Electri Guitar Question-Shape of Body Effects Sound?

[Ximenean]

At the nut end, yes, since there is not much mass there for the energy to dissipate into. The effect is much less noticeable at the body end of the guitar.

[SirGalahad]

@Ximenean

At the nut end, yes, since there is not much mass there for the energy to dissipate into. The effect is much less noticeable at the body end of the guitar.

“Less noticeable” doesn’t tell me the effect is insignificant. I’m certain the shape of the instrument affects the sound of the instrument. The only way to prove it would be through experimentation. I leave it to the acoustic scientists out there to construct suitable experimental instruments in a lab setting and report back.

[Learjeff]

@squeegee

Mahogany neck, mahogany body with a maple cap.

To be fair, the “Smartwood” guitars were LP Studios, the lower priced line, and LP players hate anything that’s not a canon, classic design LP. Like an LP Studio (no binding!). It’s kind of like Harley coming out with supercharged, aerodynamic racing bikes. They wouldn’t sell as a Harley because you’ve lost the classic design. OTOH, call a Gibson guitar some other name than “Les Paul”, like oh say this, and nobody has a problem with it. (Although maybe that’s a bad example, since the SG was actually called a Les Paul for a little big until it was renamed, now nobody calls them that.)

Thanks. Good point about the “Studio” part, only see below. I’ve played some SG’s I really liked, and I’d love to have a Les Paul Junior with a P90 – those can be hot little guitars, and not pricey either. But they’re in a different league than the LP Custom.

@WordMan

Back to Les Pauls: LearJeff, you assert that Les Paul fans demand that they be heavy. I really would question that. Folks who love Randy Rhoads/70’s LP Customs, etc., do favor heavier models, but it is all over the map. Since the 90’s with the retro craze, the lighter the better - 1959 Historics (R9’s in online lingo) are given the lightest mahogany, R8’s a bit heavier, etc. Guys crow about getting a 9 lb Historic. I had a great Black Beauty reissue (an LP Custom based on the original 1954 with a P-90 and an Alnico pickup, not humbuckers) and it weighed 8 lbs with a one-piece mahogany body. When I brought it in for trade the dealers freaked and took it immediately - and it sold in a week. (when I brought it in, they compared it to the $35,000 1956 original Black Beauty that they had in stock - mine sounded better I totally loved that.

Interesting - I didn’t know that. I do remember some discussion of SmartWood series (I think it was on Les Paul Forum) and most of the comments led me to believe that they just didn’t consider them “real” LPs and there was a lot of complaint about the light weight. Go figure.

I really liked one of the SmartWood guitars, even gave careful thought to buying one new, about 15 years ago. The one I liked was the one where the body and fretboard were the same wood, IIRC.

[WordMan]

@SirGalahad

“Less noticeable” doesn’t tell me the effect is insignificant. I’m certain the shape of the instrument affects the sound of the instrument. The only way to prove it would be through experimentation. I leave it to the acoustic scientists out there to construct suitable experimental instruments in a lab setting and report back.

A few points:

• This is when I typically just step back and say to myself “do I like how this one plays and sounds?” - watching guitar-geek threads extend out to 10+ pages as people debate Old Wood for solidbodies, tuner types, truss rod condoms*, etc. makes my head hurt.

• Does body material, mass, shape, etc, affect sound? Sure - as I have said many times on this board, the effect of the body material is mostly about its inefficiency - a perfectly vibrating string covers a broad spectrum; woods and other body materials dampen certain frequencies, allowing others to be heard more clearly. To be clear: I am NOT a scientist. But ultimately, if someone likes how a guitar sounds it is because of the frequencies (harmonic overtones above the main note) that are not dampened.

• Observation - you reference loudness. In my experience, that is a factor, but not the same as dampening. So - if you play an unplugged solidbody that is relatively quiet vs. one that is louder, will the louder one sound better amplified? In my extensive experience - and I know, you have lots, too - the answer is explicitly NO. A louder unplugged solidbody makes it easier to hear if the right frequencies are being dampened and the rest shine through, but a loud guitar can also have crappy dampening, just more loud. Case in point is that Fenders, as a rule, sound louder unplugged vs. Gibsons - something about construction, I dunno. But I can’t say Fenders, as a rule, sound better than Gibsons…

*Truss Rod Condom - Gibson started putting a sheath over truss rods - in the 60’s maybe? - to reduce the chance of the rod vibrating against the wood channel it lies in. Folks on the Les Paul Forum - a bastion of vintage LP love - go NUTS discussing whether a truss rod condom affects tone. One guy took a modern Historic Reissue and had it completely redone to vintage spec, including removal of the TRC - because he is clearly rich and bored He reported back an obvious difference. I stopped hanging out there - I have too much to do…
Learjeff - I don’t know the specifics of SmartWood Gibsons - but there is a difference between legitimately high-quality, lighter wood vs. gaming it to make it lighter. Gibson drills swiss cheese holes in some mahogany; they offer “Cloud 9” chambered versions (chamber means they intend to have a tonal affect vs. swiss cheese is purely to lighten) and other approaches. I wonder if SmartWood is one of those.

[squeegee]

@WordMan

I don’t know the specifics of SmartWood Gibsons

Here’s wiki says about them. It seems like the woods were selected to be exotic, not necessarily marketed as a lighter guitar per se, but obviously some woods would have less weight than the usual weighty maple LP top.

[scabpicker]

@SirGalahad

Put any part of a solidbody against a hollow wall and you hear that the the guitar is amplified to a surprising degree. If the wood at that point is vibrating enough to transmit substantial vibrations to the wall, then I submit that the wood at that point can also affect the nature of the string’s vibrations. It’s all connected and it’s all vibrating.

Well, I just alternated putting my solid body’s headstock and body against a wall clad with masonite paneling and played it through an amp. There was absolutely no difference in the sound coming out of the amp.

In order for a change in mass or any change in construction to affect the sound, it’s got to affect how the strings vibrate in relation to the pickup, the pickup is the only thing making any sound on an electric. Until you start affecting the structure of the guitar, adding/removing wood isn’t doing much.

[SirGalahad]

@scabpicker

Well, I just alternated putting my solid body’s headstock and body against a wall clad with masonite paneling and played it through an amp. There was absolutely no difference in the sound coming out of the amp.

In order for a change in mass or any change in construction to affect the sound, it’s got to affect how the strings vibrate in relation to the pickup, the pickup is the only thing making any sound on an electric. Until you start affecting the structure of the guitar, adding/removing wood isn’t doing much.

My point was that the strings ( the vibrations of the strings are what the pick-up transduces) are interacting with the wood enough that the wood can transmit sound to a wall (or other resonant structure), not that touching a wall will change the sound of the strings, since the wall is not physically part of the body. Your experiment doesn’t address any of my contentions.

We should note here that many electromagnetic pick-ups are in fact microphonic. I just recently changed the pick-ups in a Korean L-5 copy because the stock pick-ups were so microphonic that the pickups were transmitting far too much body noise into the amp … you could literally talk into the pick-up and it would amplify your voice through the amp. I replaced them with some old Seymour Duncans.
Many pick-ups are microphonic to one degree or another, so for practical purposes, if you want to answer the OP’s question accurately, you would have to not only test your massive granite and foam lab guitar, with perfect pick-ups and perfect test conditions, but you’d also have to measure variations in numerous guitars “from the wild”, since those are the examples we have to consider, and while you’re at it, devise a method of changing the mass and the distribution of mass in additional test guitars. Until an expert in the field of acoustics or electrophysics performs lab experiments tailored to answer the original question, I’ll stick to my real life experiences that incline me to think body shape affects the sound of a solidbody electric.

[scabpicker]

@SirGalahad

…I’ll stick to my real life experiences that incline me to think body shape affects the sound of a solidbody electric.

I don’t disagree with this basic idea, and I’ve stated it earlier in the thread. My point is that there’s not much going on that affects the sound at the end of the headstock or the butt of the guitar. The closer you get to where the strings are forced against the nut, frets and bridge or the wood maintaining their suspension; the more result you will get by changing it. Until you’re getting close to these places, I don’t think you’ll see much difference. If we’re going to try to change the sound of the guitar, you’re going to get much larger results from changing the electronics.

And realistically, I’m speaking on real-world experience as well - not some empirical rule. We’re generally talking about small changes in wooden guitars. Given similar electronics, most plank guitars sound largely the same no matter if it’s shaped like a Les Paul or a Telecaster.