KenC wrote:
bloodied_fingers wrote:I think it is very unlikely that no big manufacturer has ever looked into it. This makes me wonder why the data isn't published.
What incentive would they have to publish? Research takes time and money, so why share results with competitors? We're talking about profit-oriented businesses here. They will consider the results of their research investments to be proprietary (unless they can slap a patent or trademark on something, and then market the #$%% out of it).
researchers publish because without
peer review it isn't considered reliable. Companies publish research because it adds credibility and increases sales.
Plenty of profit-driven companies publish research. Often on their own bleeding edge technologies, or to support their current market offerings to earn more business. Companies like (the old) Bell Labs, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Google etc know this and they publish research. I know something of this first hand because my company authors and publishes a variety of research expressly for the purpose of supporting sales.
The biggest gain for these companies would be in direct sales, but maybe they don't need that because sheeple are happy to keep forking over money in order to be part of the 'tone wood' club.
KenC wrote:
bloodied_fingers wrote:I think it is because "tone wood" is a paper tiger. It is about marketing and being able to upcharge people. Some people, in all marketplaces, practically beg to be upcharged; gives one the ability to "put on airs." A lot of this 'premium tone wood' argument is used to justify the costs of many higher end guitars.
When it comes to marketing hype, I agree completely. The "ultimate tone wood" of the month will be whatever a big manufacturer got a good price on. I wouldn't carry that to the point of saying wood has no effect on tone, though. If you ever get the chance, A/B an early G&L (F-100, L-1K or L-2K) in ash against the same model in mahogany. I promise you'll hear a difference, as long as the amp is clean. If you're ever in the DC area, just let me know and we'll take mine for a test drive. If you don't hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer. If you do hear the difference, I'll buy you a beer anyway...
A/B of two different guitars is a really poor substitute for a scientific evaluation. It is just the sort of storefront sales tactic that guitarmakers, vendors and retailers have relied on for decades. But the method isn't remotely objective. There are fundamental problems with evaluating like this:
1. The configuration of the guitars is different
2. It is not a blind experiment
3. Tolerances in electrical components
4. Inconsistent playing
5. No quantitative measurement
(this list is not comprehensive)
Maybe the first and third problems could be circumvented by either very careful component selection or swapping hardware.
#2 has actually been tested before and no evidence has ever shown people could accurately determine wood types. Clean amp or not.
However, it shouldn't matter if the amp is clean or not, because if the wood affects the signal then it will be propogated through the signal chain. As an aside, rarely do people play solidbody electric guitars through pristine clean amps. So if there is
value in one wood over another it should be apparent regardless of the downstream processing.
It doesn't make it impossible to configure an experiment to evaluate them but just A/B'ing guitars (even through a good amp) isn't sufficient evidence.
KenC wrote:
George Fullerton wrote that he and Leo picked old growth pine as the ideal body wood when they were developing the original Broadcaster. Ash was their second choice, when they couldn't get a durable finish on the pine prototypes. Both woods were readily available for production. Why would they have put a lot of time, money and effort into making pine work, if it was no different than ash in terms of the finished product?
In a similar vein, IIRC Fred Finisher wrote in a post about Leo deciding that mahogany bodies did not have the sound he wanted in G&Ls, and having all of the unused 'hog bodies in the factory destroyed in the mid-80s. It seems that he had a definite idea that wood had an effect on tone (Fred, please correct me if I'm wrong!).
This is sentimentality not substance.
Leo made a lot of guitars and technologies and we can't laud him enough for his contributions. But plenty of his ideas were not good ones; that is usually the way of it for engineers. Unless Leo actually performed some experiments and has publicized peer-reviewable data his
opinions or sentiments are speculative.
Lacking research, I think it is most necessary to formulate an opinion based on sound reasoning and principles.
What effect does 'tone wood' have on the generation of electrical signals?
1. Electric guitars work because a moving wire in a magnetic field generates current
2. Non-magnetic materials do not affect magnetic fields
3. Wood, air and plastic are non-magnetic
4. Vibrations of the wood can not be measured as electrical current by the pickups
What effect then does the 'tone wood' have on strings?
1. Strings are anchored at the fret (either nut or any higher fret) and bridge
2. A plectrum, finger, or fingernail introduces energy into the string, causing vibration
3. The string does not receive energy from _any_ other source
4. The only effect the wood could have is subtractive to the string vibration
5. Since the string is fixed at two points (see #1) the wood could only have this effect at the end points
6. There are two qualities of the wood which are generally cited as having tonal consequences: (1) mass (weight of the guitar) (2) resonance, or the susceptibility to frequency dependent oscillations
From point 6.1 - It easily demonstrated that the
mass of an electric guitar has no effect on sound. If it did then guitars would sound different when held close to the body or free hanging. Anchoring a $5k PRS or a Squire affinity to a massive chunk of choice, kiln dried wood will have no effect on either. Acoustic guitars, however, do sound different. Add a eigth-inch to the thickness of a spruce top and the effect will be dramatic. Remove the maple cap from a LP and there is no perceptible difference.
From point 6.2 - The susceptibility to oscillation can only have an effect then if, as a function of wood type, it significantly removes energy from the strings. Here again, by coupling to another resonator the effect should be changed. There is no audible difference in electrical guitar sound as a function of adjacent resonators (or dampening) though. But here again, the
acoustic guitar is affected.
These are some of the reasons I doubt the 'tone wood' arguments around electrical guitars. I am a scientist/engineer and I carry out original research, so maybe I'm more skeptical than average.
That said, I am still inquisitive and objective. I'm not so deluded as to hold my assumptions beyond reproach. If sound evidence or even an opposed, but plausible, theory surfaces I will be all ears.
