The tonal impact of fretboard wood

[dNA]

Just wondering how much subjective/objective information there is about if and how the fretboard wood on your neck really affects the tone. I've had limited experience - my two electrics that i've had for a while are both made of warm tonewoods and have rosewood boards, as were a few other electrics i've owned. My new W has an all maple neck and it's way brighter and thinner than the other two. It's just had me wondering if/how a rosewood board on this guitar might make things sound. Or how a warm neck wood with a brighter fretboard wood would sound.
I've heard a lot of mixed things. Some people claim there's no difference at all. Some people swear by an all maple neck or swear by a rosewood board. I know when I tried out two American Standard P-basses at Guitar Center, I definitely liked the one with the rosewood board more than the all maple neck. But that could just as easily be the individual cuts of wood in the neck or bodies and you never really know.

Anyone want to share their thoughts?

 

[SustainerPlayer]

I have tried the compound radius necks from Stew Mac (Mighty Mite) with both maple and rosewood fingerboard on the same build.

Soundwise I heard a slight difference - but we're talking something like an EQ-button travellinge from 10 to 9,5 or less. And in a everyday situation I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

If you are at a concert I doubt you can hear if the guitarist is using either fingerboard.

There is much more difference when using different neck woods - eg. mahogany vs. maple than maple vs. maple with different fingerboards.  

The cuts, the interaction with the body material and other hardware on the guitar will give different results on two "like" guitars. Sometimes even the same pickups on two "like" guitars sound different.

I think the feel and look ... and thereby the "psychological impact" of the fingerboard has a lot more to say than the actual difference in tone.

 

[Superlizard]

Some people can hear the difference, others couldn't hear a difference if they slapped a slab of sheetrock on there and added frets.

Here's my "tone matrix" for particular fretboard woods - take note I don't play with mondo distortion and I only
play through simple vintage amp circuits (keeping the guitar tone natural instead of heavily processed):

Maple = neutral bass, adds mids and highs
Ebony = neutral bass, subtracts mids, adds highs
Pao Ferro = neutral bass, slightly subtracts mids, adds highs
Rosewood = adds bass, adds mids, neutral highs

It's all about balancing lows, mids & highs when you're talking "optimal tone results" with a guitar (and take that further with the entire rig - amp, speakers etc).

 

[dNA]

I'm surprised I didn't get more responses to this. Maybe it's been done too many times?


What I find with a lot of guitarists is that people only talk about sound in terms of overtones/harmonic content, which is really only a part of the sound. You have to take into account the way the attack sounds, and the way different frequencies respond and change during the duration of hte note. For instance, something can have a very bright attack, but the highs don't sustain very long. Or something can have a relatively neutral sounding attack, but then it sustains kind of across the full harmonic range.

There are way more nuances than simply something having highs or lows.
For instance, I am finding that this Warmoth I just put together (walnut thinline, maple neck) has a very bright pick attack and a lot of sustain. the pick attack is pretty exaggerated, to the point that it sounds harsh and metallic when it's amplified. It's not incredibly thin sounding, but there's really not a fullness of lows - i can't dig in and get a bigger sound out of it. All of which is ass-backwards to me and what I'm used to

what I'm curious to understand is which elements of the sound the fingerboard affects, if any. I've heard people say it mainly affects the attack, but I don't specifically see any logical basis for it. That's why i was wondering what other peoples' experiences were.

 

[Super Turbo Deluxe Custom]

Some people can hear the difference, others couldn't hear a difference if they slapped a slab of sheetrock on there and added frets.

I'm in the 2nd group. 

 

[Superlizard]

I'm surprised I didn't get more responses to this. Maybe it's been done too many times?

It's been a source of contention for some - no biggie.

There are way more nuances than simply something having highs or lows.

Yes, but to follow the K.I.S.S. principle and get results as opposed to bogging the brain down with countless "what ifs" and
variables, it's easier to simplify and use that as your starting point, then work out the little nagging details after.

For instance, I am finding that this Warmoth I just put together (walnut thinline, maple neck) has a very bright pick attack and a lot of sustain. the pick attack is pretty exaggerated, to the point that it sounds harsh and metallic when it's amplified. It's not incredibly thin sounding, but there's really not a fullness of lows - i can't dig in and get a bigger sound out of it. All of which is ass-backwards to me and what I'm used to

Always remember:  your guitar produces frequencies... those frequencies are directly affected by the wood choice, hardware and pickups.

...and of course, your amp amplifies said frequencies.

I've never done walnut, but according to the Warmoth chart, walnut is pretty bright (almost to end of the scale).  So, in my estimation, you're combining a
bright body (walnut) with a bright neck (maple/maple).  You'd need something to introduce more lows/low-mid frequencies to counter all that brightness
and get some balance (or "fuller body" with the tone, if you will).

Going further, you could "attenuate" the highs (say, turn the tone knob down, etc), and this would help, but that will not introduce lows or low-mids, which
sounds like the frequencies you're missing.  Perhaps a fat-toned and/or higher output pickup would solve this.  Even something as simple as "pure nickel wrap"
strings can help a guitar with too much treble frequencies (e.g. the dreaded strat-itis).

The trick is attenuating the treble a little to remove the harshness... while adding low/low-mids at the same time... *without* muddying the tone.

If I was doing a walnut body, I'd go with a maple neck+rosewood fretboard... not for looks of course but for a balanced tone.

But I hate rosewood (my sweat doesn't mix), so I guess I'd be screwed.   :icon_biggrin:

 

[b7string]

On the topic of tone balancing, just last year I purchased a 7 string with a walnut body and top, and an all rosewood neck. I was trying a sort of experiment in tone with a really warm neck with a bright body, the end result was indeed both warm and bright, with great sustain. I am currently working on an opposite build now, all ebony neck, mahogany w/ koa top body. Bright neck, warm body, and I am really curious to see if there is very large difference in the sound, or if they have a similar effect. I'll post my comparison once the new one is finished.

The problem as someone else mentioned is that there are almost always too many variables to compare 2 guitars, even with the same woods and parts with the only difference being the fretboard. You can never account for wood densities varying within a species, or variation between 2 of the same pickup, etc. So its very hard to give a quantitative answer to the initial question. Does a different fretboard wood affect the tone? IMO it definitely would, but to what degree... impossible to say.

 

[dNA]

yeah. i guess i'm just hoping for someone to make my decisions for me, so i can blame them if it doesn't work out.  :icon_jokercolor:

Let me know how that ebony/mahogany combo works out. Based on the general consensus that neck wood has a greater affect on tone than bodywood, I would imagine that the all-ebony neck is going to make that one bright f'in guitar. But having high end doesn't always equate to NOT having lows, so it's a matter of balance.

While I have time to mull it over, I am either going to go w/ a Goncalo Alves neck w/ Pau Ferro fretboard or a Canary neck with rosewood board. I'm getting a Canary neck for my upcoming bass, so if i love the feel of it, then i'll probably be sold.

 

[elfro89]

ok, scientifically heres the deal.

sound is energy that travels as waves. Now, sound travels much much faster through a solid state then a gas one. So when you play a note, that note vibrates at a certain frequency distrubing all the atoms around it. now this frequency is transfered in 2 places that make the most impact. one is through the frets that the string is pressed onto, and the other is the bridge. now, since were talking about electric guitars the simple equation is a transer of energy, from sound to electricity. but before it reaches your pickups it has to travel from 2 significant points. where the bridge connects to the body, and where the frets connect to the neck and the neck to the body, both of which are made of wood. (ussually) so the question is how much does this effect the tembre of your instrument.

when discussing this the amount of variables is almost impossible to list, and the main problem is that every peice of wood is unique and will have its own characteristics so its hard to say mahogany is much more raw and bassy, cause who is to say its not because of some other significat factor. Generally speaking some people have argued that the heavier the guitar the more powerfull it sounds (whatever the hell that means) but from the way i see it, taking all the variables i can think of, the most significant factor is the transfer of sound into electricity and the how it reaches the point where it is then transferred into sound again. this again brings even more variables into the equation. It is just impossible to say which is which really. but i have a parker fly that has a mahogany neck and body and is very lightweight unlike a lespaul of the same wood mostly, now it sounds almost as agressive as a les paul but the biggest difference i can see is that the bridge on a parker fly has springs at the back and most of the sound comes from 3 contact points. the bridge inserts on the front and the screws at the back where the springs are attached too. on a typical les paul all the contact is at the front where more of the energy is transfered and to me this is where the biggest difference in sound would be. Of course im not taking into account the resonance properties and such and im sure someone will reply saying well what about this, this changes the sound of your guitar or what have you.

the way i see it, the wood makes very little difference, I almost garantee if i was to upload a song with me playing guitar and asked someone to tell me what wood my guitar was made of, what pickups i was using and all that everyone would shout out a hundred different answers cause the truth is they dont have a clue. There might be certain similar qualities that appear in wood groups but wood alone will not alter your sound to a point were you would know almost imediately what type of wood the body was made from, what sort of wood the neck was made from, whether the frets were nickel or stainless steal. But i can garantee you someone can tell if i was using a marshall 60's plexi or something like this.

 

[dNA]

Elfro, i appreciate your input and I do think you make some good points.

That being said, I think the argument that only pickups matter is just way off. I've put the same set of pickups in four different electrics running into the same amp and gotten four sounds that were clearly distinct.
While I think the pickups make a big difference, a pickup is no better than a microphone. If the instrument it is picking up sounds like crap, the pickup can only pick up crap.
The Yamaha SA500 sitting behind me is all the evidence of this that i need. It looked good on paper, but the thing sounds dead. Dead is the only adjective I could use. I just couldn't use any of the generic positive descriptors to explain how it sounds. It's not "snappy" it's not "warm" it's not "full" it's not "powerful" it doesn't "sing" or "scream." In fact, all it does is produce a sound very reminiscent of an instrument far less expensive than it was (though it was't that expensive.) That being said, i put a pair of dimarzio PAFs in that guitar, having used them previously in an Ibanez I was quite fond of, it sounded dull, thuddy, and all around bad. That's the same set of PAFs I tried in 4 guitars - and this is the only one of the 4 that I didn't like at all.

Is the influence or importance of tonewoods overrated - probably. Is it irrelevant? No way. If not, people would have been making good guitars out of the cheapest woods available and the best hardware long ago, and they didn't, because i'm sure somebody tried and it just wasn't the same.

 

[elfro89]

Elfro, i appreciate your input and I do think you make some good points.

That being said, I think the argument that only pickups matter is just wrong. I've put the same set of pickups in four different electrics running into the same amp and gotten four sounds that were clearly distinct.
While I think the pickups make a big difference, a pickup is no better than a microphone. If the instrument it is picking up sounds like crap, the pickup can only pick up crap.
The Yamaha SA500 sitting behind me is all the evidence of this that i need. It looked good on paper, but the thing sounds dead. Dead is the only adjective I could use. I just couldn't use any of the generic positive descriptors to explain how it sounds. It's not "snappy" it's not "warm" it's not "full" it's not "powerful" it doesn't "sing" or "scream." In fact, all it does is produce a sound very reminiscent of an instrument far less expensive than it was (though it was't that expensive.) That being said, i put a pair of dimarzio PAFs in that guitar, having used them previously in an Ibanez I was quite fond of, it sounded dull, thuddy, and all around bad. That's the same set of PAFs I tried in 4 guitars - and this is the only one of the 4 that I didn't like at all.

Is the influence or importance of tonewoods overrated - probably. Is it irrelevant? No way. If not, people would have been making good guitars out of the cheapest woods available and the best hardware long ago, and they didn't, because i'm sure somebody tried and it just wasn't the same.

couldnt agree more with everything you said man, if i said pickups were the only thing that mattered or it came across that way then thats not what i ment at all. i guess all i really mean to say is that everything together and how it all integrates makes for a good sound.

i think the point you make about making guitar out of the cheapest parts is a good one man, the only rebuttle i can think of would be that cheaper woods tend to be very crap, maybe not just soundwise but also to work with, another interresting point would be to bring up brian mays guitar, im sure we all know the story but most of the stuff on his guitar was made of sh*te from old bikes and things he found in scrapyards that were dirt cheap.

 

[dNA]

it's true. But Brian May's definitely had a distinct sound. I don't think he could have fooled people into thinking he was playing a Les Paul very easily. But who knows.

Another factor for me is that I like electric guitar, but I just as often pick up an electric guitar and play it unplugged. I like it sound good sitting on my bed when I'm just noodling around at 2 in the morning, and some guitars have been better for this than others. My Carvin (I always refer back to that guitar, and i wish I'd never sold it) was the loudest and nicest sounding solid-body (acoustically) I've ever owned. And it's construction was totally different than anything else I've ever owned, so it's hard to judge anything off it's components. It was maple/walnut neck with ebony board and it was a neck-thru w/ a floyd rose and mahogany wings. quilt top too. Yet it sounded nowhere near as thin and snappy as this thinline of mine
Maybe the tele bridge design and material are to blame?

 

[elfro89]

it's true. But Brian May's definitely had a distinct sound. I don't think he could have fooled people into thinking he was playing a Les Paul very easily. But who knows.

Another factor for me is that I like electric guitar, but I just as often pick up an electric guitar and play it unplugged. I like it sound good sitting on my bed when I'm just noodling around at 2 in the morning, and some guitars have been better for this than others. My Carvin (I always refer back to that guitar, and i wish I'd never sold it) was the loudest and nicest sounding solid-body (acoustically) I've ever owned. And it's construction was totally different than anything else I've ever owned, so it's hard to judge anything off it's components. It was maple/walnut neck with ebony board and it was a neck-thru w/ a floyd rose and mahogany wings. quilt top too. Yet it sounded nowhere near as thin and snappy as this thinline of mine
Maybe the tele bridge design and material are to blame?

i think the majority of all guitar tones and sounds that happen before the amp come from the way we play. if you listen to this video, im not 100% sure he used the same guitar on each of them but im pretty damn sure he did. It shows you how one guitar and one player and one amp can sound so different depending on how its played and manipulated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaIzEo013iI

 

[dNA]

that's some sick guitar playing. Yeah stylistically he did a lot - and he did change his tone up a bit from one to the other. It certainly sounds like the same guitar, though I would by no means be convinced that any of those sounds were produced by warm Gibson-style H-H guitars if he were trying to pull it off. Sounds to me like a super-strat of some kind. None of those sounds have that fatness that I would be looking for in a lead sound when I play. And i imagine if he did actually play that straight through in one take then he used a lot of different pedals to get the different tones.

 

[elfro89]

that's some sick guitar playing. Yeah stylistically he did a lot - and he did change his tone up a bit from one to the other. It certainly sounds like the same guitar, though I would by no means be convinced that any of those sounds were produced by warm Gibson-style H-H guitars if he were trying to pull it off. Sounds to me like a super-strat of some kind. None of those sounds have that fatness that I would be looking for in a lead sound when I play. And i imagine if he did actually play that straight through in one take then he used a lot of different pedals to get the different tones.

sure man, but in the case of those gibson guitars the biggest factor would the the resonance as aposed to the wood type. I don't beleive the wood alone would change the tone so drastically that you can tell its a different wood, sure you might tell its a different guitar but i think anyone could really identify with certainty what the wood was. at least i can't anyway  :binkybaby:

 

[Jet-Jaguar]

I have limited experience, especially compared to others on this forum, but I will say that I've seen pickup descriptions from their makers, which say that they do particularly well with a rosewood or maple fretboard. I'm thinking in particular of Seymour Duncan's Screamin' Demon pickup.