Does back & side wood really matter?

[roylor4]

Originally Posted by Scott_19

All of these questions are answered if you actually read the study.

Experienced guitar players were asked to rate the six guitars on a series of perceptual attributes, including an “overall sound” quality rating.

For the current study, a very experienced luthier (who is the second author of this paper) built six steel-string acoustic guitars to the same dimensional and material specifications of all their parts, except for the back and side plates

The measured bridge admittances and deduced modal properties show subtle differences between the guitars. However, careful examination of the results suggests that the differences seen were not caused primarily by the choice of back wood.

Fifty-three guitar players took part in one or more experiments in the study...They were classified according to their employment status as professional (if they worked full time as guitar players, e.g., artist, guitar instructor, etc.), semi-pro (if they worked part-time as guitar players), or amateur. On average, the players reported having 26 years (SD = 15) of experience playing the guitar (30 years for the professionals, 25 years for the semi-pros, and 25 years for the amateurs

The results of our study indicate that steel-string acoustic guitars with backs and sides built using traditionally prized, expensive, and rare woods are not rated substantially higher by guitarists than guitars with backs and sides built using cheaper and more readily available woods. The poor ability of guitarists to discriminate under blinded conditions between guitars with backs and sides made of different woods suggest that back wood has only a marginal impact on the sound of an acoustic guitar.

This is just a case of cognitive dissonance. The idea that you are an experienced guitarist with a good ear conflicts with the knowledge that back and side woods don't really matter, so you change your cognition and double-down on the idea that they do really matter. It appears that "marginal differences" are not able to be detected with accuracy by the human ear. Blinded experiments are the only way to demonstrate this, and those of you who think that the blinding invalidated the results are deluding yourselves. It's a peer reviewed journal. You really think reviewers didn't think of the same objections you have?

Okay, I will admit that i didn't read the paper and the information above does make it more interesting and valid. That said, you are making assumptions about me and my opinion that are not stated by me.

BTW, your use of the term cognitive dissonance sounds intelligent but is totally inaccurate as used. There is nothing inconsistent with my beliefs and attitudes. They are totally consistent and aligned with my own experiences. My opinions are just that and based on my own perception of reality, be it right or wrong and have nothing to do with whether or not I believe in this study. The fact that I refuse to align my beliefs with your cited study means nothing.

As to whether or not reviewers have not come up with the same objections, I have no idea. If they are scientists and not guitar players they are not my peers, nor am I theirs.

[Silly Moustache]

Hi, there IS a difference in the tone that the woods used for the back and sides make.

We guitarists are nitpickers and purists and our audience really don't care whether the parts of the body that they can't even see is mahogany, maple or rosewood or even carbon fibre!

And yet we sit and listen for the lightest difference.

I have two guitars that are pretty much identical and within a year of manufacture (by Collings) ad I made a brief (that's unusual) video comparing them in November 2013, and a later version shown below. !
So, both sitka tops, both 12 fret dreads, same D'addario strings, of same age, and same Blue chip pick.

Here it is :

Now, whilst Collings guitars are pretty consistent (i.e. I've never heard of a poor one), when you put a few lumps of wood together a few, or a few hundred, or a few thousand times there ARE going to be slight differences.

So here's a video I made comparing two identical guitars made my Collings (sitka & EIR) but one was made in 1998 and the other in 2007.



I have to say that sometimes when I'm performing, I have to look down to remember which guitar I'm using!

Remember, there are so many other factors that determine what a guitar sounds like, not least, who made it and how you play it.

[ripdotcom]

I assumed he or she was originally using cognitive dissonance to define that people simply think different. I tried to respond with "I'll Say" but too few characters.

I suspect with a handful of posts, he is well aware of the AGF and has either been lurking for something like this or was too embarrassed to use his real name when it went south.

[stringjunky]

Originally Posted by Rpt50

Humans are really good at convincing themselves that they can extract orderly patterns from disorderly and/or random events, so it's not at all surprising that so many think they can hear the differences between different types of back and side woods. It's nice to see a well-designed study shed some light on this topic.

As anyone who has ever worked in science knows, a single study is never the final word. Understanding emerges as studies are conducted by different authors in different labs, and through systematic replication that considers other variables.

I think it would be very interesting to conduct a similar top wood study (maybe this has already been done) including a "distance of the listener" variable. My non-guitarist wife recently commented that she could not distinguish the sound of a mahogany top Taylor from a Spruce top when sitting across a room. While I initially chalked this up to her lack of guitar experience, I was shocked to discover later than same day that I had difficulty doing the same thing, even though the guitars sound unmistakably different when you are actually playing them.

Tactile feedback and tone can meld to create a different sonic experience to hearing tone alone. I could go along with a particular wood creating a different experience for the player than the listener for this reason, but sound alone,not so much.

[bufflehead]

Originally Posted by Scott_19

All of these questions are answered if you actually read the study.

Point taken. I just read the full study, and found it informative. The authors seemed to anticipate many of the objections they might receive in a forum such as AGF, and structured the study specifically to accommodate such concerns.

Let me point out that although I'm an emeritus professor who has been on both sides of the peer review process numerous times, both for journal articles and books, my expertise does not lie in this type of testing or statistical analysis.

That said, I would encourage more AGF members to read the study in full.

[Scott_19]

Originally Posted by roylor4

BTW, your use of the term cognitive dissonance sounds intelligent but is totally inaccurate as used. There is nothing inconsistent with my beliefs and attitudes. They are totally consistent and aligned with my own experiences. My opinions are just that and based on my own perception of reality, be it right or wrong and have nothing to do with whether or not I believe in this study. The fact that I refuse to align my beliefs with your cited study means nothing.

"In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person."

We're off topic but cognitive dissonance is certainly germane

[ripdotcom]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

Point taken. I just read the full study, and found it informative. The authors seemed to anticipate many of the objections they might receive in a forum such as AGF, and structured the study specifically to accommodate such concerns.

Let me point out that although I'm an emeritus professor who has been on both sides of the peer review process numerous times, both for journal articles and books, my expertise does not lie in this type of testing or statistical analysis.

That said, I would encourage more AGF members to read the study in full.

I dont think anybody is refuting the study, however it only applies to Fylde guitar perhaps with a 0 nut that certainly would contribute to results most other guitars would not experience. I am not arguing one way or another as to the correct method to build a guitar, but I am saying that fylde guitars are unique and perhaps the OP may have extended the courtesy to title the thread "Does back and side wood really matter on Fylde Guitars?" If we start there, we might get somewhere but to expand that umbrella across hundreds of years of collective experience, it is more than bold, it is simply untrue.

Ol Scott 19 wants to utilize high school prep debate team tactics to entertain "His or her reality" by pimping an article that has less to with what he is really trying to tell us.

[roylor4]

Originally Posted by ripdotcom

I assumed he or she was originally using cognitive dissonance to define that people simply think different. I tried to respond with "I'll Say" but too few characters.

I suspect with a handful of posts, he is well aware of the AGF and has either been lurking for something like this or was too embarrassed to use his real name when it went south.

This new member doesn't seem embarrassed by anything to me, using his/her own phrase - they seem to be "doubling down" on proving their point and shutting down anyone that might disagree, and by extension, painting themselves as intellectually superior and unfettered by the bias's that have apparently infected the rest of us to a point that we are unreasonable and not open to change.

These type of threads are not that uncommon, as you know. "Opening up", "tonerite" and numerous other topics will sometimes bring the AGF to a fast boil.

The fact of the matter is that to some degree, around here, opinions carry weight because of experience in the area of guitars and equipment as well as a proven track record of (trying to) provide good and valuable advice to people that ask for it and need it. Most of us have both helped and been helped by others here.

The OP hasn't and only receives the respect HERE that they have earned. Anyone can find and cite a study - not everyone cares or will take the time to help a new guitar player find and buy a new guitar or recommend the best strings. That's just the way it is.

[Watt]

Originally Posted by ripdotcom

I dont think anybody is refuting the study, however it only applies to Fylde guitar perhaps with a 0 nut that certainly would contribute to results most other guitars would not experience. I am not arguing one way or another as to the correct method to build a guitar, but I am saying that fylde guitars are unique and perhaps the OP may have extended the courtesy to title the thread "Does back and side wood really matter on Fylde Guitars?" If we start there, we might get somewhere but to expand that umbrella across hundreds of years of collective experience, it is more than bold, it is simply untrue.

Right. To paraphrase Bruce Sexauer's comments, above, it is feasible to build two same-sounding guitars using different wood species on the backs and sides. But that does not mean that the choice of wood has no impact on all guitars. And the suggestion that a "peer reviewed study" should have any impact on someone's perception of sound, let alone an impact that would give rise to cognitive dissonance, is absurd.

[FrankHudson]

Sound like very interesting findings, and my hats off to the time and effort that must have gone into doing this study.

To the best that I can tell from my subjective standing inside my own self, I have a bellow-average ear for most things that hearing can distinguish. But that's hardly a tightly calibrated reading/ranking.

I believe that I can tell the difference between rosewood and mahogany B&S, at least as tendency over a wide variety of guitars. I think most people here do. I also believe that not having performed double-blind experiments on this matter that I could be wrong in that belief--because I also believe how powerful the powers of suggestion and context are on humans.

[mcduffnw]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Pretty clear characteristic differences between say mahogany and rosewoods. However there are so many factors
in what a particular guitar sounds like I would not want to do a blindfold test on listening to some random guitars
I have not played myself.

Ahhh yes...BUT...

I have been a participant in several highly controlled blind listening tests and our results exactly mirrored what they are saying here.

In our tests we were blindfolded, and we were not familiar with any of the guitars used in the test, they were all brought in from out of town and no one had ever seen or played any of them. We had two players who were both highly skilled in multiple styles and who changed picks and pick attacks and where they played in relation to the sound hole.

Bottom line...we could tell differences in the tone but none of us could in any way shape or form...tell the rosewood guitars from the non rosewood guitars...the Sitka topped guitars from the Adi, the Euro, Englemann, or even the Mahogany topped guitars.

Certainly none of us could pick out the Brazilian guitar as clearly the best...and remember there were 8 of us...from any of the other back and sides wooded guitars.

They all just sounded like guitars...and with a skilled player who can vary their attack and dynamic control on the instrument, you really have no way of knowing what is what.

It was THE most important thing that I have ever done, in terms of really learning the truth about just what you can and can not truly discern about guitars, body sizes and shapes, bracing patterns, and woods used.

Any guitar can be a truly great guitar, both because of how well all of it's design and parts come together and work as a whole...AND...how skilled the player is at understanding what that guitars "voice" can be, and how to work with it to maximum effect.

You can find the same basic results if you go look at the "Leonardo Guitar Research Project" where they built 16 classical guitars out of different woods and recorded them. Here again...you can hear differences...some very noticeable some barely or not at all...but at no time or point can you be certain of what guitar is made of what.

The proof is out there...

duff
Be A Player...Not A Polisher
Believe Your Ears...Not Your Ego

[Photojeep]

I will admit to reading only the first portion of the paper but I can say one thing that seems to somewhat coincide with Mr. Silly Moustache:

I recently pulled out all 3 of my guitars for a "group portrait" and since this was the first time I had all 3 out for the first time, I decided to play the same chord progression on all 3 to hear what each of them sounded like.

I was very surprised to find, to my ears, that they sound almost identical to one another. Obviously not a formal study, scientific or otherwise, but to me the difference was more in the vibrations I could feel in my body.

Just thought I'd muddy the waters a bit...

Now, who has found how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Best,
PJ

[Scott_19]

You are welcome to take issue with my interpretation/defense of the study, but doing so does not, by any means, invalidate its findings. The study is not definitive by any means, but it is methodologically sound, and the conclusions they drew are consistent with their findings. I am not an expert on the topic, nor did I ever claim to be, and I am not acting as a proxy for the authors. Derogating me is only derogating me. It is not derogating the actual study

[guitar george]

Originally Posted by Cuki79

Here is a link to a scientific article just published by the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

Here is the abstract: --------- Overall, the results suggest that the species of wood used for the back and sides of a steel-string acoustic guitar has only a marginal impact on its body mode properties and perceived sound.

This study further suggests what some people have said in this forum over the years, "The type of back and side woods, while having some affect on the sound of a guitar, are not as important to the overall sound as is the top wood and how the top is braced and built".

[paulp1960]

I thought it was very interesting. You can't beat blind tests (except maybe a double blind test) for getting to the nub of things. It doesn't bother me in the least and my 2 acoustic guitars are all solid wood.

It reminds me of an old friend who turned into a bit of a wine snob and would only drink bottles of wine costing more than £30. A friend switched wines for a £4.99 bottle and the wine snob was praising the taste. He was furious when he found out the truth.