#16
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' " Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM (my website) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is how it was explained to me. With a bolt-on neck there is no way you will ever get a perfectly tight joint between neck and body. There will inherently be open space in the joint which changes the vibrational transfer from neck to body. With a set-neck the inherent space is nonexistent resulting in more complete vibrational transfer neck to body. These differences in transfer result in SUBTLE differences in sound. Neither better or worse, just different and, again, subtle. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1) You'll notice that the original poster didn't limit this to solid bodies only 2) After sixty years, the very personal build signatures of the various manufacturers either remain or have been returned to. What was discovered was that the original intent (minimizing resonance) failed and the manner in which it failed was part of the signature sound of the instrument. As a result, the classic guitar designs retain some of their basic sounds whether or not you swap in various types of pickups. A Strat with humbuckers still sounds like a Strat with humbuckers rather than a Les Paul. A Les Paul with single coils (such as the P-90s) sounds like a Les Paul with single coils. In fact, the classic manufacturers are haunted today by their own designs and by enthusiasts who want the sounds that those guitars made. Some of the differences they are chasing are differences that make a difference and some aren't, but everyone agrees that those who have returned to the original designs have recaptured a different sound. 3) There were attempts to either make the classic designs easier to build or better in the '60s and '70s that caused the guitars to sound... different. The biggest changes were in bodies, necks, and neck joints. In this period, Gibson in particular pursued massiveness and rigidity in order to further pursue that goal you spoke of and in order to increase sustain. They accomplished their goals but the guitars sounded quite different, and some people didn't like the change. If you want a "sweet" Les Paul, the '70s era might not be the easiest to find one from. However, if you want a powerful one, the '70s is your period. Younger players are flocking to them right now. Interestingly, the "T-top" pickups from the early '70s are very much appreciated by the Les Paul community (including the old-timers) as reasonably close to their earlier cousins while the bodies and necks are much more controversial. I, for one, came across most of this information anecdotally and through study. For instance, my first really good electric guitar was a '74 Gibson Les Paul Standard I bought used in '78. I spent years wondering why it didn't sound like some of the classic guitars from the '50s that others had. Then I discovered that there were build differences. I now own three LPs, each of which has its own character - the '70s LP, powerful with endless sustain, a 2007 that is far sweeter and airier, and a 2011 LP with P-90s that has a much brighter sound but still has the compression and chunkiness of the mahogany body/maple cap LP body. I've played the all-mahogany LP juniors and specials with the same pickups and noticed that they sounded MUCH thinner than the LP with the maple cap. I also needed a Strat for my work in sessions so my lovely wife had one built up with a rosewood fingerboard because I didn't like the polished maple ones. I spec'd a swamp ash body to give it the brightness of the maple neck. However, after trying for a good while to get a certain spanky sound out of it (look at 2:17 on THIS video) I discovered that the way to get that sound was with an alder body and a maple neck. (I sure wish YouTube videos were available back in the '70s.) With alder/maple, it just falls right out. Now, notice that most of the sounds I was searching for in these examples were low-gain sounds. Yes, you can gain up to the point where there is less difference between the guitars. But that isn't the range of sounds I'm going for. Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' " Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM (my website) |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Nah. It's 99.9% hype. Swamp ash, alder etc bodies, maple or rosewood necks is all hype. Different PUs, volume and tone combinations, amps, effects pedals have far, far far far far more influence.
In the Wishbone Ash vid the guy probably just hit a pedal on his board. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Having been a player for over 40 years (I started in the womb ... ), I will say that with acoustics, different woods absolutely bring different tone characteristics: sustain/decay rate, overtones, warmth or brightness, etc. ... but as important and perhaps moreso, is build quality and bracing ... but mahogany, rosewood, maple etc. will have signature characteristics that can be discerned by most musicians ...
With electrics, there are certainly differences ... the majority of those differences again will depend on build quality, electronics and amp choices ... for the average player, it may be difficult to discern any nuances of the woods used ... but serious players, chasing the ever elusive golden tone, will perceive the subtleties ... for most though, a quality built electric with either good stock or upgraded pups through a good amp will suffice and there will probably be no thought of wood types used ... I do believe that sustain in particular is noticeably affected by wood types and build quality for electrics ... When I go to buy an electric, I am concerned with how it feels and plays ... how the pups sound through a good amp ... whether I want the snap and clarity of Single Coils or the warmth and fatness of Humbuckers ... I don't normally care about the woods used except that I, unlike Bob, prefer that solid maple Fender neck ... When I go to buy an acoustic, I know what I want to hear and the types of woods used for top, back and sides will be significant in what I try and what I buy ...
__________________
-- Scriptor For some very simple demos of original music: https://soundcloud.com/rick-langdon -- Play on!! |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
No pedals, no board. Did you actually watch it?
__________________
Martin 0-16NY Emerald Amicus Emerald X20 Cordoba Stage Some of my tunes: https://youtube.com/user/eatswodo |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
One thing that remains fact about wood is that there are differences within a species. It is not really enough to say that Ash is this or maple is that. For example Sitka spruce can vary in Young's modulus from around 10Gpa to around 13Gpa (big difference really) and you may also find samples out side those figures. Also the internal damping varies within the species and between the species. What makes sense to me, if we were to assume that vibrational transference from neck to body is important then the type of woods would be more important than the joint type, that is to say we would need the neck and the body to be of the same internal damping as each other or the same "Q" as each other for a uninterrupted transfer. Personally I don't think it is important but there is no science in that view. Shame we can't do these chats over a brew or two Jim Last edited by Jim.S; 07-25-2013 at 08:21 PM. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
I have two inexpensive electric guitars. One is a Squier '51, the other an OLP MM4.
Both are 25" scale. Both have maple, bolt-on necks. The Squier has a maple fretboard, the OLP, rosewood. Both have bodies made from some mystery wood, as is typically used in lower-end guitars. I have no idea how many pieces of wood in each - the paint on the OLP suggests that it might be 3. I can't tell with the Squier. The Squier has a hard tail bridge, not string-thru. The OLP has a standard Strat-style term, locked down to the body with 5 springs at maximum tension. Both have Fender Noiseless pickups in the neck position. The Squier's is screwed to the body, with just a piece of foam underneath it. The OLP's is suspended from the pick guard in the usual Strat fashion. Both have single volume and tone controls. I'm not anal enough to pull the panels to check capacitor values - for my listening purposes, both volume and tone controls were wide open, neck pickup only. They sound quite, quite different. The Squier is bold and fat. The OLP is round and sweet. One's a brat, the other one is honey. This is at low volume, no effects - just trying to get an honest eval of the sound of the guitar. They also feel and respond quite differently. The Squier doesn't give me a lot of physical feedback - it's solid. The OLP is significantly more resonant and acoustically responsive. So, the question is - if it's all in the pickups, what accounts for the difference?
__________________
Martin 0-16NY Emerald Amicus Emerald X20 Cordoba Stage Some of my tunes: https://youtube.com/user/eatswodo |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I'm going with yes and no here.
I've tried same pickups in alder, ash and thinline telecasters. They all sounded quite the same. My wife could not tell a difference. Trying same Collings model in laminate and solid wood was more noticeable than with the Telecasters and had me loving the laminate which is not what I expected.
__________________
ƃuoɹʍ llɐ ʇno əɯɐɔ ʇɐɥʇ |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I think you've helped me make my point
__________________
Martin 0-16NY Emerald Amicus Emerald X20 Cordoba Stage Some of my tunes: https://youtube.com/user/eatswodo |