Guitarists: The Importance of Wood in a Solidbody Electric - Geekery Link

[WordMan]

Well, the other guitar threads have been getting some traction so I thought I would toss this log on the fire.

Background - if you are a guitar geek, or had your eyes roll up in the back of your head reading one of the other threads on guitars, you may have come across this topic: There is an ongoing, at times flame-evoking, debate in guitar circles about how important the body wood is in shaping the tone of a solidbody electric tone. Some folks believe it is central to shaping the ultimate tone you hear; others feel it is one factor along with many other important factors; and some don't think it really matters - the guitar's pickups and electronics are the primary shapers of tone.

This topic carries a whole lot of baggage with it - one big hot button is that the now-highly-desirable, super-expensive vintage guitars from the 50's and early 60's were made with "old wood" - i.e., natural-growth, long-kiln-dried mahogany, ash, alder, maple, etc. that simply isn't available in the quantities today that a mass-production guitar manufacturer would need. So when someone says "vintage guitars sound better because of the magic of Old Wood(tm)" a lot of folks want to throw things at them - these statements are often made by a weekend warrior who just spent $30,000 on a questionably-vintage Strat ("Custom Color?" Riiiiight....) and wants to feel good about his purchase. Heck, I think wood IS central and I own a vintage guitar - and *I* want to throw things at them at times.

The other bit debate topic is "the best way to test the tone of a solidbody electric is by playing it unplugged" - oh, the fur that flies over that one. "My guitar is so resonant - it chimes like a piano when I play it unplugged" vs. "you don't gig with it unplugged - play it through the amp if you want to check it out..."

You get the idea.

Anyway, along comes this thread on The Gear Page (link to Gear Page thread...). It was started by Terry McInturff (link to his website) a highly-respected maker of handmade solidbody electrics who happens to frequent the Gear Page. It is a great exploration of the importance of wood in a guitar and Terry does a great job of explaining it. Bottom line - the unplugged tone DOES matter - but not just because it is loud. A guitar that is loud unplugged can help you hear whether it is tonally balanced better - but it could be loud and not tonally balanced, or quiet unplugged, but balanced. The point is to listen for tonal balance in the unplugged guitar and you will have a sense of the potential of the guitar - if it sounds balanced unplugged, you will be able to get a lot more out of it as you build the rest of your rig (but that of course implies that you work to ensure that the rest of your rig exploits the guitar's tone...)

Check out the thread starting at post #9 - a guy asks a classic question and Terry totally guru's out all over it in a very nice, insightful and helpful way. He basically diagnoses the guy's guitar issues and educates us about how wood + guitar design influences tone - and how issues with either can lead to dead notes, unbalanced tone, etc...

Hope you guys find this as interesting as I did...

WordMan,
SDMB, Guitar Geek Division

[Euthanasiast]

Still reading through all of it, but I'd like to go ahead and chime in about the debate and what I believe.

I know that the wood selection for the body matters. I don't think there is any getting around that. However I think with today's mass produced guitars there is something that matters even more.

I have a SRV signature Strat. It's a very nice strat with a good tone that leans into that Vaughan sound with the help of the Texas Special pickups. The trouble with it is, that there are so many coats of polyurethane on it that the tone is muted somewhat. I've played the same exact guitar that had been sanded down to the bare wood and there was a huge difference in tone. The sound coming out of that amp was much preferred over the gloss finish of the one that I own.

Just another monkey wrench for the works perhaps. I've been debating a while now about taking some 80 grit to my axe now for awhile.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Euthanasiast

Still reading through all of it, but I'd like to go ahead and chime in about the debate and what I believe.

I know that the wood selection for the body matters. I don't think there is any getting around that. However I think with today's mass produced guitars there is something that matters even more.

I have a SRV signature Strat. It's a very nice strat with a good tone that leans into that Vaughan sound with the help of the Texas Special pickups. The trouble with it is, that there are so many coats of polyurethane on it that the tone is muted somewhat. I've played the same exact guitar that had been sanded down to the bare wood and there was a huge difference in tone. The sound coming out of that amp was much preferred over the gloss finish of the one that I own.

Just another monkey wrench for the works perhaps. I've been debating a while now about taking some 80 grit to my axe now for awhile.

Oh yeah - the whole "poly vs. nitro" finish wars is another Great Debate in the world of guitars. Nitro (nitrocellulose lacquer - the stuff used on fine furniture, violins, etc. along with all older guitars and now just higher-end guitars) is definitely a different beast vs. a poly coat. Some folks claim that it is the difference in the chemicals and some folks in the thickness of the finish - i.e., a thin-coat poly can let a guitar resonate as much as lacquer (which goes on thin anyway)...the fact that nitro is porous and poly is not is also a big bone of contention - there is thinking that a wood guitar can "breathe" more with a nitro finish - i.e., dry out a bit over time, but stay in sync with the surrounding temp and humidity in a good way.

Regardless - when poly is glopped on - yeah, it can really deaden a tone...

By the way - if a guitar is supposed to have a nitro finish - don't always believe it! For most of Fender's "nitro" guitars, they actually put down a thin layer of poly FIRST, and then put down a coat of nitro. I think this is because it streamlines the production process - you don't have to rub down poly between coats or something - but it totally defeats any benefit you may be looking for from nitro...

[Flander]

So what do they say about oil finishes? My guitar was ordered with a tung oil finish. It's very smooth, but you can still feel a bit of wood grain. I love the feel of it. To be honest, I forgot what type of wood it its (I want to say alder. It's certainly gotten darker over the years)

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Flander

So what do they say about oil finishes? My guitar was ordered with a tung oil finish. It's very smooth, but you can still feel a bit of wood grain. I love the feel of it. To be honest, I forgot what type of wood it its (I want to say alder. It's certainly gotten darker over the years)

Hmm - no idea. But I suspect it would be considered a good thing, provided it protected the wood from drying out and was thin enough to allow the natural tone-resonating qualities of the wood to come through.

[Omegaman]

I'm no expert but unless your Eddie VanHalen and you put together your own, some guitars have it, some don't. Money is still the biggest factor in getting a good axe. You run across a cheap one every once in while that moans like a whore and I've played a Strat that sounded like it was purchased at Sears and Roebuck. All the little goodies make the difference too. You know what I'm talking about, pegs and pickups etc.. Just like a car, you can build one that will tear up everything in sight. All you need is some money and a good mechanic. I'm pretty sure that's what Jeff Beck had in mind when he came up the quitar shop. He has both, hot rods and the wildest axes I've ever heard. I love that guy, one of the few people who I would ask for their autograph.

[Omegaman]

I hope I didn't kill this thread with my ramblings.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Omegaman

I hope I didn't kill this thread with my ramblings.

Dude - don't sweat it; it is a very geeky thread. I will bump it on Monday likely, though, to give a few other die-hard git-geeks a chance to see it...

And sure, I completely agree with your comment "some have it and some don't" - the question is why. A common argument is that those that "have it" are more likely to have good wood for the body - and the thread I link to on the Gear Page discusses that in detail. That's all...

fwiw, I *have* put a guitar together; in my experience the wood absolutely *does* matter for delivering a good-sounding balanced tone - but that there is no set "perfect recipe" for finding that kind of good wood. Some people want to rely on a short-hand set of criteria - e.g., "old wood = good" but that simply isn't true - factors like that can increase the likelihood that it may sound good, but is by no means a sure thing...

[squeegee]

Well, I've got a beat to crap 1971 mahogany SG, if someone wants to re-neck and re-everything else using that "old wood". Bidding begins at $10000.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by squeegee

Well, I've got a beat to crap 1971 mahogany SG, if someone wants to re-neck and re-everything else using that "old wood". Bidding begins at $10000.

Ah but what about your new Schecter? Any chance that the low-sustaining notes on your B string are related to what McInturff discusses?

[squeegee]

How could I say? I find the woods talk interesting, up to a point -- there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to draw the discussion to a conclusion for a given instrument. I'll grant that wood must have an enormous impact on guitar tone (how could it not?), but there's so much wild conjecture about it that I don't really see a way to get my head around what practical advice you can come away with for someone looking at, or for, or to buy an instrument. At that point it comes down to what sounds good when you pick it up, which was already the case sans the wood geekery.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by squeegee

How could I say? I find the woods talk interesting, up to a point -- there doesn't seem to be a reasonable way to draw the discussion to a conclusion for a given instrument. I'll grant that wood must have an enormous impact on guitar tone (how could it not?), but there's so much wild conjecture about it that I don't really see a way to get my head around what practical advice you can come away with for someone looking at, or for, or to buy an instrument. At that point it comes down to what sounds good when you pick it up, which was already the case sans the wood geekery.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I wasn't asking you to delve into the misty realm of guitar-wood geekery. But Terry's test is a simple one and could be revealing.

Here 's my thinking - you are welcome to completely ignore it:

- You love how the Tele sets up, but you note that the Schecter didn't intonate well and had some dead (or at least low-sustain) notes up the neck.

- I begin thinking: "hmm, wonder if he is thinking if he should return it? If it doesn't set up well, that might be an option he is considering"

- So - first: if you are NOT thinking about that - we're done. Be happy. But if you ARE thinking about that - well maybe Terry's test can help you make that decision.

- Try what he says - clip something to the headstock to changes its weight and vibrations - do the dead notes open up? If so, the that tells you that the woods of the neck and guitar are resonating out of phase and cancelling out some notes. That is going to limit how much you can get out of the guitar. If you are not okay with that scenario, it *may* make sense to consider returning it. Again - it's not about "old wood" or anything magic - it is a simple check to see how the guitar's materials behave.

- If the notes sound pretty much the same with the added weight on the headstock, then it is likely not a wood issue. You should be able to take it back to GC, show them what the issue is and let them take a crack at it. If they can improve it - I mean check the neck relief, action and intonation with your preferred set of strings - yay. If they can't - again, it *may* make sense to consider return it.

You got it for a good price and knew exactly what you were getting so it's not like you were expecting it to be Clapton's Blackie. I am just thinking out loud...

[Omegaman]

Originally Posted by squeegee

Well, I've got a beat to crap 1971 mahogany SG, if someone wants to re-neck and re-everything else using that "old wood". Bidding begins at $10000.

Damn squeegee ! I thought my comments were harsh. Wood does matter. I'm not a master guitar craftsman but be sure if mahogany and woods like it didn't make a difference they would be using plastics or composites by now. Much more durable than wood and better able to hold a finish. You can make a composite that is the finish and if you scratched it you could just sand it and all would be good. I don't believe players like SRV play axes that have thrashed finishes just because it looks cool its because to fix it would take away from the body of your axe. Again, like education, I have not attended any big schools where I learn things nor have I spoken to Jeff Beck or SRV. So take my post for what its worth. Not a lot I'll admit.

P.S. I feel a great passion for playing guitar even though I pretty much suck at it.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Omegaman

Damn squeegee ! I thought my comments were harsh. Wood does matter. I'm not a master guitar craftsman but be sure if mahogany and woods like it didn't make a difference they would be using plastics or composites by now. Much more durable than wood and better able to hold a finish. You can make a composite that is the finish and if you scratched it you could just sand it and all would be good. I don't believe players like SRV play axes that have thrashed finishes just because it looks cool its because to fix it would take away from the body of your axe. Again, like education, I have not attended any big schools where I learn things nor have I spoken to Jeff Beck or SRV. So take my post for what its worth. Not a lot I'll admit.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to be dismissive at all of the thought that wood matters. Really. However, rereading my posts, I can see where one might gather that impression. So, please let me clarify: I find some of the discussion more than a bit arcane, and a little frustrating in that regard -- I'm sure there's much to be learned, but there's also more than a little "magical" thinking when it comes to what constitutes and important component of tone. The guitar is right there at the store -- go pick it up and see how it sounds! Anything beyond that strikes me as puffery, but that's me. If there's wisdom to be had examining these things, then that's completely worth the time, but perhaps not for me.

I am more than a bit dismissive of folks that would pay multi-tens-of-thousands for a plank of wood with fixtures on it, but that's just my sensibility. If someone feels they're getting an amazing instrument that way, then I'm happy for them, and its really none of my business anyway.

And I really do have that '71 SG. I would let it go for considerably less than 10k however; its not in particularly stellar shape.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Sorry, I wasn't clear - I wasn't asking you to delve into the misty realm of guitar-wood geekery. But Terry's test is a simple one and could be revealing.

Here 's my thinking - you are welcome to completely ignore it:

- You love how the Tele sets up, but you note that the Schecter didn't intonate well and had some dead (or at least low-sustain) notes up the neck.

- I begin thinking: "hmm, wonder if he is thinking if he should return it? If it doesn't set up well, that might be an option he is considering" So - first: if you are NOT thinking about that - we're done. Be happy. But if you ARE thinking about that - well maybe Terry's test can help you make that decision.

No I'm thinking exactly that. If the guitar won't intonate well, and has dead zones, I have 19 days to return it, so I am carefully sizing my options here.

- Try what he says - clip something to the headstock to changes its weight and vibrations - do the dead notes open up? If so, the that tells you that the woods of the neck and guitar are resonating out of phase and cancelling out some notes. That is going to limit how much you can get out of the guitar. If you are not okay with that scenario, it *may* make sense to consider returning it. Again - it's not about "old wood" or anything magic - it is a simple check to see how the guitar's materials behave.

- If the notes sound pretty much the same with the added weight on the headstock, then it is likely not a wood issue. You should be able to take it back to GC, show them what the issue is and let them take a crack at it. If they can improve it - I mean check the neck relief, action and intonation with your preferred set of strings - yay. If they can't - again, it *may* make sense to consider return it.

You got it for a good price and knew exactly what you were getting so it's not like you were expecting it to be Clapton's Blackie. I am just thinking out loud...

No, all of that makes good sense. I must have missed the Fat Finger in your linked discussion, I didn't realize there was something there that could be tested. Good idea, and it seems like its worth a shot. I'll take a look as soon as I can figure out what to clamp onto the axe.

[Omegaman]

Originally Posted by squeegee

The guitar is right there at the store -- go pick it up and see how it sounds!

This is the absolute truth of the matter. Not to pat myself on the back but I've said it here before, you have to play it before you buy it. Just like a car, you know when you get behind the wheel if it's going to be your car or someone else's. Ten dollars or ten thousand it doesn't make a difference. You know when it's right.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Omegaman

This is the absolute truth of the matter. Not to pat myself on the back but I've said it here before, you have to play it before you buy it. Just like a car, you know when you get behind the wheel if it's going to be your car or someone else's. Ten dollars or ten thousand it doesn't make a difference. You know when it's right.

Right. I'll play devil's advocate and point out that it takes time to really "know" an instrument, but in the playing is the truth of the matter.

You know what, re-rereading my posts, I'd like to clarify more:

Of Course Wood Matters!.

Yes, absolutely! Da! Oui! Jawohl! I am absolutely not dismissing that this is true. I feel as though I shat on WordMan's thread if someone came away with the impression that I felt otherwise. I do not. My post about the 10k SG was meant to be light, not mockery.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by Omegaman

Damn squeegee ! I thought my comments were harsh. Wood does matter. I'm not a master guitar craftsman but be sure if mahogany and woods like it didn't make a difference they would be using plastics or composites by now.

The Steinberger Bass was graphite and carbon fibre, well, still is for all I know. They were such a radically different design that it is difficult to say how much of their sound is because of the materials and how much because of the (lack of) wood.

Solely my opinion, but I think there has to be an element of the tone of the wood even in a solid body. If you switched the pick-ups on a Les Paul and a Tele, would the Tele sound like an LP, and vice-versa? I just don't think so.

There are a few guitars made of stone out there - I think one of the first was in Steve Howe's collection. There's a YouTube video of somebody showing one, but no one plays a note on it. Wonder what that would sound like?

I know with classicals, even the same design will produce a noticable difference between Brasilian and Indian rosewood for the back and sides...

[squeegee]

WordMan: Terry says to clamp a C clamp on the head stock. Is it cheating to put some light cloth over the clamp points? I really don't want to scar the finish on that guitar.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by squeegee

WordMan: Terry says to clamp a C clamp on the head stock. Is it cheating to put some light cloth over the clamp points? I really don't want to scar the finish on that guitar.

Absolutely not - it's about the added weight/mass at the end of the neck, NOT the wood to wood contact.

We're all good here. squeegee - what you are frustrated by is exactly what I appreciate Terry's thread on TGP about: it takes something cute and wine-wordy and breaks it down. Your notes either sustain at that point on the neck or they don't . Adding weight to the resonating end of a piece of wood either affects those notes or they don't...

[An Arky]

I'm not a geek, so I don't have a lot of tech type stuff to back this up, but I've noticed that a lot of talk about guitars/tone/wood is at least a little bit biased towards lead guitar and the goal is to have crying sustaining notes with a certain bluesy tone.

However, there are other factors to consider if you're not doing that sort of thing. I'm not really sure what they are, because all I ever see when looking up this sort of thing is the whole Jimi/Stevie Ray/Eddie thing or jazz or something. Some of us want a guitar with nice tone and maybe the ability to be dropped/stomped/set afire/vomited upon and have the pickup selector in a convenient location.

Oh, yeah a month-long test drive is really the only way to know what all the kinks are.

[Omegaman]

You guys think all the big boys get along like this? Fussing and fighting over the "big" issues? Makes you wonder what it would be like if they all got together in one room and just shot the breeze. That's a whole other thread.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by An Arky

I'm not a geek, so I don't have a lot of tech type stuff to back this up, but I've noticed that a lot of talk about guitars/tone/wood is at least a little bit biased towards lead guitar and the goal is to have crying sustaining notes with a certain bluesy tone.

However, there are other factors to consider if you're not doing that sort of thing. I'm not really sure what they are, because all I ever see when looking up this sort of thing is the whole Jimi/Stevie Ray/Eddie thing or jazz or something. Some of us want a guitar with nice tone and maybe the ability to be dropped/stomped/set afire/vomited upon and have the pickup selector in a convenient location.

Oh, yeah a month-long test drive is really the only way to know what all the kinks are.

First of all, An Arky, of course I agree - these conversations do typically revolve around single-note lead work. But they don't have to. EVH has a great rhythm tone; Tom Scholz of Boston was known for bottling up the classic Les Paul and Marshall sound using tech innovation (remember the Rockman mini-amp that some folks used as a pre-amp boost in their rigs because they loved the sound?). Or even the guitar shopping thread, where I cite Aerosmith's Mama Kin as the tone my rig sounds like.

With rhythm guitar work, I suspect some of things you are looking for might include:

- Sitting in the mix well while cutting through - a good rhythm tone, clean or crunchy, needs to complement the other instruments, not blanket them in a fog of nasty distortion, or clash tonally with them - but at the same time you want to be able to isolate it and hear it clearly. As you know, that's a tough balance.

- Great string separation - when you hit a rhythm chord, or arpeggiate it, you want to hear the individual strings/notes, AND you want to hear them integrate; i.e., their harmonic overtones to blend and integrate in a musically-pleasing way. The more articulate the string separation, the more likely you will get the nice sounding harmonic overtones (I think the good ones are "even ordered harmonics") that "beat" or throb as the overtones wash into each other, with wave troughs and peaks reinforcing each other. Nuthin' better that having a great rig, getting a little hair in your tone and doing a sharp "Jimmy Page upstroke" on a standard open D chord - ah, those beaty harmonics...

- IMHO, a big midrange punch - this is where I will diverge from a lot of metal shredders. I love big, rich, woody mids - they are central to a classic rock tone, for instance ZZ Top/Billy Gibbons I'm Bad I'm Nationwide or Tush kinda tone. Metal tone typically focuses on scooped mids - the exact opposite. IMHO - absolutely unburdened by the facts - I think the scooped mids tone profile was borne of necessity: metal-heads wanted SO MUCH distortion ("I can out-gain you!!") that it drove their amps to feedback way too much - and the only way to tame that was to cut the mids - a major driver of feedback. So they were willing to sacrifice a rich tone for a gain-loaded tone. It has clearly worked for much metal, but when I go back and listen to Rust in Peace by Megadeth I am reminded that even thrash metal can have good, mid-rangey tone and still bring the rock. (fwiw, I think metal drumming is the same way - metal drummers put higher priority on machine-gun-fast double bass over the tonality of the kick drum - if you have a big kick, like say John Bonham's tone, you can't do rapid-fire combinations because each strike needs a bit of time to decay. But if you tighten up and limit the tone, the drum head recovers much faster and you can do flurries to your heart's content. Again, it clearly has worked for metal over the years, but I think a trade-off choice has been made and the drums themselves, while super-fast, don't sound as good...

What do you think, An Arky?

[NoCoolUserName]

Disclaimer: I'm more of a Pete Townshend fan, even tho' I worship the frets Clapton walks on, so my interest in tone is more in line with Arky's--I want a guitar I can use to win a knife fight in the middle of a gig, that I can continue to play on after I've clonked the guy on the head*. Pete would never play a special guitar, at least not live, because at the end of a set the one he's playing is worth $0.00 anyway--the necks give out even before he smashes them.

All that said, there have been quite a few experiments in non-wood electric guitars over the years. The aforementioned Steinberger Bass is probably the best known (I saw one being played last night, in fact). The stone guitars (Who ever thought that could be a good idea? How the heck do you hold it up???). The Dan Armstrong Plexi Guitar back in the 70's--Hey! They're making them again!!!--that had a swap-out pickup: you just turned a screw and slipped that puppy out and put in a different one whenever you wanted. Ovation made an electric that had a composite body as well.

I've played both the Armstrong and the Ovation. Armstrong had fret dressing that made me crazy so I didn't listen to it much. It was heavy as sin as well. I played the Ovation longer, but it was a badly made instrument and died a well-deserved death IMHO.

Has anyone here played any of the unusual-materials guitars such that they could comment on their tone/balance vs. natural-wood instruments?









* Yes, it is intended to be humor. But I really did have a guy pull a knife on me in a club in Alaska. His friends held him back and I didn't have to test my guitar's stability at that point, but as my bass player said: "Remember, guitars are cheap!"

[WordMan]

I've jammed on a plexiglass Armstrong - heavy sumbitch! Sounded good, though.

Any material that is rigid enough to have a "tone profile" can be used, clearly. And since most of a player's tone is in his/her HANDS, then they are going to sound like themselves regardless of what they play. There is a legendary story of a great guitar maker dropping off guitar to Eddie Van Halen and walking in hearing him playing great, classic EVH-toned guitar. When the guy walked in, Eddie was playing a Steinberger with ancient, rusty strings - but damned if he didn't still sound just like Eddie!

Remember: there is a big difference between having a decent, gig-worthy tone vs. an inspiring tone. When I am playing in a band, I want the qualities I describe above - but a bunch of guitars of varying qualities can deliver that. When I am playing by myself and trying to learn and grow, though, the subtleties of good tone really matter. The better the guitar sounds, the more likely I am going to play LESS - to let the guitar just do its thing and sound good. Playing less is at the heart, IMHO of truly great playing - it's the spots you pick that define *your* sound and the less you play, the better you'll mix with the other players. A good tone tends to require that I tighten up my technique - a great sounding guitar rewards a more accurate bend - the difference between a sloppy bend and a good one is more obvious vs. a not-good guitar, so you play better to get the payoff. But that is not a gig situation - that is you playing alone and really listening to yourself...

Oh, and btw, Townshend played then-cheap-ass Gibson SG Specials at the height of most of his guitar bashing - and yeah, you could buy 'em used for $100 bucks or so at the time - but let's be very clear about this: those suckers sound AMAZING - old-style P-90 soapbar pickups, a thin hunk of resonating mahogany and Hiwatt amps that could stomp out London are a recipe for a dominating tone...

[Omegaman]

Originally Posted by NoCoolUserName

* Yes, it is intended to be humor. But I really did have a guy pull a knife on me in a club in Alaska. His friends held him back and I didn't have to test my guitar's stability at that point, but as my bass player said: "Remember, guitars are cheap!"

Makes me wonder if you were in the wrong venue.

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by NoCoolUserName

. The aforementioned Steinberger Bass is probably the best known (I saw one being played last night, in fact). The stone guitars (Who ever thought that could be a good idea? How the heck do you hold it up???).

I'm still looking for a good link to whoever made the stone guitar that I saw back in the mid-'70s. I suspect I've mislead you all with that earlier link - I think that's just a marble finish, not an axe made of marble. Still googling... Found this, though (in German)

The one I saw was played with a reinforced Gracie stand, cause it looked about as heavy as a marble countertop. Supposedly, the density gave it a sustain beyond belief...

Does anyone else remember the bronzed Strat that Robbie Robertson played for the first half of 'The Last Waltz'? He'd had it bronzed at one of those 'baby shoes' kinda places, but he never thought about how much it was going to weigh. Traded it off for someone else's halfway through the concert, and finished up giving it to Martin Scorsese cause it was unplayable.

Re: Knife fight with guitar (sounds like a painting!) Pat Metheny used to say that El Kabong was his first influence on the guitar. I can think of worse things to have between my chest and a knife than a solid body. That's a good argument against wearing your strap too long...

[An Arky]

Originally Posted by WordMan

First of all, An Arky, of course I agree - these conversations do typically revolve around single-note lead work. But they don't have to. EVH has a great rhythm tone; Tom Scholz of Boston was known for bottling up the classic Les Paul and Marshall sound using tech innovation (remember the Rockman mini-amp that some folks used as a pre-amp boost in their rigs because they loved the sound?). Or even the guitar shopping thread, where I cite Aerosmith's Mama Kin as the tone my rig sounds like.

With rhythm guitar work, I suspect some of things you are looking for might include:

- Sitting in the mix well while cutting through - a good rhythm tone, clean or crunchy, needs to complement the other instruments, not blanket them in a fog of nasty distortion, or clash tonally with them - but at the same time you want to be able to isolate it and hear it clearly. As you know, that's a tough balance.

- Great string separation - when you hit a rhythm chord, or arpeggiate it, you want to hear the individual strings/notes, AND you want to hear them integrate; i.e., their harmonic overtones to blend and integrate in a musically-pleasing way. The more articulate the string separation, the more likely you will get the nice sounding harmonic overtones (I think the good ones are "even ordered harmonics") that "beat" or throb as the overtones wash into each other, with wave troughs and peaks reinforcing each other. Nuthin' better that having a great rig, getting a little hair in your tone and doing a sharp "Jimmy Page upstroke" on a standard open D chord - ah, those beaty harmonics...

- IMHO, a big midrange punch - this is where I will diverge from a lot of metal shredders. I love big, rich, woody mids - they are central to a classic rock tone, for instance ZZ Top/Billy Gibbons I'm Bad I'm Nationwide or Tush kinda tone. Metal tone typically focuses on scooped mids - the exact opposite. IMHO - absolutely unburdened by the facts - I think the scooped mids tone profile was borne of necessity: metal-heads wanted SO MUCH distortion ("I can out-gain you!!") that it drove their amps to feedback way too much - and the only way to tame that was to cut the mids - a major driver of feedback. So they were willing to sacrifice a rich tone for a gain-loaded tone. It has clearly worked for much metal, but when I go back and listen to Rust in Peace by Megadeth I am reminded that even thrash metal can have good, mid-rangey tone and still bring the rock. (fwiw, I think metal drumming is the same way - metal drummers put higher priority on machine-gun-fast double bass over the tonality of the kick drum - if you have a big kick, like say John Bonham's tone, you can't do rapid-fire combinations because each strike needs a bit of time to decay. But if you tighten up and limit the tone, the drum head recovers much faster and you can do flurries to your heart's content. Again, it clearly has worked for metal over the years, but I think a trade-off choice has been made and the drums themselves, while super-fast, don't sound as good...

What do you think, An Arky?

Sorry I was doing Mother's day stuff, AKA keeping the kids out of her hair.

Yeah, definitely I agree with all three. Doesn't seem to be so much a function of the wood, to me. Of course you want a good wood and for it to be crafted to maximize the natural tone and have good sustain, but the things you mention are a combo of good guitar, good pickups AND a good amp...kind of a tonal package. In fact I seem to have improved those three things when I bought my new.....Vox amp, haha!

Then again, the guitars that lead guitarists drool over are likely to be really good for rhythm, as well. Or they might be $$$$$ doorstops.

[squeegee]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

I'm still looking for a good link to whoever made the stone guitar that I saw back in the mid-'70s. I suspect I've mislead you all with that earlier link - I think that's just a marble finish, not an axe made of marble. Still googling...

I have a vague memory of reading about an instrument like this, but my recollection was that it was a composite (think Corian) that looked like stone, but wasn't.

Here's a patent, filed in 1973, for a stone guitar. The name on it, "Cawthorn J." doesn't ring a bell for me.

OTOH, here's a guy on YouTube playing what he claims is a actual stone guitar, but it's an 8-string (I think) and doesn't fit my recollection of the instrument I read about.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Le Ministre de l'au-delà

Does anyone else remember the bronzed Strat that Robbie Robertson played for the first half of 'The Last Waltz'? He'd had it bronzed at one of those 'baby shoes' kinda places, but he never thought about how much it was going to weigh. Traded it off for someone else's halfway through the concert, and finished up giving it to Martin Scorsese cause it was unplayable.

Interesting - I didn't know he actually had it bronzed; I had thought it was merely painted. What *I* noticed about that guitar is that the middle pickup had been moved - Robertson feels the middle pickup gets in the way of his picking style, so he had it repositioned down at the bridge. It almost looks like a humbucker down there...

As for other materials - again, I am sure other materials can be found that can do a great job, but of course then you run into the problem of mass-produce-ability, which is at the heart of sticking with wood all these years. I am sure various plastics can be used - again look at Armstrongs and Steinbergers - but I will always be biased towards the organic variability (and look) of wood...

An Arky - oh yeah; the amp is 50% of the tone (with of course your hands being 90%, the guitar being 50% and any effects you have a big chunk as well... ) But as Terry the Guitar guy discusses in that linked thread, the guitar is the thing that shapes the potential for sound at the front of the chain. So if you have a great amp and feed a dog guitar through it - well, you get the idea. Clearly, your Ricky matches well with your Vox AC30 - but both are top notch pieces of gear...

[Crotalus]

I'm making my way through the gear page thread. Maybe WordMan or some other fast reader can tell me if my basic question is addressed in there. A magnetic pickup reacts to the movement of ferrous strings over the magnetic poles, translating the changes in the position of the strings relative to the poles into an electrical signal which is then amplified. Do I have that right? If so, what exactly do good wood aficionados think that the pickup is reacting to that makes a good-sounding unplugged guitar sound good when plugged in? The pickup can't "hear" the vibration of the body, can it?

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I'm making my way through the gear page thread. Maybe WordMan or some other fast reader can tell me if my basic question is addressed in there. A magnetic pickup reacts to the movement of ferrous strings over the magnetic poles, translating the changes in the position of the strings relative to the poles into an electrical signal which is then amplified. Do I have that right? If so, what exactly do good wood aficionados think that the pickup is reacting to that makes a good-sounding unplugged guitar sound good when plugged in? The pickup can't "hear" the vibration of the body, can it?

Crotalus, I can take a shot, but trust me, I'm no expert; when the materials-engineer guitarists start to geek out about the testing they do on this stuff, my eyes glaze over - just like yours do when I go off the geek end...

Anyway, what you describe is correct, I believe. The question is: what influences how the strings vibrate and how the pickups "pick up" the vibrations? I believe that the body material interacts with the strings such that some frequencies are dampened on the string's vibration; those that remain are the "tone" of that particular guitar.

One interesting data point to consider: Some guitars are legendary for their more raw, direct tone - and a key ingredient used to explain why is that the pickups are not mounted with springs to enable height adjustment, but instead the pickups are bolted directly into the body. The guitars I am thinking of are the old 1-pickup Les Paul Juniors (think Mountain's Mississippi Queen or Green Day's American Idiot) and Eddie Van Halen's Frankenstein parts-guitar. This suggests that the pickup's direct mounting influences the "guitar system" in some way to change string vibrations (fwiw, with the LP Jrs., please note that there is a sister guitar, the Les Paul Special, which is very similar in most ways, except the bridge pickup is mounted with an adjustable screw set, not bolted straight into the body, and *does* sound different, smoother vs. the LPjr.)...

All I got for now...

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Anyway, what you describe is correct, I believe. The question is: what influences how the strings vibrate and how the pickups "pick up" the vibrations? I believe that the body material interacts with the strings such that some frequencies are dampened on the string's vibration; those that remain are the "tone" of that particular guitar.

Missed the edit window, but wanted to add: So good wood is particularly good, apparently, at dampening the worst-sounding harmonic overtones in the string. That would make sense and explain (to me, a believer in the role of wood) why an unplugged solidbody's tone is the starting place for the amp'd tone and therefore why playing a solidbody and gauging the unplugged tone would matter...

Ah - but it also explains the situation: a person really has to train their ear to hear what amp'd tone they like and what unplugged tone is central to delivering that amp'd tone. Kinda like training your palate to taste just-pressed grape juice or an early ferment and know how the wine will end up. There's a whole lot of room for...exaggerated claims, puffy egos and Emperors with no clothes, if you will...

[Crotalus]

OK, I think I get that. Everything that makes up the system across which the strings are strung has some part to play in the characteristics of the vibrations. This includes everything from the tuners to the tail piece, as well as the neck and body on which everything is mounted. That makes sense to me.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

OK, I think I get that. Everything that makes up the system across which the strings are strung has some part to play in the characteristics of the vibrations. This includes everything from the tuners to the tail piece, as well as the neck and body on which everything is mounted. That makes sense to me.

Absolutely - remember the mid 70's when all the rage was "sustain blocks"? It was all about burying a big-assed chunk of brass into the body and mounting the bridge onto it so you could isolate the string vibrations - and end up with a boat anchor of a heavy guitar!

Then, when folks started looking back at the vintage stuff and wondering why it seemed to sound better, they realized that Les Pauls, for instance, had (can't remember exactly) zinc or aluminum tailpieces - ultra light, NOT heavy. So the thinking swung back - "oh, if you have a light-but-rigid stop point for the string, it will enable the wood to play a bigger role in shaping the harmonic overtones of the string. The brass sustain block limited how much influence the wood can have...

[Crotalus]

I understand that anything that enhances the vibrations of the strings can make it to the signal chain. Where the good wood guys lose me is when they even hint that the wood of a solid body electric is imparting some tone into the unplugged sound that makes it to the signal chain. When we play acoustic guitars, the body wood is part of the "signal chain". Much of what we hear is added by the body to the sound made by the strings. If a solid body electric adds anything to the unplugged sound in this way, I doubt that that addition gets to the amp. I know that what the body does on an acoustic is fed back to the strings and all that, but I hope you get what I'm struggling to say here.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I understand that anything that enhances the vibrations of the strings can make it to the signal chain. Where the good wood guys lose me is when they even hint that the wood of a solid body electric is imparting some tone into the unplugged sound that makes it to the signal chain. When we play acoustic guitars, the body wood is part of the "signal chain". Much of what we hear is added by the body to the sound made by the strings. If a solid body electric adds anything to the unplugged sound in this way, I doubt that that addition gets to the amp. I know that what the body does on an acoustic is fed back to the strings and all that, but I hope you get what I'm struggling to say here.

I *think* so - I think it gets back to what I am saying - I think it comes down to this: The wood dampens certain frequencies in the strings, so the strings vibrate differently depending on the guitar's body material. Bad-sounding guitar body materials either:

- allow too many frequencies to vibrate through the string so the string is going nuts, sending a broad spectrum of overtones - both good and bad, but either way, too much - to the amp and not sounding good.

- or they dampen too much of the preferred, good overtones, leaving the bad overtones in the strings' vibrations, which in turn get amplified and again, bad tone.

So the key is the body material's ability to dampen strings vibrations, so the worst overtones are reduced/eliminated.

Again, I am not a materials engineer, but have a read quite a few of them on message boards...not a big claim.

One last thought: A big deal concept in all of this is that "tone is shaped by what is taken out." You know how objects appear to be a certain color because the object is absorbing all the light frequencies except for the ones that are reflected back and our eyes pickup - so those reflected frequencies determine the object's color? The same principal applies here - with acoustic instruments, they dampen (i.e., absorb) most harmonic overtones - it's the ones left over that define the sound.

A key point that may stir the point and take a while to wrap your head around is that solidbody electric guitars operate on the same principle. The "guitar system" dampens most string vibrations except for the tonic note and some of the overtones - THAT is what the pickups pick up. So if you have a guitar system that dampens the worst frequencies the string will vibrate differently - in a more pleasing way to our ears.

So you need to start at the very point of sound creation. By the time the pickups pick up the string vibrations, the tone's potential is shaped. Sure you can mess with it using effects and amps in HUGE ways - but its boundaries are set.

How's that?

[WordMan]

Oh - and looking back at Euthanasiast's post, you could see how a thick finish will alter what frequencies a guitar body will absorb and which will make it to the string to get picked up by the pickups...

[Le Ministre de l'au-delà]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I understand that anything that enhances the vibrations of the strings can make it to the signal chain. Where the good wood guys lose me is when they even hint that the wood of a solid body electric is imparting some tone into the unplugged sound that makes it to the signal chain. When we play acoustic guitars, the body wood is part of the "signal chain". Much of what we hear is added by the body to the sound made by the strings. If a solid body electric adds anything to the unplugged sound in this way, I doubt that that addition gets to the amp. I know that what the body does on an acoustic is fed back to the strings and all that, but I hope you get what I'm struggling to say here.

"I ain't no luthier; no luthier's son
I can grind your fret til the luthier man come,
'Cause I'm an all round man" to paraphrase Bo Carter.

Crotalus -you're on exactly the right track - the wood can't effect the pickup directly because the pickup is working off the electro-magnetic resonance of the strings. The microphonic aspect of the pickup is all but negligible. That's why nylon strings don't work with electric guitar pickups - they need either a piezoelectric pickup or a contact microphone. Also, you can yell directly into single-coil or humbucker and you won't hear it at all - unless you hit the resonating frequency of one of the strings.

And there we have it - the woods affect the strings, which are then picked up by the electromagnetic pickups. Anything that affects the strings resonance will be directed down the chain. The extent of this effect is controversial, but not many people would deny that an archtop sounds different from a solid body, and that solid bodies sound different from each other.

Easy example - finger the 'e' on the third string at the 9th fret. When you play it, does the 1st string resonate? It ought to. Does the 6th string resonate? It ought to. Does the 5th string resonate? It ought to because that 'e' is the second harmonic on that string (the one at the 7th fret). Does the open second string resonate? It ought to because it's the second harmonic of the sixth string, which ought to be resonating as mentioned above. On an steel string acoustic or a classical, the box is picking up all of those resonating strings and acoustically amplifying their signal. On a solid body, some interesting things come into play - how much does the bridge transfer string energy to the body of the guitar, how much does the wood resonate with that energy, and all important for our discussion, how much of that energy gets transferred back to the other strings, how much gets transferred back to the string which was plucked, and is it enough that the pickups can sense it? These are huge variables from one guitar design to another, and there is no one universal 'best' design. There was the gitless that was around sometime in the late 70s/early 80s that was a metal frame with frets attached. Looked kind of like a fish skeleton. No significant resonance to the axe whatsoever. Gave a really cool 'tikka tikka' sound, even more than that characteristic Strat quack. Contrast that with the really thick bodied Les Pauls that are made to encourage sustain. I'm late for work - more later if anyone's still awake after that.

[Crotalus]

Originally Posted by WordMan

<snip>
How's that?

You have once again diminished my ignorance. It's all about what the wood is doing to the vibration of the strings. That makes sense to me. Thanks.

[Crotalus]

Le Ministre de l'au-delà - That helped a lot. Thanks.

[WordMan]

Ministre - you geek well sir.

I actually have to be productive, too...

[Crotalus]

Originally Posted by WordMan

Ministre - you geek well sir.

I actually have to be productive, too...

Dude, this IS productive.

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Dude, this IS productive.

Oh yeah, *I* think this is a great, productive discussion. Pig in slop material for me...

...now, my boss on the other hand...

[si_blakely]

When discussing alternative constructions, don't forget the Parker Fly, constructed using low density wood reinforced with a Composite shell (and the neck had a flying buttress). I've never played one, but they look like fun, and have the rigidity coupled with light weight.

Also, the Line 6 Variaxe modelling guitar is actually designed to be harmonically dead, the hexline pickups should only pick up the string fundamental, and the digital modelling takes care of the rest. I did want one, but have decided that once I get a new electric (in some distant future after buying a new acoustic) I'll save up for the Roland modelling guitar system. I want to get a real guitar and add to it, not a dead guitar that only relies in the electronics.

Si

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by si_blakely

When discussing alternative constructions, don't forget the Parker Fly, constructed using low density wood reinforced with a Composite shell (and the neck had a flying buttress). I've never played one, but they look like fun, and have the rigidity coupled with light weight.

Also, the Line 6 Variaxe modelling guitar is actually designed to be harmonically dead, the hexline pickups should only pick up the string fundamental, and the digital modelling takes care of the rest. I did want one, but have decided that once I get a new electric (in some distant future after buying a new acoustic) I'll save up for the Roland modelling guitar system. I want to get a real guitar and add to it, not a dead guitar that only relies in the electronics.

Si

I have played a Parker Fly and was impressed - it seems to really take advantage of the acoustic properties discussed in this thread and use them to advantage. If it wasn't ugly as sin, and have necks thinner than flat ribbon, I might've been interested.

And as for Variax's, well, if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all . I can say this: as you indicate, they operate on totally different principles. You should NEVER expect to get the same tone as a true, mechanically-derived set of vibrations passing through a simple-circuit amp...

[Crotalus]

Originally Posted by si_blakely

When discussing alternative constructions, don't forget the Parker Fly, constructed using low density wood reinforced with a Composite shell (and the neck had a flying buttress). I've never played one, but they look like fun, and have the rigidity coupled with light weight.

Also, the Line 6 Variaxe modelling guitar is actually designed to be harmonically dead, the hexline pickups should only pick up the string fundamental, and the digital modelling takes care of the rest. I did want one, but have decided that once I get a new electric (in some distant future after buying a new acoustic) I'll save up for the Roland modelling guitar system. I want to get a real guitar and add to it, not a dead guitar that only relies in the electronics.

Si

Si, You may want to take a look at the Fender VG guitar , which is an American Strat with a Roland pickup and on-board electronics. I played one when they first came out and liked it pretty well. I ended up buying a Taylor 710CE. I obviously really don't know what I'm looking for when I go guitar shopping.

[si_blakely]

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Si, You may want to take a look at the Fender VG guitar , which is an American Strat with a Roland pickup and on-board electronics. I played one when they first came out and liked it pretty well.

I certainly plan to look at one of those, but I don't want my choice of guitar to be dictated by the manufacturer of the electronics (if that makes any sense).

Originally Posted by Crotalus

I ended up buying a Taylor 710CE. I obviously really don't know what I'm looking for when I go guitar shopping.

Thats ... quite a jump. As I say, I am in the market this year (after the bathroom and the kitchen and my wifes trip to NZ and ...) for a new acoustic - my faithful Sigma Martin cutaway needs new frets, I am nursing the electronics, and the neck looks like it is warping <sigh>. It will be a long and careful search, and I intend to actually try my preferred strings on a shortlist, and check it out through my rig.

That Taylor looks ... wow ... but out of my league (and my budget).

Si

[WordMan]

Originally Posted by si_blakely

<snipped> As I say, I am in the market this year for a new acoustic. It will be a long and careful search, and I intend to actually try my preferred strings on a shortlist, and check it out through my rig.

That Taylor looks ... wow ... but out of my league (and my budget).

Si

Hmm, I smell another Guitar Shopping thread coming on!

"Guitar Shopping - Unplugged"

Let us geeks know if and when we can help. I owned a high-end Taylor for a dozen years or so - and yeah, they are...wow.

[Crotalus]

Originally Posted by si_blakely

I certainly plan to look at one of those, but I don't want my choice of guitar to be dictated by the manufacturer of the electronics (if that makes any sense).Thats ... quite a jump. As I say, I am in the market this year (after the bathroom and the kitchen and my wifes trip to NZ and ...) for a new acoustic - my faithful Sigma Martin cutaway needs new frets, I am nursing the electronics, and the neck looks like it is warping <sigh>. It will be a long and careful search, and I intend to actually try my preferred strings on a shortlist, and check it out through my rig.

That Taylor looks ... wow ... but out of my league (and my budget).

Si

I understand what you mean about not getting locked into a guitar choice because of the electronics. The VG was a potential good choice for me because I am already strongly acclimated to Fender Strats, so the basic guitar wasn't being pushed on me. If the same electronic features had first appeared on a Les Paul, I would have been less inclined to consider buying one for what was intended to be my main performing electric. As it turned out, I decided to take a different path in my performing activities at around the time I was looking at the VG. The new direction made buying a high-end acoustic-electric a much better use of my money than buying another electric. That's how I got the Taylor.

As for getting a real electric and adding Roland electronics to it, I understand that. When you get around to doing that, take a careful look at what is on the market at that time with electronics already built in. It may be worth a slight compromise on the guitar to get the whole package already integrated, depending on what is available. For me, because the VG Strat with a maple neck is already so close to what I like, I wouldn't have been buying Roland electronics with some random guitar wrapped around them, I would have been getting pretty much my preferred guitar with the electronics.

I went through something similar when I bought my Strat Plus in 1994. I was on the verge of buying Warmouth parts to build a Strat. I went to the music store to experiment with various fret types to help me decide on what to order, and there was this Strat Plus, which had almost all of the features I was building a guitar to get. After weighing my options, I ended up buying the Strat Plus, and it has been my main electric for 14 years.

When you go acoustic shopping, take a look at Epiphone. I don't know if a Gibson copy is on your list of possibilities, but I played an Epi EJ200-CE recently that was an amazing value for $500.