TonyFlyingSquirrel
Master Member
- Messages
- 4,435
Interesting watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svmOQuNC1Uw&app=desktop
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svmOQuNC1Uw&app=desktop
Wood debate, from a scientific point of view, with math.
- Thread starter TonyFlyingSquirrel
- Start date
TBurst Std
Hero Member
- Messages
- 3,090
Offered it a cursory view, but he left out a bunch of items. Will view in full later maybe I missed where he referenced them. Not sure how he discards them if he does.
Reminds me of my first attempt at frequency slope matching golf shafts. It was a ok 1st effort as was technically sound for what it addressed. As I expanded it and was able to model differences that could be accounted and fit for, is where it got some creedance.
Reminds me of my first attempt at frequency slope matching golf shafts. It was a ok 1st effort as was technically sound for what it addressed. As I expanded it and was able to model differences that could be accounted and fit for, is where it got some creedance.
C
Cederick
Guest
I'm a tonewood agnostic, I've seen both good "pro" and "against" proof out there.
There has been video/audio proof that it does not affect the signal (using same hardware, pickup, strings etc, only changing body wood)
There has also been video/audio proof that it does affect the signal (made with similar approach)
However, guys like Chapman uses TWO DIFFERENT guitars to "prove" it affects, without realiizing that the pickups might sound different, even if they are the same model.
It's only valid if using the exact same pickup, pots, bridge and all that, and only swapping out body/neck wood.
There has been video/audio proof that it does not affect the signal (using same hardware, pickup, strings etc, only changing body wood)
There has also been video/audio proof that it does affect the signal (made with similar approach)
However, guys like Chapman uses TWO DIFFERENT guitars to "prove" it affects, without realiizing that the pickups might sound different, even if they are the same model.
It's only valid if using the exact same pickup, pots, bridge and all that, and only swapping out body/neck wood.
Axkoa
Hero Member
- Messages
- 858
I don't care what wood that guitar is as long as it sounds good, or in some cases looks good. I think yes, the wood of the guitar affects the overall effect of the guitar, but more in the way of sustain rather than tone. It's pretty hard to debate that the sustain of the guitar would not be affected because of the wood as that strings vibrate and the wood, in my opinion, amplifies this.
As Mayfly said before, its all in the ears of the beholder.
As Mayfly said before, its all in the ears of the beholder.
Cagey
Mythical Status
- Messages
- 24,425
I watched the whole thing and I have to agree - the guy's not interested in working or playing well with others. If there's one way I know of to get someone to pay little or no attention to what you're about to say, it's to tell them that no matter what they think they know or understand, they're wrong. Another is to assert that you're right and there's no discussion possible. I almost didn't watch it after the first several minutes of him telling me how stupid I am, but I'm not so stupid as to think I know everything so I made the investment.
I agree with everything he said as far as it goes, and of course what little math he used works. Simple addition hasn't changed since... well, ever, and I didn't see him use anything else. So, anyway, how could you not agree? He's talking about physics, not suggestions or beliefs. These are behavioral laws that have been in place since at least the Big Bang. But, it would seem he's living in an ideal environment where there are no such thing as losses.
Mean ol' Mr. Mechanicalloss eats his lunch in the real world. Wave reflections are not only not 100%, sometimes they're only a small fraction of the original. If that were not true, we'd have discovered perpetual motion and its ultra-sexy twin sister, infinite sustain, long ago. However, some amplitude of the wave gets absorbed at the reflection point, and in the case of electric guitars may be considered lost. Also, energy absorption occurs more or less so depending on frequency and how absorbent the mounting point is to any particular frequencies.
Knowing all that, it's easy to imagine how a string vibrating at some fundamental frequency plus some number of higher frequency harmonics could, depending on how it's mounted and what it's mounted to (among other variables), reflect some or all of those frequencies at different amplitudes. That's what changes how things sound.
It's interesting to note that he does an experiment at the very end where he uses the same exact same tuners, nut, scale length, bridge, pickup, strings, tuning, etc. on three identically cut but different species of wood, and records the output of each for us to hear and judge for ourself. Those who believe the wood a guitar is made of makes a difference in how it sounds will be quite disappointed in the results, which reveal that the wood species has no audible effect on the sound! He is vindicated! Woe is us!
Uh huh. And bees can't fly. Scientists have proven it! Too bad both of those "facts" fly in the face of every human with functioning senses of sight and sound. Fortunately for the non-impaired among us, their experiments were flawed, which says we're not candidates for the nuthatch. At least, not for those reasons...
I'm not gonna get into the bee flight thing (see "How Bees Fly" if it's buggin' you), but at least with the wood experiment, we have at least one obvious and major flaw: they were single pieces of wood with substantially more mass in the neck area than you'd see in any stringed instrument other than perhaps a piano or a pedal steel. (Actually, some would argue that a piano is a percussion instrument, but that's another discussion.) In any event, there was so much inertia in the mountings of the strings that the strings couldn't transfer much energy into them. So little, in fact, that you couldn't hear it.
Not that there weren't losses. There had to be or the strings would have continued to vibrate forever and ever, amen. But, since only variable that changed was the wood species, we're just going to ignore those.
Which brings us to where some of us have been for years - body wood species on an electric guitar has little effect on its sound. Too much inertia involved due to its mass for it to do any energy absorbing. The neck, on the other hand, is long and thin. Relatively easy to move it around, which the strings do, by varying amounts depending on the wood species. Different woods are more or less elastic/brittle/dense, so they can absorb different frequencies by different amounts. Changes the tone of the instrument. But, even that is subtle compared to what the pickups can do to/for you. So, those are the biggies. After that we have the strings, nut, bridge, scale length, etc. but neck wood and pickups. That's where it's at.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
I agree with everything he said as far as it goes, and of course what little math he used works. Simple addition hasn't changed since... well, ever, and I didn't see him use anything else. So, anyway, how could you not agree? He's talking about physics, not suggestions or beliefs. These are behavioral laws that have been in place since at least the Big Bang. But, it would seem he's living in an ideal environment where there are no such thing as losses.
Mean ol' Mr. Mechanicalloss eats his lunch in the real world. Wave reflections are not only not 100%, sometimes they're only a small fraction of the original. If that were not true, we'd have discovered perpetual motion and its ultra-sexy twin sister, infinite sustain, long ago. However, some amplitude of the wave gets absorbed at the reflection point, and in the case of electric guitars may be considered lost. Also, energy absorption occurs more or less so depending on frequency and how absorbent the mounting point is to any particular frequencies.
Knowing all that, it's easy to imagine how a string vibrating at some fundamental frequency plus some number of higher frequency harmonics could, depending on how it's mounted and what it's mounted to (among other variables), reflect some or all of those frequencies at different amplitudes. That's what changes how things sound.
It's interesting to note that he does an experiment at the very end where he uses the same exact same tuners, nut, scale length, bridge, pickup, strings, tuning, etc. on three identically cut but different species of wood, and records the output of each for us to hear and judge for ourself. Those who believe the wood a guitar is made of makes a difference in how it sounds will be quite disappointed in the results, which reveal that the wood species has no audible effect on the sound! He is vindicated! Woe is us!
Uh huh. And bees can't fly. Scientists have proven it! Too bad both of those "facts" fly in the face of every human with functioning senses of sight and sound. Fortunately for the non-impaired among us, their experiments were flawed, which says we're not candidates for the nuthatch. At least, not for those reasons...
I'm not gonna get into the bee flight thing (see "How Bees Fly" if it's buggin' you), but at least with the wood experiment, we have at least one obvious and major flaw: they were single pieces of wood with substantially more mass in the neck area than you'd see in any stringed instrument other than perhaps a piano or a pedal steel. (Actually, some would argue that a piano is a percussion instrument, but that's another discussion.) In any event, there was so much inertia in the mountings of the strings that the strings couldn't transfer much energy into them. So little, in fact, that you couldn't hear it.
Not that there weren't losses. There had to be or the strings would have continued to vibrate forever and ever, amen. But, since only variable that changed was the wood species, we're just going to ignore those.
Which brings us to where some of us have been for years - body wood species on an electric guitar has little effect on its sound. Too much inertia involved due to its mass for it to do any energy absorbing. The neck, on the other hand, is long and thin. Relatively easy to move it around, which the strings do, by varying amounts depending on the wood species. Different woods are more or less elastic/brittle/dense, so they can absorb different frequencies by different amounts. Changes the tone of the instrument. But, even that is subtle compared to what the pickups can do to/for you. So, those are the biggies. After that we have the strings, nut, bridge, scale length, etc. but neck wood and pickups. That's where it's at.
That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
TonyFlyingSquirrel
Master Member
- Messages
- 4,435
It's his continued statement that the tone doesn't change that bothers me.
True that a note plucke a 120hz remains as such, but the tone of that can be noticeable on an unplugged Strat compared to an unplugged Les Paul.
Same pitch, different tone.
True that a note plucke a 120hz remains as such, but the tone of that can be noticeable on an unplugged Strat compared to an unplugged Les Paul.
Same pitch, different tone.
drewfx
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,204
TonyFlyingSquirrel said:
Perhaps that's not the best example because of the different scale lengths, but yeah.
As I mentioned before, I don't think he really knows all that much of the physics involved so he's oversimplified it pretty much to just the string.
And i think he's just the latest guy to try to promote himself with his "expertise".
The problem is that he likely doesn't travel in more technical circles so he doesn't understand that knowing a few formulas that the average guy in your circle might not know doesn't make you an expert and presenting yourself as such ends up making you look silly. And of course many of the "different" formulas were the exact same formula with basic algebra done to solve for each variable - but it looks more impressive that way to the many people out there that I like to call "math averse".
And there's a reason theory has such a bad name vs. "the real world" - there are just too many people who do theory badly.
ghotiphry
Hero Member
- Messages
- 1,540
Okay, can I weigh in here? I've got three jazz basses I've built with Warmoth bodies and necks, all of different woods. All have maple tops, just because of the figuring. One is chambered swamp ash, one is solid swamp ash and one is solid alder. The necks are roasted maple/ebony, bubinga/ebony and pau ferro/pau ferro.
All necks have been done with stainless inserts, which makes them easily swapped. In my search for the ideal esthetic I've taken apart the basses and put them back together in different configurations, just because sometimes I'm like, ooo, I haven't tried THAT yet...
My expierence is that it's all in the pickups. I've got a set of Fralin single coils that have that jazz growl. I've got a set of Nordstrand noiseless that are warm and mellow. And I've got a set of Lace Alumitones P/J that are thumpy. Of course that's general speak. To my ear, no matter how I rearranged things, each bass maintained it's sound signature.
I must admit to not watching the video. I just don't care. Throw math around all you want. To me it's how it sounds first, and how it feels a close second, followed by how it looks. That only comes from personal knowledge, preference, and experimentation. I just haven't seen any difference with how they sound, so feel and looks rise to the top of the pecking order.
All necks have been done with stainless inserts, which makes them easily swapped. In my search for the ideal esthetic I've taken apart the basses and put them back together in different configurations, just because sometimes I'm like, ooo, I haven't tried THAT yet...
My expierence is that it's all in the pickups. I've got a set of Fralin single coils that have that jazz growl. I've got a set of Nordstrand noiseless that are warm and mellow. And I've got a set of Lace Alumitones P/J that are thumpy. Of course that's general speak. To my ear, no matter how I rearranged things, each bass maintained it's sound signature.
I must admit to not watching the video. I just don't care. Throw math around all you want. To me it's how it sounds first, and how it feels a close second, followed by how it looks. That only comes from personal knowledge, preference, and experimentation. I just haven't seen any difference with how they sound, so feel and looks rise to the top of the pecking order.
- Messages
- 3,009
This guy has a bunch of these "whiteboard" type videos. I will let his content, logic, and delivery speak for themselves.
Meanwhile, I'll be playing gigs and earning a living with my axe.
Meanwhile, I'll be playing gigs and earning a living with my axe.
TonyFlyingSquirrel
Master Member
- Messages
- 4,435
I do have to say though, it is a bit of a different "cork-sniffery" in an Einstein entertainment kind of way.
- Messages
- 3,009
LOL....new genre: Einstein Entertainment
- Messages
- 3,009
drewfx said:
The old saying: The difference between "theory" and "practice" is that in "theory" there is no difference.
TonyFlyingSquirrel
Master Member
- Messages
- 4,435
anorakDan said:
Well, theoretically... :icon_scratch:
NonsenseTele
Epic Member
- Messages
- 8,256
Well, lately I've thought more and more in a interview with one of the big man on Fender and he saying they blind tested the artists with them ( he didn't say a name, but said "yours and my tone heros ) and said they couldn't spot Alder from Ash and things like this on a blind test...
As I think, with drive, effects, specially live, 90% of the sound is the pickups, at least... the more pedals, amps, much less the wood matter in electric guitar...
Totally different in 100% acoustics guitars though.
As I think, with drive, effects, specially live, 90% of the sound is the pickups, at least... the more pedals, amps, much less the wood matter in electric guitar...
Totally different in 100% acoustics guitars though.
