Official Luthiers Forum!

Pickups just sense the vibrations of strings - they really aren't picking up the sound like a microphone, right?

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

I've been toying with this too. I've got a friend for whom I'm building a jazzmaster. He's a great player (actually toured professionally) and has a really nice home studio. He knows nothing about gear though. He has another friend who is selling him a jm neck and told him that it would work great on a poplar body because it's maple with a rosewood fretboard . I told my friend not to put much stock in that kind of stuff because it really is meaningless.

I've got another friend who is also a pretty good player and has spent WAAAY too much time on guitar forums. He's buys into the tonewood argument (though not fanatically), and he's helping me design our friends jazzmaster. We've been having some good discussions. I think that when I finish my current tele build and jazzmaster build, I'm going to build 4 different tele bodies (poplar, mahogany, maple, alder) and 1 neck. I'll record 1 guitar and then move the bridge, electronics, and neck to the 2nd and record the same thing. I'll duplicate the setup (pickup height etc) on each one. I'll repeat the process with each guitar. My goal is to record 2 licks (about 20 seconds each) 3 times on each guitar. So I'll have 6 riffs on 4 different guitar bodies for a total of 24 recordings. I think that's a fair sample size. My theory is that no one will be able to tell me which guitar is which, and by having so many samples, we'll be able to rule out lucky guesses.

better make sure your mic placement doesn't move at ALL during the recordings, thats pretty important.......!

edit: er, nevermind, i thought you said you intended to use an amp...

To some, this may be a simple post, but for the luthiers of the future, we pioneered the beginning of the end of the age-old debate.

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

Not really. The debate will rage on, and as long as companies have deep pockets to spread their propaganda, people will buy into it.

Let's face it, Alembic has been building guitars out of whatever the hell wood they want since the sixties.

So have other builders.

The problem is propaganda.

I made a Telecaster out of Bubinga and Birdseye Maple. Sounded like a Tele, 'cuz it had a Tele scale length, and Tele pickups and hardware.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Yeah, I'm just going to run it direct to my interface and into my DAW. I do have a solid state amp with XLR output though, so I could run through the amp directly into my interface. Of course that just brings another level of complication into the picture (trying to make sure that each knob is EXACTLY the same with each sample).

LOL....really?

I have 2 models I make...one is a chambered alder w/spruce carve top, and the latest one is chambered Khaya with maple drop top. Identical shapes and pickups. Identical neck. The only change is the carve vs. top, wood and the bridge, of course, to accommodate a drop top vs a carved top. They sound nothing alike. I just demoed it at a potential customer's house tonight and they were different enough that he asked if I had used the same pickups. I wish the original prototype carvetop was still playable as that was mahogany and was different yet, hence the experimenting with Alder.

These listening tests where you play at bedroom levels by yourself don't tell the whole story. You need to hear the guitar in context, with a band at volume. Then you start to see the real differences....you start to see how one guitar has a lot of bite, and another sounds muddy on the low end....or how one has huge mids to blast through the mix, and another just gets lost. Unless you have incredibly good ears, and pro recording equipment, there is no way you will capture all of these subtleties. It's far easier to hear it in the mix.

There's not a lot of difference here, but then again it's not really a nuanced passage. It's played very bright to begin with, with all sorts of chorus on it. Even so, you can hear that the second guitar is slightly brighter with better definition, and the first is a bit muddier but warmer, especially on the open notes.

I wouldn't even know how to guess which is which, but they're audibly different if you jump back and forth between them as opposed to listening to one and then listening to the other. I suspect, though, that they would be obviously different in a different context....like stick them in a jazz trio and lets hear them. The neck pickup in a live situation reveals an awful lot about the character of a guitar.

edit: Depending on what part of the passage you listen to, it goes back and forth, but that's because of the first guitar. The first guitar sounds a lot more dynamic and responsive. The second one sounds very even and almost a bit compressed.

I can appreciate your opinion.
I've been playing guitars for 40 years...I quit playing professionally in 1986.
There is no way I can list all of the guitars I have played but I can state that
I can tell the tonal value of a guitar- electric or acoustic - without amplification.

I'm not exactly sure when I aquired and realized that it was my "way" but
I know that it became my first step in evaluating the tonal qualities or lack of
many years ago.

There is also a feel from both the electric and acoustic. One may easily notice
the vibrations generated from either-which IMO is very much a part of my evaluation
of the instruments as is the audible character. ( of course either the audible characteristics
and/or physical vibrations of the electric/acoustic guitars may not be easily noticed by others
and is the reason I stress it's only my opinion based on my abilities)

I don't think that my evaluation of an instrument or my methods are the way for all....
it is simply how I approach MY relationship with them.
It is also the reason that pre-recorded examples or comparisons have absolutely no value
to me in determining the tonal values of a guitar...no more than they tell me of the playing action.

Sandywood,

I realize that trying to describe a sound with words can sometimes be entirely futile but your post doesn't indicate, in any way, what you consider a good tone vs. a bad one. So the post doesn't say anything to me other than....you have your own way of doing things.

I'd be interested in hearing you describe what you look for when evaluating a tone.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

No, not really

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

After playing them both quite a bit there is a difference between the two...but it certainly IS subtle. You say a "lot" more dynamic....I say a "tiny" bit. But....I've had the benefit of spending quite a bit more time with them.

The point for me in doing this was....I had the expectation that the chambers would have made a much more profound difference in tone.....and they didn't....at least not with regard to string energy alone. In hindsight I might have spent a heck of a lot more time thinking about string vibration and how much energy it would take to resonate a chamber...and possibly have predicted this...but this was the best empirical test I could devise. How often are you going to actually get the chance to build two guitars EXACTLY the same...except for the chambers in one of them? Each component on each guitar was built from the same boards....fretboards...necks...all the way down the the headststock facings.

Onstage, at super high levels, there might be a difference. But I still suspect high sound pressure levels do more to resonate the strings than they do to resonate the chambers....in which case the guitars would still not reveal too much difference.

As it is...the chambered guitar is about four pounds lighter...and well worth chambering for that reason alone.

Making one guitar almost entirely from Port Orford Cedar and another from Wenge...that WILL be different...

...or I quit...

...experimenting.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Which came first : The tune or the tone ? chicken / egg argument here guys

_________________
The Shallower the depth of the stream , The Louder the Babble !
The Taking Of Offense Is the Life Course Of The Stupid One !
Wanna Leave a Better Planet for our Kids? How about Working on BETTER KIDS for our Planet !
Forgiveness is the ability to accept an apology that you will probably NEVER GET
The truth will set you free , But FIRST, it will probably Piss you Off !
Creativity is allowing yourself to make Mistakes, Art is knowing which ones to Keep !
The Saddest thing anyone can do , is push a Loyal Person to the point that they Dont Care Anymore
Never met a STRONG person who had an EASY past !
http://wiksnwudwerks.blogspot.com/
http://www.facebook.com/groups/GatewayA ... rAssembly/

Was the first one the chambered one, BTW? The thing I'm really digging about my chambered model is that it's very dynamic and expressive, a lot more so than without. That's the only reason I guessed the first one. Anyhow, it's very noticeable when mine's played by a very refined and nuanced player, especially compared to some of his other guitars. It also seems to have a certain growl to it when played dirty....not sure why but we're digging it, and it's not present on the mahogany/maple drop top at all.

But I noticed I had to be very careful too. On the first one or two I developed dead notes on the low E string....there was just a small range of notes where everything just sounded completely dead muffled when he played with his trio (sounded fine solo, though). I made a couple of tweaks I thought might possibly help, mostly just along the lines of stiffening up the body slightly and stiffening up the neck slightly (slightly different heal and neck joint). That seemed to fix it, to the point that his band mates and and even audience members were going up to him with a big "Wow, what the heck did you do? That's sounds awesome now". They didn't know it was a new guitar because it looked identical to the old one.

Just the other day, we were playing them both in his practice room and we couldn't tell the difference! It was very surprising, actually. They sounded practically identical to us, if not identical, but even at relatively low volume in his jazz trio they sound worlds apart on the low end once you put them in the mix.

I really wish I could explain it, and sometimes I worry that I'll loose that particular "recipe", actually. If I could build fast enough, I'd love to make 20 of these things...10 that are identical (for a control) and 10 with little tweaks, just to see what it does.

If indeed it is a "subtle" difference, then there is no way on earth you could actually tell that difference, except in the case of a gut-wrenching ears-totally tuned in comparison(And if that is the case, it just proves the point that the subtleties don't really matter - this is going into the extreme, where the rosewood fretboard, cocobolo or maple is all the same, chambered, not chambered, Sapele, alder, blah blah blah). If someone were to borrow the guitars from you and record 2 different tracks of the same riffs/song, my guess is that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, ESPECIALLY if you waited a couple hours between the two.

I am not aware of playing a guitar goes that much into the tonewood - it's the CHAIN that matters and the APPLICATION that matters.

I started playing harmonica when I was around 5 and started learning the blues on that thing by 13 or so. In the 70's I bought a Radio Shack condenser mic that I barely had a use for until years later, I plugged that mic into some piece of crap distortion pedal and had the nastiest flippin harp sound ya ever heard! Years down the road, I ripped that same mic apart and installed it into my Dean Resonater along with a transducer pickup and this thing STILL sounds badass - Maybe, just maybe, I don't want sustain on a guitar, or maybe I do, When I limit my expectations into what a guitar will do for me, as opposed what I will do to that guitar, I'm wasting my time. I hate to re-coin an FZ saying, but I gotta say it! Shut up and BUILD yer guitar!"

_________________
"Talking about music is like dancing over architecture".
See the most insane first guitar build: http://www.virgilguitar.com
http://www.youtube.com/VirgilGuitar

It would be very foolish to think you could play a guitar and identify the woods it is made out of by tone alone. It would be equally foolish to believe that the woods used to build it don't have any effect on tone.

Yep.



I didn't catch what is WAS made from. Is that the Spruce over Alder one?

On my Port Orford Cedar bodies (I'm making 2) I'm using Walnut and Bubinga as facings. We'll see.

_________________
I read Emerson on the can. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...true...but a consistent reading of Emerson has its uses nevertheless.

StuMusic

Yep, that's the spruce over alder one. It has the nice, smooth, jazzy tone you'd expect from a combo like that, but amazingly enough I can also get a very convincing country sound and this wild, growly lead sound. In fact the first one I gave him (the one with the dead low notes) he started playing at his "rock/blues" gigs...completely the opposite of what I was going for but it was rough to do the jazz thing with a muddy low end when it's cleaned up.

I wish I knew what part of the recipe made that growl disappear on the drop top because I otherwise like it, and it still sounds great but it's missing that unique bridge tone. It did gain a more defined and articulate low end, though a bit brighter, so it's probably leaning more towards a rock/blues w/some jazz than the jazz/blues w/some rock that the spruce one is.

I'll have a good report tonight. He's going to play one for the first half and the other for the second half, so we'll see how they do at volume in the mix. I have a couple more in the works too so we'll see if the drop top is as repeatable as the carved one.

My post wasn't to say what good tone or bad tone is. I've found that it is of opinion and much like talking
about religion or politics.

If there are folks that determine the tonal properties of an instrument by listening to recordings or knowing
by the type of wood they are constructed of then I indeed have my own way and more power to them.
I also would imagine they can tell how well it plays by looking at measurements of the string height settings.
I mean no bad in saying that...there could be folks that can for all I know.

At the risk of a futile effort...I listen for the guitar to deliver a full, clear, balance of not only the fundamental
note but also the harmonics with good sustain.
An example; Many have probably had experience with a guitar that when the low E was plucked it sound like
a "thud". It was such a bad guitar that it couldn't even generate the fundamental tone (while they unsuccessfully
tried to set the intonation.)

Once I determine that the guitar will generate a full tonal range in balance with sustain....well I can get any sound
I want out of it with amplification and modifications such as changing pups/speakers.
Should we attempt to discuss tone then lets start by agreeing that guitars can be so different that there is at least
one for every setting imaginable on a processed 32 band eq.
One with no bass-one with to much-one with scooped middle...etc...on and on.

In trying to stay on the OP's topic;
With the few builds I've had I can honestly say that my choice of wood was with the idea that if I used
what others were using and combinations of- they may have a chance IF I could build them. They were all
different woods so I don't know how much tonal variances there were and not sure if I'd built them all with
the same woods it would have told me anything. Sure not at that point in my building pleasure.

Thought I'd edit....take all the electrics you can get your hands on and place your ear against the back...and play.


This is also my second attempt. Not sure why my first didn't post...but now I know to copy before "submit".

Well, as expected, the alder/spruce guitar was a bit warmer than the mahogany/maple guitar, but the whole thing was ruined because both of them sounded like they were slightly fretting out all night every time he dug in. Even the notes that DIDN'T sound like they were fretting out sounded MUCH brighter than they normally do. Not sure what was going on tonight but everyone heard it.

The only thing I can figure is that the action on both was set super low with a very straight neck. We got a very cold and dry night tonight, and I think the slight bit of relief straightened out and was causing just the tiniest bit of fretting out. Bottom line...I cut it too close and should have left a bit of room for a bit of variance here and there. Total rookie mistake and I feel pretty terrible about it. It's the first time I gave someone a guitar (never mind TWO guitars) that didn't get it done tonight.

Anyhow, you could still hear the difference between the two.

So lesson learned. When the guitars were in my shop, at a comfortable 70 degrees and 35% humidity, they played absolutely perfectly with an action that was to die for. I should have known better. I let my ego get in the way of giving my customer a tool that made him sound like a million bucks. Instead, I made us both look bad.

This was a rough lesson to learn, all the harder because it affected a customer. 'Twill not happen again.

Lesson learned, I'm sure. When I take guitars to shows for guys to play, I always bring some tweakin' tools, that way I can tailor the setup at the show for the dude.

_________________
Old growth, shmold growth!

Wood is just part of the equation for me - even in acoustics, body shape, size, scale and bracing scheme (i.e. construction characteristics) outweigh the effects of wood - a Dred sounds more like a Dred than an OM ever will, and so forth.

For electrics I do think wood matters, but it seems to merely color the sound, add subtle nuance. I see it as a subtractive filter: the string vibrates, the wood will damp out certain frequencies thereby emphasizing others. This gets picked up by the pickups. Scale length, solid construction (bolt on, neck through, set neck don't significantly impact sustain, despite popular mythology) have a greater effect. And in my experience, chambers also do - with chamber size and location and top thickness playing a major role. I've built chambered bodies with multiple chambers that are mostly just lighter and maybe a tiny bit more responsive. On the other hand, I've also built them with enormous chambers (basically hollow), which makes for a lively, responsive instrument that's easier to control feedback with.

However, the vast majority of tone (other than being down to the player, obviously) lies in electronics and amp choice (say 70% of the total). Mediocre guitar + fantastic amp will provide better tone than fantastic guitar through mediocre amp.

Here ya go! Jack White makes a guitar!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCFXeChX ... ce=message

_________________
"Anything that's worth cuttin' down a tree for is worth doin' right, don't the Lord love a 2 X4?" - The Carpenter - Guy Clark
www.tandnguitarrepair.com

duplicate post

Of course they'll sound different. You've got one with a carved top vs one without, then you've changed the bridge. With those pretty strong differences, I can hardly see how you attribute any difference in sound to the wood.