|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 18, 2005 1:16:39 GMT -5
well, everyone has their preference of wood types for various reasons--tone, feel, weight, etc. so i've decided to open up a discussion on the topic. and the main thing is not just to vote but to let us know WHY you dig the wood that you do! feel free to disagree with my definitions, but...
here are some general descriptions:
MAHOGANY: dense in tone and also physically, warm sounding, accentuates mids and low-end.
MAPLE: also dense but delivers a more even tone across the frequency range
MAHOGANY WITH MAPLE TOP: dense, more of a balanced range than pure mahogany
ASH: solid low-end, shimmer in the highs, scooped mids
ALDER: full midrange, somewhat snappy tone
BASSWOOD: full midrange, spongy bass, somewhat sparkling highs
LAMINATE: used to describe both stacked slabs and side-by-side slabs as found on neck-thrus made by Alembic, Matsumoku, Yamaha, and Ibanez and others, especially in the 70s and 80s
EXOTIC: koa, rosewood, or other atypical woods
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 18, 2005 1:23:30 GMT -5
just to start things off on a controversial note, i've voted for my fave, basswood, which is usually associated with lower-end guitars (although more expensive FENDERS also use it now). it is cheaper than mahogany and the like but still a good tonewood.
basically, i like a guitar that is thick in the middle, sparkles up high, and is really mellow and soft in the lows, and that's what basswood does best! the "spongy" bass sort of separates the bass notes from the rest, making them sound soft like a bass guitar rather than a punchy defined bass sound like on many FENDERS. the wood sort of "swallows" the attack, if you will. so, basically a basswood guitar is separated into 3 tiers: sparkling highs, thick mids, and squishy bass. and that's the way i likes it!
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 18, 2005 7:17:51 GMT -5
I voted for alder because I liked it the way Fenders are sounding. (even if I ended up using basswood-bodied Ibanez RGs for its ergonomics). IMHO, even though the RGs are very versatile in terms of tone, they somewhat missing something in the midrange. And that's exactly what I've found on alder guitars (including JEMs).
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jun 18, 2005 9:40:56 GMT -5
Now for something provocative: Busting the myths of "tonewoods" www.guitarnation.com/articles/calkin.htmHis review is focused on the tonal properties of acoustics, and this is a solid body oriented thread. But the point is that if the concept of Tonewoods is a myth (or hoax in his words) for acoustic guitars, it is even more so in solidbodies. Having set up and built a number of solid bodies I have come to the conclusiong the factors affecting the tone are (ranked in proportion of effect): 1. Pickups, magnets, windings and electronics (switching, sustem Parallel/Series, Parallel/Single/Series within a hummer, etc) 2. Mass and coupling. Thin necks dissipate the vibration of the strings more rapidly. Trems, which suspend the coupling of the strings in the air, also have the same effect. Mass of the body, securing the bridge with rooted coupling, and avoiding overly thin necks of low mass wood, demonstrably improves the vibrational duration of the strings. Here is an example of these principals using a cheap laminate body, the bain of the Tonewood crowd. This thng is heavy with resin glue, has a funky universal rout, which ever as a heretic, I disdain. "I just finished a build on a cheap laminated body I had with a vintage style trem . Secured the inertia block with tapped machine screws forming a secure coupling to the mass of the body, and installed a beefier neck. Intonated the whole thing in 9 minutes. Most rapid intonation I have ever completed. The strobe showed stable string vibration, unlike the occilation around the midpoint I get on the unsecured trem bridge guitars. Even with cheap cermamic single coils the thing rang out, superb sustain, ringing chords, authentic but stable strat tone." The other main argument against the myth of the "tonewood" is "what's so toney about a plastic pickgard"? Your main position of resonant reflected string vibration on Strats is multiple square inches (cms) of PLASTIC. Are there "TonePlastics." Should we start a thread on best Toneplastics? Leo went with top routs because it was ..... Cheap to manufacture. I could almost get suckered into the tonewood argurement with back routed, wood bases under the vibrational plane, but deep pup routs bridged by plastic planes have superior tonewood properties --- I don't think so. Where wood plays a part in sound shaping is in its inherent cellular structure and density. this plays into the mass argument above. Airy cellular structure with low density dissipates vibrationall enery rapidly and gives the strings faster decay, less sustain, that rockers make up for in amp and stompbox gain stages. Denser woods provide more stable coupling, greater tonal stability, and greater vibrational duration. Rockers also gain these up. Isn't myth busting fun?
|
|
damian
Meter Reader 1st Class
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
|
Post by damian on Jun 18, 2005 11:21:11 GMT -5
Hmm plastic pickgaurds. I think that is missing the point Runewalker. The pickups are more like a microphone picking up the strings vibrations and nuances in woods very much affect this. The pickups dont need to vibrate so it matters very little what they are mounted in. You simple cannot tell me that a solid maple strat would sound the same as an alder or ash strat. I do believe many woods can sound good and I think that gets overlooked but the picups and what they are mounted in have little to no effect on the tone in my opinion, Peace Damian
|
|
|
Post by jdtogo on Jun 19, 2005 7:28:28 GMT -5
so if we are talking only about tone of a solidbody guitar. you would have to test it (the tone) of each guitar not plug in to a amp . the wood of you amp speaker cab will do more to shape the tone of a set up then the guitar itself . but not many do or say much about the wood in the speaker cabs . so the guitar wood and the pu and speaker and cab wood all have to work together . case in point . take a great guitar with the best tonewood and best pu's and plug it into a amp that has low cost speaker cab and it will sound like a low cost unit . when you go to the guitar store and try out a guitar do you plug in to a cheap amp .......no . but you should at least plug into one like that you are using . don't mis understand me a guitar made with good wood is important as part of the tone chain . but if you are really looking for that killer tone put same time into your amp speaker cab rebuild it if you need to . put that good tonewood into the speaker cabs and you will hear the tone . this may not be the right spot for this reply but oh well . last thing I took a cheap pv amp (10 watt ) and install it in a hand made cab, out of MAPLE and mounted a 10 " speaker on a peace of basswood . and WOW ! you want to talk about tone and at low volume and mid volume .
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jun 19, 2005 10:01:28 GMT -5
Of course any component in the signal chain has its own additive or subtractive effect in tone determination. I think this thread is focused on the wood of solid bodies. You could take that killer cab and sound would be different with diff guitars.
My discussion above is not saying that different wooded guitars don't sound different, obviously they do.
Rather, the emphasis is on the physics of the various ways strings are coupled to their base, both at the head, or in this case the bridge.
Strenth and solidity of coupling can have major effect on the sound emanating from the guitar. Will porous, light, large cell structure bodies sound different than dense small cell structure bodies --- off course --- due to again, mass, density and coupling.
So the issue becomes what kind of coupling do you want --- Gibby tuneomatic, Hardtail, various incarnations of tresm, or even frozen trems -- and into what kind of base.
Yes, different woods impart different anchor strength. But to use the misnomer of "Tonewoods" is misleading. You can more readily argue the tonewood case in acoustics (no offense intended to the guitar nation heretic), but in solidbodies it becomes significantly muted.
Densitiy and coupling, these are the clarion peal(s?).
|
|
|
Post by jdtogo on Jun 19, 2005 10:45:02 GMT -5
Of course any component in the signal chain has its own additive or subtractive effect in tone determination. I think this thread is focused on the wood of solid bodies. You could take that killer cab and sound would be different with diff guitars. My discussion above is not saying that different wooded guitars don't sound different, obviously they do. Rather, the emphasis is on the physics of the various ways strings are coupled to their base, both at the head, or in this case the bridge. Strenth and solidity of coupling can have major effect on the sound emanating from the guitar. Will porous, light, large cell structure bodies sound different than dense small cell structure bodies --- off course --- due to again, mass, density and coupling. So the issue becomes what kind of coupling do you want --- Gibby tuneomatic, Hardtail, various incarnations of tresm, or even frozen trems -- and into what kind of base. Yes, different woods impart different anchor strength. But to use the misnomer of "Tonewoods" is misleading. You can more readily argue the tonewood case in acoustics (no offense intended to the guitar nation heretic), but in solidbodies it becomes significantly muted. Densitiy and coupling, these are the clarion peal(s?). on that note your right .
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 20, 2005 2:03:05 GMT -5
Runewalker wrote: But to use the misnomer of "Tonewoods" is misleading. You can more readily argue the tonewood case in acoustics (no offense intended to the guitar nation heretic), but in solidbodies it becomes significantly muted.
if i understand yr point, RW, you're saying that the idea that a guitar HAS TO be made of mahogany, rather than sycamore or oak is silly, and to calling only a few select woods as "toneful" is misleading. certainly an acoustic's tone is more reliant on its wood as it basically only has one tone, as opposed to an electic which can have a completely different one if 1 or 2 PUs are on or if those PUs are swapped, etc.
i believe that tonewood is called what it is because the wood TONES the sound of the guitar. any wood used will "tone" or "color" the sound, which is to say there is no "tone-neutral" wood.
recently i read a description of the anatomy of the electric guitar in which the author states that ideally it would be made of concrete or steel so as to maximize sustain and eliminate any added "color" from the wood. obviously, this is an exaggeration, but i believe it shows clearly that the sound of an electric guitar is a magnet picking up the vibrations of the STRINGS and not the body, as is the case with acoustic instruments.
generally, my opinion is that a solidbody's tone is determined by: 35% pickup 35% amp 15% strings 15% other and the wood used to make the guitar falls in the "other" category.
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jun 20, 2005 8:20:58 GMT -5
Yes GuyaGuy, we are saying the same thing.
It is not that wood has no imput into the tone emanating, it is just that there are so many other factors that overwhelm its influence, and that guitarists tend to mystify many aspects of guitar materials, period, mfg, etc to the exclusion of objective information.
You could take a Mahagony body, typically described as "warm," secure the coupling throughout all the vibrational dissipation points (neck joint, bridge, head), put a modern poly (plastic) finish and signifcantly 'brighten the output, or reverse those factors and introduce loose couplings and 'warm' the tone.
Wood will significantly affect the comfort of the player though, I will grant you that. My LesPaul may be made of the concrete you spoke of. But man, it nails coupling.
Wood type and its contribution to tone is less significant than the factors you mentions. I might quible with your relative values and rank construction appoach and coupling over strings, but our direction is the same.
Those of us who have moved over to modelers might rank the amp as less important. I have a twin brain in a 6X10 cab, that I now mostly run clean, using my modeler to shape output profiles.
So really, anything in the signal stream can affect the tone, include of course, stompboxes, echos, etc.
A main point is these are ELECTRIC guitars, and the various electronics in the signal path will in the end have more to do with affecting the sound. But as guitarists our sensual relationship is with the fretboard and body, so we tend to mythologize the influence of the surfaces we touch.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Jun 20, 2005 11:09:25 GMT -5
I don't have a preference. I have a Tradition Les Paul that's Mahogany with a 5/8 inch maple cap, and Squire Strats that are alder, and a Squire StageMaster that's listed as a hardwood, whatever it is it's heavy. All sustain very good with my StageMaster and Tradition Les Paul Copy being the best. Regardless, I like them all depending on the mood I'm in and the style I'm trying to get through at the time.
|
|
|
Post by erikh on Jun 20, 2005 14:36:34 GMT -5
Right now my fav is mahogany but 2 of my guitars are alder and another is maple. My Epi LP is mahogany/alder and I like how that sounds.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 20, 2005 15:10:23 GMT -5
It is not that wood has no imput into the tone emanating, it is just that there are so many other factors that overwhelm its influence, and that guitarists tend to mystify many aspects of guitar materials, period, mfg, etc to the exclusion of objective information. ... Wood type and its contribution to tone is less significant than the factors you mentions. I might quible with your relative values and rank construction appoach and coupling over strings, but our direction is the same. well, my percentages were somewhat spontaneous and arbitrary but i guess we're in agreement about wood's influence on tone. and that's thepoint i meant to make is that the wood INFLUENCES the tone and doesn't determine it. which is to say that an electric is primarily a PU and strings, everything else being secondary. theoretically anything that doesn't maximize stability and sustain influences the tone. players select a type of wood because it influences it in a certain way--makes it snappier, warmer, etc. i read an interview recently with the violin player midori who described her antique violin's tone. after detailing the tone she then mentioned that the previous owner (huberman) got a completely different tone out of it. which, to repeat a commonly expressed tidbit of wisdom, it's mostly about the player. if that's true of a million dollar acoustic instrument, it's gotta be doubly true of electric gee-tars! btw, i've had guitars made of woods mentioned in the guitarnation article an liked everyone of 'em!
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jun 20, 2005 16:16:38 GMT -5
Well,
It's difficult to vote since the vote depends on the type/style/use of guitar.
For a Strat type, it would be alder just for the even sound response. Gotta be a maple, er, maybe rosewood, no, er maple 'board.
For a Tele type, it would be swamp ash, just for the bottom end, scooped mids and "pop". Gotta be a maple 'board.
For a dual hum guitar it would probably be mahogany since the PU's used have similar response. Gotta be a rosewood 'board.
It's a good plan, but I violate it at every opportunity.
I've built a Strat vibrato type out of padouk (chambered body, 1 7/8" fatback padouk/ebony neck, DiMarzio VV pu's). Uses Mike Richardson's wiring w/ neck and bridge phase reversal PP pots. Wood/PU's are made for each other!
I'm building a Strat vibrato type out of bookmatched walnut (chambered body) w/ 3 hums. Neck/ PU types undecided. (Which is why it has lingered for three years.)
I'm building a Strat type out of lite swamp ash (3# 2 oz) rear route with a Rio Grande Twangbucker Tele bridge hum (2 SC's really), a SC in the middle and a SD P-90 Stack in the neck. Neck is a Tele type maple/ebony 1 3/4" boattail). The STrelleCaster.
I'm building a Tele type (in shape only) out of alder (3# 12oz) that is routed for two hums (Custom Custom or JB Trembucker in bridge and Jazz in neck). It has a maple/rosewood 1 7/8" standard thin tiltback neck (had a set of gold 3+3 Sperzels to use up).
I just ordered a swamp ash Esquire type body (T328 in showcase, 4# even) that has the tummy/forearm/neck contours. The finish will be vintage transparent satin. The neck is birdseye/birdseye 1 3/4" fatback. This is intended to be a "real" Tele/Esquire type.
Each specific wood type doesn't always sound the way one might think. Trees are trees, and are as varied as people are within ethenic backgrounds. Sort of like a 1 volt signal with 1 volt of noise on it. There's a "bit" of overlap between individual types of wood. It's a little like pipe tobacco (smells good/tastes bad, smells bad/tastes good), good looking woods don't always sound good and vice versa.
Since the electronics are more variable (and able to be varied), I start with the structural focus (body style, wood, bridge PU shapes) and vary the rest as I "tune" the design.
Some say that PU's are the most critical component. True, they have wide impact, but I find neck thickness (and nut width) to have a significant effect, especially on sustain and brightness (it's physics, you know).
I only have a favorite wood in a thematic sense. It's easier to vote for the ones that I don't like. But, I enjoy the discussion...Thanks.
Now, does anyone have a favorite fretboard wood??
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 21, 2005 3:25:23 GMT -5
ChrisK, you mustbe one busy bee with all them projects!
'tis true what you say of wood types. not only does african mahogany differ from honduran, but a mahogany slab from one part of a honduran tree can sound different than another slab from the same tree.
favorite fretboard wood? hm... well, to my knowledge there's only 3 to choose from: rosewood, maple, and ebony. seems the industry decided those are the 3 and stuck with em. as opposed to yr preferences, ChrisK, i really dislike maple for aesthetic and psychological reasons. i've always associated it with old low-end guitars that don't have a fretboard--just frets stuck in the neck. i know it's not the case but i can't shake that association. i really like an oily rosewood--more for feel than anything. just feels "woody." i've only played one ebony board--that was on my ELECTRA OUTLAW. liked it for the extra bit of brilliance it added to the HBs, making the tone a bit snappier.
and finally: "True, they have wide impact, but I find neck thickness (and nut width) to have a significant effect, especially on sustain and brightness (it's physics, you know)." you'll have to elaborate on that one.
|
|
|
Post by ChrisK on Jun 21, 2005 22:53:44 GMT -5
Don't forget the "other" neck woods (canary, bubinga, wenge, padouk, gonalco aves, etc) which can be used for 'boards as well.
I like the exotic woods since many of them do not require a hard finish. A hard finish costs $50 to $80, just about equal to the adder for exotics.
The more wood in a neck, the stiffer it is (all else being equal). Amid the 20 or so guitars that I've had, and the ones that I've built in the last three years, I've found that thicker necks seem to have more sustain. Most of these were maple, but some exotics were also in the mix.
Getting back to woods that don't require a finish, I like to buy fatback neck profiles and shape them later to preference.
|
|
badpenguin
Rookie Solder Flinger
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
|
Post by badpenguin on Jun 25, 2005 21:57:46 GMT -5
quote: generally, my opinion is that a solidbody's tone is determined by: 35% pickup 35% amp 15% strings 15% other and the wood used to make the guitar falls in the "other" category. [/quote]
Oh man, I HAVE to disagree! Do you mean to say, that an ash tele, and a plywood, oops, 'scuse me, "laminate" tele, with exactly the same strings, p/u's ect, will sound the same? No. Or that a mahogany and maple Paul sounds like a basswood one? Come on.
While a guitar's pickups can change to sound to a massive point, The wood's the tone, the overall charactor of the sound. Put your ear to your guitar, strike a string and listen. Now do the sames thing with and same styled guitar, and you can hear the difference.
While I respect your opinion, and admit your valid points, I have to go with the old world masters, and claim that the heart and soul of the sound, comes from the wood. For the last few hundred years, they've been making the finest guitars out of certain woods. I'm sure Strativarius would NOT make a violin from oak.
My personal choice for woods is the famous mahogany with a maple cap. Nothing else sound like an old Paul.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 26, 2005 1:51:32 GMT -5
welcome to the forum, badpenguin. thanks for yr input.
the "old world masters" are certainly right if they're refering to an acoustic instrument, i.e. an "old world" instrument. but an electric instrument is a different beast entirely. to oversimplify: take a hunk of any material, let's say hard rubber. now hollow it out like an acoustic guitar, stick a neck and strings on it and strum. what will it sound like? not much of anything. now take the same hunk, put a pickup on it and what will it sound like? an electric guitar. not a great one, of course but an electric nonetheless. that's because the tone of an acoustic comes from the resonating body while the sound of an electric comes from a resonating coil picking up the resonating strings. (and to me, that's completely different than putting a mic or PU on an acoustic.) anything the wood does to the tone is an INFLUENCE. it will definitely make a difference if the guitar's made of mahogany or basswood because each of those woods INFLUENCES the tone. the wood INFLUENCES how the strings vibrate, whether it scoops the mids and brightens the highs like ash; or lets them resonate longer thus reating more sustain like mahogany; or sort of "swallows" the bass attack to make the bass spongy like basswood. and even the design will affect the tone. hollowing out the body shortens sustain but creates a more acoustic tone. a bolt-on neck will create a snappier tone.
but, in short, a pickup cannot electromagnetically pick up and transfer the signal of the wood. it picks up and transfers the vibration of the strings.
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 26, 2005 8:16:28 GMT -5
but we should not forget that even though wood affects tone in about 5%, it DOES affects the tone.
(I'm someone that ignores that 5%, though).
.. I think it's kinda like our various ops about tube, isn't it ? There are "purists", "semi-purists", and "non-purists".
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 26, 2005 8:19:47 GMT -5
oh yeah, and I like rosewood fretboard, simply because its color and "soft" feel.
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jun 26, 2005 10:19:51 GMT -5
badpenguin and GuyaGuy:
BP, read the ealier posts in this thread. Both GuyaGuy and I have pointed out the inescapable physics involved in electric guitars. Resonance is frequently touted as a wood quality by the tonewood mythologists.
As Guyaguy reiterates, resonance and wood types are direct effects in acoustic guitars. Resonance in electric guitars is purely string vibration, which is affected by mass, continuity of jointry and coupling at the head and bridge.
Using your example of laminate or mahgany/maple --- the density and porousness of the cell structure of the mahgany/maple wood will dissapate the string vibration more than the laminate. Gibson even recognized that by capping the mahagany with the denser, more tightly grained maple, creating what, a LAMINATE. So a hardwood Laminate body, free of voids or softwoods, if built like a LesPaul, with set neck, tight machining controls, and secure coupling, will sustain more effectively than the mahagony/maple because of its mass and density. With the same pickups and strings the sound will be quite close, the laminate will just provide greater anchor strenght for the strings, an sustain longer.
Many of the supposed tone woods as produced by the mass manufactures are coated in hard, non resilent plastic finishes, which end up emulating laminate construction. Lighter finished woods (tung oil, or few-coated nitros) merely dissapate the string vibration more into whatever the celluar structure and mass of the wood are.
Tuneomatics are set into bodies with metal studs, an even denser material. Trems, provide poor anchoring and dissapate sound more rapidly, so they are compenstated for this deficit with what? Metal inertia blocks.
Wood 'adds' dissapation, not tone, but tonewood mythologists interpret that discontinuty as tone, instead of physics. Can we hear the differences, Of course. Some of the differences we interpret as pleasing, others as not pleasing. But it is a completly falacious arguement to even talk about resonance and tonewoods in the context of electric guitars.
If as Guyaguy points out you chanber a guitar, or have a semi hollowbody then you introduce more acoustic resonance, and you can then start to discuss tonal properties as a component of wood. But slab solid bodies are merely anchors for the sting ends.
You could argue that the plane of the string landscape on a solid body is sound reflective, and that has some contribution to tone. But in the case of conventional Fender construction, the under pickgaurd structure is heavily voided with routing, creating a somewhat but limited reflective sound chamber, but the 'resonant' and reflective plane is the plastic pickgard, then we are back to talking about TonePlastics --- vinal, poly, bakelite, they all have different properties, but where do you hear discussions on TonePlastics?
Let go you should the myth of tonewood -- Yoda.
Physics --- It's Science!
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 27, 2005 0:08:41 GMT -5
That's it. Oh, and I like your Yoda style ;D.
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 27, 2005 1:38:10 GMT -5
but we should not forget that even though wood affects tone in about 5%, it DOES affects the tone. (I'm someone that ignores that 5%, though). .. I think it's kinda like our various ops about tube, isn't it ? There are "purists", "semi-purists", and "non-purists". well, you could argue about percentages, but whatever it is, no-one here is denying it. furthermore, the tradition of using certain woods for certain guitars and tone means that guitarists will continue to demand those woods. the comparison to tubes is apt because technically SS delivers a more pure signal. but guitarists grew accustom to the warmth, compression, and distortion of tubes and won't live without 'em--or a simulation thereof. to me that's all a "tonewood" is--a wood that affects a guitar's tone in a pleasing way. technically, wood usually REMOVES tone--scooping the mids, "warming" (aka dampening) the tone, making the bass spongy, etc. its the way a specific wood affects/removes tone that makes us prefer one to the other. yoda didn't say that, but he should've! (btw, my nephew calls him "toyota!" )
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jun 28, 2005 8:28:23 GMT -5
There are a couple of other arguments exploding the tonewood myth.
When Gibson first started electrifying guitars the dominent guitarists that needed the amplification were big band jazzers. They played real carved top archtops, and those were where the pickups were installed. Guitarist were happy because now they could be heard over the horns, but were unhappy with all the microphonic feedback of the resonant archtops.
!947 or so Gibby introduced what eventually became their most populalar jazzbox - the ES 175. Why was it to become so dominent in the 50 and 60's jazzers. Was it because the laminate top made it cheaper? No! the laminate top was not as responsive as the carved top and reduced "resonance" becomeing the ANTI-TONEWOOD! Microphonics and feedback were significantly dimished and guitarist could hear more of the pure tone of --- the pups, strings and coupling.
Enter Les Paul and he builds a gutar on a fence post, with even greater reduction of resonance. I guess we all need to go find some wolmanized fence post "tonewood" for our next monster guitar. He even put fake carvetop surfaces on his 'log guitar' to fool the band members as he played.
The original laminated LesPaul was designed from the outset to eliminate as much as possible, wood resonance.
Why did they use mahagony? Because they had a bunch. they knew it was softer and would dissipate vibration so they capped it with a denser maple. They got rid of the original trapese bridges and build a stronger coupling with posted bridges. All to eliminate tone dissapation.
Guyaguy correctly points out that wood actually takes tone away with its different mass and density properties. So if you want pure tone, make your guitar out of granite.
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 29, 2005 11:06:59 GMT -5
how 'bout stainless steel ? :lol: (well I think I've seen somewhere, a signature Strat made of acrylic)
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jun 30, 2005 1:21:24 GMT -5
Runewalker: "a wolmanized fence post"? is that a fence post that's hit on by a womanizer?
bam: laugh if you like but my friend's favorite possession is an ALUMINUM telecaster. it's hollow and made by Harley Davidson. and don't forget the Ampeg "Lucite" guitars from the 70s! or the even earlier plastic Airlines!
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jun 30, 2005 5:01:44 GMT -5
wow aluminium .. looks like cool .. What finish ? btw, why should I laugh about body materials ? Like I said, "I'm someone that ignores that 5%"
|
|
|
Post by GuyaGuy on Jul 1, 2005 0:17:36 GMT -5
bam: no finish. just aaaallllll metal! ;D i think it's just brushed aluminum. has the sort of harmonic ringing tone you'd expect from a metal guitar. but not quite dobro-sounding. i think they also made a strat.
(btw the laughing refered to yr "lol" after the stainless steel comment.)
|
|
|
Post by Runewalker on Jul 1, 2005 0:20:17 GMT -5
GG: ...and don't forget the Ampeg "Lucite" guitars from the 70s! or the even earlier plastic Airlines! ..."
Yes! Toneplastics!
|
|
|
Post by bam on Jul 3, 2005 8:33:56 GMT -5
oh, that :lol: is not for "laugh" in that way, (--); actually that lol is referred to (hey, no flames here, basically I'm just saying that I actually don't mind much about tonewood .. and that lol is also NOT pointed at runewalker himself -- sorry for the confusion) .. and, um, runewalker: (quoting myself here)
|
|