Do woods matter as much with electric guitars?

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by JoeCharter

The impact of wood type is hugely overrated -- and even more so with electrics. . . .

Originally Posted by Justonwo

I don't think wood matters much on electric guitars. Just my opinion based on the electrics I've owned. I worry more about the amp and the pickups. . .

Absolutely correct. This question has been discussed many times on several forums and in all those discussions I have never encountered a convincing argument (and certainly never a scientific proof) of how wood can effect a magnetic field.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Garthman

Absolutely correct. This question has been discussed many times on several forums and in all those discussions I have never encountered a convincing argument (and certainly never a scientific proof) of how wood can effect a magnetic field.

It doesn't. It affects the manner and degree to which the the energy of string motion is either absorbed into the system or transmitted back to the string. It also affects the manner and degree to which the pickup mounted on the body is vibrated by the string motion. Of course, there is also the question of transduction through the strings of left-hand and finger motion which happens much more in semi-hollows than solids but does happen.

Bob

[Garthman]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

It doesn't. It affects the manner and degree to which the the energy of string motion is either absorbed into the system or transmitted back to the string. It also affects the manner and degree to which the pickup mounted on the body is vibrated by the string motion. . . .

Bob

Well, Bob, this is the usual argument that is offered but the "manner and degree" is never quantified. And since the solid-bodied electric guitar was developed for the precise purpose of minimizing any vibrational effect on the pick up it would seem reasonable to surmise that any such effect is, indeed, minimal.

[terrapin]

Originally Posted by Jim.S

Hi Terrapin, I have heard this stated many times but I have never heard or read a reasonable explanation as to how the type of joint makes a difference. I can see and explain how wood types will make a difference (speed of sound in wood variations, frequencies of modes of vibration due to different shapes and different Young's modulus of the wood). It is easy to explain how pickups differ (amount of coils, type of magnet etc) and easy to see how amps differ (valve or transistor etc). I would love to hear a reasonable explanation of how the neck joint makes a difference. If there is in fact any difference then there will be a plausible explanation as to why there is a difference. I am not knocking your opinion just that I have never heard a descent explanation.

Jim

Jim,

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.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Garthman

Well, Bob, this is the usual argument that is offered but the "manner and degree" is never quantified. And since the solid-bodied electric guitar was developed for the precise purpose of minimizing any vibrational effect on the pick up it would seem reasonable to surmise that any such effect is, indeed, minimal.

Let me preface this by saying that at the end of this message I can give you a little more anecdotal information but I'm going to start with some of the industry info: Much of the physics behind the art of luthierie is unquantified. It is just there and we either apprehend it or ignore it. Yes, the original intent in creating the solid body electric guitar was to minimize vibrational effect, but:

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

[Garthman]

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.

[terrapin]

Originally Posted by Garthman

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.

To call it all "hype" is going too far. The differences are real, but WAY more subtle than many would like to believe. I had a friend who paid a builder a large sum for a body made out of "Louisiana Swamp Ash" which he put on a guitar with the same neck, pickups, electronics...as my MIM Alder bodied guitar, and we all agreed that my guitar sounded better.....Go figure that!

[Scriptor]

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 ...

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by Garthman

In the Wishbone Ash vid the guy probably just hit a pedal on his board.

No pedals, no board. Did you actually watch it?

[Jim.S]

Originally Posted by terrapin

Jim,

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.

Thanks For taking the time to reply Russ. I have mulled that thought over before as I can plainly see that that is the only mechanical difference between the two but don't forget that a screw joint compresses the two mating pieces together as well and a glue joint does not, whether one transfers more vibration than the other would need to be tested and I have never found any tests that have confirmed a difference (that don't mean its never been done or that there is not a difference). So I agree with your that there may be a "subtle" difference but still don't see that that would make the "biggest" difference.

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

[Davis Webb]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Let me preface this by saying that at the end of this message I can give you a little more anecdotal information but I'm going to start with some of the industry info: Much of the physics behind the art of luthierie is unquantified. It is just there and we either apprehend it or ignore it. Yes, the original intent in creating the solid body electric guitar was to minimize vibrational effect, but:

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

Bob is right. I have owned a few different woods in my electrics over the years and it is very true that mahogany, which I have now, is richer than alder. I have had Larrivee electrics cut from a single piece of wood that blew me away.

[David Eastwood]

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?

[terrapin]

Originally Posted by eatswodo

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.

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?

A BIG difference is the hard-tail versus trem bridge system. This makes WAY more difference than any wood differences. Plus, they are two different guitars! Like comparing APPLES AND ORANGES.

[imwjl]

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.

[David Eastwood]

Originally Posted by terrapin

A BIG difference is the hard-tail versus trem bridge system. This makes WAY more difference than any wood differences. Plus, they are two different guitars! Like comparing APPLES AND ORANGES.

But I thought it was all in the pickups?

I think you've helped me make my point