The reason for tone quality............ A theory

rhythm

Junior Member
Messages
106
The reason for tone quality………

A few of you will have read my last couple of topics about my first build. I had one where I was concerned I had made the right choice about the body I bought and another topic where I discussed whether people had had to sand or shim their Warmoth neck and bodies.

Anyway, my body arrived on Thursday and I absolutely love it. It matches my neck so well and having tried the combo with a tortoise and a black pickguard I have found the tortoise sets it of fantastically. On another point, however, the neck and body will just not fit together. The neck pocket on the body is so tight that not one section of the neck heel would go in (a mild irritation) so I have had to take it to my luthier to sand and refinish (yep, it is going to have to have that much taken off) the neck pocket to get a good fit. He is also going to run his eyes over the fretboard and see if it needs any attention. I intend to do the build myself, but I won’t try anything that I am out of my depth with on my first build…………….. fret dressing (especially ss frets) and sanding for a perfect neck fit might not be the most technically demanding processes, but I don’t have experience to know when to stop sanding or filing and so the stuff where I can cause damage I cant reverse should be left alone.

Which brings me onto the point of this post; I went round to my luthier’s house on Friday night. He is a local luthier called Les Tones (I wonder if that is his real name……hmm) who works out of a shed in his back garden at his house. It’s a pretty humble setup, but he has a big rep in the area in that he is Chris Rea’s current tech, and has been for years, and has also done work for Mark Knopfler. He is more than a tech though, he is a player and teacher of 25 years and makes instruments from scratch. He even showed me a pretty impressive neck through Strat he made, which I mention because I read someone on here asking if it had been done before. He does the works. You get the picture. Anyway, I am trying to convey that I think he is pretty well qualified to past judgment and offer opinion on all things guitar.

I have seen him a few times but he is always busy with loads of people there at the same time and I have never really had the chance to chat with him for more than 5mins before. When I turned up on Friday night I was the only one there and he was just about to pack up for the day, but the guy could talk underwater and I am not adverse to a little talking either. Anyway, 2hrs passed and we spoke nothing but guitars, when he offered me a little theory he has on how to get the best tone out of a guitar and why some guitars sound better than others. It seemed like such a sound theory to me that I though I would offer it up here. I have never heard this before.

So I ask him the question about my build, what can I do to make it as good as possible?

He replies in one word ‘hardware’.  Les goes on to tell me story about how when he was young he served his time as a sheet metal welder. He told me his first job out of school was to go up to Scotland and work on the construction of the Firth of Forth suspension bridge. He said that the thick cables used for the bridge were made up of lots of smaller cables which were each made of a different alloy. He says that the different alloys each brought a different density to the overall cable and that when the vehicles crossed the bridge and caused vibrations the individual strands in the cables would vibrate at a different frequency due to the varying densities and so would counteract other strand’s vibrations and act as a shock absorber through the cable. INTERESTING.

He says, that was his theory on why certain guitars sound better than others. He said wood and pickups were important for character (wood less so, not in terms of species, but in terms quality being less important) and that you couldn’t have a good guitar without them. They must be well made and stable, but quality of tone comes down to having hardware made of the same alloys from the same manufacturer and of the same age. He said that if you make sure all the hardware in the guitar; bridge, tuners, screws and string trees is made of the same raw materials and shares the same density then the hardware will resonate at the same frequency and allow the character of the wood and pickups to achieve its best possible tonal quality without the hardware frequencies fighting each other. He thinks this is the secret of the major manufacturers. He says that he has seen a number of top of the line guitars ruined by customers that want him to install new tuners or a new bridge from a different manufacturer. For this reason he thinks that the best guitars you can get are the lucky factory made Fender, Gibson and PRS guitars which make it out with the best build quality (hit and miss) and have the matching standard hardware or custom shop master builds with matching hardware. If you get a very well made guitar from a major manufacturer you may not like the character of the instrument because of the pickups and wood combo and you may what to change the pickups, but you will be getting high tonal quality according to Les. Character and tone quality are two very different things according to Mr. Tones.  :guitaristgif:

Think of it, if you had a tuning fork and one side was denser than the other would it ring true?

This makes sense to me being a scientist. It is a physical explanation that goes beyond the usual theories of perfect 10 wood etc. or ‘one off’ hand wound pickups (although hand wound or well made pickups are important for the character) and based on this conversation with Les I am going to get all the hardware completely matched in this build. It actually works out cheaper in my case to do this as the tuners I was going to buy are $130 and now they will just be $40. Everything must come in a Fender bag or box and where possible avoid parts Fender subcontracted to be made.

Comments? Just thought you might find this one interesting. I am sure not all will agree.
 
maybe this is why people can sell old strat bridge saddles for $300 a piece? nah... hehehehe ;)

luckily for me, my ear isn't good enough for me to tell if my hardware is vibrating against itself. :tard:

btw - why refinish after sanding the neck pocket?
 
GoDrex said:
maybe this is why people can sell old strat bridge saddles for $300 a piece? nah... hehehehe ;)

luckily for me, my ear isn't good enough for me to tell if my hardware is vibrating against itself. :tard:

btw - why refinish after sanding the neck pocket?

Well, I cant remember exactly why it needs re-finishing. It is just a touch up, he did explain it at the time and it made sense it was a good reason. Something about protecting the pocket finish from uneven finish chipping with a clean filed line that he would retouch.

I hear what you are saying about not hearing the difference, but I am an anal perfectionist (plus I have OCD pretty bad, I have to turn all the screws to the threads face the same direction........... lame or what) and if I make this guitar and there is even one screw in it that isnt the best it could have been then I wont sleep for a month. I intend to nail this guitar and just have it and my original squier I learned on and that is it. If I get into mulitple guitars it will be a slippery slope to no money and no girlfriend. Anyway, I have been obsessing so much about this build that my playing and learning is suffering. I spend so much time reading reviews of gear, researching, reading setup and repair manuals etc. that I spend less time playing and that is NOT good.
 
It is an interesting thought.  But perhaps you'd get lucky with the "right" combination of different materials, and get really harmonically rich overtones.  :icon_thumright:
 
With a name like Les Tones, he had better be a good tech....

I think what makes a great guitar a great guitar can be debated endlessly, and I find it somewhat amusing that a machine that seems so simple can inspire such rigorous analyzation.  All I know for sure is that when trying to obtain that special instrument, going out into the wide world and trying to put your hands on as many guitars as possible is certainly one very good way to find the things that work for you.  My two Warmoths, and the one Gibson I still have from my days as a mass-produced guitar buyer have whatever it takes to get my motor running.  Anyway, I hope your build works out for you, since that is the point of doing all this crazy stuff, to build exactly what YOU want!
 
rhythm said:
GoDrex said:
maybe this is why people can sell old strat bridge saddles for $300 a piece? nah... hehehehe ;)

luckily for me, my ear isn't good enough for me to tell if my hardware is vibrating against itself. :tard:

btw - why refinish after sanding the neck pocket?

Well, I cant remember exactly why it needs re-finishing. It is just a touch up, he did explain it at the time and it made sense it was a good reason. Something about protecting the pocket finish from uneven finish chipping with a clean filed line that he would retouch.

I hear what you are saying about not hearing the difference, but I am an anal perfectionist (plus I have OCD pretty bad, I have to turn all the screws to the threads face the same direction........... lame or what) and if I make this guitar and there is even one screw in it that isnt the best it could have been then I wont sleep for a month. I intend to nail this guitar and just have it and my original squier I learned on and that is it. If I get into mulitple guitars it will be a slippery slope to no money and no girlfriend. Anyway, I have been obsessing so much about this build that my playing and learning is suffering. I spend so much time reading reviews of gear, researching, reading setup and repair manuals etc. that I spend less time playing and that is NOT good.
You forgot the apostrophe in "isn't" and misspelled multiple.  :icon_jokercolor:


Couldn't help it.

 
but quality of tone comes down to having hardware made of the same alloys from the same manufacturer and of the same age.

I dont want to seem too much like I' m getting down on this Tones guy, but his "theory" doesn't hold water.

First of all - Neither Fender, nor Gibosn, nor PRS, nor any of 'em... make all their own hardware.

Gibson makes almost none of theirs.  Fender may still make a little, but its practically none.  Its all farmed out, or bought off the shelf from vendors.  Schaller, Ping, Gotoh, Grover, you name it...  if they can get it cheap, and when they want it, and as much as they want, they'll buy it.  They - being the guitar companies.

Second of all - parts are of different materials and hardness and density for a reason, like strength, ease of manufacturing,  wear characteristics, and appearance.

Third - IF - the hardware cancels out frequencies, would you want it all at ONE frequency (and its harmonics too, by order of the Laws of Physics), or would would want to spread the losses all over the place so they dont matter.  Its the pile of dirt principle.  A big pile is a problem.  Take the pile and spread it in your yard, and its un-noticable.

Sorry, I have to disagree with Mr Tones.

And I've played and built enough guitars out of all sorts of hardware, for the most part, they sounded great, or were able to be tweaked into sounding great with not too much effort.

You want good tones Mr Tones?  As my friend Angelo Meli (Neptune Quartet) told me years back, as he held up his hands... "These are my effects, my tone!" 

 
What CB said....

IN my guitar career I've owned '54, '57, '62 and '64 Strats amongst others. Get a Warmoth alder or ash body, can have an exotic lamtop or not. Apply a maple neck - figured or not - and set of Fender Custom Shop '50s or '60s repro pickups, wire as vintage. Use any hardware you like, the relatively inexpensive Gotoh stuff on the Warmoth site is fine.

While no two pieces of wood are exactly the same and can color the sound/tone SLIGHTLY, plugged directly into a Fender tube amp, the above configuration is not going to sound significantly different than the vintage '50s/'60s instrument, depending on the pickup set used. Maybe a LITTLE different, sometimes a LITTLE better/worse, but not significantly different. Might not have the Mojo or cool factor, but if you can't get that tone, you can get better damn close.

If there is one underlying factor in the differences in vintage instruments and the versions being built today that would affect sound/tone, it's that on average, from my experience they tended to be made from lighter/less dense alder/ash/mahogany. Not true of every individual instrument, but on the whole, on average that's the case. I always try to get the lightest available body of whatever I'm building and have never been displeased with the results.
 
Rhythm,
Maybe build your guitar with various parts of different consistencies of build, record it then put the theory to the test and put on the hardware you really want to put on there and record that. To keep it consistent across both tests, use only one pickup and keep it for both tests.

My guess is that the difference will be negligible.
 
You also have to wonder about this concept from the material point of view.  Assuming that strings (wound for instance) are all made from the same material, using Tones theory, they would all have the same resonant frequency all things being equal.  Uh, not really.  Pitch forks ring at different pitches for a reason.  Certainly the frets are generally the same size and the nut doesn't change, but the bridge is quite a bit more massive than any of the other pieces.  It's resonant freq and its, uh, malleable, that word doesn't fit right, nature depend on the material it is made from and how much of it are there.  It having the same resonant freq as a fret would be a stretch.  If it were the hardness, energy transfer, or density that all had to be in tune, then the wood would be more important to match as well.  The Les Paul would not be in tune with this idea.  I can see how the cables that hold up a bridge would be more in tune, or out of tune as it may be, with this because of the similarity in diameter and length.  The metal parts of a guitar are to varied for me to trust the "resonant" idea.
Patrick

 
CB -
...were able to be tweaked into sounding great with not too much effort.

This is what I see - if it's a bassier piece of wood than expected, fix the pickups. If the pickups are too bright, turn down the "presence" on the amp.... When you're guessing on uncommon (unnatural? :laughing11:) wood combinations as so many here do, it's not always going to do what you expect. So what - just fix it. It's no different, or more or less complicated, than matching the right speaker to the size and type of speaker cabinet (which has more to do with tone than most people imagine). If your amp sucks, nothing else you buy can help you. If you can't play well enough to find a good tone, which has a whole lot to do with listening to yourself, ditto.

Most people in my experience would rather watch their fingers fly around, than listen to themselves or their guitars or their speakers or their amps really, really carefully. We all know the guy who's got a shoebox full of humbuckers, a shoebox full of single coils, a rack full of custom shop guitars and still can't play "Smoke on the Water"... :party07:
 
Max said:
rhythm said:
GoDrex said:
maybe this is why people can sell old strat bridge saddles for $300 a piece? nah... hehehehe ;)

luckily for me, my ear isn't good enough for me to tell if my hardware is vibrating against itself. :tard:

btw - why refinish after sanding the neck pocket?

Well, I cant remember exactly why it needs re-finishing. It is just a touch up, he did explain it at the time and it made sense it was a good reason. Something about protecting the pocket finish from uneven finish chipping with a clean filed line that he would retouch.

I hear what you are saying about not hearing the difference, but I am an anal perfectionist (plus I have OCD pretty bad, I have to turn all the screws to the threads face the same direction........... lame or what) and if I make this guitar and there is even one screw in it that isnt the best it could have been then I wont sleep for a month. I intend to nail this guitar and just have it and my original squier I learned on and that is it. If I get into mulitple guitars it will be a slippery slope to no money and no girlfriend. Anyway, I have been obsessing so much about this build that my playing and learning is suffering. I spend so much time reading reviews of gear, researching, reading setup and repair manuals etc. that I spend less time playing and that is NOT good.
You forgot the apostrophe in "isn't" and misspelled multiple.  :icon_jokercolor:


Couldn't help it.

Kid, you need to fight those urges........... Later in life some cynical people might think you are trying to be a smart arse. Luckily I am not one of those cynical few.  :icon_thumright:

I agree that the theories are endless about what makes up instrument quality. Like Guitlouie said, for such a simple object the debate is ridiculous......... I can only compare it to fishermen and their baits. My uncle once told me to dip my worm in curry powder and I would catch more trout. He used to swear by it and he fishes 2-3 times a week for the last 40yrs so I thought I would give it a whirl. Do I catch more trout now than I did in my pre-curry powder dipping days? Not sure, but I still use it. I imagine there are a million other variables in play which decide how many fish I catch on any given day and I think it will be down to how skillfully I tie my knots, hiding the hook properly, bait presentation, casting the right area, keeping still and quiet etc......... my technique. Having said that, and this kind of parallels the guy with all the guitars in the world that cant play Smoke on the Water, there are usually 4 of us that go fishing, but only two of us actually ever catch anything. The other two might as well play cards or something, because they wont have a bite all day between them.............. They use good gear though!

You are right, the best guitar in the world is wasted on a poor player, but the good player and the good instrument is the holy grail. I see nothing wrong with trying to attain the best guitar possible then I know I just have to match my playing to the instrument (no easy thing, but that is why we love it). If I have to dip my pickups in curry powder to get the best result possible (or use matching hardware) then I will do it god damn it. It may not make an impact and even if it does I may not hear it, but when every other component in the project has been carefully thought about, what is the harm in trying out one more theory?

Also guys, you are free to call Les Tones theory crap all you want and you dont have to worry about bothering me just because I subscribe to it. I am a big boy, I can take it. Rip it apart all you want. Its a forum, opinions welcome.

CB - You are waaay more experienced a player, builder and in years than I am, but I dont see how your 3 points disprove the theory. I am not saying that Fender (in my case I am making a Strat) make all their own parts, but I think they do make the majority of their own bridges and about 25% of their tuners. I am making a 62' replica with gold hardware and on the Fender site they do not credit any other company with the production of the bridge or tuners needed for that build.

The second point about durabillity etc........... There is nothing to stop a maker from creating all their hardware from the more durable materials possible and sticking with those materials for all pieces. Its not a case of finding a material that ticks all the boxes and matching hardware with it.

The third, well I get what you mean, but it seems like you are asking a question rather than disproving the point. Yes I would want the hardware to resonate at as close a frequency as possible....... clearly the hardware will resonate at a differenct frequency to the wood, as will the finish and the ultimate shock absorber being the player's hands and body will play a part too. Since it is impossible to make the whole instrument resonate in the same frequncey because of these factors maybe it is best to try and at least try and limit the number of frequencies in play. Think about a flat pond surface, the more stones you throw in it the harder it is to pickout one set of riples with your eye. With a guitar, the dominant frequency, or the biggest rock in the pond, comes from the vibrating strings and the pickups are directed at detecting this dominant vibration. The resonance of the other components of the guitar plays a relitivley cameo role to the strings, but can perhaps muddy or direct the sound of the strings. That is the way I look at it, Tones said non of that.

What do you reckon CB? Its an interesting subject though. :icon_scratch:
 
Lets say this idea is true. If it is, then did Fender and Gibson just get lucky, back in the day? By chance they put together hardware that worked with this theory?

Also I wonder about acoustic instruments where not much metal is used. How would this theory apply in that case?
 
To the best of my knowledge, as close as you're going to get on "vintage" spec metal Fender hardware are the Callaham Vintage hardware kits. I've installed a couple, one Tele set and one Strat set, and if they actually make any tonal difference it's beyond the ability of my ears to tell from the Fender American Strat hardware that was on the Strat being upgraded or from the typical Gotoh set of hardware I'd normally put on a Tele....
 
jackthehack said:
To the best of my knowledge, as close as you're going to get on "vintage" spec metal Fender hardware are the Callaham Vintage hardware kits. I've installed a couple, one Tele set and one Strat set, and if they actually make any tonal difference it's beyond the ability of my ears to tell from the Fender American Strat hardware that was on the Strat being upgraded or from the typical Gotoh set of hardware I'd normally put on a Tele....

I am not after vintage tone really, I just want vintage styling. Saying that I have an f hold body with contoured heel, so its a hybrid to start with.

Another thing to mention about vintage tone is that original pickups were wound with Formvar wire. Formvar becomes brittle over time and many sugest that this could explain the good aging of strats in that the character of the pickup changes with time........... Again, another theory.  :-\
 
Leo Fender's stated goals were to make a guitars out of good-sounding, yet cheap and consistently available wood; to be able to make them on furniture manufacturing equipment that was available at the time; and to be able to have only semi-skilled laborers make them, avoiding the entire "master luthier" pay scale and shop hierarchy. Then people got used to what that sounded like, then they became "classics."

Similarly, Jim Marshall's only design criterion for his closed-back Marshall cabinets was that the design use the smallest amount of wood possible, no hoity-toity Thiele-Small loudspeaker parameters there. Then, people got used to the sound of those too. :guitaristgif:
 
GoDrex said:
Lets say this idea is true. If it is, then did Fender and Gibson just get lucky, back in the day? By chance they put together hardware that worked with this theory?

Also I wonder about acoustic instruments where not much metal is used. How would this theory apply in that case?

I would suggest that, provided the acoustic is well made, that you are hearing the tonal quality in its purest form. Nothing is lost in translation through the pickups - electronics - amp. I would have thought this would support the frequency theory as with their being less frequency variables in an acoustic the tones are not muddied and ring true. Clearly freqency based upon density is what makes a good acoustic stand out......... dense solid top, back and sides wood definatly sounds better than ply wood models (sustain and purity of tone are there), but you would go for different wood species to attain the charater you want. You cant really compare acoustic and electric on this theory though because as far as number of components and number of materials is concerned they are totally different beasts. Again this is just how I would think of it.

Maybe Fender and Gibson, as in any fledgling industry at the time of start up would have probably made components in house, especially Fender with 6 in line tuners had no other company before them (maybe some Fender or Gibson historians on here will prove me wrong). If you are making in house or sourcing from only one company then you would probably be using the same alloys for everything. If they suit the build then why use multiple materials? Plus the build quality was there because as smaller companies they had better quality control. 

 
Maybe Fender and Gibson, as in any fledgling industry at the time of start up would have probably made components in house, especially Fender with 6 in line tuners had no other company before them (maybe some Fender or Gibson historians on here will prove me wrong).
You really don't know a whole lot, huh? :help:

http://www.kluson.com/
 
Back
Top