Difference between Swamp Ash, Alder, Mahogany, Basswood
zmc
I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
woods such as the ones listed?
SWAMP ASH
ALDER
MAHOGANY
BASSWOOD
Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
Gary Watts
zmc (z...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: SWAMP ASH: Bright tone, usually very light weight. Used in the original
Strats in the early 50's. Easy to work.
: ALDER: a good balance between bass and treble. Good attack. light to medium weight. Fairly bland grain but easy to finish as grain structure is fairly
tight.
: MAHOGANY: Tonally darker. Medium to heavy in weight. Open pores require filler for most finishes. Fairly easy to work, hardness wise.
: BASSWOOD: Fairly soft *hardwood*. Dents easily. Lighter in weight. More
round bass response, reduced mids. Tom Anderson's favorite with a maple cap
to bring back some of the attack.
: Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
Northern Ash or Hard Ash: very bright wood, fairly heavy. Real pretty grain.
Open pores require grain filler. Used by Fender in may 70's era Tele's, Strats
and Basses.
Gary Watts
Derek Stevens
In article <01bc4501$fdb96200$bc5ab5cf@zacharyc>, "zmc" <z...@netcom.ca> wrote:
> I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
> of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
> advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
> woods such as the ones listed?
>
> SWAMP ASH
> ALDER
> MAHOGANY
> BASSWOOD
>
> Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
Well I'm not a luthier but I've got a Fender Jazz bass with ash body. Ash
is a dense & heavy wood (it'll break your shoulder). It translates to very
compressed & sweet sound; not very low in frequency. I had a Fender
precision bass that had an alder body. It's lighter in weight than ash and
less dense. That translated to very warm sound w/ not so sweet highs. It's
tone was low in frequency. I'd be interested in knowing other wood
recipes.
--
Derek Stevens -------> kool...@earthlink.net
Sudhir B Nayak
I am building guitars now and I have to tell you that I cannot hear a
huge difference between alder and ash. Basswood sounds thin to me but I
have never built a guitar out of it myself (only bought one). I have a
all mahogany Carvin RC90 and it has a reall deep sound which I like. A
friend of mine has the same thing in alder and it sounds just as rich but
the big bottom end is gone. So for what it is worth if you want big
bottom end then go with the mahogany. For clean tones ash and alder are
about the same. Basswood is not one that I would recommend.
zmc (z...@netcom.ca) wrote:
: I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
: of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
: advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
: woods such as the ones listed?
: SWAMP ASH
: ALDER
: MAHOGANY
: BASSWOOD
: Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
--
Sudhir Nayak
Department of Biology
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6018
email: sna...@mail.sas.upenn.edu
na...@wista.wistar.upenn.edu
STEELERS FOOTBALL RULES!!!!!!
_\|/////_
// _ _ \\
( o o )
------------------------oOOo-(_)-oOOo------------------------
gps...@voicenet.com
In article <334D0C...@mail.usinternet.com>, "Stephan R. Masica"
<srma...@mail.usinternet.com> wrote:
> zmc wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some
models
> > of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some
brief
> > advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the
different
> > woods such as the ones listed?
> >
> > SWAMP ASH
> > ALDER
> > MAHOGANY
> > BASSWOOD
> >
> > Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
> but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
> wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
With all do respect, and I understand that you may not have played in some
time, but with that statement you are certainly "peeing in the wind." Wood
type makes a huge difference between electric guitar tones. In fact,
anything that affects the response of the instrument (body wood, neck wood,
fingerboard wood, finishes/laquers, string gauge/style, tuning machines,
bridge...) will affect the sound of the guitar amplified.
Just didn't want to leave this kind of misinformation lingering out there.
Gary
Stephan R. Masica
zmc wrote:
>
> I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
> of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
> advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
> woods such as the ones listed?
>
> SWAMP ASH
> ALDER
> MAHOGANY
> BASSWOOD
>
> Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
then it makes a huge difference. I believe spruce is the traditional
material for an acoustic's voice, along with rosewood and ebony for the
fretboard, etc. I would think the electronics and the advent of midi
and such makes the material for an electric solid body irrelevant.
'Course, the sales staff always want to peddle the high end stuff.
As a wood carver, I know basswood is a wonderful material; clear,
straight grained, takes stain and detail well, medium density.
Any other comments from more knowledgeable hands?
Dan Crowley
Stephan R. Masica wrote:
>
> zmc wrote:
> >
> I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
> but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
> wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference...
> Any other comments from more knowledgeable hands?
The type of wood does make a difference for electric guitars. The
harder more dense woods will have better sustain - like hard rock
maple. Unfortunately I can't speak to the particular woods you have
listed. You might want to try talking to Carvin (www.carvin.com) - they
can probably give you a better idea (of course they'll also probably try
to sell you a guitar).
Steve
gps...@voicenet.com wrote:
Wood
> type makes a huge difference between electric guitar tones. In fact,
> anything that affects the response of the instrument (body wood, neck wood,
> fingerboard wood, finishes/laquers, string gauge/style, tuning machines,
> bridge...) will affect the sound of the guitar amplified.
>
> Just didn't want to leave this kind of misinformation lingering out there.
>
> Gary
The Tom Anderson catalogue has some good information about wood types.
Ulysses
In article <gpsasf-0904...@phila121-pri.voicenet.com>, ""
<gps...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> In article <334D0C...@mail.usinternet.com>, "Stephan R. Masica"
> <srma...@mail.usinternet.com> wrote:
> > I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
> > but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
> > wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
>
> With all do respect, and I understand that you may not have played in some
> time, but with that statement you are certainly "peeing in the wind." Wood
> type makes a huge difference between electric guitar tones. In fact,
> anything that affects the response of the instrument (body wood, neck wood,
> fingerboard wood, finishes/laquers, string gauge/style, tuning machines,
> bridge...) will affect the sound of the guitar amplified.
with even more respect due, "huge difference" is somewhat open to
interpretation. Certainly wood variety makes a bigger difference than,
say, paint color or what kind of batteries you put in your pedals, but an
ash Strat and a poplar Strat through a tubescreamer and a fender twin will
sound pretty damn similar to most people.
Ulysses
markus tron
Ulysses wrote:
>
> In article <gpsasf-0904...@phila121-pri.voicenet.com>, ""
> <gps...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <334D0C...@mail.usinternet.com>, "Stephan R. Masica"
> > <srma...@mail.usinternet.com> wrote:
> > > I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
> > > but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
> > > wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
> >
> > With all do respect, and I understand that you may not have played in some
> > time, but with that statement you are certainly "peeing in the wind." Wood
> > type makes a huge difference between electric guitar tones. In fact,
> > anything that affects the response of the instrument (body wood, neck wood,
> > fingerboard wood, finishes/laquers, string gauge/style, tuning machines,
> > bridge...) will affect the sound of the guitar amplified.
> >
> >
> > Gary
>
> interpretation. Certainly wood variety makes a bigger difference than,
> say, paint color or what kind of batteries you put in your pedals, but an
> ash Strat and a poplar Strat through a tubescreamer and a fender twin will
> sound pretty damn similar to most people.
>
> Ulysses
Ulysses,
'xcuse me for taking part in that thread but I need to say this:
leave the tubescreamer out and "most people" will hear the difference
pretty well!
and btw: "most people" won't help ME finding MY sound! just imaging how
long Stevie needed to create the SRV sound?
but you're right in saying wood variety makes a _bigger_ difference than
paint color or what kind of batteries you put in your pedals.
but even different batteries in your pedals will affect the sound of
your instrument.
IMHO the ability to make use of these tonal possibilities makes the
difference between the pro. musician and the weekend warrior <--
okok...just jokin'...no flames PLEASE!
enjoy
markus
________________________________________________________
DISCLAIMER
Views and opinions above are all the conspiratorial work
of my hands. Death to my hands, we strike tonight. /Feet
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Markus Tron | tr...@mail.transfer.de
www.transfer.de/tron.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Gary Allen
Stephan R. Masica wrote:
>
> zmc wrote:
> >
> > I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
> > of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
> > advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
> > woods such as the ones listed?
> >
> > SWAMP ASH
> > ALDER
> > MAHOGANY
> > BASSWOOD
> >
> > Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
> but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
> wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference. If it's an acoustic,
> then it makes a huge difference. I believe spruce is the traditional
> material for an acoustic's voice, along with rosewood and ebony for the
> fretboard, etc. I would think the electronics and the advent of midi
> and such makes the material for an electric solid body irrelevant.
> 'Course, the sales staff always want to peddle the high end stuff.
>
> As a wood carver, I know basswood is a wonderful material; clear,
> straight grained, takes stain and detail well, medium density.
>
> Any other comments from more knowledgeable hands?
Hmmm... Woodworking is also my thing;
strange that I've never put the two together.
But I think you'd be pretty close to right.
The density of the wood probably makes some
difference, but I'd think it minimal.
Ash would be traditional - nice and hard. But grain is so-so.
Mahogany (if it's GOOD Mahogany like African or Honduran)
would probably be really nice and upscale, nice grain, etc,
but you'd need muscles to carry it around.
Alder I don't know a lot about - wrong coast.
I'd advise against Basswood - nice for carving but too soft.
You might also want to consider maple.
--
Gary M. Allen
Hewlett-Packard
Internet Technology Laboratory
Chelmsford MA
gal...@apollo.hp.com
David Jacoby
>'xcuse me for taking part in that thread but I need to say this:
>leave the tubescreamer out and "most people" will hear the difference
>pretty well!
If told what to look for by guitar geeks such as you and me. Most people
can't tell, and don't want to.
>and btw: "most people" won't help ME finding MY sound! just imaging how
>long Stevie needed to create the SRV sound?
This, of course, is true. But it's the woodshedding and making his hands
work that separated him from a guy who just bought a rosewood-fretboard Strat
and a good amp.
>but you're right in saying wood variety makes a _bigger_ difference than
>paint color or what kind of batteries you put in your pedals.
>but even different batteries in your pedals will affect the sound of
>your instrument.
And if I was Eric Johnson, I could tell the difference. My ears aren't that
good yet.
Then again, with all due respect to his playing, if I plugged in and sounded
like Eric, I'd sell my gear and get new stuff.
--
David Jacoby mailto:jac...@ecn.purdue.edu
Web Technician and Librarian http://harbor.ecn.purdue.edu/~jacoby
Engineering Computer Network One of those Condescending UNIX Users
---------------------------------------------------------------------
clo...@wartech.com
>I haven't played in some time and I might be peeing in the wind a bit,
No, you're not, but you're gonna get called names if you say that wood type
doesn't make a difference to some poor illiterate guitar player who got scammed
several C notes for "special wood" and now believes it fervently (otherwise he
will have to face the fact that he a gullible fool)....
>but I can't help thinking that when it comes to a solid body electric,
Oh oh. Sounds like you're about to step in it....
>wood type doesn't make a whole lot of difference.
I'm getting out the asbestos underwear NOW! :-)
>If it's an acoustic,
>then it makes a huge difference. I believe spruce is the traditional
>material for an acoustic's voice, along with rosewood and ebony for the
>fretboard, etc. I would think the electronics and the advent of midi
>and such makes the material for an electric solid body irrelevant.
Ah. Nice, cool asbestos. In my shorts. In my socks. In my shirt. I'm fine now.
Actually, guy, you're RIGHT. I've put a Les Paul (mahogany/maple body solid,
mahogany neck) up against a BB King Lucille (laminated maple body and neck,
hollowbody, maple center block, not a piece of mahogany on it anywhere, much
less as a solid base material), and except for an increase in reverb inside the
guitar, and that was minor, my guitar teacher said he could not hear a difference,
apart from my pickups being a touch hotter. Two other teachers auditioned the
pair that night, and they couldn't hear much difference either.
In other words laminated maple is virtually identical to the Paul formula?
Yep.
>'Course, the sales staff always want to peddle the high end stuff.
BINGO! This man deserves a cigar not only for accuracy, but for large cojones to
say this on these newsgroups.
>As a wood carver, I know basswood is a wonderful material; clear,
>straight grained, takes stain and detail well, medium density.
>
>Any other comments from more knowledgeable hands?
I think you touched all the correct bases.
Remember your asbestos underwear, though! :-)
wombat
In article <01bc4501$fdb96200$bc5ab5cf@zacharyc>, "zmc" <z...@netcom.ca> says:
>
>I'm looking into getting a solid-body electric and found that some models
>of electric guitar come with options of wood. Can anyone give some brief
>advice and explanation about the difference in sound vice of the different
>woods such as the ones listed?
>
>SWAMP ASH
>ALDER
>MAHOGANY
>BASSWOOD
>
>Please add more if I missed any major ones... Thanks!
>
>You missed plywood! (Just joking)
Swamp ash a very ringy, bright sound.
Alder pretty similar to swamp ash.
Mahogany Ussually found on soulless, yet expensive Jap guitars.
Basswood Ussually used on Jap fenders, yet very good clear sound.
Where are you going to get swamp ash from these days?
Don't forget the neck.The neck probably contributes a lot more to the
sound than the body.Ie;maple crisp and bright, rosewood thicker and
darker.Don't pay too much attention to the bullshit you read in mags etc.
I have had heavy guitars that sounded great and light ones that sounded
crap.(Light generally considered better).A lot of the nice tones you here
from older fender guitars is because of the way the wood has aged.
>
Patrick N. Fitzgerald
Ok, since we're on the topic of different woods, and I know a little about
guitars and a little about different woods, I'll throw in what I know.
Basswood is very lightweight and soft. Because of this, it's easy to work
with. It's also fairly easy to stain, and pretty easy to finish. But, this
comes at a price. Because it's not very dense, you won't get good sustain out
of it. At least not as good as some other woods. If you're playing death metal
it doesn't make much difference, but I think the sound of basswood is a little
dull myself.
Ash is a much harder wood. It's used to make baseball bats. It's heavier than
basswood, and has a warm sound to it. It has a very open grain, making it
difficult to stain, which is why it's a great choice for the neck. Good
sustain, fairly easy to work with, and not overly heavy.
Maple comes in many varieties. I personally endorse hard maple for necks and
bodies, but if you can find a nice piece, no wood is prettier (imho) than
a piece of curly maple. Flame maple is a kind of curly maple that has a
much greater curl to it and is absolutely beautiful, but can be difficult
to work with because of the variations in grain. I recommend using a straight
hard maple body, and then use a piece of curly/flame maple as a front for it.
Maple has a bright tone and good sustain because it is very dense. It's easy
to work with, and has a fine closed grain. Curly maple can be harder to stain
because of the unpredictability of the fibres.
Mahogany is a hard, heavy wood. It's good to make guitars from, but it's very
heavy, and that should be taken into consideration in design. While a Les-paul
type body may be manageable, a massive 3 inch thick Flying Vee would be
difficult to carry and feel like a load of bricks after a while. Mahogany
is often used in studio guitars because the grain isn't very pretty but the
tone is very nice and the tone is excellent. Mahogany is also generally
readily available in wide stock from your local lumber store, whereas some
other woods may not be.
Poplar is not used very often in guitars. It's strong and lightweight. It has
fairly fine grain to it, and is relatively hard. It is readily available at
almost any wood shop and can be worked easily. I've never seen or played on
a guitar that was made out of poplar; presumably they don't make them because
of bad sound.
Alder: I've never dealt with it, you're on your own.
Rosewood: Hard, heavy, hard to find. Makes great fingerboards, not much else.
Oak: Heavy. Hard to deal with. Not commonly used in making guitars.
Nowadays, it has become common practice of guitar manufacturers to make
cheap guitars from softwoods like pine, spruce, etc. These guitars are all
right for beginner models, but I find that generally, the guitar connisuer
will be disappointed.
In the case of acoustic guitars, however, spruce and sometimes pine can make
an excellent body. I have a 12 string made from Sitka (sp?) Spruce and it
has impeccable sound.
I realize that I am not a final authority. These remarks are only from my
experience and knowledge, and should not be considered by any means the
final authority. Everyone has a right to their own opinions as to what
their favorite kind of wood is.
Until next time,
Patrick N. Fitzgerald
_____________________________________________________________________________
_ _ | Patrick N. Fitzgerald
_____ (.)___(.) _____ | (leap...@expert.cc.purdue.edu)
(____ /\_______/\ ____) | "In every stone, there sleeps a
/||\__\_________/__/||\ | crystal, in every color, there is
/||\ /||\ | the light."
just sittin' on a lily pad.... | -Enigma
____________________________________|_______________________________________
Mark Delsing
On 12 Apr 1997 00:45:09 GMT, leap...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Patrick N.
Fitzgerald) wrote:
>Basswood is very lightweight and soft. Because of this, it's easy to work
>with. It's also fairly easy to stain, and pretty easy to finish. But, this
>comes at a price. Because it's not very dense, you won't get good sustain out
>of it. At least not as good as some other woods. If you're playing death metal
>it doesn't make much difference, but I think the sound of basswood is a little
>dull myself.
Am I wrong, or was the density=tone theory what produced all those
crappy 70's guitars made from low-quality ash and maple? Seriously, is
this a weight equivalency you're making, or density? I'm not big fan
of basswood, anyway.
>Ash is a much harder wood. It's used to make baseball bats. It's heavier than
>basswood, and has a warm sound to it. It has a very open grain, making it
>difficult to stain, which is why it's a great choice for the neck. Good
>sustain, fairly easy to work with, and not overly heavy.
Ash necks? Is this common? I have yet to knowingly play a guitar with
an ash neck.
> I recommend using a straight hard maple body, and then use a piece
>of curly/flame maple as a front for it.
Density question again.
>Poplar is not used very often in guitars. It's strong and lightweight. It has
>fairly fine grain to it, and is relatively hard. It is readily available at
>almost any wood shop and can be worked easily. I've never seen or played on
>a guitar that was made out of poplar; presumably they don't make them because
>of bad sound.
Aren't the Ernie Ball Steve Morse model, and the Fender James Burton
Tele made from poplar? I'd agree about not using poplar, but I'm
intrigued that these high-end models use it.
My current guitar (Gibson 335S Deluxe Professional; yes, it's an
early-80's semi-piece-o-crap) is mahogany, though my prefernce is
towards alder, but that's just me.
Mark Delsing mdel...@enteract.com
EnterAct, L.L.C. http://www.enteract.com
773-248-8511
Visit Butterman at http://www.enteract.com/~butter
"Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the
ultimatum: 'Your money or your life,' or a politician
who confronts a country with the ultimatum: 'Your
children's education or your life,' the meaning of
that ultimatum is : 'Your mind or your life'--and
neither is possible to man without the other."
Mark Delsing
On 12 Apr 1997 04:03:53 GMT, clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>Actually, guy, you're RIGHT. I've put a Les Paul (mahogany/maple body solid,
>mahogany neck) up against a BB King Lucille (laminated maple body and neck,
>hollowbody, maple center block, not a piece of mahogany on it anywhere, much
>less as a solid base material), and except for an increase in reverb inside the
>guitar, and that was minor, my guitar teacher said he could not hear a difference,
>apart from my pickups being a touch hotter. Two other teachers auditioned the
>pair that night, and they couldn't hear much difference either.
>In other words laminated maple is virtually identical to the Paul formula?
>Yep.
(Good thing you're wearing your bat-asbestos-under-skivvies)
Frankly, I think you're on crack.
Okay, I wasn't there to hear your comparison, and I'm not going to
deny that one instance, BUT...
Making a blanket generalization (hey, on Usenet, it happens all the
time) that wood type does not matter at all is a bit off. I go to a
guitar store, I play a bunch of guitars, and they sound...different!
Granted, a Les Paul and a Lucille, both Gibsons, both with humbbuckers
(if stock, them HB's made by the same co), both with similar scale
lengths, played through the same amp, are probably going to sound
pretty damn similar. Not going to deny that.
I don't think that there is some conspiracy to delude giutarists into
buying guitars made from special woods. IMHO, there are four key body
woods: alder, ash, mahogany, and maple. Basswood is for shredders (no
offense), and works well in conjunction with other woods (e.g., maple,
as with the Music Man/Peavey EVH models and the Zion Ty Tabor models),
but on its own, sounds a little thin. Rosewood: fingerboards and
acoustic guitars. Ebony: fingerboards. Different combinations and
constructions sound different. I dunno; I can hear the difference
between a poplar, a basswood, and an alder strat, and I like alder. I
can hear a differnce between solid mahogany, mahogany w/maple cap, and
solid maple. No, I'm not Eric Johnson, I'm you're average player.
Okay, enough ranting. I think that saying body wood makes no
difference is completely and utterly incorrect.
P.S., do you have to special order those 'bestos undies or what?
Timothy Kelly
Hi All.
Mahogany I like a lot, the tone and the way it looks. Dont care for
ash, alder, basswood. Love maple, walnut, koa, rosewood, cherry,
cypress.
Not just the way each wood looks, but also the different way each
wood sounds.
I have many guitars, all different woods, all sound different in
tone color mainly because of the different woods.
Happy Sounds
Timothy Kelly
MidiVox
--
MidiVox - Worlds 1st Real Time Voice to Midi. BioSensor Neckband
+ Rack Mount Brain.
Hum, Sing, Scat, Talk, Rap, Croon. AES Best in Show. EM's
Editors Choice. Keyboard "MidiVox Roars."
tuco
Patrick N. Fitzgerald wrote:
>
> Ok, since we're on the topic of different woods, and I know a little about
> guitars and a little about different woods, I'll throw in what I know.
>
> with. It's also fairly easy to stain, and pretty easy to finish. But, this
> comes at a price. Because it's not very dense, you won't get good sustain out
> of it. At least not as good as some other woods. If you're playing death metal
> it doesn't make much difference, but I think the sound of basswood is a little
> dull myself.
>
> basswood, and has a warm sound to it. It has a very open grain, making it
> difficult to stain, which is why it's a great choice for the neck. Good
> sustain, fairly easy to work with, and not overly heavy.
>
> bodies, but if you can find a nice piece, no wood is prettier (imho) than
> a piece of curly maple. Flame maple is a kind of curly maple that has a
> much greater curl to it and is absolutely beautiful, but can be difficult
> hard maple body, and then use a piece of curly/flame maple as a front for it.
> to work with, and has a fine closed grain. Curly maple can be harder to stain
> because of the unpredictability of the fibres.
>
> Mahogany is a hard, heavy wood. It's good to make guitars from, but it's very
> heavy, and that should be taken into consideration in design. While a Les-paul
> type body may be manageable, a massive 3 inch thick Flying Vee would be
> difficult to carry and feel like a load of bricks after a while. Mahogany
> is often used in studio guitars because the grain isn't very pretty but the
> tone is very nice and the tone is excellent. Mahogany is also generally
> readily available in wide stock from your local lumber store, whereas some
> other woods may not be.
>
> fairly fine grain to it, and is relatively hard. It is readily available at
> almost any wood shop and can be worked easily. I've never seen or played on
> a guitar that was made out of poplar; presumably they don't make them because
> of bad sound.
>
>
> Rosewood: Hard, heavy, hard to find. Makes great fingerboards, not much else.
Except for acoustic sides and backs. Check out a rosewood Martin some
time and see what I mean.
Romeo
Where did you get your info? Light woods generally considered better? Bull.
Quite the opposite! I should know...i play basswood guitars and have gotten
plenty of flames for this(basswood is very light). Everyone I know considers
heavier guitars to have more sustain. and better tone(I dont necessarilly
agree). The wood debate is right up there with the string gauge
debate....most everyone usually says the heavier the better.
also, about the maple vs. rosewood fretboard......I dont agree on that
either...my Jackson Dinky with maple fretboard is a LOT muddier sounding than
my Washburn N2 with Rosewood fretboard!! The N2 is MUCH brighter!
Romeo
In article <E8IG2...@ecn.net.au>, wom...@ecn.net.au says...
KKemm1
In my opinion there are no general rues wether heavy or light guitars are
"better". In case of Les Pauls some poeple think that the light ones are
better because of being more resonant. Others prefer heavier models, that
are told to have more sustain.
I don't know if these opinions are correct. I played light guitars with
good sustain and heavy models with poor sustain. And sustain is by far not
the only thing that makes a guitar sound good.
Marcel Boutet
Romeo wrote:
>
> Where did you get your info? Light woods generally considered better? Bull.
> Quite the opposite! I should know...i play basswood guitars and have gotten
> plenty of flames for this(basswood is very light). Everyone I know considers
> heavier guitars to have more sustain. and better tone(I dont necessarilly
> agree). The wood debate is right up there with the string gauge
> debate....most everyone usually says the heavier the better.
>
> also, about the maple vs. rosewood fretboard......I dont agree on that
> either...my Jackson Dinky with maple fretboard is a LOT muddier sounding than
> my Washburn N2 with Rosewood fretboard!! The N2 is MUCH brighter!
>
> Romeo
The Washburn is brighter because of the Bill LAwrence L-500. I had one
in my N4, and I couldn't stand that pickup because it was so bright, and
it was a horrible match with the Duncan '59 tone wise. If you compared
the N2 with a Duncan JB to another guitar with a maple fretboard with a
JB, you'd find the maple is brighter. I have a JB in my N4, and one in
a strat special, and the strat has a maple board, which makes it sound
brighter, and this is with the same pickup, and very similar wood
(Poplar - strat, Alder - Washburn).
Nick Boutet
clo...@wartech.com
In <334fcaa7...@news.enteract.com>, mdel...@enteract.com (Mark Delsing) writes:
>On 12 Apr 1997 04:03:53 GMT, clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>
>>Actually, guy, you're RIGHT. I've put a Les Paul (mahogany/maple body solid,
>>mahogany neck) up against a BB King Lucille (laminated maple body and neck,
>>hollowbody, maple center block, not a piece of mahogany on it anywhere, much
>>less as a solid base material), and except for an increase in reverb inside the
>>guitar, and that was minor, my guitar teacher said he could not hear a difference,
>>apart from my pickups being a touch hotter. Two other teachers auditioned the
>>pair that night, and they couldn't hear much difference either.
>>In other words laminated maple is virtually identical to the Paul formula?
>>Yep.
>
>(Good thing you're wearing your bat-asbestos-under-skivvies)
>
>Frankly, I think you're on crack.
>Okay, I wasn't there to hear your comparison, and I'm not going to
>deny that one instance, BUT...
>Making a blanket generalization (hey, on Usenet, it happens all the
>time) that wood type does not matter at all is a bit off. I go to a
>guitar store, I play a bunch of guitars, and they sound...different!
>Granted, a Les Paul and a Lucille, both Gibsons, both with humbbuckers
>(if stock, them HB's made by the same co), both with similar scale
>lengths, played through the same amp, are probably going to sound
>pretty damn similar. Not going to deny that.
>
>I don't think that there is some conspiracy to delude giutarists into
>buying guitars made from special woods.
Well, Mark, opinions are like assholes, and while we both got one each, they turn
out to be somewhat different (THAT is a relief!) :-)
I don't hear NEARLY as much difference between woods and body styles as the
guitar sales guys say there is. When an all laminated maple hollow body with a
maple center block and neck sounds almost EXACTLY like a Paul which has a
mahogany neck and 90 percent mahogany body, I ain't buyin' that story anymore.
I think other things make for the differences in sound. Pickups are not identical
in PAF styles even though they have the same caps. Electronics differ in the
various models. I can get a Paul to sound very like a hollowbody just by tweaking
tone controls and adding some reverb. All of a sudden, I got a Jazz Guitar!
Throw on some serious pedals and I'm shredding, baby!
Throw on a 30 way, 1/3 band octave equalizer and I can get STRAT tone!
True, the wood DOES make a difference -- in durability, in the ability to resist
dings, and, ultimately, it has to be solid and dense beyond a certain point to
stand up to the string tension and not lose sustain. I heard someone who got
a balsawood guitar once, and, yes, it sounded like shit because it was just a
light, loose, sloppy wood.
I think once you're at basswood or better, the main difference is that better woods
go with better electronics and more careful workmanship. A more carefully made
guitar, with better base materials, will have more character than a cheap hack
job.
The rest can be done with really small tweaks in equalization. Big tweaks in
equalization can make a Mex Strat sound like a hollowbody jazz machine (apart
from latent hum, of course) if you throw some reverb on it.
This is a considered opinion, but one you might consider.
The string vibration patterns are largely the same. What the woods will help
amplify or mute out can be changed with equalization. What counts most, and
is ignored the most, is the bridge, which actually bears on the string,
and affects its tonal characteristics the most!
There just isn't enough energy in a guitar string, on a solid bridge setup like a
Paul, or a Strat, to move the mass and pick up all that much from the wood.
Check it out.
By the way, if your reply was a flame, it was a pretty cool one. :-)
Teleologist
Romeo <ro...@anet-dfw.com> wrote in article
<5iq65p$3...@news1.anet-chi.com>...
> Where did you get your info? Light woods generally considered better?
Bull.
> Quite the opposite! I should know...i play basswood guitars and have
gotten
> plenty of flames for this(basswood is very light). Everyone I know
considers
> heavier guitars to have more sustain. and better tone(I dont necessarilly
> agree). The wood debate is right up there with the string gauge
> debate....most everyone usually says the heavier the better.
>
My 'upsidasium' swamp ash Tele sustains almost forever! IMHO the amount of
distortion being used makes a big difference. Thru 2 Rats, a Distortion+,
and a Tube Screamer(all at once) into a cranked Marshall 900, any 2 Strats
will sound pretty much the same<g>!
What I've found is that heavier guitars tend to emphasize fundamentals &
attenuate overtones and harmonics - therefore shredders tend to favor them,
because through a very distorted amp or a lot of processors or pedals they
sustain 'the note' for a long time. In this case, overtones & harmonics
just get in the way and muddy up the sound. Basswood doesn't sustain quite
as well as some other heavy woods, but is cheaper and also emphasizes
fundamentals well. IMHO Fender Lace Sensors work well for very distorted
and processed sounds for the same reasons.
Lighter guitars made from swamp ash, alder, (and the semi-hollow bodies)
have more complex overtones & harmonics that become apparent the cleaner
you play. Here, the added overtones and harmonics make the sound richer &
less sterile sounding.
Lotus Major Domo
Ok.
>
> with even more respect due, "huge difference" is somewhat open to
> interpretation. Certainly wood variety makes a bigger difference than,
> say, paint color or what kind of batteries you put in your pedals, but an
> ash Strat and a poplar Strat through a tubescreamer and a fender twin
will
> sound pretty damn similar to most people.
>
> Ulysses
>
all Rosewood Tele compared to a swamp ash one. A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
What about an Mahogany guitar with a rosewood board and humbuckers
compared to an Ash/poplar guitar with a maple board with humbuckers.
LMD
Mike Rejsa
To add to your knowledge base:
The ash used in 70's Fenders was what is called hard ash, it is heavier
than the 'swamp ash' used in the 50's Telecasters. Swamp ash comes from
the lower section of an ash tree grown in wet conditions; it is light
weight and very 'musical' i.e. resonant. *This* is the ash that people
make a big deal about.
I have a feeling (no direct experience) that the basswood and poplar
are pretty similar to alder in sound.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mi...@primenet.com
<This signature intentionally left blank>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Slauson
clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>
> This is a considered opinion, but one you might consider.
>
> The string vibration patterns are largely the same. What the woods will help
> amplify or mute out can be changed with equalization. What counts most, and
> is ignored the most, is the bridge, which actually bears on the string,
> and affects its tonal characteristics the most!
>
> There just isn't enough energy in a guitar string, on a solid bridge setup like a
> Paul, or a Strat, to move the mass and pick up all that much from the wood.
Well, one thing I've noticed about my favorite sounding guitars, is that
when I hit a string, the whole guitar seems to resonate. To me, that
suggests that the energy in the guitar string is "moving the mass". My
less toneful guitars seem to resonate much less...
David
Jim Burris
>Mahogany Ussually found on soulless, yet expensive Jap guitars.
Yeah, like the Les Paul and SG, those two famous "soulless, yet expensive Jap
guitars."
Steve
Teleologist wrote:
> What I've found is that heavier guitars tend to emphasize fundamentals &
> attenuate overtones and harmonics - therefore shredders tend to favor them,
> because through a very distorted amp or a lot of processors or pedals they
> sustain 'the note' for a long time. In this case, overtones & harmonics
> just get in the way and muddy up the sound. Basswood doesn't sustain quite
> as well as some other heavy woods, but is cheaper and also emphasizes
> fundamentals well. IMHO Fender Lace Sensors work well for very distorted
> and processed sounds for the same reasons.
>
> Lighter guitars made from swamp ash, alder, (and the semi-hollow bodies)
> have more complex overtones & harmonics that become apparent the cleaner
> you play. Here, the added overtones and harmonics make the sound richer &
> less sterile sounding.
Teleologist --thanks! You always seem to provide the most clarifying and insightful
comments....wasn't Aristotle a teleologist, BTW?
If you "distort" a tone than you are adding harmonics--so if a tone already has
a lot of harmonics and you distort that tone you get not only the harmonics
of the fundamental, but harmonics of the harmonics! Is this what people
call "fuzziness" or "buzziness"????
Ulysses
> also, about the maple vs. rosewood fretboard......I dont agree on that
> either...my Jackson Dinky with maple fretboard is a LOT muddier sounding than
> my Washburn N2 with Rosewood fretboard!! The N2 is MUCH brighter!
This is a pretty silly argument. If you played thousands of different
guitars and kept track of how they sounded you might be able to start
putting together some vague generalizations about the effect different
woods have on tone. But to compare two different guitars and pass
judgement just doesn't work. There are far too many variables. Even if
you had two strats of the same model and year from the same factory, one
with maple neck and one with rosewood, you couldn't really tell anything
because they'll most likely differ in a multitude of other ways, including
the number of coil windings; the brand, age, and condition of the strings;
the mood of the guy who bolted on the neck; storage and use conditions of
both guitars, etc.
You would have to try two diferent necks (or bodies) on the exact same
guitar, and put it together and set it up identically for each. Even if
this could be done, it would take so long that you'd forget what you heard
before you could compare. The connections between the bridge, body, neck,
and nut have at least as much effect on tone as wood variety, and are
impossible to replicate exactly.
And even if you could measure the wood's effect exactly, you couldn't
apply that difference universally because unlike metal or plastic, wood is
a very dynamic, organic material that varies internally almost as much as
it varies among species.
I'm not saying wood variety doesn't matter, I'm just saying that it's only
one of a multitude of variables, most of which you have far more control
and choice over.
And I also believe that the perception that maple fretboards sound
bright/rosewood sounds warm, while based on reality, is supported far more
by the psychelogical effect of the color of the wood than by the actual
sound. (I also believe that the actual differences between analog and
digital recording are mentally exaggerated by our expectations).
Ulysses
George4908
Most likely swamp ash is not used in the overseas Fenders because good,
light, resonant swamp ash is harder to find (read: more expensive) than
alder, basswood and some others. Hard, heavy ash is available, and has
been used by Fender, Guild and some others over the years, but not lately
that I'm aware of, since guitarists became hip to the difference; regular
ash has all the weight penalty of a heavy Les Paul, with none of the tonal
character of swamp ash -- it's fairly dead by comparison, though of
course, woods vary. Good resonant swamp ash tends to be noted for its
brightness; alder for its warmth. Matter of taste which you prefer.
Mark Delsing
On 14 Apr 1997 03:09:14 GMT, clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>Well, Mark, opinions are like assholes, and while we both got one each, they turn
>out to be somewhat different (THAT is a relief!) :-)
Ugh... Never heard that one before!
>I don't hear NEARLY as much difference between woods and body styles as the
>guitar sales guys say there is.
<snip>
>I think other things make for the differences in sound. Pickups are not identical
>in PAF styles even though they have the same caps. Electronics differ in the
>various models. I can get a Paul to sound very like a hollowbody just by tweaking
>tone controls and adding some reverb. All of a sudden, I got a Jazz Guitar!
>Throw on some serious pedals and I'm shredding, baby!
>Throw on a 30 way, 1/3 band octave equalizer and I can get STRAT tone!
<snip>
>By the way, if your reply was a flame, it was a pretty cool one. :-)
<snip>
No flames intended, mr. clovis. But I have to say that I still
disagree with you, though I am impressed with your command of EQ to be
able to make a Les Paul and 335 sound like a Strat! I realize that
your original post was not an utter blanket statement, but I just
can't agree with you.
The tonal diferences we're talking about aren't drastic; the average
non-guitarist wouldn't know what we're talking about. But I've never
been able to get a LP to sound *exactly* like a Strat.
If what you're saying is true, why hasn't the industry settled on one
standard, quality, inexpensive wood to make all guitars with? Because
different woods have different tonalities. I don't see many
country&western slingers playing mahogany teles, and I don't see many
(or any) jazzbos playing basswood super-strats. I admit, it is a
combination, in which pickups and neck construction probably play a
larger role, e.g., you can get pretty Paul-y tones from an alder or
ash strat with humbuckers. But, tonewood being almost irrelevant?
You can get variances from guitar to guitar OF THE SAME MAKE, same
wood, same pickups, etc.
C'mon, I've played a Mexican poplar strat that had Fralins in it and,
despite sounding good, didn't sound the same as an alder Vintage
Reissue or and alder American Standard.
I mean, why do you have anice Les Paul and a Lucille? Couldn't you
have gotten a Tokai LP copy made of ash and an Epiphone Sheraton and
put in decent pickups? Wouldn't they sound "the same" with all the
masterful EQ'ing you can do?
No, they wouldn't. The tone equation is an intricate one, but not one
in which type of wood is not a variable.
Yontz Sucre
> > What I've found is that heavier guitars tend to emphasize fundamentals &
> > attenuate overtones and harmonics - therefore shredders tend to favor them,
> > because through a very distorted amp or a lot of processors or pedals they
> > sustain 'the note' for a long time. In this case, overtones & harmonics
> > just get in the way and muddy up the sound. Basswood doesn't sustain quite
> > as well as some other heavy woods, but is cheaper and also emphasizes
> > fundamentals well. IMHO Fender Lace Sensors work well for very distorted
> > and processed sounds for the same reasons.
> >
> > Lighter guitars made from swamp ash, alder, (and the semi-hollow bodies)
> > have more complex overtones & harmonics that become apparent the cleaner
> > you play. Here, the added overtones and harmonics make the sound richer &
> > less sterile sounding.
Ummm... Basswood is lighter than swamp ash or alder...
John A.
[ reply trimmed to alt.guitar and rec.music.makers.guitar]
I say, was that mdel...@enteract.com who wrote?
>On 14 Apr 1997 03:09:14 GMT, clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>
>>Well, Mark, opinions are like assholes, and while we both got one each, they
> turn
>>out to be somewhat different (THAT is a relief!) :-)
>
>Ugh... Never heard that one before!
I prefer "...some smell better than others" or even "...yours never smells
as bad as the other guy's" :>
[clovis]
>>I don't hear NEARLY as much difference between woods and body styles as the
>>guitar sales guys say there is.
I agree with clovis on this -- maybe the two of us are just tone-deaf, eh?
[snip]
[snipped most of Mark's reply, which I mostly agree with]
[mark]
>You can get variances from guitar to guitar OF THE SAME MAKE, same
>wood, same pickups, etc.
[me]
Yes but, when talking about solid body electrics, most of the same-model
variation can be attributed more to the electronics than the wood. Most
manufacturers use inexpensive tone caps with +/- 20% tolerance (sometimes
even +20 -40). That's up to 40% (60%) variation in the "3db rolloff"
point of the tone control between guitars of the same model and lot. Much
more significant than the (guessing) 10 or 15% variation in tone that
might be attributed to minor differences from one piece of the same type
and general quality of wood to another. So, the next time you go to
the store and play two "identical" guitars and one has great treble and
the other sounds muffled -- think more about tone caps than wood...
I'm not saying wood's contribution to tone is insignificant, only that for
solid-body electric guitars the contribution of wood is far less
significant than the electronics (pickups, tone controls, etc). And I do
agree with Clovis that the "gurus" tend to place far more emphasis on
wood's contribution to the tone of a solid-body than it deserves. How
many of these "gurus" even know about the tolerance of caps in the tone
controls, for example?
Sustain, of course, is another matter entirely. Sustain (non-feedback
assisted) is affected almost solely by the type/quality of wood and the
type/quality of construction and hardware. And, for acoustics and maybe
even hollow-body electrics -- wood is where it's at!
[mark again]
>No, they wouldn't. The tone equation is an intricate one, but not one
>in which type of wood is not a variable.
I agree. I only think that wood as a variable has been given too much
emphasis re. solid-body guitars. Perhaps, instead of multiplying it by
constant k=50 we should change to k=10... :>)
John
Support Jayne Hitchcock!
====================================================
<http://www.johnatchley.com> home of...
John Atchley Consulting(tm) -- the Internet
on a silver platter
JacPress Publishing(tm) -- tiny, but real
The Guitar Shielding and Wiring Page
====================================================
Mick Patterson
I've dropped the tinniest single coils I could find
into a Les Paul, and it didn't sound like a Strat.
It had that honkin' midrange and muted highs that
any mahogany instrument will exhibit. I've tried it
on SGs as well, with similar results. Strats with
humbuckers won't sound like Pauls, but they'll get
closer than a Paul will to a Strat, since the hum-
buckers will mute the highs. The single coil can
NOT put something there that doesn't exist, though
(i.e., tinkly highs on a Paul). I've experimented
with many guitars, both my own and modifying others,
and I can state that neck and body wood make a BIG
difference in tone.
I personally prefer a Swamp Ash body and a Maple
neck, with a Rosewood fingerboard. This seems to
be the most versatile wood combo, along with my
personalized electronics. This is for a certain
style of playing, too, and for the tones I like.
Everybody's tonal preferences will be different;
big mahogany solidbodies, maple jazz boxes, etc.
Body and neck wood DOES make a very noticable
difference in tone, though; of that, I am sure
because of the results of my own experimentation.
---Mick...
___________________________________________________________
My opinions do not reflect those of anyone else... yet.
Asad Aboobaker
bay...@cs.utexas.edu (Roberto Bayardo) wrote:
>Finally, the Strat has a bolt-on neck vs. the Gibson's
>neck through. Bolt on's emphasize upper harmonics more than
>neck-through guitars.
Les Pauls (and SG's) are not neck-through, they have glued-in necks.
This seems to be a common misconception (my guitar player thought so
too...until I corrected him!)
Asad
remove "x"s to mail
Roberto Bayardo
In article <ra3035-1604...@saint.sps.mot.com>,
Mick Patterson <ra3...@sps.mot.com> wrote:
>I've dropped the tinniest single coils I could find
>into a Les Paul, and it didn't sound like a Strat.
Of course not. But this does not in any way prove it's due due to the
differences in body and neck wood. Though I believe the differences in
body wood do indeed account for some of the tonal differences, even
given equivalent electronics I think there are more important factors.
First of all, Strats have a plastic pickguard covering a large front
route which creates a resonation chamber. Tom Anderson among others
acknowledge that this has a large effect on tone, adding more
harmonics to the fundamental. This is why Tom Anderson offers the
"classic" series as well as the "super strat" rear-routed versions.
Another important difference is the scale length. The longer
scale-length of the Strat gives it a punchier sound from increased
string tension. Finally, the Strat has a bolt-on neck vs. the Gibson's
neck through. Bolt on's emphasize upper harmonics more than
neck-through guitars.
>It had that honkin' midrange and muted highs that
>any mahogany instrument will exhibit. I've tried it
>on SGs as well, with similar results. Strats with
>humbuckers won't sound like Pauls, but they'll get
>closer than a Paul will to a Strat, since the hum-
>buckers will mute the highs. The single coil can
>NOT put something there that doesn't exist, though
>(i.e., tinkly highs on a Paul). I've experimented
p>with many guitars, both my own and modifying others,
Nathan H Shacochis
> Swamp ash a very ringy, bright sound.
> Alder pretty similar to swamp ash.
>
> Where are you going to get swamp ash from these days?
> Don't forget the neck.The neck probably contributes a lot more to the
> sound than the body.Ie;maple crisp and bright, rosewood thicker and
> darker.Don't pay too much attention to the bullshit you read in mags etc.
> I have had heavy guitars that sounded great and light ones that sounded
> crap.(Light generally considered better).A lot of the nice tones you here
> from older fender guitars is because of the way the wood has aged.
I've heard just the opposite: solid guitars have the best tone and
hollow-bodied guitars are lesser quality. I always thought that when
they hollowed the body out, they did it to make the guitar lighter, and it
took away from rich tonal qualities. I play a solid Gibson Explorer, and
I couldn't be more pleased with the tone. Personally, I've played hollow
Fenders and couldn't stand them. I didn't mind the solid strats as much
as their hollow cousins. I'm also pleased with the Mahogany wood, it's
heavy, but I've always believed it to be high quality-- my guitar has
fewer serious dings and chips than the cheaper woods which get dinged-up
easily. Just my 2-cents.
Nate
Mark Delsing
On Wed, 16 Apr 97 16:21:16 GMT, him...@johnatchley.com (John A.)
wrote:
>I'm not saying wood's contribution to tone is insignificant, only that for
>solid-body electric guitars the contribution of wood is far less
>significant than the electronics (pickups, tone controls, etc). And I do
>agree with Clovis that the "gurus" tend to place far more emphasis on
>wood's contribution to the tone of a solid-body than it deserves. How
>many of these "gurus" even know about the tolerance of caps in the tone
>controls, for example?
I agree, and I tried to make that clear in my original post. Mr.
Atchley, you are the guitelectronics guru, and I would never deny your
assertions! :) If anyone out there hasn't been to www.jonatchley.com,
GO!
Pickups do make the biggest difference.
>Sustain, of course, is another matter entirely. Sustain (non-feedback
>assisted) is affected almost solely by the type/quality of wood and the
>type/quality of construction and hardware. And, for acoustics and maybe
>even hollow-body electrics -- wood is where it's at!
Amen.
>[mark again]
>>No, they wouldn't. The tone equation is an intricate one, but not one
>>in which type of wood is not a variable.
>
>I agree. I only think that wood as a variable has been given too much
>emphasis re. solid-body guitars. Perhaps, instead of multiplying it by
>constant k=50 we should change to k=10... :>)
Aww, math! Why'd ya have to ruin it with math! :p
Andrew McWhirter
Nathan H Shacochis wrote:
<snip>
> Personally, I've played hollow
> Fenders and couldn't stand them. I didn't mind the solid strats as much
> as their hollow cousins.
Are you saying that there has been a hollowed strat? I know there were
the Thinline Teles, but a strat? Please clarify....
Regards
Andrew
clo...@wartech.com
Resonance and sustain are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL! The more resonance you
get, ala acoustic guitar, the less sustain, and the heavier a string you need to get
that sustain. The less the bridge transmits energy into the body, the more sustain
you get. Pickups also play a role in this insofar as those strings have to move
electrons around; the input impedance of the amp and cable is also, therefore,
important.
If people WANT to believe that wood makes this huge, huge difference in electric
guitars, where the body can, by definition, contribute nearly zip to what the
pickups see, well, go for it.
My primary example continues to stand; solid Paul body versus laminated maple
hollowbody -- and the sound is virtually identical, DESPITE having a hollowbody.
This makes way more difference in body resonance than, say, Mahogany versus
basswood.
Get what you like, but be careful you're not being sold snake oil.
clo...@wartech.com
In <3353f158....@news.enteract.com>, mdel...@enteract.com (Mark Delsing) writes:
>On 14 Apr 1997 03:09:14 GMT, clo...@wartech.com wrote:
>
>>Well, Mark, opinions are like assholes, and while we both got one each, they turn
>>out to be somewhat different (THAT is a relief!) :-)
>
>Ugh... Never heard that one before!
I was hoping you'd be amused.
To cut it short (big snip etc), I'm not saying wood makes NO difference; obviously
everything that attaches to the frets, nut, bridge and pickups will resonate some,
and the ear is astonishingly sensitive. But these are only boosts or cuts of
EXISTING STRING HARMONICS. They don't create "new harmonics." Witness that
an Ovation with a skimpy body and piezos in it, which resonate as the bridge does
on the top, sounds like a pretty cool acoustic, even though the sound coming out
of the speaker never saw a piece of wood before it was generated!
What I am saying is that you can duplicate any sound on a titanium body, fretboard
and frets with sufficient equalization. Now this equalization will need to be VERY
fine, and it probably needs to change dynamically with the tone of the string
(now we get into computer generated equalization -- I can come close with a
flat equalizer, but you're right -- it's not absolutely identical -- it works best over
an octave or so, not over the entire fretboard; within that octave, it's great; outside
of that octave, you start "losing" tone).
The reason wood makes any difference at all, and it is fairly minor compared to
other factors, is that it's simpler to just buy the freaking wood, and put in the
right pickups to begin with.
My old guitar teacher used to tell me this, and initially, until I did some experiments,
I didn't agree with him. I showed him a Hamer I'd gotten and decried the rosewood
fingerboard as I wanted more of an "LP Custom sound." And his reply was "I'm
still trying to hear the difference between rosewood and ebony."
And he's RIGHT. The reason for the fancy woods is mostly appearance, not tone.
Ebony makes a difference in a Clarinet because it is generating the sound directly,
and it is very thin and light compared to the sonic energies, and has a great
influence in which harmonics are amped and which are cut.
But we're dealing with bare milliwatts of energy in an electric guitar string, and
it is not being amplified or muted by the body much; if it were -- the sustain would
absolutely suck; the whole tone would die away in a second or two, because it
would be getting eaten by the body.
This is simple physics.
Wood matters some; sure, of course. But much? Nah, not much, once it is
above a certain quality level. Mostly, it must be RIGID and STRONG. Balsa would
make a horrible guitar; insufficiently strong to hold the parts rigidly. I'm finding
that pickups matter a lot more than the body wood, and the rest may be nice,
if you like it. But if you're buying it for tone alone, you're sort of being sold
snake oil.
I repeat, my man, if wood and construction was this HUGE determinator of sound,
my Lucille would sound WAY different than an LP Custom. And it DOESN'T. One
is laminated maple, entirely. The other is mostly mahogany.
I hear a very small difference between these guitars, so there is some merit to
the different construction techniques and wood. But it's no big deal.
My advice to the original poster was to buy a guitar based on how it sounds when
it is played, in the store, and how well it is made. Wood is secondary to what
any of us really want, which is good sound. And, obviously, the guitar should be
played through pretty much the same sort of amp and effects one intends on
using, as this radically affects the sound too.
I think the whole "wood tone" thing is marketing hype cooked up by the propeller
heads in various ad agencies.
Guitars are a business, and there is some big pressure on by the investors to sell
what is being made, and get a profit out of it. And so are the mythologies born.
In my view, anyway.
If you still differ with me, let's shake hands and part friends. I got no stake in this
one way or another. I just don't want to see some poor guy spending hundreds
extra for something that may not be there.
What you hear is what you get :-)
Regards
<snip>
>No flames intended, mr. clovis. But I have to say that I still
>disagree with you, though I am impressed with your command of EQ to be
>able to make a Les Paul and 335 sound like a Strat! I realize that
>your original post was not an utter blanket statement, but I just
>can't agree with you.
>The tonal diferences we're talking about aren't drastic; the average
>non-guitarist wouldn't know what we're talking about. But I've never
>been able to get a LP to sound *exactly* like a Strat.
>If what you're saying is true, why hasn't the industry settled on one
>standard, quality, inexpensive wood to make all guitars with? Because
>different woods have different tonalities. I don't see many
>country&western slingers playing mahogany teles, and I don't see many
>(or any) jazzbos playing basswood super-strats. I admit, it is a
>combination, in which pickups and neck construction probably play a
>larger role, e.g., you can get pretty Paul-y tones from an alder or
>ash strat with humbuckers. But, tonewood being almost irrelevant?
>You can get variances from guitar to guitar OF THE SAME MAKE, same
>wood, same pickups, etc.
>C'mon, I've played a Mexican poplar strat that had Fralins in it and,
>despite sounding good, didn't sound the same as an alder Vintage
>Reissue or and alder American Standard.
>I mean, why do you have anice Les Paul and a Lucille? Couldn't you
>have gotten a Tokai LP copy made of ash and an Epiphone Sheraton and
>put in decent pickups? Wouldn't they sound "the same" with all the
>masterful EQ'ing you can do?
>
>No, they wouldn't. The tone equation is an intricate one, but not one
>in which type of wood is not a variable.
>
Greg Peterson
Nathan H Shacochis wrote:
>
> > Swamp ash a very ringy, bright sound.
> > Alder pretty similar to swamp ash.
> > Mahogany Ussually found on soulless, yet expensive Jap guitars.
> > Basswood Ussually used on Jap fenders, yet very good clear sound.
> >
> > Where are you going to get swamp ash from these days?
> > Don't forget the neck.The neck probably contributes a lot more to the
> > sound than the body.Ie;maple crisp and bright, rosewood thicker and
> > darker.Don't pay too much attention to the bullshit you read in mags etc.
> > I have had heavy guitars that sounded great and light ones that sounded
> > crap.(Light generally considered better).A lot of the nice tones you here
> > from older fender guitars is because of the way the wood has aged.
>
> I've heard just the opposite: solid guitars have the best tone and
> hollow-bodied guitars are lesser quality. I always thought that when
> they hollowed the body out, they did it to make the guitar lighter, and it
> took away from rich tonal qualities. I play a solid Gibson Explorer, and
> Fenders and couldn't stand them. I didn't mind the solid strats as much
> heavy, but I've always believed it to be high quality-- my guitar has
> fewer serious dings and chips than the cheaper woods which get dinged-up
> easily. Just my 2-cents.
>
> Nate
--
Greg
Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum
--Gregory "Pappy" Boyington
George4908
Just to throw another log onto the fire here, so to speak, the difference
between woods like ash, swamp ash, alder, basswood, etc., runs deeper than
just hardness and weight. Some woods are tonewoods, some are not, meaning
that when struck or otherwise excited they produce musical notes --
fundamentals and overtones in varying degrees. Ever notice that marimbas
are made of rosewood? Strike rosewood and you get a note -- it resonates,
and that has more to do with its cellular stucture than its mass or
hardness. Strike a piece of oak and you don't get a note (not much,
anyway), which is why oak would be a lousy guitar wood. Both light and
heavy woods can be tonewoods, both hard and soft woods can be tonewoods.
Chuck a cheap pine 2x4 across your shop floor and you'll hear a ringing
tone -- chuck the same size piece of mahogany and you'll hear a different
tone. Maple, for example, tends to have relatively less fundamental, but
more overtones, than say rosewood. (Which is why maple makes good
12-strings, either acoustically or electrically -- too much fundamental
with all those strings and things would get muddy; the high harmonics of
maple gives you the jangle, though.) If I had time and the inclination,
I'd love to set up little tone boxes -- sort of mini-marimbas -- for all
the damn woods out there and run some tests to scope out the objective
differences between woods (while allowing for the fact that two boards of
the same wood can sound different). I obviously come down on the side of
those who say that the wood does make a difference, even in solid bodies.
I hear it, and I feel it. I bought an old Guild solidbody from the 60's,
a goofy looking Polara, but it was evident from the first strum that this
guitar happens to have a very lively piece of mahogany. So it was worth
fixing this one up. Many newer mahogany guitars I've played, however, are
relatively dead in your hands.
Having said all of the above, I also believe that the choice of pickups is
far more important to the overall sound, and the amp is far more important
than either!
Teleologist
John A. <him...@johnatchley.com> wrote in article
<5j2u8f$b...@w3.imagin.net>...
>
> Yes but, when talking about solid body electrics, most of the same-model
> variation can be attributed more to the electronics than the wood. Most
> manufacturers use inexpensive tone caps with +/- 20% tolerance (sometimes
> even +20 -40). That's up to 40% (60%) variation in the "3db rolloff"
> point of the tone control between guitars of the same model and lot.
US Vintage Strats do NOT have a tone cap connected to the bridge PU, yet
there is a wide variation in tone between them, despite the stock PUs being
machine wound to nearly identical specs these days.
> I'm not saying wood's contribution to tone is insignificant, only that
for
> solid-body electric guitars the contribution of wood is far less
> significant than the electronics (pickups, tone controls, etc). And I do
> agree with Clovis that the "gurus" tend to place far more emphasis on
> wood's contribution to the tone of a solid-body than it deserves. How
> many of these "gurus" even know about the tolerance of caps in the tone
> controls, for example?
Wood is like fine wine - some people 'get it', others are content to drink
the cheap stuff. I can easily tell the difference between a swamp ash Tele
and an alder Tele(C&W - played clean), even on FM radio!
Resonance from the wood affects the vibration of the strings, thru the
bridge, frets, nut, tailpiece, and tuners. Consider that it also vibrates
the pickups! This is all picked up by the electronics, and amplified. This
is where hardware can make a difference - heavy brass as used for bridges &
nuts during the 80s, transmits a different amount of energy than the
lighter weight parts of a vintage guitar. The more resonant the guitar, the
more of this energy is transmitted into the strings. The reverse effect can
easily be seen on inexpensive guitars & basses in the form of dead spots
along the neck or for certain pitches. In this case the resonance is
canceling out the vibration of the string. In short, 'All Things Are
Intertwinkled' :)
Central Scrutinizer
Hi,
PMJFI,
>To cut it short (big snip etc), I'm not saying wood makes NO difference; obviously
>everything that attaches to the frets, nut, bridge and pickups will resonate some,
>and the ear is astonishingly sensitive. But these are only boosts or cuts of
>EXISTING STRING HARMONICS. They don't create "new harmonics."
1. Agreed that everything is relative.
2. Agreed that the body wood does not create new harmonics.
3. Disagreed that the body wood is not EXTREMELY critical to the tone
shaping characteristic of the guitar.
> Witness that
>an Ovation with a skimpy body and piezos in it, which resonate as the bridge does
>on the top, sounds like a pretty cool acoustic, even though the sound coming out
>of the speaker never saw a piece of wood before it was generated!
I've never heard a great sounding Ovation. Even their top of the line
models (Adamas) don't have as good a pure acoustic tone as an all wood
guitar (Martin, Larrivee, Collings, Yairi, etc...). Yes it does
create harmonics. Yes 3/4 of the body is plastic. Yes it does sound as
such.
>What I am saying is that you can duplicate any sound on a titanium body, fretboard
>and frets with sufficient equalization.
Bullshit.
> Now this equalization will need to be VERY
>fine, and it probably needs to change dynamically with the tone of the string
>(now we get into computer generated equalization -- I can come close with a
>flat equalizer, but you're right -- it's not absolutely identical -- it works best over
>an octave or so, not over the entire fretboard; within that octave, it's great; outside
>of that octave, you start "losing" tone).
What's the point? Start off with a great sounding guitar which sounds
that way because:
a) Good tone woods for the body.
b) The neck joint type
c) The bridge type
d) The finish
e) The electronics
(Notice how I put the electronics last? That was deliberate. They are
much less important in the overall tone of the guitar than the
beforementioned items).
>The reason wood makes any difference at all, and it is fairly minor compared to
>other factors, is that it's simpler to just buy the freaking wood, and put in the
>right pickups to begin with.
Disagreed 100%. The wood is the absolutely #1 determinant of the
overall tone of the guitar. Go ahead and build your titanium guitar.
It'll always sound like shit.
Haven't you ever been to a music store and played similarly crafted
guitar - but constructed of different woods? Go play a few Tom
Andersons. Play one that's made of basswood, one that's made of swamp
ash and another one that's made of alder. They sound different.
>My old guitar teacher used to tell me this, and initially, until I did some experiments,
>I didn't agree with him. I showed him a Hamer I'd gotten and decried the rosewood
>fingerboard as I wanted more of an "LP Custom sound." And his reply was "I'm
>still trying to hear the difference between rosewood and ebony."
Which model Hamer did you get? Was it a Special? A Daytona? A T-51?
Hamer has made a wide variety of instruments, and some of them have
the LP sound NAILED. You're really not going to percieve that much of
a difference between ebony and rosewood (for the fingerboards). The
fingerboard material is of much less consequence than is the body wood
- or for that matter the neck wood itself. The fingerboard is only
1/8" thick.
>And he's RIGHT. The reason for the fancy woods is mostly appearance, not tone.
Not true. The main advantage of ebony over rosewood is endurance.
Ebony is a much harder wood, and will out-wear rosewood. Also the
surface of ebony is usually much smoother, and people find it's got a
faster feel. The appearance is inconsequential.
>Ebony makes a difference in a Clarinet because it is generating the sound directly,
>and it is very thin and light compared to the sonic energies, and has a great
>influence in which harmonics are amped and which are cut.
What's the difference between a clarinet and an onion? Nobody cries
when you cut up a clarinet. <BFG> (Sorry, I just had to throw that
one in). <GGG>
>But we're dealing with bare milliwatts of energy in an electric guitar string, and
>it is not being amplified or muted by the body much; if it were -- the sustain would
>absolutely suck; the whole tone would die away in a second or two, because it
>would be getting eaten by the body.
Actually the energy being transmitted from a guitar is in millivolts -
not milliamps. And you're right, the voltage is not being affected by
the guitar wood. But the overall characteristic of the tone (which is
transmitted through the guitar cord and into the amp) is indeed
partially shaped by the body wood, the bridge type, etc...).
>This is simple physics.
Agreed.
>Wood matters some; sure, of course. But much? Nah, not much, once it is
>above a certain quality level. Mostly, it must be RIGID and STRONG. Balsa would
>make a horrible guitar; insufficiently strong to hold the parts rigidly. I'm finding
>that pickups matter a lot more than the body wood, and the rest may be nice,
>if you like it. But if you're buying it for tone alone, you're sort of being sold
>snake oil.
1. Wood is 1000X more important a variable than the pickups.
2. Ken Parker has proven that a very light and non-rigid wood like
basswood can be used for necks - and still sound great.
3. It is YOU who is the snake-oil consumer if you actually think for a
minute that the pickups are the determining factor in the guitar's
overall tone.
Let me paint an analogy. A pickup is an electro-magnetic device - like
a microphone. They both work basically the same way. Now think of your
favorite singer. Mine is probably Steve Perry (Journey). If Steve sang
into a EV mic, than a Sure mic, than a Peavey mic, than a Audio
Technical mic....etc... would I still be able to tell it was Steve? Of
course! It is Steve's voice that is the more important thing. The
guitar equivalent is like taking one guitar and swapping in and out
various humbucking pickups. Take a DiMarzio PAF Pro, a Seymour Duncan
'59, a PRS Vintage Bass.... You might get some variation of tone,
but not that radical.
OTOH, take Robert Plant, Steve Perry, Steve Walsh, Barbara Streisand,
and Celine Dion and ask them to sing through the same mic. Would they
all sound the same? Of course not. That's like DiMarzio telling
everybody that they'll all sound like Steve Vai if they buy an
Evolution pickup. It's marketing bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less.
>I repeat, my man, if wood and construction was this HUGE determinator of sound,
>my Lucille would sound WAY different than an LP Custom. And it DOESN'T. One
>is laminated maple, entirely. The other is mostly mahogany.
Let me get this straight. You content that your semi-hollow body
guitar made of plywood does not sound WAY different than a solid body
Les Paul Custom (made of mahogany and maple)??? I highly suggest that
you replace the battery in your miracle ear. I guess you also cannot
differentiate the tonal difference between a Martin D-28 and a Fender
Telecaster? <G> (I mean after all the Tele has better pickups). <G>
>I hear a very small difference between these guitars, so there is some merit to
>the different construction techniques and wood. But it's no big deal.
Yes it is a big deal. It is a VERY big deal. Next time you're out at
the music stores, play an all mahogany PRS (Standard) and then play
one w/ a maple cap (Custom). The difference is night and day. Or go
play an acoustic w/ a solid spruce top (such as an Alvarez Yairi).
Then play one w/ a laminate top (such as a cheaper Alvarez model).
Those differences are very apparent too.
>My advice to the original poster was to buy a guitar based on how it sounds when
>it is played, in the store, and how well it is made. Wood is secondary to what
>any of us really want, which is good sound. And, obviously, the guitar should be
>played through pretty much the same sort of amp and effects one intends on
>using, as this radically affects the sound too.
Wood will determine the sound. And I agree that you need to keep the
other variables constant (eg: the amp, effects etc...).
>I think the whole "wood tone" thing is marketing hype cooked up by the propeller
>heads in various ad agencies.
I disagree. I see it as a very real entity. However the older= better
thingie that's going around is indeed pure bullshit.
>Guitars are a business, and there is some big pressure on by the investors to sell
>what is being made, and get a profit out of it. And so are the mythologies born.
Agreed. (But let's keep it straight as to what is reality and what is
hype).
>In my view, anyway.
As well as mine...
>If you still differ with me, let's shake hands and part friends. I got no stake in this
>one way or another. I just don't want to see some poor guy spending hundreds
>extra for something that may not be there.
Deal! :) I'll buy the first round.
The Central Scrutinizer
To reply, remove the pluses
Giri Iyengar
What some fellers just don't get is the sound of a guitar *starts* with
the wood. Everything else *modifies* that sound to different extents.
The strings don't hang there in space, they vibrate the way they do
*because* of whatever they're attached to.
..Giri
J.B. HILL
John A. wrote:
>
> [ reply trimmed to alt.guitar and rec.music.makers.guitar]
>
> I say, was that mdel...@enteract.com who wrote?
> >
> >>Well, Mark, opinions are like assholes, and while we both got one each, they
> > turn
> >>out to be somewhat different (THAT is a relief!) :-)
> >
> >Ugh... Never heard that one before!
>
> as bad as the other guy's" :>
>
> [clovis]
> >>I don't hear NEARLY as much difference between woods and body styles as the
> >>guitar sales guys say there is.
>
> I agree with clovis on this -- maybe the two of us are just tone-deaf, eh?
>
> [snip]
>
> [snipped most of Mark's reply, which I mostly agree with]
>
> [mark]
> >wood, same pickups, etc.
>
> Yes but, when talking about solid body electrics, most of the same-model
> variation can be attributed more to the electronics than the wood. Most
> manufacturers use inexpensive tone caps with +/- 20% tolerance (sometimes
> even +20 -40). That's up to 40% (60%) variation in the "3db rolloff"
> more significant than the (guessing) 10 or 15% variation in tone that
> might be attributed to minor differences from one piece of the same type
> and general quality of wood to another. So, the next time you go to
> the store and play two "identical" guitars and one has great treble and
> the other sounds muffled -- think more about tone caps than wood...
>
> significant than the electronics (pickups, tone controls, etc). And I do
> agree with Clovis that the "gurus" tend to place far more emphasis on
> wood's contribution to the tone of a solid-body than it deserves. How
> many of these "gurus" even know about the tolerance of caps in the tone
> controls, for example?
>
> assisted) is affected almost solely by the type/quality of wood and the
> type/quality of construction and hardware. And, for acoustics and maybe
> even hollow-body electrics -- wood is where it's at!
>
> >No, they wouldn't. The tone equation is an intricate one, but not one
> >in which type of wood is not a variable.
>
> emphasis re. solid-body guitars. Perhaps, instead of multiplying it by
> constant k=50 we should change to k=10... :>)
>
>
> Support Jayne Hitchcock!
> ====================================================
> <http://www.johnatchley.com> home of...
> John Atchley Consulting(tm) -- the Internet
> on a silver platter
> JacPress Publishing(tm) -- tiny, but real
> The Guitar Shielding and Wiring Page
> ====================================================
similar tone characteristics but am not familiar with koa. I have a LP
Special so am more familiar with single coil Gibson/mahogany slab
combination.
Cheers
Brian P. Mann
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:03:43 GMT, Praetorian+@usaor.+net+ (Central
Scrutinizer) wrote:
> Disagreed 100%. The wood is the absolutely #1 determinant of the
>overall tone of the guitar. Go ahead and build your titanium guitar.
>It'll always sound like shit.
Heheh, did you see the new "Rogue Aluminator" in the new Musicians
Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
Brian
Teleologist
Brian P. Mann <bpm...@modempool.com> wrote in article
<335d2f44...@news.modempool.com>...
> Heheh, did you see the new "Rogue Aluminator" in the new Musicians
> Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
>
Rob Dobson
Also cures your slice...
Mark Garvin
>On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:03:43 GMT, Praetorian+@usaor.+net+ (Central
>Scrutinizer) wrote:
>> Disagreed 100%. The wood is the absolutely #1 determinant of the
>>overall tone of the guitar. Go ahead and build your titanium guitar.
>>It'll always sound like shit.
> Heheh, did you see the new "Rogue Aluminator" in the new Musicians
>Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
Not sure why titanium should sound bad. Travis Beans sound great.
MG
Greg Peterson
Brian P. Mann wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:03:43 GMT, Praetorian+@usaor.+net+ (Central
> Scrutinizer) wrote:
>
> >overall tone of the guitar. Go ahead and build your titanium guitar.
> >It'll always sound like shit.
> Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
>
Hey! I played one of those in the Musicians Friend store yesterday. It
wasn't too bad.
Chris Gieseke
Greg Peterson wrote:
>
> Brian P. Mann wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:03:43 GMT, Praetorian+@usaor.+net+ (Central
> > Scrutinizer) wrote:
> >
> > >overall tone of the guitar. Go ahead and build your titanium guitar.
> > >It'll always sound like shit.
> > Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
> >
> > Brian
>
> Hey! I played one of those in the Musicians Friend store yesterday. It
> wasn't too bad.
>
> --
> Greg
>
> Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum
>
> --Gregory "Pappy" Boyington
There's been alot of reviews on aluminum guitars in the past years, and
for some reason just about everyone review I've read claim that they
actually sound alot like good wooden guitars. The only thing that has
prevented them from gaining popularity was the absurd prices custom
shops were charging for these guitars. Now Rogue has brought the prices
of these types of guitars down to a little more reasonable level. I
might just buy one of those Rogue guitrs if the price comes down just a
little bit more or if I see one used.
Chris G.
Brian P. Mann
On Wed, 23 Apr 1997 15:31:37 -0500, Chris Gieseke
<chri...@txdirect.net> wrote:
>Greg Peterson wrote:
>
>>
>> Hey! I played one of those in the Musicians Friend store yesterday. It
>> wasn't too bad.
>>
>> --
>> Greg
>>
>> Just name a hero and I'll prove he's a bum
>>
>> --Gregory "Pappy" Boyington
>
>
>There's been alot of reviews on aluminum guitars in the past years, and
>for some reason just about everyone review I've read claim that they
>actually sound alot like good wooden guitars. The only thing that has
>prevented them from gaining popularity was the absurd prices custom
>shops were charging for these guitars. Now Rogue has brought the prices
>of these types of guitars down to a little more reasonable level. I
>might just buy one of those Rogue guitrs if the price comes down just a
>little bit more or if I see one used.
>
>Chris G.
Oh, I wasn't saying anything about them being good or bad, I just
thought it was funny that I read that right after seeing the catalog.
I'd love to try one out!
Brian
Ventdest
Great for those divebombs...
Philippe
Teleologist <Teleo...@Sorry.NoEmail> wrote in article
<01bc4fe2$3da72a60$610258aa@alsnt>...
> Brian P. Mann <bpm...@modempool.com> wrote in article
> <335d2f44...@news.modempool.com>...
> > Heheh, did you see the new "Rogue Aluminator" in the new Musicians
> > Friend catalogue? It's made of aircraft aluminum! <grin>
> >
Boywonder
On 21 Apr 1997 14:09:15 GMT, giye...@aec004.ve.ford.com (Giri
Iyengar) wrote:
amen brother Giri
Charles Coker
Austin, TX
BAND1NABOX
Well people. The truth is that wood makes a HUGE!!!!! difference in tone.
For some reason, lighter woods give a fuller and more rich tone like Alder
and basswood. Swamp Ash tends to give the guitar a more "pop" to the sound
and Mahogany tends to produce a darker and more mellow of a tone. In my
personal opinion, Alder is my favorite choice of wood due to its resonant
qualities. For some reason, the denser and harder the wood, the thinner
the sound. If you dont think so then prove me wrong.