Tone Woods

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Doughboy's post about thickness of neck effecting tone kinda inspired me to start this thread.

A lot of people obviously talk about good vs. bad tone woods, but is there really a good or bad one, as long as it isn't a layered plywood? 

For example, I have a Jackson USA Select Series KV2, which has an alder body, maple neck, and ebony fretboard.  I also have a Jackson JS32 Warrior, which has an "Indian Cedro" body, maple neck, and rosewood fretboard.  Sure, they both sound different, but that could be because of the difference in pickups, but honestly, the tone isn't that different.

Both guitars have great sustain.  They also sound great.  They offer plenty of reverb, sustain, and all the other good "Metal" sounds.  They both just really crank.

Why does everyone pick on the JS32 about it "cheap" wood?  I'm yet to find any sort of hindrance regarding the sound of this guitar.  :icon_scratch:

Then, just to throw a monkey-wrench into the equation, I have my Warmoth.  Its body is alder, and the neck and fretboard are maple.  The tone has a lot of bite to it, and is a lot more "screechy" than the other two, not to mention, it resonates like crazy.  The sustain lasts for days.

I notice the biggest difference in sound between the Warmoth and the Jacksons, other than comparing the Jacksons to each other.  With the Warmoth, more times than not, I always need to dial back the tone knob...not so with the Jacksons.

So, how much of a role in sound are these woods playing, or is the biggest difference the pickups?

 

[m4rk0]

So, how much of a role in sound are these woods playing, or is the biggest difference the pickups?

Most forum members will tell you it is the pickups..
I however think wood has a bigger impact on the overall tone (or I prefer "personality") of a guitar.
I built 3 identical guitars (and was involved with a 4th) with identical pickups and hardware, but with different woods.. and all four of them sound completely different.

in fact, Luke's strat and one of my strats (I accidentally sold this one) both had Korina bodies, but had different necks (Bloodwood vs. Canary) and even that made a huuuuge difference.

having said that, 2 pieces of the same kind of wood can sound completely different.
also, I don't think there is such thing as a "bad" tone... a guitar can however sound too bright or too muddy, or just plain dead.

 

[Eric Banjitar]

Check out this inclusive list of tonewoods and their characteristics here

http://www.guitarbench.com/tonewood-database/

 

[Eric Banjitar]

Another

http://www.alanarnoldguitars.co.uk/guitar_woods.htm

 

[Patrick from Davis]

There are some fun guitars out there made of decidedly non, "Tonewood," materials.  Even worse, these are acoustics.  But from all accounts, they still sound good.  So the wood is important, all would agree, but the manufacturing is also really important in making something sound good.

This is the Taylor Pallet guitar, made from, you guessed it, Pallets.

And this is the Benedetto Pine archtop.

While I understand the idea behind the post, I think that once the basic path of what you want to do is decided, the woods are pretty clear on the choice.  After that it is up to you to find the pickups and the rest of it to make it a guitar you like.  Lets face it, we are working with materials from good ole Ma Nature, so you have to expect uncertainty.  And if you are expecting for the group to agree on a style or material, then that discussion has more uncertainty than the natural products being discussed.
Patrick

 

[Superlizard]

I also did a test swapping necks on the same body, but since I didn't do the testing in a sterile, scientific environment
utilizing bunsen burners, test tubes & questionably high-level math, it doesn't count.

And remember, there are absolutely no advantages to be found in gear; this is an equal-opportunity
field whereupon everyone involved is just as good a player and experienced as the next schmoe.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I completely understand what everyone is saying, and I'm not looking for an actual opinion on what the best woods are for building a guitar, but more or less, "discover" why people talk about some woods like they're royalty, and then bash on other woods. 

Take two B.C. Rich guitars.  You have one from a more expensive series, and then one from a cheaper series, and while they're the same guitars, they're made from different woods.  What's the significance in this?  Why is one so much more expensive than the other?

For example, B.C. Rich makes a neck-through Warlock, and it is not an American model.  It uses "nato" for the body.  :icon_scratch:  I've never read any complimentary things about "nato" wood.  If it's so poor, why is it being used?

What's wrong with basswood?  People bash it.  What's wrong with indian cedro?  People bash that, too.  What about rosewood?  It's still regarded as cheap, and gets bashed...

Then, let's say I want to order a Custom Shop guitar.  Most guitars geared towards Metal use alder bodies, then go with maple necks, and ebony fretboards.  Why would I go the Custom Shop route if I could spend $1000s less and get the same thing?

 

[SkuttleFunk]

I completely understand what everyone is saying, and I'm not looking for an actual opinion on what the best woods are for building a guitar, but more or less, "discover" why people talk about some woods like they're royalty, and then bash on other woods. 

very few people who post about "tone woods" have ever done more than simply play different instruments made from different materials. as such, they have near zero understanding of how critical the construction methods are to the overall sound of an instrument. case and point is the classic this guitar vs. that guiar comparison. few appear to recognize that even though two necks may look near identical, the internal mechanics and construction methods could be significantly different, and that it's this difference that they hear (but since they don't know about it, they incorrectly attribute the difference to some mystical anointed wood attribute of the instrument they prefer the sound of)

take a Warmoth neck and an Mighty Mite neck both made of the same Eastern Maple and Indian Rosewood, and both with as near identical dimensions as possible. they will sound different, a lot different. why? one uses a single action trussrod to compress the neck and impart the relief, the other uses a dual action trussrod and steel stiffening bars and the trussrod bears all of the compression load when adjusting for relief. there's a significant difference in the materials make-up of these two Maple/Rosewood necks, and there's a significant difference in the construction strategy that achieves those final dimensions

which one sounds better? that determination is in the hands of the player and is impacted by so many variables and preferences that it's truly safe to only identify that the two sound 'different'

suffice it to say that everything in the collection of materials that make-up you guitar has an impact on its resonance and tone, just like your amp and playing style impact that same tone. where most people get lost in this discussion is when it relates to stating that there's some kind of 'scientific' formula/recepie that will lead to precisely predictable fine tune tonality. at best you can form vaugue generalities, but even then the density of the wood pieces chosen can swing on one extreme end of that wood's properties and render it impacting the tone mixture in a way that a different wood at the other extreme would

all the best,

R

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I completely understand what everyone is saying, and I'm not looking for an actual opinion on what the best woods are for building a guitar, but more or less, "discover" why people talk about some woods like they're royalty, and then bash on other woods. 

very few people who post about "tone woods" have ever done more than simply play different instruments made from different materials. as such, they have near zero understanding of how critical the construction methods are to the overall sound of an instrument. case and point is the classic this guitar vs. that guiar comparison. few appear to recognize that even though two necks may look near identical, the internal mechanics and construction methods could be significantly different, and that it's this difference that they hear (but since they don't know about it, they incorrectly attribute the difference to some mystical anointed wood attribute of the instrument they prefer the sound of)

take a Warmoth neck and an Mighty Mite neck both made of the same Eastern Maple and Indian Rosewood, and both with as near identical dimensions as possible. they will sound different, a lot different. why? one uses a single action trussrod to compress the neck and impart the relief, the other uses a dual action trussrod and steel stiffening bars and the trussrod bears all of the compression load when adjusting for relief. there's a significant difference in the materials make-up of these two Maple/Rosewood necks, and there's a significant difference in the construction strategy that achieves those final dimensions

which one sounds better? that determination is in the hands of the player and is impacted by so many variables and preferences that it's truly safe to only identify that the two sound 'different'

suffice it to say that everything in the collection of materials that make-up you guitar has an impact on its resonance and tone, just like your amp and playing style impact that same tone. where most people get lost in this discussion is when it relates to stating that there's some kind of 'scientific' formula/recepie that will lead to precisely predictable fine tune tonality. at best you can form vaugue generalities, but even then the density of the wood pieces chosen can swing on one extreme end of that wood's properties and render it impacting the tone mixture in a way that a different wood at the other extreme would

all the best,

R

Great explanation.  I've never even considered (or thought into the equation...) the truss rod design. 

For instance, from what I understand, this "cedro" wood, which is considered to be "cheap," by many, seems to be in abundance when it comes to acoustic guitars, and some pretty expensive ones at that, I believe.  I just figured, "Well, if it's used on $900 acoustics, it can't be that bad."

 

[drewfx]

One of the problems people have with guitars, particularly solid body electrics, is the cost of the materials used doesn't necessarily have any correlation with quality of the results - more expensive woods, PU magnets, or metals used for the bridge don't necessarily produce better results. For whatever reason, some people have a real problem understanding this.

And many "tonewoods" got their reputation by association, not their actual quality. Thus the cheap, readily available American woods Leo Fender chose are highly considered because they are associated with classic guitars. But the cheap, readily available Asian woods are looked down upon simply because they are associated with bargain basement guitars.

Also, interestingly, I have seen some wood sites that claim some classic guitar tonewoods are "not suitable for musical instruments", so "tonewood" isn't exactly a universally understood term.

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

One of the problems people have with guitars, particularly solid body electrics, is the cost of the materials used doesn't necessarily have any correlation with quality of the results - more expensive woods, PU magnets, or metals used for the bridge don't necessarily produce better results. For whatever reason, some people have a real problem understanding this.

And many "tonewoods" got their reputation by association, not their actual quality. Thus the cheap, readily available American woods Leo Fender chose are highly considered because they are associated with classic guitars. But the cheap, readily available Asian woods are looked down upon simply because they are associated with bargain basement guitars.

Also, interestingly, I have seen some wood sites that claim some classic guitar tonewoods are "not suitable for musical instruments", so "tonewood" isn't exactly a universally understood term.

I think that's probably the largest hurdle for me to get over; the snobbery of different woods.  For instance, if I were to have a CS model of something built, I'm probably not going to use rosewood or basswood, just because it's frowned upon.  As you said, it's just some woods are associated with "cheap."  For some reason, I have a real hard time overcoming the stereotypes about guitars.  For instance, I would never buy a G&L ASAT, just because I view it as a "fake" Telecaster.  The sad part is that it wouldn't matter to me how good that guitar was, I would probably find a reason not to like it better than a Fender.  Yes, it's stupid, I know.  I would really have to force myself to look beyond the name, and just enjoy the instrument for what it was.

 

[Cagey]

Also, interestingly, I have seen some wood sites that claim some classic guitar tonewoods are "not suitable for musical instruments", so "tonewood" isn't exactly a universally understood term.

I think you'll find, as in the links above, that most serious discussions regarding "tonewoods" are centered around instruments where the behavior of the wood can make a sonic difference. That is, acoustic guitars, violins, and the like. For instance, ask a real luthier about Bubinga, and he's likely to say it's unsuitable as a guitar wood, even though many of us in the electric guitar world would disagree. In the case of that wood, it's not even how it'll sound, it's how the wood works.

With electrics, you can get away with murder. Spalted Maple is good example. Stuff looks the way it does because it's rotting. No acoustic instrument maker would ever consider using that wood because it would be nearly impossible to work and even if they could do it, the instrument would sound as dead as if they'd built it out of cork. But, on an electric, who cares? The sound doesn't depend on the wood.

Not that wood has no influence at all on an electric's tonal character, but it's dramatically less significant than most give it credit for. There's too much mass in the body, and the pickups aren't listening to the wood. They're simply watching the string's movements.

 

[llmtelecaster]

I think the whole quest for the best tone woods is the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. You can do it forever, sometimes you'll get really close, but ultimately you're just wasting your time. I did this for a while, but eventually realized I was blowing away time and money and not spending enough time actually playing guitar. You can't go wrong with the tried-and-true swamp ash body and maple/rosewood neck. Anything beyond that is just splitting hairs, IMO.

 

[elfro89]

There is one argument that I've always put forward. If I was to send someone recordings of a guitar. I guarantee they would not be able to tell the sort of wood the guitar was made of. Skuttlefunk nailed it right there.

My advice to anyone is to get whatever woods make your manhood rise up and say hello, the guitar will have a character all of its own, its up to you to feel it and not be closed minded. Above all this though your playing is the most important thing, if you know what you need to make that connection to your guitar then get it. If you have no idea you have not spent enough time playing or researching and might end up disappointed no matter what you choose. I know this for certain, the guitar does not make the player, the player is what makes the guitar. 

 

[Torment Leaves Scars]

Also, interestingly, I have seen some wood sites that claim some classic guitar tonewoods are "not suitable for musical instruments", so "tonewood" isn't exactly a universally understood term.

I think you'll find, as in the links above, that most serious discussions regarding "tonewoods" are centered around instruments where the behavior of the wood can make a sonic difference. That is, acoustic guitars, violins, and the like. For instance, ask a real luthier about Bubinga, and he's likely to say it's unsuitable as a guitar wood, even though many of us in the electric guitar world would disagree. In the case of that wood, it's not even how it'll sound, it's how the wood works.

With electrics, you can get away with murder. Spalted Maple is good example. Stuff looks the way it does because it's rotting. No acoustic instrument maker would ever consider using that wood because it would be nearly impossible to work and even if they could do it, the instrument would sound as dead as if they'd built it out of cork. But, on an electric, who cares? The sound doesn't depend on the wood.

Not that wood has no influence at all on an electric's tonal character, but it's dramatically less significant than most give it credit for. There's too much mass in the body, and the pickups aren't listening to the wood. They're simply watching the string's movements.

Great post, I failed to think about any of this when it comes to electric guitars.

I think the whole quest for the best tone woods is the equivalent of a dog chasing its tail. You can do it forever, sometimes you'll get really close, but ultimately you're just wasting your time. I did this for a while, but eventually realized I was blowing away time and money and not spending enough time actually playing guitar. You can't go wrong with the tried-and-true swamp ash body and maple/rosewood neck. Anything beyond that is just splitting hairs, IMO.

I kinda tend to agree with you on all accounts here.  In all honesty, when I play, I can't tell the difference from one wood to another.

 

[stubhead]

I wonder if there's any reason that guitar magazines, arbiters of all knowledge about "tone", never ever ever do any double-blind tests asking experts or plebes to identify differences in woods, pickups, amps, speakers, guitar cords, picks... anything at all. It's the way they test beer, and toothpaste, and stereo systems, and lots of other things... you'd almost think that somebody had tried it once or twice, and found out that their "experts" can't hear any usefully-discernible differences.  :dontknow:

HMMMMM....

 

[SkuttleFunk]

but conducting this kind of scientific testing would only serve to debunk the great majority of internet tone myths, which in turn would expose the many companies that feed these myths as a subtle means to increase sales thru advertising. if the companies were exposed, then they'd no longer pontificate about their anointed woods ... and this would result in less advertising $$$ to those magazines which need the revenue to remain in publication


the REAL anointed wood test would utilize several instruments of different woods (and for good measure, secretly include a couple wood recepie duplicates to ensure people are actually listening), all finished (i.e. painted) to look identical. line them up, choose a song as the test platform, fire up the band in a live venue with a half packed audience of discerning guitarists who know their tonewoods, let the sound tech work his majic to get the initial mix and then no further tweaking allowed, and then rotate thru the guitars one each per playing of the song ....... have the audience rate each guitar as to its tonal properties and also for the wood(s) used.

my $100 says that if the guitarist plays the same lines with the same pickup selection and tone settings (hey, the settings could be hardwired in the cavity to ensure no on stage tweaking) nobody in the room is going to be able to discern the difference between guitars, and that if there is anybody claiming to hear a difference - they consistently get it 'wrong' when compared to the tonal attributes you see posted across the internet.

after all, isn't the big mix when playing it live the true real life validation test?

all the best,

R

 

[DangerousR6]

One of the first steps in decifering tone between different woods for me was a good tube amp....SS amps are to steril when it comes to tone, for example: I have 2 guitars with basically the same pups, outputs are almost identical...Both have same pots  caps number of pots etc, yet one is mahogany with a wenge neck and the other is black korina with a wenge neck, and on the same settings on the amp, they both are uniquely different...And I know some say tonally mahogany and BK are similar, but they're not, BK is more dense than mahogany, so i'd say the choice of wood has an enormous impact on tone....Just my .02..... :dontknow:

 

[drewfx]

I wonder if there's any reason that guitar magazines, arbiters of all knowledge about "tone", never ever ever do any double-blind tests asking experts or plebes to identify differences in woods, pickups, amps, speakers, guitar cords, picks... anything at all. It's the way they test beer, and toothpaste, and stereo systems, and lots of other things... you'd almost think that somebody had tried it once or twice, and found out that their "experts" can't hear any usefully-discernible differences.  :dontknow:

HMMMMM....

Two potential problems:

1. Unless you buffer and split the signal, it can be difficult do a valid test if it requires someone (even a third party) actually playing the guitar. But that doesn't mean you can't still do proper testing on amps, speakers, capacitors, etc using recordings.

2. Much like in the audiophool world, there's a huge, extremely vehement group of people who don't want their established beliefs destroyed through any form of proper controlled testing. So even if you test something and get clear, decisive results, they'll just angrily reject them and cling to their unproven mythology. They "know" all of the answers even if they can't actually prove any of it. And it's everyone else's job to prove them wrong. And they are extremely offended if you have the nerve to ask them to back up what they say, rather than just blindly accepting it. And if they are in fact proven wrong, they will disregard the proof (because they, of course, "know" the real truth). So why bother with doing tests for the (minority of?) skeptics and people who actually care about reality?

 

[SkuttleFunk]

One of the first steps in decifering tone between different woods for me was a good tube amp....SS amps are to steril when it comes to tone, for example: I have 2 guitars with basically the same pups, outputs are almost identical...Both have same pots  caps number of pots etc, yet one is mahogany with a wenge neck and the other is black korina with a wenge neck, and on the same settings on the amp, they both are uniquely different...And I know some say tonally mahogany and BK are similar, but they're not, BK is more dense than mahogany, so i'd say the choice of wood has an enormous impact on tone....Just my .02..... :dontknow:

it's great you hear a difference ... but can the audience hear the difference out in the house, or can anyone hear the difference in the final studio mix?

and the bigger question nobody really wants to ask themselves ... does anybody in the listening audience even really care?? (I came to grips with the answer to this question ... and now a P-bass is a regular part of my studio sessions and live performances)

all the best,

R