Where Does The Tone Come From In An Electric Guitar?

[reTrEaD]

I stumbled across this video today. It dovetails nicely with the classic tonewood debate first introduced to GN2, years ago by Runewalker .



Tonewood shmonewood.

[cynical1]

This video should be Course #1 for anyone looking to build and/or sell electric guitars. This guy nails it.

I posted this a little over 10 years ago to someone obsessing over "tonewood".  The event is about 40+ years ago now:

One final note on "plywood". Most construction grades of plywood will not work well for a guitar. The plys are too thick. If you really want to try something, let me pass on a story about an experiment we tried over 30 years ago.

On a lark we picked up a broken case of cabinet veneer 24" x 24"...I don't know why...some vague notion of covering amp cabinets with it...but it was cheap and I seem to recall that there was alcohol or some other narciferous substance involved...

We get it back to the shop and it's 1/32" hickory veneer sheets...and the one corner of the case has been water damaged. This immediately explained the extremely low price.

It sat for a long time until someone got the idea to laminate the sheets together and make a body blank out of it. So, we proceeded to glue about 50 sheets together and stuck them in the press overnight.

Long story short, after about a week we cut it into a semi Explorer shape and route it into a completed body. We painted it, fitted it with a maple neck, dropped some old humbuckers in, wired it with used parts laying around and plugged it in...

Holy crap! It sounded amazing. We used to drag it out for the tone Nazi's and have them try and guess what type of "tonewood" it was... I don't know whatever happened to that guitar, but I'd love to see the face of the guy who ever refinishes it...

Long and short of it is this. The tightness of the neck to the body. The precision and alignment of the setup will go a long way to a fine sounding instrument.

Don't get hung up on "tonewood". Do a search on YouTube for pine body guitars. Some of them will blow the doors off of the more exotic wood guitars.

Typically, I count on 20%-30% of the final "color" or "personality" of the electric instrument to be destined by the wood used. I had a solid maple Gibson Ripper back in the 70's. My 80's Peavey wired out of phase had more balls...and the Ripper essentially had Bill Lawrence (the real one) pickups in it stock. The Peavey is a poplar body...but the Peavey Super Ferrite pickups are in a class by themselves...

My point? The material for an electric instrument is critical only when considering what said material will do to dampen string vibration. The reason his table "air" guitar worked so well is because the strings were on a stiff and solid foundation.

Measure twice, cut once, and pay attention to your tolerances.

That'll piss somebody off...

HTC1

[newey]

His repeated mentioning of pickup height (which seemed to be the major variable in his testing) was music to my ears- How many times have I said around here that adjusting the pickup height is the simplest and most effective change one can make to an electric guitar, whatever it may be?

I also noted that the biggest difference in sound between his Anderson Tele and the kit tele was his first test, with the stock kit pickups versus his Anderson's SD pickup. Once he replaced the kit guitar's pickups with the same SD one, all the rest of the tests, while not identical, were pretty doggone close.

Cyn's point about the neck joint is also critical here. When I see those YouTube vids with poplar versus mahogany guitars, my first thought is always that they haven't controlled for differences in the neck joint tolerances.

[cynical1]

In his test where he swapped necks you saw how a sloppy neck fit can make a guitar unplayable.

It really comes down to that. If it feels right in your hands it will play better to you. No sharp or raised frets, a neck radius compatible with the style you play in, a nut made from something solid and stable, intonation, reliable tuning and a stable bridge...

I have been harping for years about quality components. Typically, the machining and functionality of a bridge and\or tuners is superior based on what you spend.  Anyone remember the BadAss bass bridges from the 70's?  I did a setup for a guy in Oregon with one of the original vintage installed on an old Aria.  After 40+ years, this thing still intonated and adjusted like new.  No rattle and no slop.  All I had to do was clean it up and file the saddles for the heavier string gauge. Buy it right, buy it once.

I have lost count of the cheap factory bridges and tuners I have sent to the landfill over the years. Take any cheap guitar or bass and strip the tuners and bridge...and kill the nut while you're there too. Take that and a fret level...ok, and a full pocket neck shim...and any cheap Epiphone or Ibanez bolt on sounds like a new instrument.

So, it comes back to the "platform" debate. If the body and neck construction is solid, you can make most electric instruments punch much higher than their designated weight class.

And newey makes a good point.  No matter what assortment of poles, bobbins and wire you use, the pickup height will allow you to dial in the sound quicker than anything.

HTC1

[gckelloch]

The bass player in my first cover band in the mid '80s had a Gibson Grabber. I didn't like it, but it was partially the crappy speakers in the Peavey cab he used. I think much of the problem with those basses was that body was too thin. The wood at the neck pocket was likely too thin to stop neck vibration from damping the tone. It might have been a decent bass for Jazz though. The Super-HB pickups Bill designed were probably C5-powered (as not to saturate the Steel poles), but the poles were also flush with the bobbin tops so they may have lacked the definition of HB's with screw poles raised up a bit. I've read they were ~3.6H, which is a bit lower than most PAF's -- all pointing to more of a "woody" Jazz tonality like the Gibson EB3. I had told Bill I didn't like Maple guitar bodies at one point. He said the body width and thickness gave it more warmth, but I think the neck joint was an issue. Not bad for the L6-S guitar, but rock bass players want punch. Bolt-on-necks generally have better punch as well. I actually don't think it's the tolerances in the pocket as much as the coupling force screws provide, and the thick wood hunk they attach to. Jamming the neck against the back of the pocket via string tension and retightening the screws can also improve sustain. I do that on my bolt-ons, as well as use a thin plastic pocket bracket I make to improve rigidity.

[cynical1]

There were a lot of things working against the Ripper and Grabber. It was a good idea on paper, but it seems they were both built to underwhelm. It worked better as a fretless, but I still had no qualms about selling it. That's one I don't want back.

The Gibson EB series was thin, but they were liquid mud. I have a Peavey 6 string Grind that has no problem with the low end. But that was one of the original models that used mahogany\maple neck-thru with Brazilian mahogany wings...and it weighs a ton, even though it's the thinnest bass I've ever owned.

On the other hand, I've got a 5 string Ibanez ATK that weighs just north of 10 pounds with an ash body and maple neck...and a huge bridge assembly like something akin to a tele bridge on steroids. The low end is defined, full and it sustains forever. Granted, this one has a preamp, but you can feel the difference unplugged.

So, looks like pickups and all the other items in the signal chain have more effect than wood...go figure...

HTC1

[gckelloch]

Jan 26, 2022 11:17:17 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

There were a lot of things working against the Ripper and Grabber. It was a good idea on paper, but it seems they were both built to underwhelm. It worked better as a fretless, but I still had no qualms about selling it. That's one I don't want back.

The Gibson EB series was thin, but they were liquid mud. I have a Peavey 6 string Grind that has no problem with the low end. But that was one of the original models that used mahogany\maple neck-thru with Brazilian mahogany wings...and it weighs a ton, even though it's the thinnest bass I've ever owned.

On the other hand, I've got a 5 string Ibanez ATK that weighs just north of 10 pounds with an ash body and maple neck...and a huge bridge assembly like something akin to a tele bridge on steroids. The low end is defined, full and it sustains forever. Granted, this one has a preamp, but you can feel the difference unplugged.

So, looks like pickups and all the other items in the signal chain have more effect than wood...go figure...

HTC1

Well, your Peavey Grind was a neck-thru. There was no neck joint relying on a thin piece of wood under the neck heel for structural support. I'm saying, the EB3 has the same problem as the Ripper/Grabber. It's either that, something in how Maple damps, or that your Ripper just had some unlucky low-end damping.

Ken Parker pointed out that Maple does not have good elasticity (doesn't return to original shape well) compared to Mahogany. Maple has more self-damping from resins/sugars/proteins. That might cause more string damping at certain freqs. Baking it may alleviate much of the issue via solidifying resins. Every piece of wood is different, but Mahogany body guitars seem to have better bass and less midrange. The more open grain allows for more resonance at and above the resonant freq. Check out this well-conducted body wood comparison:



The Maple piece either has less bass or more midrange than the others. Hard to tell considering how guitar amps compress and add harmonics. Either way, it is my least favorite tone of the three pieces.

Pickups don't generally have more or less bass, so I wouldn't fault the pickup design. Pickups do have more or less high-end or output depending on several factors. Pickups with thinner wire coils up closer to the strings produce stronger lower note harmonics compared to taller coils of thicker wire due to the flux lines from the stronger string vibrations passing through proportionally more winds than the weaker vibrations, but that's not necessarily desirable for a rock bass sound. You'd be surprised at how strong the lows are from a Wilde Micro-Coil or L45S -- stronger than any SC-size pickup I know of.

Bill had told me Gibson did not necessarily produce his designs as stipulated, so we don't even know if his design or Gibson's cost-saving interpretation was at fault with your Ripper. Gibson also didn't always use properly dried Maple. It's generally understood that Bill's guitars weren't as good after '73 due to compromises made by Gibson. An interesting innovation in his Maple "L-" (Lawrence) series guitars was that the lacquer vacuum-impregnated in a vat. It sucked into the neck wood to ~1/8" depth so it never needed refinishing and created a hard "exoskeleton" that substantially reduced surface damping.

The guitar speaker/cab is probably the biggest factor in tone, but whatever is lost in the guitar through string damping can not be "resurrected" down the signal chain.

[reTrEaD]

Jan 25, 2022 12:54:09 GMT -5 cynical1 said:

My point? The material for an electric instrument is critical only when considering what said material will do to dampen string vibration. The reason his table "air" guitar worked so well is because the strings were on a stiff and solid foundation.

I (mostly) agree with that, but there's more to be said.

If we confine the definition of "an electric instrument" to a guitar or bass with magnetic (or other) pickup that creates an electrical signal based solely on the movement of the strings, relative to the pickup, then that statement pretty much rings true. but vibrations in the body can move the pickup relative to the strings. In the case of a solid body guitar, there will be almost no movement of the pickup. In a chambered or hollow body, we can expect the possibility of considerable movement of the pickup. So the materials and construction become a small factor. Still small, relative to the electrical characteristics of the pickup. But worthy of some consideration.

If we expand the definition to include piezos, strain gauges, and other mechanical devices that create an electrical signal dependent on vibrations in the bridge or body, all bets are off. There, materials (and to a larger degree construction) do affect "tone".

[blademaster2]

I agree with ReTread, based on my own experiments. These formed my opinions expressed below:


Body wood is not a huge factor in tone, but I have experienced the difference between woods (and the fretboard and neck must therefore contribute as well). I refrain from the term 'tonewood', which to me is simply a type/species that is stiff/dry such that it resonates in the frequency range of interest for guitar sound. I "think" overall tone produced is partly the relative movement of the pickup on the slightly-vibrating body relative to the strings, plus the tone that the strings take on when vibrating on the bridge that is mounted to the body wood (and similarly for the neck/fret at the other end). Volume in the room, causing the strings and body to react and feedback slightly, also plays a role (which is why it sounds different - better - to crank it up)

Nonetheless, pickups and their placement/height/mounting have more influence on the tone than the wood does in my perception. Then there is the amplifier, picking material and technique.

The above is impossible to prove with lab equipment tests or attempts at 'controlled' experiments. It is all based on what I experience when playing and listening. Moreover, even my own guitars, that sound unique while I play them, cannot be distinguished from each other in my old recordings once I forgot which one I was playing when I recorded it. Similarly I would not likely know which one someone else was playing if I was in the room but blindfolded - much of the difference is very tactile and subtle, especially with body wood differences.

[sumgai]

Same fella as in reTrEaD's OP just posted this little ditty about sustain:

[newey]

Well, he's explained (I think) why I like Esquires more than Teles. Interesting testing, but what I came away with is that every variable matters, but doesn't seem to matter much- until he got to fingering position, etc.

So maybe, like tone, sustain is in the fingers?

[reTrEaD]

Feb 8, 2022 5:45:50 GMT -5 newey said:

So maybe, like tone, sustain is in the fingers?

Dec 22, 2011 18:17:43 GMT -5 reTrEaD said:

I've heard the tone is all in your fingers. Definitely a myth. I shook those things all over the place and not a single tone came out.

iirc, RandomHero posted a thread pondering the factors involved in sustain. My takeaway was this:

A string would vibrate indefinitely if not for energy loss. How do we lose energy from the mechanism?

1. As the string vibrates, it flexes. This generates heat, so some of the kinetic energy is converted to heat. However this is very small, so the decay will be very slow.
   
   
2. As the string vibrates, it displaces air. Some of the kinetic energy of the string motion is transferred to kinetic energy in the air. Of course if we were in an airless environment, that energy would remain in our closed system. But again, this is a very small effect and matters little.
   
   
3. Some of the kinetic energy of the string is also converted to electrical energy by the pickup. However, this is also a very small effect.
   
   
4. In my estimation, the greatest "energy leak" is at the endpoints of the string. The nut or fret at one end, and the bridge at the other end. If the endpoints were perfectly immobile, there would be no energy loss associated with them. But energy does get coupled from them to the neck and body of the guitar. In turn, the vibration of the guitar itself is coupled to the air. And that creates the sound that we hear, acoustically. Also, any dampening caused by the guitar materials converts some of the kinetic energy to heat.

[cynical1]

Feb 8, 2022 5:45:50 GMT -5 newey said:

...So maybe, like tone, sustain is in the fingers?

Yeah, that's most of it... One thing that gets passed over time and time again in these discussions is the feel and function of the instrument in question.

Did you ever pick up an instrument and all of a sudden your playing felt more naturally...and it just seemed to sound  better? Possibly it had the right neck radius, or scale length...or the frets just felt "perfect" on a bend...

Let's just say it. The ergonomics on modern electric basses and guitars are horrible. Anybody out there had wrist and thumb issues as you age? Where am I going with this?

If the instrument isn't fighting you and is sympathetic to whatever muse you follow, there is room for expression or feel. With this comes not tone, but the sound you hear inside.  A well-made instrument allows that to come out...the "tone" is just a gift...

OK, so all the other stuff counts too, but the simple fact remains that if you suck on a $100.00 guitar you will suck on a $15,000.00 one, too...  The lipstick never helped the pig...

HTC1

[ms]

Well, as a wise woman once said, put a strat pickup in the sound hole of an acoustic guitar, and the result sounds nothing like a strat.  I think what the man in the video has shown (other than how important the characteristics and height of the pickups are!) is that if you fix the relative positions of the nut and bridge very well (open string) when the string vibrates, then you get a particular sound no matter how you achieve that low relative motion. Of course, more generally, it is fret and bridge.  On the other hand, when you design the instrument so that there is relative motion and energy goes into the instrument, then there are many possibilities. 

[sumgai]

He's at it again!