

_________________
I remember when we were free!

I thought the wood amplified everything and those bars with magnets were just for decoration? Isn't that how it works? >____>

_________________
I traded my car in for a microphone.

duh...everyone knows that different pieces of wood each have a different magnetism

As a general rule, taken that all the electronics are identical, solid bodies vs laminated solid bodies you would be hardpressed to hear the difference (although there is a difference) although if it were plywood you would. What generally makes a substantial difference in tone is the configuration and materials used for the neck. ie: a rosewood fretboard will always sound darker and more mellow than a maple board. Fixed bridges will always resonate more than floating trems. At the end of the day you could pick up two identical guitars and both will sound different in tone-just the way it is!!!

I love it how someone comes on saying stuff like this. I have a guitar that is meant to be made from 'select alder' and another that could be made of up to 6-10 pieces of alder, and to be honest- the differences are not that great. Actually, I'd go as far to say that to the untrained ear, little difference is to be heard. If that doesnt do it, I have a few others I can test that theory- But In fact, when any of my guitars are plugged in with my distortion pedal, I couldnt give a toss about acoustic tone. Niether when I play the obligitory clean blues lick that kinda makes me sound like another strat player- I dont play my strats to anyone acoustically because, lets face it- they arent loud enough and they are far FAR from being close to as tonefull as an acoustic. You dont go playing gigs with an unplugged strat- so I will ask you to prove this for everyone, what amount of acoustic tone do you hear coming from your single coils? none.

I have worked for a 4th generation violin luthier who makes cellos, violins, violas and restores all stringed instruments..

http://www.fiddleshop.com/hewitts/history.html

he hates touching electric guitars because to him, if he was to give up making violins with his hands and tools, to make electric guitars with sanders, drills and routers, he may as well give his craft up. He is known internationally and is one of australasias best violin makers.. I once asked him about electric guitar acoustic tone, and he looked at me like I was an idiot, and asked me what is so toneful about a bolt-on construction?

So I will ask- after you glue bits of wood together, cover them in urethane, bolt a piece of maple with a rosewood fretboard glued on the front, screw in a 3-4 ply plastic guard loaded with wires, magnets and potentiometers, and string it up- what is so toneful about that? how much tone is lost in it's constuction? Tell me, Im interested and keen to know. Ive seen this debate many times here before- put us all out of our misery please.

Also, how much tone is in the players fingers? If we all focused on our playing and not the way our bolt on guitars sound with special tonewoods, we'd be that little much better at it.



Really? have you proven that theory or are you speculating here- Ive owned a strat copy made of plywood also, and Im interested in how you got that conclusion. Are you a luthier?

_________________

Everything has a resonant frequency....
...and a damping factor...
...and a Q.

Resonance is always talked about in guitars as goodness. I'll submit that this is not the holy grail of guitar tone. When you have one saddle screw a bit off so it's not completely touching the bridge plate, it resonantes when the string vibrates. It gives you a sour note. In like manner, the trem springs can sometimes resonate. I've never heard anyone trying to maximize that.

I'm not a luthier. I'm an engineer. You can find the resonant frequency of a guitar and you can also determine the shape of the reactive wave than non-uniformly deforms the guitar. The study has been done to do this testing about a year...maybe 2 ago. Does it help determine the nirvanna of guitars? Not that I've seen (I read the paper).

Personally, I play a guitar and determine if I like it and how it sounds. Overanalyzing won't necessarily help you find a good guitar.

_________________
2002 mim Telecaster
Jimmie Vaughan Stratocaster
Mexican HSS Stratocaster
6 non-fender guitars
2 kids (not for sale)
1 wife (uh....no comment)

I just have to jump in. Sorry I can't help myself. I owned well over a few hundred slab guitars as a guitar buyer seller. In the process I paid attention to what single coil pickups sounded best and why. That lead me to try nut material, saddle material and tremolo block material as well as body and neck material. After several years of swapping parts and pickups I came to the conclution that picks, pickups and nut material had the biggest effect on tone as far as the guitar itself. The way the guitar was played had an extreme effect on tone and volume. That was all in the touch of the artist. Body material was at the bottom of the list right next to neck material. Try a thin pick then a heavy with the same strike. Put on a set of brass saddles or a brass nut.

When your done doing all that plug into a good guitar processor and everything goes out the window. This is a slab guitar not a violin. In conclusion a slab will sound different with each player that plays it. None of which would have anything to do with wood type or number of pieces.

You can also find the way a glass breaks by submitting frequencies too, and the way road noise is heard in a car- but its not exactly top notch science. Perhaps worthy of myth busters..

I have yet to see anyone in a music shop with electronic meters finding a resonant guitar. I dont understand why anyone would want to write a post grad paper on the topic, when for a master luthier- its all done by ear. Why introduce science to it? when the CS does it so magnificently well by hand?

Wouldnt you want to rip your hair out if you wrote a paper on something so simple that involved little thought to the science upon selection itself??

The way 'tone wood' is selected is both visual and by ear. It's not exotic species, just good sounding wood. The look of the wood, is the grain clean with no knots or green spots? is the plank properly cut? is it the desired species- ie are you after a flame, curled, lace, highly figured- or do you want it plain? is it completely dry? the next is with a pitch fork, or by knocking on the wood. Not a lot to it, its carpentry or lutherie ABC. Anyone with a bit of know-how can do it... and thats just the wood itself. There is the argument of hardware- did the paper you read say anything about that?

But then again, plug it into an amp and have it running through a PA- the way it will sound in a venue- is that still going to affect resonancy or is it going to be lost? All argument about acoustic resonancy on a guitar that is bolted up like ikea furniture goes out like a lightbulb in this scenario

Best we just play- this thread is definately going down like a ton of lead bricks

_________________

oh this thread is gonna be fun to watch. cant wait for the forum naysayers to get in here. they will come.

_________________
63supro
"The good thing is in a club situation, most of the patrons are trashed and really can't tell the difference."

i love it when you folks across the drink use the word "toss" like this. its a term not commonly used in the US. i think its to dang funny. love it blertles.

_________________
63supro
"The good thing is in a club situation, most of the patrons are trashed and really can't tell the difference."

Thanks. I'm already sorry I brought it up. I think I'll stick to pretty pictures of my guitars from now on.

Yup. Except that I had a maple Tele neck that was darker than any rosewood neck I have. So go figure.

Did I say they were great acoustic instruments? No, I said you could hear the difference acoustically. Which you can. At least I can.

Well, urethane would not be my choice. What is toneful about a solid body guitar is only apparent when one made with quality components is compared to one that is made with shite, like urethane and plywood. Which was my premise. As to your misery, you might try actually putting tools to wood and finding your own answers. If you truly are keen to know.

Obviously, a craftsman, and an artist, I'm sure. But that doesn't make him any authority on how wood effects the tonality of a solid body guitar. The statement "what is so toneful about a bolt-on construction" shows a total lack of respect for the art of that style of luthier, whether it came from him or you. Don't get all sanctimonius on me; a violin is no more valid or worthy than a Telecaster when used in it's intended fashion. They are tools made for musicians.

Most of it, obviously, if it is an accomplished player. But that is not the point of my post. I was trying to make the case that tonality is a function of resonance, and tone woods are important to that end.

Yeah, I'm a luthier. I am 57 years old, and have been doing it since I was 15. My first repair shop was in a music store in Montreal from '74 to '80, followed by 26 years in Denver, servicing the majority of the retail music stores there, as well as hundreds of musicians in Colorado. I converted the basement of my house into a 1000 sq ft shop that included a spray booth and all the machinery and tools necessary to build and restore guitars. I've earned what I've learned over a 42 year career.
And no, it's not speculation, it's experience. I have built Strat & Tele-style guitars from raw wood, not parts from Warmoth. I've built set-neck instruments from scratch, made an exact replica neck for a damaged '69 Les Paul, a new carved top for an old Guild archtop, blah blah blah. I've restored more vintage instruments than I can count, and educated myself on the minutiae of vintage Fender and Gibson construction and finish techniques and materials by actually having my hands in hundreds of real vintage guitars of all makes, not just reading articles or looking at pictures. I am just another guy on an internet forum who is faced with the reality of the times: everybody who can read is an expert and everybody has an opinion. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just arguing for the sake of argument, or trying to sound like they know more than they actually do. Oneal lane got it right: not much in the way of rational discussion here. At the end of the day, this is just my opinion based on my experience. Take it or leave it, but if you haven't actually built enough guitars to know what you are talking about, you're just an on-line poser spouting rhetoric you've hocked from someone else who actually took the long way 'round.

Huh? Time for bed.

_________________
"There's an arse for every chair"

5 guitars
7 amps
4 dogs

Ashtone.....Your reasoning fails to resonate with me for a removed from context quote of mine.

" Not to flog a dead horse, but the wood in the Squier is going to be a minimal factor in your sound. "

Great....convenient is the omission of the rest of the statement

Not to flog a dead horse, but the wood in the Squier is going to be a minimal factor in your sound. We are talking about a solid body electric guitar in which string vibrations are converted from an electromagnetic field disruption to an electrical signal which is then converted into an audible soundwave. ( to describe it simply ).

I disagree on your thesis regarding tonewoods as applied to acoustic construction then transfered to electric guitars. In the first place I wouldn't call electric guitars as quintessential musical instruments, at least not in everyone's hands...

You speak of tonewoods as if they are transferable between acoustic and electric.
I have yet to have heard or seen an acoustic with a top and/or sides made of Alder, Basswood or Agathis.
The resonance you infer in an acoustic is not applicable.
The solidbody electric and the acoustic operate on vastly different principles.
An acoustic's goal is to transfer the vibrating string into an audible sound which is then projected out from the instrument, this demands that the soundbox vibrates, the top itself being the critical factor. It functions as a structural foundation for string and bridge yet has to be flexible to project soundwaves out ward thru the air. ( simplified ).

As far as a laminate top not performing, that is incorrect. Luthiers ( I define such a creature as someone with the ability to create exquisite musical instruments from plain stock. One who spent years as an apprentice and has the required pedigree, such as Linda Manzer, Matt D'ambrosio and a score of others.) have been working on a laminate top acoustic with surprising results.

Your analogy of holding a pickup over a string does not resonate...We are talking about a vibrating string disrupting an electromagnetic field, no so called resonance here and fluctuations in output could be attributed to the pickup moving closer or farther from the string since it is handheld, not to mention that the electrical current in your own body could very well be a detrimental factor.

BTW, Archtops are not made from laminates but rather the top is carved to become an archtop, it is actually quite a painstaking and time consuming phase of an archtops construction to achieve.

Concerning string instruments such as the Violin, Viola, are you familiar with the soundpost

And since you brought the subject up, How many Classical, Steel string acoustics, solid body electrics have you built from stock lumber...
Not kits but actual slabs and logs for supply.
It's all very well to post what you have, but I myself prefer to read about personal experience and tribulations in building guitars and the understanding of the why and how as to using certain methods and materials, not something plucked from a book or magazine article than conveniently posted to draw a crossfire debate.

_________________
"C'est parti mon Kiki "

To follow up your fiery repost which precedes mine.

I got the sneaky suspicion that you were itching for...or should I say Trolling for a hurlfest..

Your last few lines confirmed my suspicions...

Quote...
" I've restored more vintage instruments than I can count, and educated myself on the minutiae of vintage Fender and Gibson construction and finish techniques and materials by actually having my hands in hundreds of real vintage guitars of all makes, not just reading articles or looking at pictures. I am just another guy on an internet forum who is faced with the reality of the times: everybody who can read is an expert and everybody has an opinion. It's pretty easy to tell when someone is just arguing for the sake of argument, or trying to sound like they know more than they actually do. Oneal lane got it right: not much in the way of rational discussion here. At the end of the day, this is just my opinion based on my experience. Take it or leave it, but if you haven't actually built enough guitars to know what you are talking about, you're just an on-line poser spouting rhetoric you've hocked from someone else who actually took the long way 'round "....Quoted

I'm all for an intelligent debate or discussion, but I bridle up when someone suggests that some of us are posting out of the wrong orifice.
Congrats on your years of repairs, but like you I have been repairing, rebuilding guitars since I was about 16, out of necessity at first rather than work. Never have repaired, rebuilt for a living and quite frankly I have no desire to do so.
That said I have spent the better part of my life as a carpenter, remodeling, redesigning, creating custom interior built-ins and most recently bringing/converting back an 1840 Cape to a more applicable Cottage/Crafstman style. Only because the previous owner had butchered the original Cape with two additions, of which the current owner did not want removed but simply ( ) metamorphosed.
So I have a pretty good idea of the interaction between an awl, a block plane, an oak sill and a scarf joint...
Working, repairing guitars is relaxing in contrast to a redesign, remodel of a multi million dollar residence.

Oh...and BTW... I do enjoy a good read in the trade publications....

_________________
"C'est parti mon Kiki "

Well, it's pretty late here, and I don't type too quickly. I certainly didn't mean to point that "poser" comment at you or anyone else in particular, but there are some folks on here who are talking out of the "wrong orifice", as you put it. Sorry for the offense; I'm not looking for conflict, just some honest debate.

An ES-175 has a laminated maple top which is pressed into shape, and is considered an archtop, is it not? Same for a few others from Gibson, Guild and others.

My reason for editing was not to twist your words to fit my agenda, it was to use the sentence that was pertinent to my point: "the wood in the Squier is going to be a minimal factor in your sound". I do not believe it to be a minimal factor, which is what my post was about.

Point taken.

I'm sure there was no pun intended...but I think we agree on this. There is no resonance in my example, which is my point. This is an example of the absence of resonance.

Maybe not the best analogy, but the point I was trying to get across is that wood is not just something to hang the strings and pickups on, it is an important part of the guitar's sound, be it acoustic or electric.

Classicals and steel-string acoustic builds - zero. Solid bodies - 72. Never built a kit, except for model cars and planes. I've also worked as a finish carpenter, built some furniture and worked as a cabinet maker and installer for four years in Denver. My understanding of materials and construction techniques of acoustic instruments comes from my repair and restoration experience. Not the same as building them, I grant you. Nonetheless, my analogies about the properties of acoustic guitars and how that translates to an electric solid-body are valid. If it didn't make an appreciable difference, then why would an ash-bodied Strat sound different from an alder-bodied one? What about the SG v LP comparison? What I posted was not "plucked from a book or magazine article, then conveniently posted to draw a crossfire debate". My reason for the post was to express my belief, based on my experience of 42 years as a builder, restorer and player that wood type does matter in a solid body guitar, that resonance is important, and that there are examples to support what I think. The post was about solid body woods, and in that arena I have had enough hands-on experience to feel secure in my knowledge and ability to express it rationally. I think what I presented was pretty free of hyperbole and unfounded rhetoric.

_________________
"There's an arse for every chair"

5 guitars
7 amps
4 dogs