Wanted : actual science in the "wood affects tone" debate

[Halowords]

One reason I disagree with you; Science! Or rather, the lack thereof. The subjective/opinion side of this? Totally agree. Objective data-related stuff based on replicable/measurable factors? I tend to think that side has been woefully neglected.

I think the difference between different types of wood will be much more noticeable when you're the one playing the guitar, since you have that auditory feedback to what your hands are doing. If you're listening to someone else play, the differences will be minimized.

Ever had a friend play through your guitar/amp and then it sounds somehow different when you play? The way the guitar/amp responds to the way you play will influence how it sounds to you.

One thing that struck me, which your post kind of touched off, is the speed of vibration and how materials may, or may not, effect how the strings vibrate. That seems like a place where the neck, fretboard, and maybe the body might effect how fast or immediate the notes "bloom" based on how they reflect energy back to the strings. That may also be somewhat easier to test if we play with a wider spectrum of say a large number of bolt-on guitars (ala. Stratocasters or Telecasters) with identical species of wood and only varying the fretboard material and testing for the speed of the note attack and other measurable factors.

The article "Empirical Tools in Contemporary Violin Making: Part II. Psychoacoustic Analysis and Use of Acoustical Tools" focuses on sound radiation, something not as important in an amplified instrument. I could see similar studies being done on the sharpness/immediacy of different building materials in stringed instruments. I think the immediacy/attack of the notes if a correlation was found based on different materials might translate to electronic instruments, specifically if the neck & fretboard were found to have an especially important impact, since that would be harder to balance out with your EQ or with layering gain. That is not really science as much as the basis for a hypothetical experiment, but I would be interested if there has been any analytical study of different neck/fingerboard materials in stringed instruments and how they may effect the vibration of the strings, the speed of energy transference, and the like. I think that sort of study would be interesting to read about, if it existed.

-Cheers

 

[Navid]

How is that a problem, if only the pickup matters ?

What exactly did you want to prove?
You're comparing 2 completely different guitars, you can't call that scientific...

That could only prove it's not just that pickup that shapes the tone. However there are many things that could even invalidate that conclusion, for example: the distance from the pickup from the strings could have been even slightly different, the distance from the pickup from the bridge could be different, your play could have been different (hand position, pick, force applied, momentum...) potentiometers, cable and jack come into play as well because we're talking of analogue signal, not digital.

You're also assuming too many things were kept exactly the same.
I'm sorry but nope.
Read this.
You have however proven that factors concerning the tone are many more than wood.

Technically the orientation of the guitar in the space and altitude where guitars are played can affect the tone just as well. Imagine for example the gravitational acceleration, air friction and temperature effects on the neck and the strings.
I have had a bass guitar that would go slightly flat if I were to play it lying on my bed. The neck would bend, even just a little, causing it to effectively sound different.

Again, if somebody wants to speak of scientific evidence, I'd like he at least knew this (It's the same link above mentioned)

 

[shanejohnson02]

Here's what I propose for the "science" of this topic:

So far, all of the testing that I've seen online relies on the listener to judge, and puts those results forward as evidence that tone wood does / does not make a difference, depending on the results, audience, and hoped-for outcome.

Let someone try this method out:
First, we need to establish the (fairly obvious) fact that different wood species resonate with different peak frequencies. This should be fairly easy. A controlled striker mechanism that hits with the same force, striking a slab of wood in the same spot (measured out to the nearest 1/8"). Attach a piezoelectric transducer to it, and record the waveforms. Do each piece several times to achieve an average, and boom. There's your first result.

Now we would need to apply those results (if they are indeed useful) to the guitar as an instrument. A simple one-string rig that can be repeatedly clamped onto the wooden slabs would be ideal, although I'm not sure how you would achieve this. Two transducers would be needed here: one at the bridge to record the string vibration as directly as possible, and one on the slab of wood itself. This would let you see how the wood and string waveforms interact with each other. The same striking machine could be used piano-style to strike the string. At this point, it's still acoustic.

Finally, add the pickups. Start off with a single kind of pickup on all of the slab-guitars (preferably the same pickup re-installed each time). Record the DI waveform from the pickup ONLY, to see if the wood actually changes anything. Then, just for grins, try swapping different kinds of pickups to determine if the difference in woods is as great as the difference in pickups.

So....does anyone want to give me a research grant?

 

[redstone]

@navid

Well it was my goal, to show the whole guitar has a significant impact, since some people here still believe only pickups and strings matter.

The way I pick and the pickup placement were similar enough to make no difference. It wasn't strictly identical but any seasoned guitarist knows it wasn't necessary, and that such a major difference doesn't come from the hardware disparities, or the shape (both superstrats). The woods and joints are to blame.

Scientific studies will never ever be accurate enough if you don't want them to be accurate enough. What if the pick wasn't exactly the same, what if the molecular structure of the coil wires have been altered, what if the magnet has been degaussed, what if the truss rod isn't exactly set the same, what if the glue... etc etc.

 

[Halowords]

Well it was my goal, to show the whole guitar has a significant impact, since some people here still believe only pickups and strings matter.

Who is saying that? You can believe wood plays no difference (virtually or actually), yet think construction, scale, amp/guitar settings, etc. still play a role.

The way I pick and the pickup placement were similar enough to make no difference. It wasn't strictly identical but any seasoned guitarist knows it wasn't necessary, and that such a major difference doesn't come from the hardware disparities, or the shape (both superstrats). The woods and joints are to blame.

You are presupposing an awful lot. Maybe you are right. However, a two-guitar sample played by one person on their own and demo'd through computer speakers done online is not really definitive scientific proof.

Scientific studies will never ever be accurate enough if you don't want them to be accurate enough. What if the pick wasn't exactly the same, what if the molecular structure of the coil wires have been altered, what if the magnet has been degaussed, what if the truss rod isn't exactly set the same, what if the glue... etc etc.

I disagree. Once you account for standard deviations and have a large enough sampling, complete with scientific equipment to measure these things, you really quiet all those concerns. A mechanical picking (ideally) using the same style of picks (you can test for deviations in the thickness, flexibility, etc.) and get the pickups/wiring/construction/etc. as close as possible given the sheer physics and equipment available. A proper scientific study is going to quell a lot of the arguments. A shoddy study can really fall to pieces under scrutiny.

If the results are consistent and you are arguing the results do not matter over some hypothetical molecular deviations in magnets of the same model of pickup without any proof that exists, that would seem a pretty shite argument.

-Cheers

 

[redstone]

Who is saying that?

shikamaru ?

You are presupposing an awful lot. Maybe you are right.

It would be more reasonable to think I was close enough, my humble advice.

I disagree. Once you account for standard deviations and have a large enough sampling, complete with scientific equipment to measure these things, you really quiet all those concerns. A mechanical picking (ideally) using the same style of picks (you can test for deviations in the thickness, flexibility, etc.) and get the pickups/wiring/construction/etc. as close as possible given the sheer physics and equipment available. A proper scientific study is going to quell a lot of the arguments. A shoddy study can really fall to pieces under scrutiny.

If the results are consistent and you are arguing the results do not matter over some hypothetical molecular deviations in magnets of the same model of pickup without any proof that exists, that would seem a pretty shite argument.

-Cheers

We already know that the interaction between strings and wood vibrations must impact the string vibrations. Basic knowledge.

So with a scientific study, we would measure it. Oh that's great, it's quantified, look at that diagram, there are consistent differences - we can even check which part of the wood has the most influence -. But are they significant enough ? That's the issue Martin Schleske pointed out in its conclusion.

It will be up to you to hear if it's significant enough to be taken into account, if the audible differences between woods are proportional to what you measured and whether or not it makes a significant difference vs the rest of the guitar.

You can guess that I'd like to prove that wood matters, scientifically and all, but in the end I would give you a diagram and you would hear nothing. I would tell you that both neck woods sounded "very different", and you would hear nothing. I would record it with 4 condenser mics and that wouldn't be relevant enough.

 

[Halowords]

shikamaru ?

He also said this:

I do believe construction matters though. I mean, where you place a pickup for instance,

It would be more reasonable to think I was close enough, my humble advice.

With only two guitars, and not identical ones, you have at best a case study of two non-identical guitars under less-than-sterile environments, so to speak. That is the whole purpose of science; to remove unwanted variables.

We already know that the interaction between strings and wood vibrations must impact the string vibrations. Basic knowledge.

So with a scientific study, we would measure it. Oh that's great, it's quantified, look at that diagram, there are consistent differences - we can even check which part of the wood has the most influence -. But are they significant enough ? That's the issue Martin Schleske pointed out in its conclusion.

It will be up to you to hear if it's significant enough to be taken into account, if the audible differences between woods are proportional to what you measured and whether or not it makes a significant difference vs the rest of the guitar.

You can guess that I'd like to prove that wood matters, scientifically and all, but in the end I would give you a diagram and you would hear nothing. I would tell you that both neck woods sounded "very different", and you would hear nothing. I would record it with 4 condenser mics and that wouldn't be relevant enough.

Well, with a proper experiment we could find out just how much recordable variances there were. We can already tell at which point humans can hear certain sounds within reason, so it would not be entirely guesswork. And there will always be a subjective element even if something IS registrable. At least with science, we could tell to some extent what is measurably there. How the individual perceived that is going to be dependent on the person listening. Still, if ultra-sensitive sound equipment is unable to register some difference, you have to look elsewhere as far as where these preferences and biases are coming from.

-Cheers

 

[Ajb667]

My guitar teacher owns two basses that are exactly the same, and made from the same tree, and they sound totally different.



That's all I can add to this, since I know next to nothing about this subject

 

[jwade]

I have no actual 'science' to back this up, but merely personal observation. Three guys making Telecasters at the same time at school, used the same machines, same glue, same fret wire, same bridges from Stewmac, same Gotoh tuners, different woods. The result is three drastically different sounding guitars.

1. Cherry wood body/neck, ebony fingerboard.
2. Walnut body/neck, birdseye maple fingerboard.
3. walnut body, maple neck, rosewood fingerboard.

#3 is incredibly dark, percussive, and sounds great for strumming full chords. #2 is much brighter and has a lot more treble emphasized, and is very well-suited to lead work/fingerpicking. #1 is much warmer than either 2 or 3, sounds 'rounder' and is great for bluesy riffing.

All of these observations are strictly based on the guitars acoustic properties, as observed in person while playing each over an extended period of time.